Talk:Imageboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Imageboard has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] 420chan

The article about 420chan is completely wrong. Kirtaner has never been involved in attacks on either Perverted Justice or Hal Turner's website. It is, in fact, the invasion /i/ board that is doing the damage.

Aww, come on, give Kirty credit. There isn't any more article on 420 though. Shame. --Anonymous 150.176.82.2 22:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

420 smoke dongs everyday also heres my ip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.50.93 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't WANT an article, for the same reasion 7, 711, 12, and really anyone else does not want one. 66.210.216.126 (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping the External Link list short, concise & useful

Lately, "fans" of new imageboards have been editing in their links in the external links section and continue editing in with no given reason even after reverts that have been explicitly justified.

Examples: (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)

Here you can talk about why your or any particular imageboard should be listed! Please talk here before making any more unjustified changes to the external link list! Note also that you should sign your comments with "--~~~~"!

Note that there is already a collection for all imageboards, The Overchan, and that there is a common rule in Wikipedia, called Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, meaning that an article on Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to advertise your new websites. --zerofoks 13:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I requested a page/section protection and was probably right as the spammers keep on editing the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imageboard&diff=26200562&oldid=26195254 --zerofoks 18:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to unprotect as hopefully the anons have gone, but let me know if it starts up again. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I edited in this note, I think it can be commonly accepted on here:
<!--The following list is supposed to be a selection of relevant and/or important imageboards or sites about imageboards. Please justify new entries on the talk page. Unfounded new entries can be removed without further comments. This list is supposed to stay compact and concise. -->
--zerofoks 13:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

People really need to stop this stuff, nearly every time I look at this page there are four-five new urls that need to be removed

Echoghost 23:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Make a new article called "List of Image Boards" or something and let people spam there? -Zabadab 10:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


If there's going to be a list of these image boards, why is the list being censored? I can understand not wanting every random 4chan clone listed, but over the past while I've seen several semipopular boards deleted and less popular boards left in the list.

Should we establish criteria for notability at 20,000 google hits? This would eliminate 420chan, Einskanal and WTFux from the current list. -Seventh Holy Scripture 23:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
No, 420chan and WTFux have had a greater impact than that would imply. Einskanal can go (Onechan is a better example of a German imageboard anyways), and some of these three-posts sites like Chiliblue definitely need to go. --71.56.92.182 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I looked at the links and noticed there were basically three types: large imageboards (i.e. 4chan, FChan), reference (i.e. Overchan), and smaller imageboards that are not unique in any way and shouldn't have been put there (Renchan, Not4chan, Chiliblue, maybe a few others) that I removed. I added Anonib, a unique imageboard-creating service, as well as links to the major imageboard scripts (changed this after I saw the larger section, orz) and reorganized them into the first two groups.
Created a seperate section for lolicon boards

[edit] Dead boards?

I just reverted an edit. Go me. I know everyone here hates me and stuff but I still want to propose that the section is kept; no not because I want to be in the spotlight but because otherwise people on other image boards spread BS info that simply isnt true... we've all seen it happen, I've even done the same on 5chan. If a board was mentioned on the Imageboard page and then died, it deserves to stay mentioned since it was obviously important enough at the time and was known by enough people. Instead of lies being spread, it'd be more helpful for the entire community (if you could call the bunch of trolls that) if there was some place that had accurate information. Zabadab 22:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 420chan

SOme anon added this. I kneejerked it out, then put it back minus the remarks. Don't know if you want it, though.Mikereichold 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editing of external links

I added both moeboard and e-shuushuu, two of my favorite image boards, yet shuushuu keeps being removed for unknown reasons while moeboard is kept. Please explain.

moeboard is fairly well known, while shuushuu is not. Being someone's 'favorite' isn't enough to justify a board's inclusion; it should be popular enough that the average editor has heard of it, or notable in some other way. -Seventh Holy Scripture 19:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyrights

These boards seem to post copyrighted material without the apparent consent of the copyright owners.

  • Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us.Wikipedia:External links

Can anyone clarify what the copyright status of the material on these boards is? -Will Beback 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost everything on these sites is violating someone's copyright somehow. Unfortunately, that's the way it is. That said, I really don't like what you're trying to imply here. Do you think these links should be removed just because of that? Have you even visited any of them to see for yourself what it's like? Sorry to get snippy, but it seems like you're jumping to conclusions.--Sporkot 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, from what I saw it looked like much of the artwork is commercial. Linking to such sites is similar to linking to websites of pirates sharing music or video files, thereby abetting their activities. -Will Beback 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The indexes we are linking to do not contain infringing material. TrueMirror 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean that all of the boards linked from the article that carry copyrighted material do so with the copyright owners' expressed permission? Can you tell me how you know this? -Will Beback 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
index.htm TrueMirror 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
What commercial artwork are you referring to? As stated in the article, most of the content on the image boards is related to anime and would fall under fair use because it does not devalue the potential market for anime products. Unlike pirate music and movie sites, imageboards with screencaps, fan arts, etc. do not supply a substitution for the legitimate works. Thatdog 08:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Stated in which article? There's no mention of fair use in Imageboard. -Will Beback 17:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oops. I could have sworn fair use was mentioned in this article but it seems I read it elsewhere. In any case, perhaps this article would benefit from a section dealing with the legality of copyrighted content on imageboards. Thatdog 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not4chan is most likely dead as well

As it hasn't been active for several weeks, Not4chan is probably down for the count. Should the administrator confirm this, or it remains down, it should be added to the dead boards list.

[edit] Bulletin board system?

Is "bulletin board system" (in the intro of this article) really the right term for this? BBS was an old term for a system you dialed up directly to, these days I don't believe the term is used any more, I believe "message board", forum, webforum, etc are the terms used. --Xyzzyplugh 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 420chan not dead

Putting in a correction - there are plans to ressurect it. It's just taken us a while to gather the money. Only a week or two off. Kirtaner 02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I fail to see how RBGchan contributes to this article. It looks like nothing more than a dumpsite for images. Also, is Ko-chan really a "major image board"? It doesn't seem that known to me.

Please tell me why these should not be removed. 129.241.139.19 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also Anoib is not major and shouldn't be put under that heading, but it is of interest as it is useful for those wanting their own imageboard.
Guro- and fchan are not major eather, but are of interest as they are for very specific communities. Perhaps these links should be moved to their respective articles. — 129.241.139.19 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, gurochan and fchan are involved in a good deal of inter-imageboard drama and thus well-known, but I can't say that counts for anything on here. -Seventh Holy Scripture

[edit] Nijiura?

Is this significant enough to warrant its own section? It's obvious some Japanese dude added it --PotatoSamurai 09:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other image board software

I am aware that 4chan's software (yotsuba) is closed source (various opinions on why that is I'm sure have been the topic of many debates around the internet, as I personally have witnessed misinformation on this subject in the past), is this the reason it is not listed under image board software?

This also brings up other image board softwares that I'm unsure about the source availability of. For example, 573chan is running a derived version of Thorn that they have dubbed "drydock." I'm just looking for a consensus of some sort before I go around editing articles about image board softwares that may not even be available to the public.

However, unless there are any objections to this idea within the next 48 hours or so, I think I will add them myself and then if someone disagrees with what I have done, they'll just have to revert my edits.  :p 216.135.63.230 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think imageboard software should only be listed if a homepage link can be provided. -Seventh Holy Scripture 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added drydock, but I am waiting to hear back from WTSnacks about adding yotsuba. I should also think about logging in before I edit again. 69.217.245.146 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
By "homepage" I meant a site describing the software, not merely a site which uses it. If the software isn't available for download and the only site which uses it would fail notability guidelines, it doesn't amount to much more then a surreptitious way to place an imageboard link that wouldn't otherwise be allowed in the article. -Seventh Holy Scripture 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The site that was added is the "home" page of the software. http://573chan.org/about.php is the page that describes the software I suppose (it's at the bottom). The changelog that was actually linked gives a better indication about the current state of the script than the about page does. As of this time, the software we are running is not open source, mainly due to the fact that we need to clean up the code, but there are plans of it being available for download. As far as "merely a site which uses it," konamichan is the ONLY site running this particular script. If you are requiring the previous editor (I believe they are likely one of our users because of a post on the discussion board) to link to a download page, we don't have that at this time. If you are simply requiring a link to the page of creation, then that task was completed. I'm curious to see how this plays out. I suppose conflict of interest prevents me from interpreting your comment myself, however. tyam 05:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm rather shocked

I expected 12chan to just be like 4chan or 7chan, as in, jokes, anime, and some porn. I have to say I'm quite horrified by what I saw instead, though, and I'm amazed such a blatantly pedophilic site has escaped detection for so long. It's not just that, it's cyber-exploitation, too. Seriously, what the hell are the FBI doing?

And it just so happened that the day after I posted this, 12chan's gone down (maybe for good). :-)

I have to ask, what exactly makes it illegal (besides the child models)? Discussing pedophilic activity isn't illegal, as long as you don't go and list the steps to kidnap someone, or something. 24.44.96.29 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, you're right. But still, it's rather disturbing to find pictures showing 10-12 year old girls in a blatantly sexual context. Hell, I should be used to this by now, it is the Internet, after all. Guess this sort of thing is better kept to the internet rather than escalating any further (freedom of speech, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.50.138 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article so narrow?

I remember it used to be much larger than it is now. It included information about various imageboard software such as Wakaba, Thorn, etc., and more information about more sites. Imageboard culture is so vast but there's nothing here anymore. What happened? --69.212.158.194 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, someone came in and deemed a few portions of the article (including the software list) to not follow Wikipedia standards, removing them shortly after. --tj9991 (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Detected

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.76.29.2 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 12chan

does require a pass from IRC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.24.183 (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I hope no one minds...

if I delete the "trolls" on this talk board, most of them are just kids from 4chan trying to sound cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.25.60 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 5 June 2008

I restored one of your removals, and I archived part of the conversation instead. Your second removal was very correct --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)