Websites: Computing Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template. Template:Not a forum

It looks like it may be offline because their data center is blocking cloudflare CaptainLeslieHero (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Maranello10 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That first paragraph in the article is so biased that it’s almost insulting to my intelligence. Instead of making a fake news hit piece about this site, how about actually doing research and find out what it is actually about? I’m actually offended by that. 50.107.100.99 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What part about it's fake news? is the stalking fake, or the exhaustive, obsessive interest? I ask as one of the people who wrote source documents referenced here. - Margaret Pless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.124.167 (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Word on the site, confirmed by many users, is that the website was just delisted by a number of internet search portals including DuckDuckGo, Bing, and others.

The forum is associated with 8chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica, both of have gone offline in the last weeks , so speculation is that Kiwi Farms is also in the process of being purged from the mainstream WWW. As they say, nothing of value was lost, but I thought it might be helpful to point this out here.

Can't find any good mainstream sources reporting on this yet, but the front page of Kiwi Farms has a sticky notification. There is also a thread dedicated to the deindexing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B10D:4177:251B:28D4:E868:DEE9 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important thing to include on the article, I think, since delisting from search engines is a major thing. I think we should include references to the censorship of this site/removal from search engines. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/08/05/playing-game-whack-a-mole-online-extremists/ discusses the possibility of search engines de-indexing Kiwi Farms and sites like it, and there are other articles (including official social media posts that would constitute reliable primary sources) mentioning this. Saying "nothing of value was lost" is a strange statement of bias to make about the de-indexing of a useful, important website which betters society. Considering half of this article is devoted to discussing the DDoS attacks that this site is the victim of, and how it is primarily known for taking a stand against government censorship by authoritarian nations. There are similar sources online discussing the issue of deindexing in general, and it has been re-indexed on some engines 143.244.45.194 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is the first source in the article as well. the implication is that know your meme should be taken seriously as a legitimate source then?-2601:546:8101:8E80:48C:A529:CE7F:FCED (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I just want to add more info to the page, and maybe, just maybe, put some more info in the infobox. Slavicanimefan2005 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice that this page contains no mention of Christine Weston Chandler - the aforementioned webcomic artist. I realize this is a touchy subject, but given this person's infamy, as well as the fact that the original name "CWCki Forums" is a direct reference to Chandler A Simple Fool (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Simple Fool, feel free to propose a reliable source for this. Guy (help!) 18:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, he should have an article. DiAsNW (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  DiAsNW, again, find reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help!) 18:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have, there are plenty of examples on the CwCiki. The wiki itself is a tertiary source. DiAsNW (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @DiAsNW: No, a user-generated wiki is not an acceptable source for personal information. Please take a look at the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and the guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cheers, gnu57 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Genericusername57: I am talking about the sources referenced on there. DiAsNW (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  DiAsNW, then link directly to the ones you're actually talking about. Don't indirectly link to something that links to them and handwave that there's something there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You realize the contentiousness of this website right? What is an acceptable source here? The guy linked to a page called the CWCiki, the main page itself literally confirms the original name was CWCiki forums, with CWC being the initials of the afore mentioned Christine Weston Chandler. Chandler is an established internet celebrity, and should in all honesty have her own page, given the impact she has had on internet culture. A Simple Fool (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikis, forums, and the like are not reliable sources, as they are not subject to fact-checking and editorial control. Please read that link to see the criteria for reliability. If all we've got is an entry on a random wiki, I'm afraid that's a no. If there's better source material, by all means point it out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, the sourcing policy on here is atrocious. KiwiFarms is a forum, spawned from a wiki. In all, brutal honesty, Wikipedia should fix their sourcing, because it doesn't work with even a smidge of efficiency on internet based topics. Had a similar issue on the Onision page, where well-documented allegations were being reverted by incompetents because of these poorly working policies. A Simple Fool (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The goal is accuracy, not efficiency. If that means something gets left out for a while because we don't have good sourcing, that's considered an acceptable tradeoff. In the Onision article, reliable sources eventually did report on what was happening, and after that, appropriate material was added. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, our goal isn't to "scoop" anyone on "breaking" stuff. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been following CWC since she identified as male, so I'm familiar with the sourcing of which you speak. There's just not enough sourcing to establish notability for her at this point in time. The sourcing typically falls into the following categories:

1. Early life
2. Internet lists
3. Infamy posts
4. Trivial sources
5. Wikis, forums, other self-published sources

Only a few of these are posted in places that would be seen as reliable sources, as per Seraphimblade's comments, they don't undergo any sort of editorial oversight or factchecking - nor are they routinely cited as reliable sources by other reliable sources. In the case of her artwork coverage or activities, none of those would gain he rnotability since she wasn't the focus of any of the coverage for said works, when they did gain coverage. She was briefly mentioned in the coverage for Shrek ReTold, but that's not the type of coverage that would establish notability for her. None of the contests she's won would give her even partial notability either.

The ones that are published in places like newspapers and the like, those are typically local coverage and not the type of thing that would give notability on Wikipedia. In the case of the ones where Chandler has done something that would result in legal trouble, those pose an issue of WP:BLP in that Wikipedia traditionally does not count coverage of minor crimes as something that would give notability, as these are rarely of any lasting interest as far as history as a whole goes. Even the coverage of Kiwi Farms that mentions her only really does so in passing. It's actually pretty difficult for someone to pass notability in general, even with some of the guidelines that takes rarity of sourcing into account, like the notability guidelines for professors or artists. Basically she's really only received tabloid-esque coverage like this, where the point is for people to laugh at her and the others mentioned in the articles. I do think she's interesting, but the coverage just isn't there. I think that this is likely one of the better sources out there and even then she's not the focus of the piece.

She's a fascinating character, but she's not really notable in and of herself. Heck, it says something when one of the main people involved with the wiki and forums from the beginning, Champthom, said that Chandler was non-notable years back at an AfD. I'm aware that's an AfD from 10 years ago but not much has changed coverage-wise since then that would change this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lolcow. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this applies here. For one thing, there is no backwards link on the 8chan page. Likewise there are numerous websites that house harassment and doxing that we have pages on, and we don't link them either. Would anyone object to the removal of the see also section? I just don't think it's needed. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot edit the page. But at the time that the website was launched, CWC was not identifying as transgender. While she does now, it seems inaccurate/misleading to write that the forum was created to "troll and harass an autistic transgender webcomic artist". I suggest changing it to "troll and harass an autistic webcomic artist". I would appreciate feedback if you think this change should not be made. 2607:FEA8:5A0:14B9:C86:B746:B55E:9AE6 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to suggest reliable independent secondary sources that say so. Guy (help!) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's pretty clear you didn't read the article that was actually cited in the first paragraph for the actual transgender reference. it says, and this is a direct quote: "Its justification for picking on Chandler, such as it is, has always been her perceived mental illness — first, for being autistic, and, in later years, for being transgender." Editorio007 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word in question is "originally". How could it have been originally launched to harass a transgender person when said person was not transgender when it was originally launched? Chandler coming out as transgender was, by the source, years after Kiwi Farms was originally launched. As of now, the history section is ambiguous. 12.159.84.13 (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weston-Chandler did not identify as transgender when the Cwcki Forums were created, so saying that the Forums were initially created to troll and harass an autistic transgender webcomic artist doesn't actually make much sense. If you wanted to mention Chris later being bullied for being trans, the section talking about the site's origins is a somewhat less sensible place to do that than if you were to, say, add more info on the site's continued focus on Chris-Chan after it became the Kiwi Farms. It could also be stated that the words "troll and harass" here may seem somewhat biased. The cwcki forums were created for discussion and speculation about Chris' art and life. The fact that this often did manifest in a lot of trolling and harassment is true, but it was not the exclusive purpose of the site. CryptidPyr82 (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CryptidPyr82, so provide reliable independent sources that say so. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. Like the Hitch-0Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate, and in cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that has got it wrong. Or, in our case, reality-based reliable sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy to be fair, it's hard to see how that section is inherently linked to what the current source says. The only source cited on that section doesn't use this exact verbiage, and seems to talk about the origins of kiwi farms as a rather ill-defined community rather than as a specific forum/website. if the issue is with sources, then perhaps this section should be removed entirely for the time being, as the source cited actually doesn't talk in particularly concrete terms about what the site itself actually is or why it was formed. CryptidPyr82 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we mention that Sonichu is a combination of Sonic the Hedgehog and Pikachu? Yes, it is clearly home-made, but also clearly taking two characters for her own homemade work.UpWithJimmy (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UpWithJimmy, sure, if you can find reliable independent secondary sources that say so. Guy (help!) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it honestly need to be sourced since it blatantly obvious? Otherwise, this makes his so called Sonichu character look original! UpWithJimmy (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UpWithJimmy, yes. Guy (help!) 00:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Facepalm)(Sigh) Can't say I agree with you but I don't want to get in trouble for edit warring so whatever.UpWithJimmy (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UpWithJimmy, that's policy and always has been. Guy (help!) 00:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about we add the "Citation Needed" thing if we add "mix up of Sonic the Hedgehog and Pikachu" next to Sonichu?UpWithJimmy (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UpWithJimmy, nope. That's for stuff that someone finds to be unsupported, not an excuse to add text with no source. Guy (help!) 23:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then take the wordSonichu off! We can just add his homemade comic. If Sonichu can't be mentioned being a combination of Sonic and Pikachu, than that word can't be there like how Chris Chan's name isn't mentioned.UpWithJimmy (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you unlock the page so that I can remove the word Sonichu?UpWithJimmy (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UpWithJimmy, see WP:SYN. The existing source mentions sonichu but not pikachu. Guy (help!) 14:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just take off Sonichu so that readers won’t think it’s seen as original! UpWithJimmy (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UpWithJimmy, It's in the source. Pikachu isn't. That's about it, really. Guy (help!) 23:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it! I’m saying the word SONICHU should be removed if it isn’t going to be mention what he really is! Even if that word is in the source can we please remove it! UpWithJimmy (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UpWithJimmy, no. Guy (help!) 23:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you don't get it - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! You people really get on my nerves! I am so sick of this!UpWithJimmy (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyway, I noticed you added "a mashup of the Sonic and Pokémon universes". I'm okay with that.UpWithJimmy (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although the person is indeed transgender. The trolling started way before that came out, so I think it is an irrelevant piece of information. Spongehog (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spongehog, If the information is sourced and is verifiable, I don't see any reason to not include it. Even if the trolling started before they came out as transgender, nothing in the article states that the trolling or harassment was due to them being transgender, just that they were transgender. Removing it because you think it's irrelevant is sort of a violation of WP:NPOV. Unless it's some sort of cruft or anything like that, we should include as many verifiable facts on Wikipedia as possible to keep with our mission of being a free encyclopedia. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon, I do have to wonder if the KF people perhaps consider that harassing someone for being autistic is in some way better than harassing them for being both autistic and trans. Guy (help!) 08:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Considering the logic the OP is using for removing "transgender" from the section, that same logic should be used to remove the "autistic" part from the section. Because if their gender identity or whatever is irrelevant, so is whatever developmental disorder they have. The argument made by the OP is a perfect example of cherry picking. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Autistic part is the primary reason. The trolling of CWC started around 2007-8. CWC didn’t come out as trans until around 2 years ago. The trolling has always been around the person living in their own world and has next to nothing to do with their gender/sexuality. That’s why I think it’s irrelevant because although the person is trans, the harassment has only been because of how gullible the person is, and there is numerous examples that I can use to show you that. Spongehog (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spongehog, as far as I can tell, the site harassed her for being autistic and then added harassment due to her being trans. In which case the statement is correct. Guy (help!) 18:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article states "The website was originally launched as an exclusive imageboard to troll and harass an autistic transgender webcomic artist". This is inaccurate as Chrischan did not come out as trans until much later, around 2013 from memory.

• See above. Guy (help!) 21:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I've met Josh Moon in real life, though we're little more than acquaintances now. He usually ignores my Twitter DMs on the rare occasions I find occasion to send him one.)

This article is obviously on a very sensitive subject, and attracts a lot of editors either acting in bad faith or without knowledge of how Wikipedia works, I'd still like to try and forward some changes I think would be positive:

• Discussion ought to be changed to gossip. That's how The Verge [1] describes it and that's how the site described itself in 2013. [2]

• Kiwi Farms was never an imageboard, it's a forum.
• We should try to bridge the gap between 2007 and 2013. Pless (2016) can help with that, and also helps explain how it went from being about one transgender person to many people; Pless links to her own image in the article,[3] which I believe expands the WP:RS quality of New York Magazine over to her image, but others will need to weigh in on that; certainly the image provides interesting context.

• I think this header should be dropped and merged to "History", or History renamed to Timeline.

• It seems strange this is the first time we mention Moon. He ought to be get a sentence in either § History or the lead.
• Nothing really changed from the hosting front. Not sure if an RS states this or not.

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack and JzG: Do you guys have any comments on these? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psiĥedelisto, the lead is entirely in line with how RS describe Kiwi Farms. For the rest, look at the history of this page. If you can find RS then show them, but thus far there have been none. Guy (help!) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I think we ought to give some weight to how they describe themselves. Certainly there's nothing positive about the word "gossip". We could do that by beginning sentence two as Described as a "gossip" forum. Regarding the "history of this page", I'm not sure what you mean, I can't seem to find where these suggestions have been made before. Best, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psiĥedelisto, no, I don't think we give any weight at all to how they describe themselves. This is a case where we should rely 100% on reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help!) 08:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't weight be given to how they describe themselves? That seems a little strange. If an entity's statement of intent differs from their perception, that's an important controversy to discuss. Gossip doesn't have any negative connotation, it looks like the site consistently makes statements describing themselves as a gossip site and they believe their actions to be trivial. Since it mentions the founder and is essentially a private forum, the BLP could be a useful guideline. 143.244.45.194 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the heart of the problem is exactly that "gossip" has relatively harmless connotations that using the term risks trivialising the actions of a site that is dedicated to harassment and, um, let's just say, "even worse". It is clearly not a description made in good faith by honest people. It is a cynical tactical evasion intended to achieve just that trivialisation of their actions. We can report their self-description in a way that is very clearly distanced from Wikipedia's own voice (which definitely means that it has to be in quotation marks) but we can not describe it as "gossip" in Wikipedia's own voice without departing from neutrality and credulously assisting them in their ham-fisted attempts to launder their reputation. Also, I don't buy the idea that any article that mentions a living person in some way is effectively a BLP. It is not about the founder and contains no biographical details about him. In fact, the article has absolutely no content that would make it comparable to a BLP. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change an autistic transgender webcomic artist, who was first spotted in 2007 on a 4chan video game board for having designed their homemade comic-series Sonichu to an autistic transgender webcomic artist, who was first spotted in 2007 on a 4chan video game board for having designed her homemade comic-series Sonichu per MOS:GENDERID. I'll also note that the source cited for that statement refers to the individual as "her" as well. Equivamp - talk 05:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed pronouns altogether. Guy (help!) 08:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the template says 30-500 but it must say protected until 29 april 2020, it was 30-500 --201.231.9.237 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have adjusted the protection template accordingly (pp-blp). El_C 21:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change <ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://moviepilot.com/p/brother-of-my-immortal-author-casts-serious-doubt-on-her-claims/4383046|title=The Author Of 'My Immortal' Is A Fake And I Don't Know What To Believe Anymore|last=Tremeer|first=Eleanor|date=October 5, 2017|website=Movie Pilot|access-date=October 5, 2017}}</ref> to <ref name=":5">{{cite web |last1=Tremeer |first1=Eleanor |date=October 5, 2017 |title=The Author Of 'My Immortal' Is A Fake And I Don't Know What To Believe Anymore |url=https://moviepilot.com/p/brother-of-my-immortal-author-casts-serious-doubt-on-her-claims/4383046 |website=Movie Pilot |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005185457/https://moviepilot.com/p/brother-of-my-immortal-author-casts-serious-doubt-on-her-claims/4383046 |archivedate=October 5, 2017}}</ref>

I believe this is correct? I'm still getting used to editing Wikipedia, hence why I cant edit the page yet. Anyway, the edit is pretty simple. The source is dead (and appears to have been dead for around a year) but an archived copy is available. Coyopelly (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Coyopelly:  done, and thank you, good catch – good job! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, the only thing that protecting Null from being sued for defamation is Section 230, which might get repealed, next year. And according to this thread he's getting ready to close the site if the above happens on account on how expensive it is to fight off these lawsuits without Section 230. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:D000:62D:B5BD:64AA:E6C3:ADA0 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and...? If and when that happens, and we can reference it, then it can be added. We're not going to predict the future. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]