User talk:Bdj/Meme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Discussion

Any other thoughts? I'd really like to see this occur. --badlydrawnjeff 14:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff that a discussion at WP:MEME might be a good idea. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • WP:WEB should cover it. Note that it no longer relies on google hits. It's mainly a question of coverage in external (news?) media. Something Awful probably doesn't qualify, since it intentionally links to awful sites and that doesn't make them notable really. Radiant_>|< 16:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is that WP:WEB doesn't really do a great job covering it. It's not like a meme is something that's visited regularly or offers new content like, say, YTMND. I used SA as an example of a site with wide readership that often links to things that can become memes. Substitute your link aggregator or site of choice if you need to justify it, for that matter.
    • The issue, of course, is that coverage in external media is a very poor way to judge the notability of an internet meme. Hatten ar Din isn't going to get on CNN or written about in Rolling Stone, but that there's any question of its actual notability is rather disturbing, and WP:WEB certainly doesn't do the trick in terms of a useful approximation. --badlydrawnjeff 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I tend to feel that wikipedians need to remember that our idea of notability will be inherently skewed with systemic bias based on the fact that we are all internet users that spend enough time online to bother to join at least one community (wikipedia). Therefore, we are going to be exposed to these things on a much greater basis than casual surfers or emailers. Wikipedians making suggestions on AfDs for internet memes need to excersize some degree of restraint towards advocating the notability of a given meme just because we have heard of it.
Some memes have gained enough fame to be included. For example, Ellen Feiss received a decent amount of media coverage for appearing to be stoned, while the Star Wars Kid's family made a bit of a stink and he was referenced in Arrested Development. The Tendercrisp Bacon Cheddar Ranch commercial worthy of mention in the main article on Tendercrisps, as it was a notable advert for a notable variant of a notable sandwich. Brian Peppers, on the other hand, is much less notable. He has never sought fame as a advocate for the disabled or as an entertainment curiosity. Being a "sex offender" is also not a criteria for inclusion, as then Wikipedia would be littered with such articles. As a meme, he was notable to those that frequented a handful of sites and no one else. People were not emailing the link around the office, like they were for that Lazy Sunday movie or the Star Wars Kid or even Ellen Feiss.
I guess it boils down to remembering that systemic bias is not limited to race, gender, location, politics, age, or religion. We are all going to be somewhat biased based solely on the fact that we are all active netizens. We should keep that in mind at all times.

youngamerican (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2006

So to seek fame is the only legitimate reason to address this? He's not notable for being a sex offender, he's notable because his appearance unfortunately made him a lightning rod for net types. This makes him notable, whether we necessarily want it to or not. Since when were people not e-mailing the link around, sending it to friends, etc? How, exactly, do you think this thing spread like wildfire? Forums alone? Of course not.
Is there some systematic bias? Sure, but as an internet resource, there's nothing wrong with having a number of quality articles on internet memes - they exist, they're notable, and deserve mention. The consensus thus far is that some internet memes should be kept, and it's obvious that WP:WEB fails to address the issue properly. So how can we achieve a guideline to make it a worthwhile endeavor? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually yes, um, as far as anyone can tell the only way Brian Peppers spread is via Internet forums. There is *no* evidence at all that this was picked up anywhere else. FCYTravis 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
...thus the problem with using WP:WEB as a guideline. It fails to even come close to recognizing the notability of the meme. Unless, of course, Snopes is in the "forumcruft" biz now. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No, thus the problem with automatically assuming "Internet memes" are encyclopedic, especially when said memes are entirely ignored by the world outside of the Internet - and even ignored by *most* of the Internet. Go ask 100 random Internet users who Brian Peppers is. I'd be surprised if more than 10 knew about it. You have a far-inflated view of the impact of these things. FCYTravis 04:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If anything, multiple AfD consensus (consensi?) has shown that some internet memes are notable. The point of them being internet memes, again, is that they're mostly limited to the world on the internet. Wikipedia is going to have internet memes on it, whether people like me want them there or people like you don't. The question is how to balance it out. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Clearly some Internet memes are notable. For instance, O RLY?. It's had verifiable mainstream media coverage from reliable sources, thus clearly demonstrating its spread into the outside world. The Hampster Dance has been cited by CNet. We have had zero evidence presented that Brian Peppers has gone outside a few morally challenged kindergarten dropouts on Internet forums. Thus, it's non-encyclopedic. FCYTravis 04:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
But, again, you're only basing it on mainstream, non-internet verification. This is about internet memes, and it does appear you have no interest in seeing them here, but outside media attention isn't the only evidence of encyclopedic value. Certainly, WP consensus hasn't established as such. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
How many times do I have to repeat that I am quite interested in seeing Internet memes here, but they must have established that they have gone *beyond* a few morally challenged kindergarten dropouts on Internet forums? It doesn't even have to be mainstream media. It has to be ANYTHING! How many articles about Brian Peppers can you find on Internet sites? How many reports on the case? I'm not talking about bloggers pointing and laughing, or stupid YTMND posts. I'm talking about really serious deconstructions of the case and the meme beyond LOLZORZ SEX MOLAZTAR LOL FUGLY LOL! If you can find me some, you might be able to make a case. FCYTravis 04:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess my question is why it has to go beyond that. I'm not sure that somehting's value has to be based around intelligent discussion on the issue. Encyclopedic != smart discussion surrounding foo. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Something which has received mainstream media coverage, or been parodied on TV, etc. has gone from ephemera on a forum or two to a larger part of pop culture. The very nature of the Internet allows a few determined people to make a lot of noise about something. Having an outside measuring stick helps us to determine whether or not that noise has had any impact on those who care nothing about Internet joke forums. Those which have not gone beyond that threshold, should be given a short mention as part of a larger article - say, List of YTMND fads. I have no objection to putting a brief mention of this meme on that page. FCYTravis 05:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see a multi-stage process for evaluating internet memes.

First, they must actually be internet memes. That is, they must - obviously - be on the internet. They must be also be mimetic. That is, they must spread well beyond the original community or set of interlinked communities where they originated. A meme can have plentiful hits, but when the majority of hits come from a small handful of websites, I would argue that they are not mimetic - perhaps they are important to a specific internet culture and could be mentioned on that specific website's article, but not as its own article. Google hits also heavily bias newer memes, and discriminate against older ones.

Also, because internet memes are, by definition, on the internet, they must be held to a higher standard of "google hits" than a non-internet-based article. For instance, a notable person - particularly a historical figure - might get 2,000 hits and that's fine. However, a very obscure, completely non-notable meme could almost easily get that many.

I agree with the first part, but there's a problem with the second - age. The problem with these memes are the popularity arc to them. I like Prime Number Shitting Bear as an example, as it's not all that well-known today, but it most certainly was back when it first came about.

Second, they must be notable. This is much harder to determine. One indication of notability is secondary sources: newspaper articles, even pop culture (usually TV) references. Seconary sources are also important because they move an article beyond original research and into the realm of an acceptable article for Wikipedia. Most memes that have articles without secondary sources are either original research or an unexpandable stub. However, the presence of newspaper articles doesn't mean it is notable - for instance, I can find a number of newspaper articles about myself or acquaintances and, as much as I may like them, they're not notable. If a meme reaches a sort of mid-level notability, I believe that it should be included in a list-type article - see List of YTMND fads - because they will never reach beyond one or two lines. (The issue seems complicated when it deals with non-public human subjects. The only matter here should be notability. Star Wars kid meets the notability criteria, IMO.) Catch phrases and videos must also be evaulated for notability. This is much harder in my mind. --Hamiltonian 03:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is where the need for a guideline comes in, IMO. The secondary sources, while important, are more difficult to obtain due to the nature of the memes, being internet memes. YTMND fads aren't a great example of this, as they're largely encompassed within that community. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should try to think about whether its popped on the radar of an average internet user. But, here again, we run into our own little individual systemic biases. Maybe any guidelines should remind users of the need for the utmost objectivity in AfD discussions on internet memes. youngamerican (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Is that ever really the point of gathering notability? We don't rate music groups based on whether they've popped on the radar of the average music fan, historical figures based on the average history junkie, etc. It's the sum of human knowledge, not the sum of average human knowledge, no? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The biggest problem with memes and a WP:MEME guideline will be the somewhat limited audience for most Memes. How many memes get the pervasive level of a Star Wars kid, the Hamsterdance, or that damn Dancing Baby that was everywhere back in '96/'97? Most memes are going to be limited to internet users, and even then often just to a subset... so where do you draw the line? All your base are belong to us still gets dropped in some circles, but based on what happened in Sturgis, MI back in 2003 it is pretty obvious that the general public had no idea what it meant. I'd still consider it notable in the realm of memes. How do you measure the popularity of that stuff though? Do we only include them if they generate outside press? If enough forum posts are made about them? If they generate dedicated websites about them? I agree this discussion should happen and some kind of consensus reached (or at least the attempt made)... I just think it will end up being quite a bit harder to nail down than WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB.--Isotope23 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Wikipedia Project Page?

how do we go about getting this moved to its own Wikipedia: space and getting it listed on the ongoing discussion box on the AfD page? youngamerican (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, I think we need to come up with a guideline and then just put it there. I've got to do some quick editing of it to separate the discussion from the guideline anyway, so I'll try to get started on that sooner rather than later. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

First, while it is undoubtedly necessary to have some guidance for memes, a separate guideline feels like creep, so it would be good if we could fold it into another guideline. Too many guidelines becomes unmanageable.

Second, we need to link back to the policies which underpin the need for the guideline. Here I think it's WP:NOT (indiscriminate) and WP:V from WP:RS - the comment on "real" media sources is excellent and should undoubtedly be in (and by that token we can AfD list of YTMND fads, which is a veritable conrucopia of cruft; since wehn was Wikipedia a mirror for archiving the history of what the users of individual websites sniggered at for a week before moving on? In the case of internet "memes" the presumption should be exclusion absent references outside of the online community (newspaper websites are part of the .BAM community so are obviously fine).

Third, we need to have a time delay. Fads can last a week, a month, a year. If the fad has spread to multiple websites, has existed for a year, and has been documented outside of the discussion board / blog / bored student community, then it is perhaps significant. I see no need whatsoever to document every single Internet fad that ever existed, we already have far to low a signal-to-noise ratio on Wikipedia, the content on "real" topics is being swamped by ever more detailed descriptions of things that happened last week on this or that TV show or website.

Fourth, we need to be careful to distinguish between the existence of the fad and the subject (e.g. Brian Peppers). If we cannot find significant verifiable data on the subject, and the fad concerns a living person, we should probably exclude it as potentially harmful, because there is not enough verifiable data to ensure that coverage is neutral. -- unsigned by JzG

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but unless we're going to revert back to the old WP:WEB, which unfortunately isn't likely, it's why I want to see something occur. For the record, I started this project out before WP:WEB was changed.
With that said, the only MAJOR issue I see happening is WP:RS - blogs can't be considered "reliable sources," yet I think that was meant for verifability of real world occurrances that would need a secondary source. Blogs and bloglike sites that link to such notable memes would be very useful to judging the proliferation of internet memes, but not so much, say, a news story. For the record, even I don't think a list of YMTND fads needs an article of its own, and many memes that I'd like to see kept probably wouldn't meet the same guidelines I'm proposing here, but we have to start somewhere.
Time delays are great as well, sure, but the issue with time delays is that notable memes are just that - memes with a limited lifespan. My favorite example is Prime Number Shitting Bear, a meme that was undoubtedly notable and popular and significant, but hasn't endured. The band Deep Blue Something is unlikely to be remembered by many in a decade or two either, but they're still undoubtedly notable for their 15 minutes regardless.
Finally, Brian Peppers has become a controversial-enough subject for the moment that I'm not interested in touching it, but "potential harm" certainly shouldn't be a criteria for anything, IMO. Notable is notable, whether we like it or not. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if I do doubt you that the bear mentioned above was "notable and popular and significant," particularly the last one. Nifboy 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made my feelings known at the talk page of WP:WEB, but I'll reiterate slightly here. I don't think there needs to be separate guidelines, and I think the issue that is being addressed is one of sourcing rather than of notability. I'm not sure about the sourcing of blogs; to my mind they'd be acceptable as primary sources but you'd need a secondary source to hang an article on. Note secondary sources could include articles on internet magazines. Steve block talk 16:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)