Talk:Internet humor

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles

Internet

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles

Untitled

Removed:

A landmark for internet humor, particularly that related to gaming, came in 1998 when Gamefoolz was created.

Sorry, but that claim's just not going to wash without some good evidence. Frankly, I doubt you'll be able to provide it, seeing that truly groundbreaking sites tend to get discovered and publicised by the mainstream media at some stage (Wikipedia, for instance :) ) and none of the long-time contributors here seem to ever have heard of Gamefoolz before. --Robert Merkel

Good call, Robert. Now, I've loosely supported the notion of the Gamefoolz article on Wikipedia, but if they start pulling stuff like this, I'm going to get annoyed. -- Jimbo Wales

I agree completely... --LMS

What's up with all these / pages of jokes? I say we should move all these / pages to the meta but keep the article on internet humor. --maveric149

maveric - if you want the real reason for this page, it was the result of an off-'pedia discussion between Larry and I about "what would generate traffic". Fact is, these pages do generate hits. More importantly, there really isn't a truly dynamic resource for internet humour (as defined here) anywhere on the web, and it does deserve to be recognised. I'd like to keep it. Obviously the backslash dates from the days when that was our only alternative. - User:MMGB

If its OK with you its OK with me (following my above reasoning somebody else might want to remove the Wikipedia Cookbook which is only marginally encyclopedic). Pages still need some TLC though. --maveric149

Well, considering long-standing humour with good evidentiary backing, I was surprised that it had no reference to collaborative humour on the Internet, which is the first thing I think about when I hear the phrase "Internet humour." Generally, stuff that starts out in some newsgroup and grows into a recognized subculture. The Internet Oracle, The Jargon File, Kibology. Anybody remember other long-running communities defined around humour on the internet such as the above? I also put in a new article on the Oracle. It's sort of sketchy, and could use a lot of rounding out. --mzamora

Copied over from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:

All the subpages of Internet humor which are pure source texts should be removed or replaced with external links to the content. In any case, the subpages must go. --Eloquence 00:09 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- Seconded. -- Minesweeper 04:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- No. (If we're going to use absolute language.) You do realize the "all subpages must go" phrase is a parody of people being unreasonable, right? --The Cunctator 04:57 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  - We have a policy against subpages. You don't have to like it - just follow it. --Eloquence 10:39 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- I vote no to the removal of source texts. If you replace the pages with links then you can be certain that at some time in the future the link will break. Why do want to lose them? As far as sub pages go, I vote yes. Let them have a proper page. Theresa knott 08:04 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia is not mere collections of public domain or other source material. This is a well-established policy. Possibly future broken links is the trade-off we accept in using this policy. -- Minesweeper 10:37 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- I propose we move them to meta. This gives us the benefit of making it clear that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, while avoiding the potential downside of broken links. Then the internet humor page can reference the pages on meta as examples. Btw, the two cows page, at least, has been edited on Wikipedia a bit, so it's probably GFDL, not public domain. Martin
  - Meta is not a place to dump articles that are unrelated to Wikipedia itself. What you are looking for is something like the mythical Project Sourceberg, a place to store source material. An official, maintained site for this purpose does not yet exist. --Eloquence 23:05 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    - These articles are related to the Wikipedia article on internet humor, and therefore to Wikipedia. Martin
- I disagree too. Subpages are sure against our policy then we just need to move them. Certainly we need some kind of repository system to keep some important text but since we don't have one, it is our compromise that we keep certain text. We cannot rely on the sites outside wikipedia keep those texts. -- Taku 03:03 21 May 2003 (UTC)
  - That is not "our compromise", it is against our policy. I see no reason to make an exception for the George W. Bush lexicon but not for the US constitution -- see arguments below. In fact, making such an exception could be interpreted as a POV choice on our part: Making fun of Dubya is so important that we need to preserve all source material that does so, whereas Shakespeare, Goethe, national laws and constitutions, historical speeches, free manuals and so forth all pale in comparison to the infinite wisdom of Internet humorists. --Eloquence 06:04 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- OK you've made a fair point minesweeper. I don't think it would be right to discuss these pages as a group ss I'm listing them individually. Some of the pages are not just source material but contain some original text as well. So lets do 'em one at a time.Theresa knott 10:59 20 May 2003 (UTC)

[... subpages voted for deletion listed here ...]

Of these, the only ones I see worth saving (and moving) are Goodtimes Virus Warning, Lightbulb jokes, and You have two cows (although those last two could be trimmed down). -- Minesweeper 11:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)
I've indicated my thoughts above, but I would say that the contensts should be copied to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense rather than lost.
- I disagree. I see no good reason to delete just about any of these. Better entries should be written, based off of the content (e.g. You have two cows), but they are all useful and interesting starting points. --The Cunctator 22:50 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- No, there's no reason to delete them, if you ignore our policies on source texts and subpages. However, since these policies are established, any argument that ignores them without successfully changing the policies first is null and void. --Eloquence 23:05 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not guidelines are just that: guidelines, subordinate to the goal of creating a good, complete, and consistent encyclopedia. They are not gospel (like the principles of neutrality, self-identification as an encyclopedia, and open content are). Thus individual cases should be viewed within that context. What purpose does having these entries serve? In the case of the Internet humor pages, they are distinguished primarily by the fact that this is an area of knowledge in which traditional paper encyclopedias are particularly deficient. Although Wikipedia should not be a repository of source documents, Wikipedians should not feel constrained by ex cathedra laws to use their judgment to determine the degree that including source material is useful and necessary. Wikipedia is a living document, and the guidelines are meant to reflect best practices as much as they are to shape them. --The Cunctator 23:19 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  - The guidelines are not subordinate to the goal, they are a reflection thereof. They have been formulated and agreed upon with the specific idea that following these guidelines will improve our encyclopedia. Without justification calling into question these principles for each individual case is not only counter-productive, it is also annoying. If we are to make an exception to any individual rule, such an exception needs to be well qualified, and the qualification itself should then become part of our guidelines. For the case at hand, there is no particular reason to ignore or amend our established policies. It is true that Wikipedia knows more about Internet humor than the Britannica; it also knows more about Linux, yet we do not import the entire set of Linux HOWTOs, arguably much more factual information and readily available under compatible licenses. We do not even import relevant political speeches or essays. Why have we formed this policy? Simply because an openly editable encyclopedia is not particularly useful for mirroring static content, where authenticity is of very high importance. This is also the case for these humor articles, because if the source texts are collaboratively edited we diverge from the goal of documenting what is known to the separate goal of creating new "knowledge", which is not what an encyclopedia is meant to do. I am a supporter of the Sourceberg idea (though I dislike the name), but Wikipedia is not such a source repository. If we don't store crucial political texts or literary works that are freely available, the rationale for including George W. Bush jokes and chain letters is much weaker still. Your argument thus has no merit whatsoever. --Eloquence 23:39 20 May 2003 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Minesweepers assesment, though George W. Bush lexicon looks like it could be remade into "Texas Slang" or something similar. -- Infrogmation 06:39 23 May 2003 (UTC)

After a week of discussion, most of the subpages were deleted and the rest moved. Encyclopedic information in Goodtimes Virus Warning was already in Goodtimes virus. Former subpages that remain (and have been moved) are You have two cows, Lightbulb joke, and Honor system virus. -- Minesweeper 07:24 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Do we need to link to every site that hosts a copy of the million of old jokes around? Anyone against original content? And, what's with the descriptions like "best humor site"? Is that the official wikipedia opinion? Some links lead to sites that are not working. And, if your site is pop-up hell you really think you should get a link from here? I deleted a whole load of external links. More should really go if someone else has the heart. MansonP

They were probably spam, so thanks for removing them. Wmahan . 05:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References section

http://www.funnyx.org Lindarx (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a link to http://www.jokes.org.au/ in the References section, but my change was reverted without explanation. I don't see how it belongs as a reference, since I don't see it mentioned in the article. Wmahan . 17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

saying that the darwin awards are internet humor is a contradiction due to the fact that they have a copyright. (ie, you cant use the exact text from www.darwinawards.com) and it states earlier in the artical that this would be "humor on the internet" not "internet humor"Bummerdude62 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]