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]

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 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]

  Template:Ping: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]