Talk:4chan

Ok, this is going to be somewhat of a radical suggestion, but some of this content may better be moved to a seperate article for /b/. There are other boards than /b/, some of which create interesting questions of their own. -Pavel B.

Citations

I think it would be better for some of the inline external links to be rewritten as citations, e.g. the Wikipedia page on Sarah Palin's email getting hacked.

The first few sections seem relatively scarce on citations as well.

Here's an interesting ethical issue specific to this article that is raised by creating/editing MediaWiki content:

As Professor Conway says, I am definitely "standing on my soapbox" here - but it can be argued that any /b/tard that is posting/editing content on this page is breaking rules 1 and 2. If you do not know what I am referring to, then you are likely not a /b/tard; however, it follows that any /b/tard has a responsibility to remove the content that the non-/b/tards are posting about 4chan. Obviously, I understand that this is not a real possibility, as all of us are "playing the game" as students and trying to get a good grade in the class, but this definitely introduces an interesting ethical paradox that runs a bit deeper than it seems at first.

Firstly, in an environment where anonymity is the standard, are users honestly expected to follow "rules?" The answer for the rules instilled by 4chan is a definite yes, as users are banned for breaking these rules, such as publishing child pornography; however, what about these rules? Would moot honestly be upset if he saw a /b/tard breaking rules 1 and 2?

Secondly, if we assume that we SHOULD, as /b/tards, follow the rules, do we assume the power to enforce rules 1 and 2 extend to an environment such as this, where identity is introduced and attributed to much of the work done here? Do rules 1 and 2 apply only to the anonymous environment which they come from, or should they be applied here as well?

Thirdly, if we answer no the previous question, what if we destroy the work of someone else (who wrote about /b/) while logged onto our aliases? Does this reintroduce anonymity into the scope, even though not all users are anonymous?

Fourthly, if we again assume that we should follow rules 1 and 2, what if one of us decides that those rules are unethical in this environment? Is it right for us to work against a member of our /b/rotherhood, or do we just turn and look the other way?

Just my two cents.

Well another thing to consider is that many people consider rules 1 and 2 to only apply to raids, and it's usually the response when someone invokes rules 1 and 2.

More Comments

Nice Job on this! I just went through and cleaned up some stuff, but I thought it was really well done. Some things that I would like to have more clarity on:

• You might want to include a short sentence just describing what the Something Awful Forums because I would have liked to see the relevance of this background info
• When you talk about full anonymity in the "Ethics" portion it gets a big confusing just because you do mention that people do have the option of being recognized.
• In the "Attempting to Ruin Lives" portion you might want to emphasize the relationship of these users to the people that they target. Are they just doing this for sport?
• Also in the same section, just a short clarification of what the site Omegle is would be nice as well!