Talk:9gag

Opening heading

Possible bias? The Alexa site rankings hail from a variety of places, instead of the target audience's countries (Hong Kong and America). Also, it should be noted that 9gag hosts rage comics (those black-and-white comics mentioned in the article) which come from Reddit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.21.177 (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And by Reddit, you mean, 4chan. On that note, even thought it's pretty popular, and, dare I say, is 9gag even noteworthy? It hasn't achieved any mainstream knowledge. The most "important" thing that happened there was the recent 4chan-9gag "wars" (read, a bunch of basement dwellers sending another bunch of the same populace a bunch of gore pics). Nothing is noteworthy, even though I love the site.190.92.53.210 (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversy? i think that is by no means controversy, and if it was it should be on the 4chan wiki page--ReneVenegas95 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the copy pasta is great with all communities, but it might be noteworthy that 9gag is built around stealing stuff and slapping the 9gag watermark on it, reddit on the other hand was a link aggregator like digg, and supposed to link to the actual source. 4chan on the other hand generate most original content :P --178.5.115.56 (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, need I remind you that this is not a forum. This is a place where we discuss what content belongs in the article. Remember that you can put whatever you like in here as long as it is both relevant and you can back it up with citations/reference. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!:DDD Ice bear johny meowy123 06:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Protect page

I kindly ask the first sysop who sees this to (re)protect this article from edits by non-registered users, in order to end the bias that some people are trying to bring in. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability

This website is of interest to many internet users, especially Brazilian, Romanian and others. This can also be seen from its rising Alexa rank. This is why I see this article as notable. Share your thoughts about this. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The page is very popular according to Alexa. I think the article is notable due to the fact that it reaches many people. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In terms of Israeli popculture, 9gag is basically cross-generation-gender-class-language common topic, with all the "rage faces" invoked daily. Also, globablly, it's a melting pot of trending memes which is highly notable. John Holly (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Written by retards

This article is awful almost beyond description. Wikipedia has truly become the encylopaedia that anyone can shit all over and no-one ever bothers to clean up. Let's look at a few examples of just how obscenely bad this article is:

9GAG is a comedy website set in Hong Kong[2]...

It is not "set" anywhere. The source for this bizarre and meaningless claim does not support it.

Launched in 2008,[citation needed] this website is best known for recurring use of internet memes.

POV.

The website is, to some extent, similar in presentation to a blog, whose posts are called ”gags” and are shown nine per page, hence the name of the website

Absurdly verbose. Reads like it was written for a nine-year-old's school project.

Gags consist entirely of images (and less often YouTube embedded videos)...

Self-contradictory.

9GAG is commonly known by its users to be addicting, or as many users may say, "it takes your soul".

Reads like it was written by a child with a short attention span. Ridiculously unencyclopaedic.

Rules...

Any talentless clown with nothing better to do can copy and paste promo material from a website. It's not encyclopaedic.

Ranking...

Arbitrary countries, boring statistics, totally pointless.

to the viral nature of the site's content, 9GAG is among the 500 most visited websites in the world

Non sequitur.

The author Clay Shirky, in his book Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in the Connected Age, refers to 9GAG as "a product of the cognitive surplus

And so fucking what? A copied and pasted phrase from a book tells no-one anything if you can't be bothered to give even the slightest bit of context to it.

The fraction of Wikipedia editors who give a shit about quality is vanishingly small. The firehose of shit will eventually overwhelm what little quality content remains.

Most of this content has been removed. Please remember a) to use a more respectful tone in talk pages and b) to sign your posts on talk pages by typing the tilde key four times. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Q.E.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.145.11 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply

I should say that it would have been a lot more efficient if you had edited the article, instead of taking your time to bash the editors, which might well have been inexperienced. This is what Wikipedia is about - when somebody makes a mistake, you should correct it, not post harsh critics on the talk page as an annonymous then expect to be treated as the wisest man. I did some modifications to the article meanwhile, according to your suggestions. Thanks anyway. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The article's locked. Otherwise, obviously, I would have edited it myself. 201.214.172.241 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sign up for an account and edit the article. Nobody prohibits you. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Y U INSIST ON REMOVING MY MEMES PICTURE?

I believe that my picture is quite useful, as it provides people with the main memes used on 9gag. Memes are a vital part that distinguish 9gag from other funny blogs. Please leave my picture there; i know it does more good than bad here. --Georgy90 (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop horsing around and check your talk page. You are making 9gaggers seem crazy. Then you wonder why the article is criticised and 9gaggers bashed... -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean the memes that 9gag stole from Reddit/4chan/other sites? 71.227.7.35 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OBJECTION. Your claim about theft from other sites is unfounded as all image boards/humour websites borrow from others. This is not a forum so please stop posting about how 9gag steals from other sites unless you can find a reliable source for us to include it in the article. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

OVERRULED. Counsel is being a wikidouche. Case dismissed. --173.210.224.33 (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbullying

They've engaged in a lot more of it than what is mentioned. In fact, they've been persistently engaging in it on FB memorials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor Norton I (talk • contribs) 04:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Can I have permission to edit the page? They are consistently engaging in cyber-bullying attacks, creating quite a name for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SketchSkatch (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is ok to add as much valuable information as you want, as long as you cite it correspondingly. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The cyber bulling part was taken down completely. I think its 9gag users wanting to cover their bisbehaviour. I'm requesting to take this part up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.69.144 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to request this part be posted back on, they're notorious for cyberbullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SketchSkatch (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: We will not put ANYTHING in the article that is unfounded. If there are sources for it, post them here and we will put them in the article. In the mean time, saying "9gag does x, y and z" without any proof thereof will not do anything to contribute to the overall usefulness and completeness of the article. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 9gag. Favonian (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

---

9GAG → 9Gag – Relisted. Consensus is to move. However it is not clear what the name should be per the MoS. Either 9Gag or 9gag. So I'm requesting some discussion on that point. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC) per MOS:TM. 180.183.107.211 (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Not an acronym so should not be capitalised. Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - 9GAG refers to itself in capitals. See their about page. 9GAG is correct, while 9Gag is not. – Richard BB 01:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  As explained at MOS:TM, we override "official" style preferences in favor of conventional English. —David Levy 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Noted, retracting my statement. – Richard BB 17:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per MOS:TM. As noted by Jenks24, the name apparently isn't an acronym. —David Levy 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support the only justification offered against this move so far is is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. In reply to the relist request, I had a flick through google news and it looks like 9gag is much more common, so I'd suggest that, but I don't feel too strongly about it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  On that basis, I agree that "9gag" is the stronger of the two options. —David Levy 17:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  9gag, 9gag.com[1][2], and 9GAG[3] are all more common than 9Gag. Kauffner (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

9gag steals from 4chan reddit and digg.

Targets of mockery.

This sentence : "The contents and themes of the gags feature existing internet memes like rage comic characters or lolcats, sketches showing day-to-day activities in a humorous style, jokes concerning stereotypes associated with men, women, politicians and others, criticism of certain artists and actors together with the works of art they are involved in (such as Justin Bieber or Robert Pattinson), the general issue of trolling, certain works of art (often street art), life stories - either humorous or sad, parodies and comments on certain current events, various sayings and citations and sometimes even calls for solidarity for certain causes." targets Justin Bieber and Robert Pattinson and although I do not like either of them at all, I think it is irrelevant to mention this information. Also, this sentence is too damn long. Opinions? I'll stylize it into more acceptable English if there's a need for it. Just my opinion. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Taking it out until someone writes something better.--SoLongWith (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. If I may, here is my proposal : "The gags rely heavily on the use of internet memes, humorous sketches, jokes and satires regarding current events and stereotypes and the lampooning of different artists. Gags have also been used to lobby support for different campaigns and causes." It looks short and sweet to me, doesn't badger the reader with too much useless information and I think it summarizes the above sentence quite effectively and concisely. Let me know Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

This seems to be a good solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldov (talk • contribs) 23:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Social Networking

9gag has quite the followings on their Twitter and Facebook accounts. Is this worthy of mention or is it arbitrary? Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ranking

I think Global ranking is something worth noting, but is it really worth noting that 9gag is the 32nd most visited website in Narnia? Somebody else already mentioned this in their rant. I found rankings for other countries (like 200th in South Africa, 50th in Croatia etc) but I think it would make more sense to remove national rankings rather than adding more of them. However, as stressed before, the global ranking is quite important so I think that maybe instead of being in its own section, we can include it in the summary? Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What about their attempt about ragefaces?

In the late 2011, 9GAG set up a store and started selling badges with ragecomics on them, except the trademarked trollface of course. This was the reason which angered 4chan's random channel. After "attacks" store was taken down. A few words about this perhaps? I have never edited an article on my own before and i'm sure there are people who both have done it before and know about this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.178.225 (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as you can give relevant citations for it, feel free. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

A pointless article concerning a website with no notability other than the fact that it's popular. 9gag lacks significant coverage by reliable, independent sources that directly address the subject; sources provided give only brief mentions, overviews and statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.230.92 (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How come it is not notable when it is popular? And isn't it better to leave it alone and let other editors improve it, rather than deleting it? I don't see any disadvantages about the article other than being prone to vandalism. Devilreborn (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with DevilReborn. Popularity = notability. Leave the article be and let editors and contributors improve it. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Send this to AfD. They can debate that there. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Popularity = notability". No it doesn't. Check WP:NOTABILITY --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for giving me some enlightenment. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2012

This page should be opened, as I lack the time to open an account, and I have information about a recent attack on 9gag that took place concerning 4chan. It's best this information be added as someone wouldn't want to accidentally say, i don't know, stumble upon some really messed up pictures on 9gag complements of anonymous.

24.35.129.151 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: That isn't how the template works. You need to express your request in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail and provide reliable sources for any factual changes. You could also go to WP:RFPP and request an end to the protection, but that isn't likely to happen. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

"this website is best known for the recurring use of internet memes, which originate from other sites and its many users." This is completely correct! 9fag has no original content! And unlike 4chan, we aren't morally right people!

Julesbrn (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This template is used to make changes in an article which has been semi-protected. You need to be detailed about the change and supply reliable sources for any factual changes. If you are connected to the subject, please read our policy on conflict of interest. Essentially, you need to be careful to remain neutral and use sources to back up any first-hand knowledge. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Registration and controversy.

Removing. It does NOT belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoLongWith (talk • contribs) 02:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you removed the controversy section?--SUFC Boy 19:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No reliable source(s) = no reason for it to appear on the article. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012

hey i'm a 9gagger and i would like to make the change in the end of copying where it says that 9gaggers are losers that suck on cocks and i don't like that so anyone please delete it :-)

thank you 188.114.153.20 (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

9gag is not blocked on the school network — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.121.137 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Add information

The Dutch wikipedia has quite some information on 9gag which I would like to integrate into this article. However, I'm not able to edit, could this be helped? Or could I for example translate some of the information (with links and references) and put it in the talk section to be patched into the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldov (talk • contribs) 23:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC) :

If you could do translation and provide reliable links that would be appreciated. It seems to me that all the other language editions have more information on 9gag than the English version. FonsScientiae (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I speak Afrikaans which is quite similar to Dutch and from what I've seen on the article, it's mostly information that the editors here would not appreciate at all. There are a few citations, but I'll take a look again later and I will add whatever information there seems to be missing from the English article. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 May 2012

Started in HongKong, China. Hahapro (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

– Richard BB 21:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please cite a reliable source for your assertion and make a specific request, as described in the instructions. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora, Colorado Shooting

I found some articles that implicate the gunman using 9gag as a scapegoat for the shooting but later refuting 9gag's involvement at all. Here are the links. http://gawker.com/5927697 http://www.bobsblitz.com/2012/07/batman-shooter-allegedly-bragged-was.html I thought it might be noteworthy since a shooting is generally quite... infamous. Sad to hear about all the deaths and injuries. :( Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And another http://www.canoncurrent.com/14-dead-50-wounded-at-aurora-late-night-premier-of-dark-knight-rising/ Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's in the article at the moment, but I'm not sure it really belongs there. This was just standard trolling which parts of the media mistakenly took seriously. It seems pretty clear that the allegations are entirely false. Robofish (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

True as that might be, it's in the news, and just as factors are explored in the Columbine high school Massacre of 1999 (like metal music, video games, goth culture, etc) so too is this relevant here. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Retracting my previous statements. After reading WP:HOAX, I am convinced that this is indeed not encyclopedic content. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Content

While it may be true that 9gag takes many elements from other image boards and popular websites, can we agree to leave useless pieces of "information" like "The website user base is mostly pre-teen and teen and is known to copy content from other websites, such as reddit and tumblr." unless there are good references for it, like interviews or news articles or books on internet humour... Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I never heard it before and that statement is completely unsourced. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is common sense, everyone knows that because it's true. Why would we hate it if it wasn't true? just for the sake of being a "hater"? we aren't as immature as 9gaggers and we don't engage in what they call "trolling". Just say something like "i like 9gag it's a good website" on reddit or 4chan and I'll give you 100$ if you get a positive response that isn't filled with sarcasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.145.11 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Interested Reddit fans (like me) have seen much weirdness but Wikipedia demands more stringent citations. Lots42 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There is proof. What about "9GAG repost machine explained" or just simple screencaps with dates? Since eBaumsworld has a section about it, why doesn't 9GAG? 5.240.40.37 (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete. Add a bit more details about the "criticism" of this website

Perhaps add a "criticism" sub-page where it will be written how 90% of the internet hates them, especially 4chan, not only because of them stealing memes and marketing them (kind of how apple patents common things and then sues people around for using them) but because they're simply annoying, like somebody else said here they enage in cyberbullying and other things. Keep it civil but this is still information that is vital for this article. It's like writing on the "nazi party" article only the propaganda they spread, without the real story. Don't you think? That isn't too "objective" isn't it? I thought this website was all about objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.145.11 (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Add whatever you want to to this article, but without any citations, it will be removed and challenged. I for one cannot find any articles where people hate the website due to their use of memes from other websites. Keep in mind that blogs do not count as quality sources. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 October 2012

9gag steals content from other websites. this is widely known and acknowledged. 173.54.233.161 (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Also you need to provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

uhm, what about this? --91.56.207.190 (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope... that's from a Reddit post which can kind of be considered a blog of sorts. Blogs are not considered legitimate news sources here on Wikipedia. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have multiple citations to allegations of 9gag stealing content.1 2 3 4 5 I suggest this and a paragraph on the userbase known for controversial stunts and often engaging in cyber-bullying be included in a "controversy" section. 1 2 3 Further proof of 9gag's controversy can be shown from this petition which indicates tension from other sources. 1 2 3 Further tension between other rival sites like 4chan is indicated by this article. 2 As well, Wikipedia articles in other languages include a section regarding the site's criticism. 1 2 3. I will be writing a paragraph on behalf of 173.54.233.161 (talk). If anyone has any objections to this feel free to discuss. Element₉. _TALK 00:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Add {{HK-company-stub }} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.147.176 (talk • contribs)

 Not done I see no evidence that this site is based in Hong Kong. Furthermore, it's not a company, it's a website. There's already a stub template on the article. – Richard BB 21:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2013

add that there was an android app created as well! 5.71.114.208 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like http://9gagforandroid.com/ is an unoffical app. GoingBatty (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Closed as  Not done per the above comment. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Anticipated Revisions

As part of the Education Program/University of Michigan, multiple revisions will be attempted to the 9gag Wikipedia Article in hopes to be accepted and respected. The current skeleton that has been used as a template for our revisions is the 4chan Wikipedia template. The sections that will be added to this article are similar to that of 4chan's yet modified to an extent. The proper research has been done in regards to all revisions and citations will be accounted for. Eamjr (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)eamjr

Edit by UM S110 class

Modeled the Wikipedia after Reddit's Wiki to discuss overview, business model, technology, community, demographics, controversies, and the box details needs revision. Current wiki page is very empty and needs the information outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huynhlm (talk • contribs)

The article was well-written and explained 9GAG in simple wording understandable to all. The Website overview and Website culture sections accurately describe the website. There is good detail in the Business model section and the Mobile application section. However, there should be some photographs in the article to better illustrate what it is and how it works. Also, keeping in line with how Wikipedia articles are usually written, there should be more hyperlinked words (the blue, clickable words seen in Wikipedia articles that takes one to other articles) in this article. Amirudinaa (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Amirudinaa

Original Research Tag

I added the original research tag as it appears that a good bit of content has been synthesized from the original source. We go by what the source says, we don't editorialize it. For example, two paragraphs in website overview seem evident of this. Please don't remove it until all the problems are fixed. Tutelary (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well yes Tutelary, I noticed that most of the first parts does kinda have been synthesized from some of the materials available from the source. But do we just go ahead and take out those parts since the first few refs are all self published copy from the company with references back to the company resources, or do we we remove "those" references and piece together simple info and look for secondary or tertiary sources if they might be able to be found?

I have been doing some research about the company itself today, and have some other items that I have found with strong verifiable sources. I am going to be working on trying to fix that 1st problem you note as OS. Any others suggestions on how to fix that problem are welcomed here. Please let me know if there are any other parts of the article that you think need work. I would be happy to collaborate with you to try and fix problems and make the article better, free of OS, and have good and strong reliable verifiable sources throughout. You may certainly leave a message on my talk page, but the email through wikipedia does get to me faster usually. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal Request + possible new hope for this article

All of the past drama regarding this article aside, I think it would be a good idea to remove the whole Controversy section- the two paragraphs under "Authorship Controversies" do not contain any valid citations, and unless someone can get a valid source on the info, I would think it best to just remove it.

On another note, my job has me in close contact with dutch nationals who are fluent in both english and dutch, and I'm looking into asking them to translate parts of the dutch article that can be properly inserted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdb8900 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Reading the controversy section, it's full of original research, but when I just did a small bit of research, I found at least 3 citations. However, as it sits, it stands to be removed. When I get home, I'll remove it entirely and start from scratch, going directly from the citations that I find. Tutelary (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Founders

Uh, just thought you might want to know that Christian Chandler isn't a co-founder of 9GAG. --71.220.94.54 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Technology?

Is the technology section really that important? Not only are the technologies used pretty much the standard for most websites, it's also not needed in order to explain what 9GAG is.. --Benimation (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed section, because I agree that the information is not unique or worthwhile to know about regarding 9GAG. --ScottCarmichael (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (CST)

delete

delete article

9gag steals content 2601:7:5380:5DC:D82B:6211:47CD:A94 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of the title

It seems the article was moved to "9gag" earlier per a requested move citing MOS:TM, but Merovingian moved the page back to "9GAG" on March 29, 2013, with no reason specified and no explanation given here either. Unless I missed something, I see no reason not to follow the MOS here. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits regarding allegations of censorship and copying content

There appears to be a bit of an edit war happening over allegations of 9GAG removing comments in it's comment sections and copying content from other websites. These edits don't usually come with citations and are reverted, but it's a common statement added to the article recently, and I think we need to come to consensus over what to do with it.

Some examples of these edits include:

"The website takes content from sites like Reddit, 4chan, Newgrounds, SomethingAwful, and others and places 9GAG's watermark on the picture, removing evidence of the original poster."

"The website is widely known for content stealing from other sites like Reddit, 4chan, funnyjunk, and various other websites, and placing 9GAG's watermark on the picture, censoring every evidence of the original poster. Based on this fact, "Cyber Wars" between these sites occurred, resulting some of the sites' servers to go down for some time."

"9Gag is closely controlled by the administrators. They steal posts from all around the internet, mostly from reddit, and delete comments/posts at will. Trying to warn 9gaggers about this is useless, they will never see your comments. Here are some known facts: Almost 20% of the images found on 9gag were taken from reddit. Most of the images found on 9gag's front page were uploaded by the administrators of the website. All of the posts made by the administrators were taken from other websites, mainly reddit. All of the posts made by the administrators receive automatic upvotes as soon as they are submitted. Certain words such as "reddit" or "repost" are filtered, and comments/posts that contain them are deleted. Images stolen by 9gag are watermarked with the 9gag logo, even though they were not generated by them."

I believe we should remove these statements until they have reliable sources and meet WP:NPOV, but before we come to a conclusion we should stop adding/removing the statements. (completely optional, but edit warring gets us nowhere) Maybe a would be a compromise for now?

Sunmist3 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I've removed some of that same content again. Sorry about that, I should've held off until reading this. It was a big problem, though, and it really, really needs reliable sources. A list of terms that 9gag censors from comments based on personal tests is original research and isn't going to work here. There are some sources talking about this already in the article, though. Uproxx is one, and it's damning. I don't know how reliable Uproxx is, but it looks like it's maybe better than nothing. Here's one that's not already there, a slate article talking about the site's Instagram account. There's some stuff out there, but not a lot, and it's a bit tricky to compile into article content. Funny... good content is difficult to make, so it's easier to just "aggregate" from better sources. Anyway, the article's a mess, but I don't think slamming them based on personal experience is the way to fix it. It's not going to make people dislike 9gag, it's just going to make people not bother reading the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Repost Machine

I removed some inappropriate external links from this article's section on the 9GAG Repost Machine earlier. This entire section is unsourced, though, and it entirely seems like original research to me. Does this section really belong in the article? 9gagger Frank (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this really, really should be supported by reliable sources, not original research or user speculation, so I removed it. The few sources out there do suggest that there is something to this, though. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bloomberg

please change ((Bloomberg)) to ((Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:218:8BFF:FE74:FE4F (talk • contribs)

 Done Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2018

Change "9 years ago" in founded to "10 years ago" 84.82.3.120 (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hhkohh (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2018

As of July 2018, 9GAG has 33 employees out of which 30 are based in Hong Kong and 3 are based out of their New York office. Anjalikumar93 (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018

THIS TEXT

"Note ^a As of November 2007, it reached more than 38.3 million Facebook likes [22] 13.9 million Twitter followers[23] and 42.6 million followers on Instagram[24]"

Makes no sense since Instagram was not there in 2007. So its a lie! 197.250.101.167 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed That was supposed to read as "....... November 2017,...", all the sources referenced there cite the 2017 figures. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2019

Alexa Rank 328 as of 8/26/2019 PepperManP (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 17:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

Critical voices

In his 2014 work "Building Identity and Building Bridges Between Cultures: The Case of 9gag", the linguist Albin Wagener examined 446 posts found on 9gag's hot-page. Of these, 40 were clearly discriminatory, accounting for 8.97%. Most of the discriminatory posts were misogynist (57.5%), followed by cultural discrimination (25%) and homophobia (12.5%). According to Wagener, 9gag would bring together people in an international context, but through masculine and heterosexual symbolism and the devaluation of other groups. In addition, there is a large number of anti-vegan, speciesist posts that marginalize animal liberation activists by reproducing heteronormative ideologies. A common strategy is to attribute homosexuality and disease to them. Furthermore, the teenagers confirm each other's masculinity with posts that show meat dishes, female breasts, soldiers and homophobic quotes. Facts about man-made climate change are mostly denied. When people speak out for gender equality, for the equality of different ethnic groups or against animal cruelty, they are marginalized with hate speech.

Tokasda (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning criticism of the site's culture would be fine, but we shouldn't overemphasize a single study. We should maybe try to find other sources so that we could summarize them. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: Abridged, but it's still encyclopedic. Sceptre (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:9GAG/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this will be a quick fail. There are way too many major issues and the article is far from being near to good article status.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Starting off with the main problem — 3a or major aspects. The article's history section is too brief and it covers nothing pertaining to the subject after 2015, which would cover half of its history. The explanation of its early history could be improved and expanded as well. The same is applicable for the next section "Content and authorship" — which also fails 3b or that it is not focused properly, and 4 or that it is not a fair representation without bias. The section does not even cover the topic of followers or the website's sub-sections or the usage of bots to boost likes — all things that should be in a section which is titled that. Rather, it strays off in the second paragraph which is essentially criticizing the platform, and this circles back to my initial point that it fails 3a; that is, it does not cover every major aspect. The article is about a topic that has been the center of many controversies — enough for it to have a separate "Controversies" section of its own — and it does not even have a "Critical reception" section. Because of this, it also fails 4; which is that the article is not a neutral or fair representation of the topic. Also, there should be another section discussing its voting process and how the content is created, along with its different communities.

Another significant issue is its referencing — failing 2a and 2b, which are its reference section formatting and citations to reliable sources respectively; the major problem being with the latter. A lot of sources used in the article are primary sources and will need to be switched out for third party or independent sources — which should be possible for a platform as visible as this. Apart from that, some sources that are not primary sources in the article have questionable reliability. Sources that are generally considered to be reliable — and would discuss a website like this — would come from reputed websites, magazines, journals, news outlets, etc. A few of the references will need to be replaced by more reliable sources. All of this would fall under 2b. For 2a, the references will need to be properly formatted using additional parameters.

Other issues include a short lead, relatively poor quality of prose, absence of its logo or logos of sub-9GAG websites, no supporting images or screenshots of its main page, and some odd phrasing which will require copyediting — sentences like "Starting the company under a "Just for Fun" mentality" should really be phrased differently. But even this is a relatively minor point compared to other significant problems the article has. I hope this will help. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)