Talk:Reddit
Contents |
[edit] Karma
I've never been a member of Reddit, so a lot of the mechanics of up/downvoting and karma are just what I've picked up in passing, and I may have gotten some of the details wrong. If anyone can correct me, I'd appreciate it.
Radioactive Misanthrope 06:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Displayed karma total is just posts karma; comment karma only affects that comment in that post. No-one pays a user's karma a blind bit of notice except the user themselves - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes checking comment karma is useful when trying to figure out if any given user is a blind troll. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] The other kind of karma
What, nothing about Violentacrez?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- So write it - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] "Highly left-leaning"
Ok, that's something I'm going to challenge.
While Reddit is definitely anti-Republican (Obama's AMA crashing of the site can attest to that), it's gigantic MRA and pedo population (especially the admins' TV Tropes-like response to the latter), near-idolization of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson etc., and anti-gun control and climate denial slant suggest something else. It's more libertarian-populist. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- As the person who wrote the "highly left-leaning" comment, I actually agree completely with what you wrote. However, we are both right. On the axes of political philosophy , "liberal" and "conservative" are opposites, while "libertarian" and "authoritarian" are opposites. That means, for example, someone may be a Conservative Authoritarian (like most fascist regimes), or a Liberal Libertarian (in the case of Reddit). Therefore, Redditors are both left-leaning and libertarian. The best term I've heard to describe them is "brogressive." ShadowUltra (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- "...while "libertarian" and "authoritarian" are opposites." Except in the US, where "libertarian" means "advocate of corporatist neo-feudalism." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- And the UK, where it means "Tory who finds taxes a personal affront" - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- "...while "libertarian" and "authoritarian" are opposites." Except in the US, where "libertarian" means "advocate of corporatist neo-feudalism." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Where on the political spectrum would you put young bigots who wouldn't mind getting some weed and some government handouts? They're not libertarian, they just disagree with older authoritarians on a couple points, for selfish reasons that will change as they get older. I'd say it's just 'younger rightwing'. Dmytry (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Citation needed
The new stuff needs a forest of citations - it makes implausible assertions about the views of all of Reddit (which is goddamn huge) and randomly confuses Reddit users, specific subreddits and Reddit's owners and administrators. Arguably the outside world will not perceive the differences, but the new text talks about actions or failures of action on the parts of these, so it should get this right, not wrong. Also needs to understand wtf sec 230 is and why. I appreciate this is a reasonable rendition of the views of bits of the skepticsphere and of the more bozolike bits of Reddit, but not of the whole world - substitute the word "Internet" for "Reddit" and the error should become apparent - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think tomorrow I'll be covering it in a forest of citation-needed tags, and the next day hacking the stupidity away - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Two days instead, and still no substantiation. Cite tags added. Each of these should be substantiable - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- No-one gave enough of a shit to cite, so away it goes. When come back, bring cites - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Two days instead, and still no substantiation. Cite tags added. Each of these should be substantiable - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- The general problem is describing storms in a teacup happening in one tiny portion of a goddamn huge site as if almost anyone on the site has even heard of it, let alone gives a shit - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] ShitRedditSays is Shitty, Too
I have provided enough documentation for how SRS is a pretty shitty place, too. Yet this keeps getting undone without discussion. Why?—Chbarts (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's probably better if you write in userspace first (User:Chbarts/Reddit) --81.175.227.88 (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- By "enough documentation" you mean this link? http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/13p174/major_tw_woman_rapes_man_horrifying_but_mostly Could you please explain how that source supports the sentence you've attached it to? ("when they're not shaming rape victims or denying the existence of certain forms of rape altogether.")--ZooGuard (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- From what I see in the link, they are actually criticizing people for marginalizing male rape victims (in other words, the opposite of what Chbarts says). I'm no fan of SRS, but evidence should actually support the claims being made here. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- As someone on SRS, mind if I ask you your problems with it?--Token Conservative (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- The main problem I have is the fact that it is against SRS rules to disagree with the validity of a post. This means users whose posts make it to SRS (which, despite its rules, inevitably creates a downvote brigade) are unable to defend themselves. If a user's post was taken out of context, or if it really isn't that big of a deal, they will find themselves targeted with no way to explain themselves. For example, this highlighted on the front page of SRS today, taking the quote as if he is equating pedophilia to homosexuality. The actual poster, it seems, misspoke and was talking about broader methods of stopping child predators. In many ways the nature of SRS stifles discussion.Mr. Anon (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen a couple of times where a comment was taken out of context, and a couple of times where a comment was posted at +50 karma, and by the time it made it to SRS frontpage it was pushing +200. Not saying it doesn't happen, but taking things out of context doesn't seem to happen very much, and the downvote brigade doesn't seem to be very effective.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- The main problem I have is the fact that it is against SRS rules to disagree with the validity of a post. This means users whose posts make it to SRS (which, despite its rules, inevitably creates a downvote brigade) are unable to defend themselves. If a user's post was taken out of context, or if it really isn't that big of a deal, they will find themselves targeted with no way to explain themselves. For example, this highlighted on the front page of SRS today, taking the quote as if he is equating pedophilia to homosexuality. The actual poster, it seems, misspoke and was talking about broader methods of stopping child predators. In many ways the nature of SRS stifles discussion.Mr. Anon (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- As someone on SRS, mind if I ask you your problems with it?--Token Conservative (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- From what I see in the link, they are actually criticizing people for marginalizing male rape victims (in other words, the opposite of what Chbarts says). I'm no fan of SRS, but evidence should actually support the claims being made here. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] One month later...
- They make fun of nine-year-old rape victims.—Chbarts (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, sure. I got sidetracked a bit. SRS can be OK when they're not simply being hateful. That's my point. Is this POV not going to be represented here at all?—Chbarts (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the linked thread, the rest of which you conveniently excluded, the first quote seems to be again a case of mocking a stereotypical position. If you are upset by it, it should be for putting words in Redditor's mouths.
- As the rest are screenshots, no context can be verified - e.g. if these are instances of sarcasm and/or hyperbolic paraphrasing. Even if they are genuine comments, nothing guarantees that these are genuine SRS participants and not agent provocateur trolls, or that this is representative for the subreddit.
- Seriously dude, I understand the sparkles are pretty, but you need to put down that axe.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen other examples. That's just what was readily to hand. My point, however, is that there's a negative side to SRS which is not being represented here, which means they're being given free reign to be hateful in a way nobody else mentioned here is. Why is that?—Chbarts (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- You: "WAH BLAH SRS IS EVIL"
- Us: "You sound butthurt. Cites plz."
- You: (crappy deceitful cites)
- Us: "Those are crappy deceitful cites."
- You: "But WAH BLAH SRS IS EVIL"
- There's a certain circular nature to this discussion - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen other examples. That's just what was readily to hand. My point, however, is that there's a negative side to SRS which is not being represented here, which means they're being given free reign to be hateful in a way nobody else mentioned here is. Why is that?—Chbarts (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is where they defend bullying someone to the point of making them want to commit suicide: http://i.imgur.com/SRLHwKB.png Is that bad in your eyes? BTW, I'd be happier if you didn't use 'butthurt': It makes light of rape. —Chbarts (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- After being caught lying once, you provide another contextless example. Also, fuck off - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- And you make jokes about rape.—Chbarts (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, he doesn't. Your attempt at false equivalence is noted. "Butt" doesn't necessarily mean "anus", it comes from "buttocks". "Butthurt" is how you feel after having your ass kicked, literally or metaphorically.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's a rape joke as it's commonly used. And I don't understand the rest, either: You demand cites, I give them, you tell me to fuck off and imply I should get raped. Why? What's wrong with my cites?—Chbarts (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- It was repeatedly pointed out to you that your "cites" either don't support your claims, or suffer from a lack of context. See the comments above and below this one.
- Instead of challenging these criticisms and defending your "cites", you disappear for a month and pop up with another quote. In other words, you implicitly abandon your previous attempts and start shopping for another "incriminating quote". What do you expect us to do?--ZooGuard (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's a rape joke as it's commonly used. And I don't understand the rest, either: You demand cites, I give them, you tell me to fuck off and imply I should get raped. Why? What's wrong with my cites?—Chbarts (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, he doesn't. Your attempt at false equivalence is noted. "Butt" doesn't necessarily mean "anus", it comes from "buttocks". "Butthurt" is how you feel after having your ass kicked, literally or metaphorically.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- And you make jokes about rape.—Chbarts (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is the first .png I've taken a look at from the examples you've presented, and seriously? I'm not a fan of this commenter "stereotyping" gamers, but in no way is he telling the OP to commit suicide. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit] A few suggested edits for various topics
Violentacrez section had too much personal information. Whoever wrote it was likely from /r/ShitRedditSays.
Violentacrez was a Reddit user responsible for creating and moderating many of the NSFW subreddits, including /r/jailbait and later, /r/creepshots. Violentacrez posted hundreds, perhaps thousands of images to Reddit. He also regularly made outlandish comments about his sexual history, most notably claiming in an Ask Me Anything session that he had sex with his stepdaughter. In October 2012, Gawker writer Adrian Chen obtained Violentacrez's real identity from a disgruntled former friend who met him at a Reddit meetup and became disillusioned with his disturbing sexual behavior. Chen contacted Vilentacrez and informed him that he would be writing an article about his online behavior. On October 12, 2012, this article was posted.
War were declared.
The previous editor wrote from a biased viewpoint, stating that there was no evidence for what they've been accused of, but I've found some evidence that belongs here as well.
A subreddit devoted to criticizing, making fun of, and drawing attention to the ignorant bigotry and otherwise disturbing content that some Redditors shower with upvotes. SRS users typically find upvoted comments, post them to SRS, and then make fun of or heavily criticize the users involved. SRS was originally designed as a subreddit to try and educate these users, but when those attempts were met with severe downvoting, the users decided to turn the subreddit into the "circlejerk" it is known for today. Because SRS is supposed to be a safe space for marginalized groups to talk without fear of downvotes, those who violate the circlejerk or attempt to argue their "innocence" are swiftly banned in order to preserve the discussion space for people who would get downvoted elsewhere on Reddit.<ref>It does sound a little harsh, but we're dealing with a website that verges into boob and poop jokes 5 minutes into any discussion. (Particularly on default subreddits.)</ref>
ShitRedditSays is blamed for all manner of things by all manner of people in Reddit, such as vote brigading, publishing personal information on other users and conducting campaigns of harassment against other Redditors. Here is some evidence that indicates that these accusations are true and merit further investigation.
The section on /r/atheism is just plain wrong and represents the anti-atheism circlejerk that is becoming more prevalent in Reddit.
Not as relentlessly awful as some, but a good demonstration of the fact that not believing in a god or gods in no way implies any capacity for joined-up thinking or not being a horrible person. It is important to note that /r/cringe, /r/magicskyfairy, /r/circlejerk, and even 4chan have all submitted posts to /r/atheism and "brigaded" (manipulating votes with a specific purpose) them in order to garner attention. /r/magicskyfairy in particular hates /r/atheism and does it somewhat regularly, although instances have declined since meme posts have had stricter rules in place when being posted. /r/atheism has received a lot of criticism for being a hate sub, bigoted, unpleasant, and "extremist" by many people; however, there have been no instances where the accuser has proven that this is the case. The main point to take away is that /r/atheism does not deserve to be classified as the "worst of Reddit" because the only examples of being bad have either not been proven or have been manipulated into appearance. /r/atheism is no better nor worse than any other subreddit; however, I will not be removing /r/atheism from this section because it needs to be seen.
Early in 2013, there was a little coup d'etat among the moderators at /r/atheism, wherein the founder of the subreddit was forced out.<ref>A little something to do with the founder not logging onto /r/atheism in about a year.</ref> The first assistant moderator that the founder had invited to help with /r/atheism became chief moderator. Afterwards, a lot of new policies were implemented, leading to the wailing and gnashing of teeth among most of the members. The original founder then created a new subreddit called /r/atheismrebooted (which is just like it sounds — a rehash of the best and worst of /r/atheism's original format). One of the users at /r/atheismrebooted was kind enough to post a timeline of their little soap opera here. </ref> — Unsigned, by: 98.24.17.148 / talk / contribs 21:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Huge mess nowiki-ed to prevent reference error message. Please be more concise and clearly separate quoted parts of the article from your proposed additions.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Possible picture
[1] - we could use this for 'Worst of Reddit'? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- What about "we condone child porn" or other such crap that supposedly can be found on Reddit? It's best to give equal attention to all the crap imo. Nullahnung (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- How about no? Pro-CP circlejerks have all but banished since the ViolentAcrez kerfuffle. To be fair, though, they still happen in the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist subreddits. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 00:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I was not suggesting that we should put a "we condone child porn" in the article, I was making the point that we should not have any "we condone" at all, because otherwise we would have to have it on all moral no-go's. Nullahnung (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- How about no? Pro-CP circlejerks have all but banished since the ViolentAcrez kerfuffle. To be fair, though, they still happen in the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist subreddits. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- No.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll leave this here. ·FemiliskSJ 12:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I can't believe SRS has taken over RationalWiki. I was at my local library last week and there was an entire section on gender studies but only seven books by Orwell. How much longer until SRS controls the government? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- We control the
jimmieslibrary, we control therustlinggovernment. ·FemiliskSJ 12:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)- You know how it is, the more civil rights groups that exist for a particular group, the less oppression that they face in society. The fact that the feminist movement is larger and more significant than the men's rights movement is literally sexism and not at all based on reactions to societal issues. Let me ask you this, where exactly is my talk about straight issues? What about my talk about white issues? Checkmate --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes yes, you're both very humorous. Nullahnung (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- *collects tears* ·FemiliskSJ 13:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- *insert meme* is always the right answer to everything ever. Of course! Why didn't I think of that? Nullahnung (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cool story bro ·FemiliskSJ 13:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Top kek --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Master trole |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior? 13:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Is any of this supposed to be comprehensible? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Suffer the storms
13:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry! Just like you, I too also enjoy the sublimely compact meaningfulness of memesmanship as well! Nullahnung (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm all about the lols. Seriously. If you're not about the lols you can get the fuck away from me --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, I once said "lol" in real life! Can you believe that? LOL Nullahnung (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not anti-meme or anti-lol, I just kinda find it confusing and, to a degree, sorta annoying. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Remembrance of the transcending moon
13:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Master trole" is a minor Reddit metasphere meme used when someone in a discussion argues almost entirely by posting memes. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Never got enough hugs as a kid 13:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- One man's annoying, is another genderqueer's satisfying. ·FemiliskSJ 13:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Master trole" is a minor Reddit metasphere meme used when someone in a discussion argues almost entirely by posting memes. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- I'm not anti-meme or anti-lol, I just kinda find it confusing and, to a degree, sorta annoying. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Remembrance of the transcending moon
- In fact, I once said "lol" in real life! Can you believe that? LOL Nullahnung (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm all about the lols. Seriously. If you're not about the lols you can get the fuck away from me --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry! Just like you, I too also enjoy the sublimely compact meaningfulness of memesmanship as well! Nullahnung (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Is any of this supposed to be comprehensible? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Suffer the storms
- Master trole |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- Top kek --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cool story bro ·FemiliskSJ 13:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- *insert meme* is always the right answer to everything ever. Of course! Why didn't I think of that? Nullahnung (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- *collects tears* ·FemiliskSJ 13:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes yes, you're both very humorous. Nullahnung (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- You know how it is, the more civil rights groups that exist for a particular group, the less oppression that they face in society. The fact that the feminist movement is larger and more significant than the men's rights movement is literally sexism and not at all based on reactions to societal issues. Let me ask you this, where exactly is my talk about straight issues? What about my talk about white issues? Checkmate --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- We control the
- I can't believe SRS has taken over RationalWiki. I was at my local library last week and there was an entire section on gender studies but only seven books by Orwell. How much longer until SRS controls the government? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll leave this here. ·FemiliskSJ 12:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
*Redneck voice*You /b/-hugger internetalists and your recycling of phrasings, get off my lawn! Nullahnung (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- /b/ is love. /b/ is life. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
I'm a survivor, keep on survivin', I'm gonna survive this, I'm gonna make it 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- To answer the question "how about this image?" I'd say that memery in article space is probably not a great idea (and if that's not memery, it's pretty close) - it would encourage shitty additions by people who can't get it together to write wurdz. (RW even looking like ED would also not be a great thing.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I've changed my mind about it now --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] /r/Conspiratard Moderators
The moderators at /r/Conspiratard are actually pretty abusive with their powers. Not in the same scale as /r/conspiracy, but listing it as a great place to get stuff debunked is kind of inaccurate.
Unfortunately, I'm sure you can guess how this translates to Conspiracy theorists when they see that stuff is getting removed for the reason "stop posting stupid stuff" and "this is garbage (in our totally subjective opinion)"
And yes I've actually got those as reasons for being banned... I've even been banned permanently, and when I ask for a reason they tell me they don't have to explain it or something snarly like "welcome to reddit"
Is it really a good idea to advocate a Conspiracy Debunking place that acts like this?--サトセレ (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I feel no love for it, that section could do with trimming anyway - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] r/WikiInAction
The subreddit randomizer brought me to r/WikiInAction/ which appears to be a modestly wretched hive of scum and villainy dedicated to whining about Wikipedia, lately infested with gossip about the gamergate slap-fest. That sub has no love in its heart for RationalWiki either.
- "RationalWiki is a demonstration of what happened to the Skeptic movement after feminists borged it." [2]
68.187.218.86 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)