Talk:8chan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Heavily biased sources being used for misinformation and broad generalizations & unsourced material

The Daily Dot should be deemed unsuitable for use as a source, as it contains falsified information written for propagandist purposes. Specifically, the article states, "On numerous public forums, 8chan users share graphic images of children, plus links to hardcore child pornography. No content is hidden. Thousands of posts are accessible within two clicks of the homepage.", which demonstrates an apparent lack of knowledge on the subject at hand, and 8chan.co as a whole. However, the article does attempt to inform their audience on the vast majority of the userbase, such as "The site’s biggest boards are not pedophile-centric. Instead, many of 8chan’s most active boards are political.", while failing to discuss the implication of many 8chan users actively and publicly voicing resentment to the 'pedophile-centric' boards, as made evident by daily discussion seen on the site.

Gawker being used as a source is completely laughable. Any research done by the article contributors will show that Gawker is one of the heads of the Gamergate controversy, so using them as a source would be comparable to vandalizing the 9/11 Wikipedia page with false information sourced to an article written by Al-Qaeda.

The line "On one such board, users dismiss any idea of complaint against said images, referring to users who disagree against sharing said material as 'moralfags', a term centered around dismissal of said concerns of misconduct or illegal content or plain objection." should be omitted. It demonstrates very strong Confirmation bias, as the majority of users give heavy complaint against those (legal) images. Not only this, the line also adds even more false propagandist definitions. A 'moralfag' is a user who's post clearly shows and represents their own personally held belief of right and wrong, also known as Morality, not "dismissal of concerns of misconduct or illegal content." Any illegal content on 8chan is removed immediately by moderators and volunteers, with reports speeding up this process.

Lastly, the line "The website also hosts boards where pedophiles discuss child grooming techniques and other such things." should also be omitted. This is completely false(ref)"Browse 8chan Boards". Boards on ∞chan. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)(/ref), and a fabrication by the contributor to benefit their stance, showcasing strong Disinformation. Straaado (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Daily Dot is a weak source to make such bold claims and linking people to pedophilia Loganmac (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Daily Dot is actually a standard source. If the link to Frederick Brennan is the issue, I'll promptly remove his name, but I believe hsi commentary on the matter (specifically relating the boards specficially) is relevant. Additionally, for the rest of it, is proper original research and cannot be used. Again, we need sources, not just dissent against what is written. I tried to stick pretty closely to the source. Tutelary (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: His commentary is relevant. Most definitely. Although, "Additionally, for the rest of it, is proper original research and cannot be used. Again, we need sources, not just dissent against what is written." I'm perfectly accepting of not adding extra information. Theres still the issue of the already included unsourced misinformation, You can't leave in irrelevant, false, unsourced information, especially with the drastic weight they carry. It's showing very strong hypocrisy. Straaado (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you feel is unsourced? Tutelary (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: It's in the scary post right above you. Straaado (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to note that the information from this source has been systematically whittled down to the point where I was just reverted for putting a "dubious" tag on a blatantly false claim cited to this source when it in fact says the opposite. TiC ^(talk) 05:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You put the dubious tag after "although the sharing of sexually explicit photos of minors is against site rules", and like I said in my edit summary, there is nothing dubious about that since anyone can go and look at the site rules to confirm that. I had not seen this talk page discussion before and I had not formed any opinion about Daily Dot and it's use in this article. Your last edit is fine by me. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I misinterpreted the motivations for your edits. You got taken in by previous POV pushing rather than being a POV-pusher yourself. I made a bad assumption and I'm sorry. TiC ^(talk) 06:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Self-Contradictory Sentence

″In January 2015, the site changed its domain 8chan.co to 8ch.net after multiple people filed reports complaining to 8chan’s registrar that the message board hosted child pornography. Despite regaining the domain, the site remained at 8ch.net, with the old domain redirecting to it.[6]" The old domain was 8ch.net. I think you meant to write that 8chan.co is the current domain, and that 8ch.net redirects to it now?IAmNitpicking (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The old domain was not 8ch.net, the original domain was 8chan.co, and it was changed to 8ch.net, which was not registered until sometime in 2014 or 2015. 104.243.247.57 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Free software category

Is this category relevant? Category:Free software programmed in PHP The article says nothing about the software being Free. — Strongjam (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

See: https://github.com/ctrlcctrlv/infinity. If it's not mentioned in the article it probably should... --Fixuture (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

8chan is a website, http://infinitydev.org/ is the free software. They're two different things and the latter is not mentioned in the article; 8chan itself is not "free software" so the category doesn't apply. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is an AGPL Web application, so the Web site is also the software, not just a Service. Infinity was created with the expressed purpose of cleaning up 8chan code base (README.md). The above-linked repo is ctrlcctrlv's (copypaste/Brennen) branch/fork which runs in Production; not current mainline. If we walk backwards through Category:Wikipedia, we emerge at Category:Free software. Canonical's Launchpad is a Web site, Service, infrastructure, free software product and project. At the very least this should be categorized Category:Free web software; I've been bold in doing that. -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing for Trump campaign section

Fellow editors, I have reverted the addition of the following Time source, on the basis that for the portions which verify the article text it solely reproduces another source. Mic, which we already use. Time:[1] Mic:[2] Thoughts on inclusion or exclusion? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well it also cites NBC news and has a standalone paragraph I was going to cite, but in the end I found a NYT article that covers the same bit, so at this point I'm ambivalent on it's inclusion. — Strongjam (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We should probably be going direct with both the Mic and the NBC News aspects. The new NYT article wants in text attribution. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The new NYT article wants in text attribution Why? Its not an opinion, and its not in dispute. WP:ASSERT says just to assert it. — Strongjam (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it? It does look very much like an opinion piece; though opinion pieces can contain fact, and factual news can contain opinion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not an opinion piece, it actually was a cover article on the July 14th paper. - Strongjam (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It really does look very, very much like an opinion piece. Terribly so. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Looking back over the Mic source, it traces the image back to a Twitter account, @FishBoneHead1, which tweeted the image on June 15, 2016, a week before the post on 8chan's /pol/ board. It would be remiss for us not to mention this; as it may lead the reader to an erroneous belief as to the provenance of the image. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of the sources do mention that, it should probably be worked into the prose somehow. — Strongjam (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how we can do other than chronologically. The Mic article, of course, does not; but it has an essence of detective work in its outlook - unraveling the strands to go back through time to the source. We don't really have the luxury of such poetic heights. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversies: /pol/ - Do we have enough sources for a section?

Fellow editors, On a related note, do we have enough sources for a separate section on the /pol/ board? A number of sources make assertions of racism, white supremacy et al. Is this isolated to 8chan, or is there an extant 4chan /pol/? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to add this information, which was repeatedly deleted, despite being well sourced. 8chan's pol board is specifically mentioned in at least one of the sources.

In July of 2016, US presidential candidate Donald Trump tweeted an image of Hillary Clinton with a background of money and a six pointed star, seen by some as resembling the Star of David containing the message "Most corrupt candidate ever". The image had originally been posted to 8chan's /pol/ board. The New York Times called 8chan a "website for the 'alt right,' an internet-based movement associated with white nationalism".

Benjamin (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 8chan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125135937/http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/full-transcript-ars-interviews-8chan-founder-fredrick-brennan/ to http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/full-transcript-ars-interviews-8chan-founder-fredrick-brennan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

In the "El Paso shooting" section, correct a spelling error in the phrase "and recided its support for 8chan" by changing "recided" to "rescinded". 104.33.199.165 (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Benjamin (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

The site is currently down. It is widely reported that they have been dropped by Cloudflare, their DNS provider. 2601:782:400:9E4A:9863:4307:39E3:40CC (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 23:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

8Chan Owner States El Paso Shooter Never Posted Manifesto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKPdbEAmWGE https://www.cnet.com/news/8chan-owner-says-el-paso-shooter-didnt-post-manifesto/ Current owner of 8Chan, Jim Watkins, retired late 50s Army veteran living in the Philippines, states that the manifesto was originally and solely posted on Instagram. Then, someone unrelated, posted it on 8Chan to laugh at it. It was deleted shortly after by staff, and authorities were informed. The owner states that the FBI has confirmed this. "We have always been in compliance with the law, and have always been aggressively forthcoming to help law enforcement of it. There are about 1 million users of 8Chan; 8Chan is an empty piece of paper for writing on. It is disturbing to me that it can be so easily shut down." Any in manner, the owner vows to restore 8Chan through another provider in the next coming days, and has received multiple offers. 2601:982:4200:A6C:F0D7:F213:2962:FF3 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an extremely important part of the story. 8chan is being attacked and deplatformed for the shooter posting a manifesto there, when the shooter actually used Instagram. The site admin has been working with law enforcement and has made them aware of this, so the Wikipedia page should reflect it. Sniper Fox (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The CNet source has been updated to focus on Instragram denying the accusation. More generally, we have to go by what the majority of reliable sources say; they don't, generally, agree with Watkins, and most don't seem to be paying attention to his claims at all, which implies they're not taken seriously by the press. --Aquillion (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It should be on Instagrams wikipage then in the controversies section HardeeHar (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Cloudflare change

https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

Cloudflare has decided to stop posting 8chan. This was mentioned in footnote 47 I believe

Seems relevant. Benjamin (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"as with"

As with unaffiliated imageboard 4chan, the site is linked to harmful activism ...

Does this sentence mean that 8chan is linked both with 4chan and with harmful activism? Or do people write as with because they're nervous about like? —Tamfang (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Dayton shooting

Why does the article mention the August 4th Dayton shooting in the sentence about 8chan being taken off the clearnet? As far as we know, that shooting had nothing to do with 8chan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samspore (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems that a fair number of sources mentioning the shooting and 8chan also mention the Dayton shooting. Because the shootings were so soon after one another, they seem to have made a stronger impact and almost considered one event by some news articles. It's less that the Dayton shooting was in any way related to 8chan, but rather the reaction to the El Paso shooting was perhaps made stronger by the other shooting so soon after it. I see the argument for not including it in this article, but I also see why it's mentioned in tandem. If I had to register a !vote it would be to remove the mention of the Dayton shooting, but it makes sense to wait for other opinions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

QAnon section in article

"With a flood of new users on the board, Q asked Ron to upgrade the website's servers"

Who or what is 'Ron' - can't find a mention elsewhere in the article. Maybe I'm dumb... Cannonmc (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cannonmc, At 8chan#History it says "Brennan himself officially resigned in July 2016, turning the site over to its owner, Jim Watkins and his son, Ron", Maybe somewhere in the lede it should include Jim and Ron as if no one reads the whole top half of the article no one's going to know. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 13:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that that's really confusing. I've added a little more explanation: [3] GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you that's cleared up a point for me Cannonmc (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article and rewriting the lede

Since it seems that this is a bigger issue than just a navigation template, I have started a new section.

I dispute this rewording. Many sources link the site to racism and anti-Semitism. Some use these specific phrases, and some do not. Many sources do not specifically say racist, but say white supremacist or white nationalist. This is, fundamentally, racist, and this would be the simplest way to summarize this without getting bogged down in euphemisms and word-games. Attributing this description as a quote implies that it is one source's subjective opinion, or that this is an unusual or significant way to describe the site. It is not. We should accept that when many reliable sources describe a topic in a certain way, as a factual matter, they know what they are talking about. Based on these sources, we should summarize in our own words.

As an extension of this, I was planning to expand the article to create a 'content' section, and to move some of the controversies to that section. "Controversies" could then be renamed "notable incidents". Everything about this site is "controversial", including most of the content in the "history" section. Arranging the article in just these two sections is misleading about why the site is notable. By arranging to explain what it actually is, and what is posted on it, and then introducing specific examples, the article will be clearer and more neutral, per WP:CSECTION.

Since this was tripping over edit conflicts, perhaps other people will comment on whether or not this approach makes sense. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

My edit was an attempt to make the wording more neutral, but since the site has been described as a "cesspool of hate" it may be difficult to find the right balance. In response to your point about reorganizing the article, I am in broad agreement with your approach, if we can both try to assume good faith than we can easily work together on this. Lmatt (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we probably could've worked together on this, but edit warring prevented that. I'm not sure why removing traits from the lede was intended to be more neutral, but I do not accept that.

Who described it as a cesspool of hate? I agree, but why is that one off-hand description the best one for the lede? Is Cloudflare's CEO an expert on hate groups? Again, using a subjective quote as the foremost way to convey a point is implying to readers that this is a subjective point. Again, I agree that this idea can be included in the lede, but not the way in which it's being done.

The site is/was rife with conspiracy theories, but that's not all. Sources discuss the site's general racism and antisemitism in broad terms. To put this another way, sources accept that 8chan is racist in a broad array of ways, and they now treat this is a fact, not an opinion.

To complicate things more, the site's connection to conspiracy theories isn't limited to racism and antisemitism, as the sections on Gamergate/pizzagate/QAnon explain. (These theories are also frequently racist or antisemitic, but not universally defined as such by sources). For this reason, I really don't think it's helpful to add two different links to List of conspiracy theories in the lede. That list-article's coverage of relevant theories is sparse, and its usefulness to readers in this context is limited.

Additionally, "harmfull internet vigilantism" is offensively euphemistic and misleading, as well as soft-selling their behavior. Is swatting supposed to be vigilantism, or was this doxxing? Surely not the mass shootings, right? Where in the article is this term supported? Which source supports "vigilantism"? Who is the target of this vigilantism? Vigilantism is also not supported by the attached source, or did I miss it? Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism template

I have attempted to revert the the addition of the Antisemitism sidebar as this article does not provide any context which would justify its use, but I have been reverted repeatedly:

• @Beyond My Ken: "Undid revision 915002191 by Lmatt (talk)" [4]
• @Grayfell: "Undid revision 915005969 by Lmatt (talk) It discusses the alt-right and a synagogue shooting." [5]
• @Grayfell: "Undid revision 915025600 by Lmatt (talk) If you're not willing to discuss on the talk page, stop edit warring." [6]

There appears to be consensus on Talk:4chan § Antisemitism template not include the template on that article:

It isn't in dispute that there is a ton of antisemitic material on the site, but there is also material attacking blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, anyone the alt-right dislikes. The problem with this edit is that it gives excessive prominence to something that is not discussed and cited in the article.
— User:Ianmacm 16:54, 10 September 2019

8chan also appears to be linked to the alt-right which is why it is rightly included in the Alt-right navbox at the bottom of the page, but similarly to 4chan I don't believe the Antisemitism sidebar is justified in this article. Lmatt (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It is surreal that the article doesn't mention 8chan's anti-Semitism. This is a gap in the article which needs to be corrected, since this is a defining trait according to a large number of sources. I will add some of those now, so be patient. Since articles are works-in-progress, if the template is what has prompted the article to be updated, so be it. It's not the ideal approach, but the end result is the improvement of the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, could you remove the template until the coverage in the article justifies its use? Lmatt (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No, because you and I are not the only ones involved, so that would also be edit warring. I asked you to be patient. The article will need some more serious work. See my comments below. Once this is resolved, choosing which templates apply will be much simpler. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the Antisemitism sidebar is that it is large and ends up saying something that is already in the alt-right template.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Having both is somewhat redundant, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The alt-right and antisemitism are different, overlapping topics. I think an expansion of this article will help to explain how 8chan is specifically connected to antisemitism.

As for Template:Antisemitism, this isn't be the place to discuss which links belong there and which don't. Still, compared to other listed articles like Jew Watch or William Luther Pierce (and both of his novels) this website seems comparably significant. Tomorrow I will work on expanding this article, per below, and either the template will make more sense, or it won't. Grayfell (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism sidebar still on page; shouldn't be the case.

I do think it is not appropriate to have the Antisemitism sidebar on this page. 8chan never stated that Antisemitism was its mission. 8chan only allowed a place for Antisemites to congratulate. Playing devil's advocate, if allowing a place for Antisemites to congregate makes that place Antisemitic, then there are a good number of public places such as parks and other municipal property that should also have the Antisemitism sidebar add to the respective wiki pages. By the same errant logic all of Germany and Poland should have Antisemitism sidebar add to there pages because that is were the The_Holocaust took place mainly. The Antisemitism sidebar needs to be removed because it has nothing to do with 8chan proper. Antisemites were (are on the dark web) only a part of the user base of 8chan.

Thinking out load, it may be a good idea to spawn a new pages for the culture of 8chan. Such a page would make sense to include Antisemitism sidebar, as Antisemitism were part of the users of 8chan. This page could also go into detail about the number of other sub-cultures that used 8chan. 8chan culture could include a more detailed account of how the site was alt-right and what antisemitic activity happened on the site. There were also boards for cos-players and Hikikomori which makes casting the whole of 8chan as alt-right and antisemitic miss-leading to readers. I don't want to stick my nose out too far here, but it might be a good idea to try to keep the wiki neutral in the face of popular media's opinions of 8chan and how its users don't fit into the media's narratives in general. Practically, that would only mean making a clear distinction between the governance of 8chan (8chan proper) and the people who chose to use it. The same way that 8chan was more than solely an antisemitic rag, very politically liberal news out lets do well researched stories. This naturally leads to questions about alt-right. Because 8chan ownership didn't take an active place in encouraging minority conservative views, instead leaving them uncensored. (I know, Pinkhats shutter the world over.) Because of 8chan uncensored stance, it would be perhaps better to consider including 8chan as part of Libertarian-ism and not part of the alt-right. Again, I think a wiki page navigating these sensitive topics regarding the user base of 8chan is warranted.

Seamus M. Slack (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Was" vs "Is"

The lede currently says that "8chan was..." a website. It is clear from the rest of the article that while the website's clearnet presence is down (possibly for good), it still exists on the darkweb. So, referring to 8chan in the past tense is incorrect. It should be "8chan is..." a website. I made this change but it was reverted without comment by Ehuang3190. Thoughts? Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I just want to add that the chance of them not finding another clearnet site is virtually nil. People jumped up and down when Gab went offline, (insisting on the "was" terminology), and Daily Stormer as well for that matter. There are always lines of providers ready to take them up. 2601:982:4200:A6C:F0D7:F213:2962:FF3 (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if it never exists on the clearnet again, the fact that it currently exists somewhere should be enough to save it from the past tense. But you're right, these controversial websites always find new hosts eventually. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that it should be "is". I've just changed it back, again, with a note to discuss here before changing it to "was". GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL obviously becomes involved here, but is there any sign of if and when the site is coming back? It has not been available on the clearweb or Tor for weeks, but the article is still talking about 8chan as though it is an active website. This can't continue indefinitely.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit: It is possible that the site will return under the name of 8kun but it is early days. If it did, the resulting site would be more like "Son of 8chan" than the original site and should probably have its own article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Current URL

I had edited the page to add the current URL of this website, but my change was reverted. The current URL for this website is https://8kun.net. I am not sure why it was removed, since the other URLs are marked as dead. There is no article for the newly relaunched 8kun so it makes sense to put a live link on the page.

Amorrn (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I've just tried to visit https://8kun.net/ and it looks to be down; maybe they are having some teething problems at the moment. The sourcing agrees that this is a relaunch with a new name rather that a different site. I'll be interested to see it when it actually works:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

And still waiting to visit the site, although theoretically it has been live for a week. No server response from the site, stone dead at the moment. The domain 8kun.net was registered on 12 September 2019. The Wayback Machine has some snapshots of the site when it was actually working, such as here on 5 November. It looks as though 8kun.net may have run into difficulties which have prevented the site from going live, such as arguments over the domain registration and/or hosting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

8kun.top

Re this edit: it seems uncontroversial that the site has returned at https://8kun.top and also on Tor at jthnx5wyvjvzsxtu dot onion which is also working OK. The only problem is that the MSM doesn't seem to have caught up with this yet. They have noted that 8kun.net went offline a few days after its launch [7] but don't seem to have found 8kun.top. 8chan's official Twitter page still says 8chan.net, which isn't very helpful.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Motion to have page protection upgraded to Semi-protected status

header

Template:Protection_table

8chan Talk Page

Edit warring directly mentioned 2 times, referanced 1 time, appeares a total of 3 times on talk page to date.

8chan article history to-date

Starting in 2019-08 and continuing to 2019-10 (present), there has been a high rate of edits from either young accounts or not logged in users which were then subsequently reverted after the edit had been added.

It's up HardeeHar (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It's up/active HardeeHar (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

main

I would like to moviton for the page 8chan to be upgraded to Semi-protected status. Currently the page has Pending changes protection. The suggested change is inline with the conditons for what Semi-protected status is appropriate for and the conditions observed in the page being nominated for the status. 8chan is a very contraversal topic and can attract less the good-faith edits. Such edits have already been obsered on the history page. Given the further likely hood of the page's topic to garner Anti-social edits, changing the Protection status is warranted.

Seamus M. Slack (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Antisocial edits? What does that even mean. -Splinemath (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Wayback Machine removal of 8chan archived images following the El Paso Shooting

So, I noticed that Wayback Machine/Internet Archive removed all the 8chan images files that they had archived (the images under the https://media.8ch.net address), the archived posts themselves are still available but without the images. Isn't this worth mentioning? I think so, but I usually don't write wikipedia articles, just some info that I found out and couldn't find anywhere in this article. You guys can check for yourselves:

Try to access any 8chan image archived on wayback machine, like this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20190705152625/https://media.8ch.net/file_store/266b0f66d9fbc4e10ea018bc52e8c924427c44db82ecfa4b60ec699ccbc42557.jpg

And you'll see the following message: "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."

Since there were people archiving the Wayback Machine 8chan archived posts in other services, such as Archive.Today, until at least 7 August 2009, they obviously allowed images to be archived on wayback machine before the event, as you can see here: https://archive.li/35nIh

Anyway, what you guys think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric120212 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The message "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine" could have various possible reasons, and deliberate censorship is only one of them. Sometimes a robots exclusion standard (often known as robots.txt) specifies that some things should not be archived. There is original research here, and it is hard to say why the images do not show up on the Wayback Machine. I've come across some archived websites on the Wayback Machine where the images did not display correctly, but did not assume that censorship was the cause.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "deliberate censorship", I simply state the fact that the images were archived there and now they aren't. Although the time-frame is very suspicious, isn't? The archived images were available on wayback machine until before the shooting (again, we know that because there were people re-archiving 8chan images archived on wayback machine on other services, such as Archive.Today), and then all of sudden are taken down? If you don't want to state "oh, wayback machine censored the image", ok, but isn't worth to mention, at least, that "hey, the images were there until X days and sometime after this day they were removed for some reason?" Eric120212 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I've seen that happen, too, especially with websites that use a different address for storing images. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be original research to discuss the removals if they have not been discussed elsewhere in reliable sources. It is not up for us to look at an event like that and decide it is relevant to the Wikipedia article -- if a reliable source decides it is worth discussing then we can consider adding it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is noteworthy at all, and including it would absolutely be original research.--Jorm (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine admins may remove material such as terror propaganda videos, or if the copyright owner objects.[8][9] However, there is a clear WP:OR problem with the El Paso material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This certainly fails WP:OR because there are no secondary sources for the phenomenon.-Splinemath (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Eric120212: Although the time-frame is very suspicious, isn't? -- see RationalWiki's "Just Asking Questions" for why we're going to assume you believe there was deliberate censorship. Now, you might say "but I really don't," but then why does it matter that the images aren't there anymore? Like I said, it happens pretty often with websites where the images were stored separately from the main website -- which wouldn't be a particular issue for this article but maybe (if a reliable source complained about this oversight by Internet Archive) for the article on Internet Archive. I can't begin to think of any stance from which this issue would be relevant to this article except from the perspective that there's censorship going on. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

New site

Apparently they had a new sight - 8kun HardeeHar (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

See the above section. The key word here is "apparently". I've just had a look at https://8kun.net/ this morning and it still isn't up. Watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Following the links in Wikipedia directs to content which is illegal both internationally and in th United States. Wikipedia should have an 8chan entry but it should not redirect (and thereby become a search engine) for child pornography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Move article from 8chan to 8kun?

The new name of the site is 8kun, so the article should be moved to reflect that. 8chan will continue to exist as a redirect. Any objections? Sebastian^{Talk | Contrib.} - 23:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES I think that would be premature. Even the sources discussing the name change (DailyDot, CNET, Vice) address that the site is trying to rebrand, but then continue to refer to the site as "8chan". A redirect from 8kun -> 8chan makes sense, but I oppose moving the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. You are right that is is still commonly referred to as 8chan, so it should go by the common name. Thanks for the info! Sebastian^{Talk | Contrib.} - 23:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a strange situation, because 8chan is still the WP:COMMONNAME even though the domain is now 8kun. The site's official Twitter page still shows 8chan, but they haven't updated the domain. Overall, I would keep the current article title per COMMONNAME..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism Sidebar

The Antisemitism sidebar should be removed, 8chan is an imageboard, nothing about it purposely attracts certain types of people or ideology. There's plenty of users and boards on the site that didn't talk about Antisemitism, it's misleading to users to include the sidebar. Even 8chan ownership and moderators didn't actively encourage this behavior, as it has a hands off approach with monitoring. 172.101.174.177 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It is cool that you believe that, but it's not the case.--Jorm (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This was my first instinct too, having not looked at Template:Antisemitism sidebar closely recently. But, since 8chan is currently on the template, the template does belong here. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't fully agree, Both 4-chan/pol/ are also listed on that template, yet neither 4-chan, nor /pol/ contain the template in their respective articles.Rody1990 (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian hosting

It ought to be mentioned that VanwaTech worked with a known cybercriminal to get 8chan briefly back online, and 8chan has used predominately Russian hosting since then.

Sources

• https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/11/breaking-the-law-how-8chan-or-8kun-got-briefly-back-online/
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/8chan-new-name-8kun-web-forum-hate-speech/

Thanks. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 08:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Trains2050: Please justify your closure of this WP:ER. Both Ars Technica and CBS News are reliable sources. Outdated information is already in the article, at the end of § "August 2019 removal from clearnet". § "November 2019 return to clearnet" relies entirely on a WP:SPS and is {{cn}}-tagged. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: sorry wrong template, i was meaning that it does not meat Wikipedia natural point of view. many thanks Trains2050 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Trains2050: What sources did I miss? Is there a reason to think that Ars is wrong on how 8chan got back online? What reason would that be? Ars is one of the strongest sources we have for internet-related content: it has editorial control, a neutrality policy, and its authors are all subject matter experts. Remember: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. If the sources are clear on an issue, we can be clear. See also User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:after reviewing the article further I am convinced that this is valid and i give the go ahead for you to do the change but please adhere to a natural point of view. thanks Trains2050 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC) ps: i am sorry for any inconvenience caused. I just want to be make sure everything on Wikipedia is true.

@Psiĥedelisto: (edit conflict) Could you provide specific wording you were hoping to see added? See Wikipedia:Edit requests#General considerations #1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed—and I do apologize for not having wording here the first go round. I opened this one a while ago. I got better at it as I went, and opened ones against Talk:Fredrick Brennan, Talk:QAnon and Talk:4chan which were all accepted.

So, I'd strike the entire § "November 2019 return to clearnet" for relying on WP:SPSs and being {{cn}}-tagged, and rewrite it as:

After being blocked from Alibaba's network, and with their upstream host in legal trouble, Watkins packed 8chan's servers into a van and took them to an unknown location. This was later revealed to be in preparation for a move to the network "VanwaTech", owned by the founder of BitMitigate. Watkins claimed to have "no input in how [VanwaTech] [sets up] their routing". On November 5, 8chan, as 8kun, came briefly back online by using a bogon IP through Media Land LLC, known to be owned by Russian cybercriminal Alexander "Yalishanda" Volosovyk. Trouble getting online continued in the subsequent weeks, with Ronald Watkins telling The Wall Street Journal, "8chan is on indefinite hiatus," on November 16. That same day, the domain, 8kun.net, was suspended by its registrar, Tucows; it moved to a .top domain. As of March 3, 2020, Russian hosting providers are still in use.

@GorillaWarfare: Thanks for your consideration. Please note that I collaborated with Robert Evans (journalist) on the Evans2019 Bellingcat ref, but Evans wrote all the words. However, there was editorial control exerted both by him and Aric Toler, who I never met or spoke to. Thank you also Trains2050, no problem. Thank you for being reasonable. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@Psiĥedelisto: Thanks very much for the well-written suggestion. I'm working through verifying it now. Can you clarify the with their upstream host in legal trouble claim? I assume this is referring to VanwaTech, but I'm not sure I see any mention of legal trouble in the Bellingcat source. Nevermind, just realized this is referring to Centauri. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: (edit conflict) Sure! I meant Centauri, their old upstream with the tax paperwork issues, not VanwaTech, their new one. It's somewhat confusing...technically, if we want to get into the gory networking details, they have two upstreams. They have an upstream out to public, (a reverse proxy,) and then an upstream out of their server to the reverse proxy. So, when 8chan's servers were in N. T. Technology, Centauri brought the data from N. T. to CloudFlare. Centauri was, for a time, bringing the data from N. T. to Zare, Alibaba, Tencent, and so on. But after the tax issue, and the looming possibility of intervention by the State of California, they packed their backend servers up and stuck them elsewhere. See → Centauri is one of the few businesses that have not yet been shamed out of working with Jim Watkins due to his association with 8chan. In September, Brennan was able to verify through the California Secretary of State’s website that the business was listed as “SOS/FTB Suspended”. According to the California Franchise Tax Board, this means Centauri is “…not in good standing and loses its rights, powers, and privileges to do business in California.” Hehe, no problem. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I've worked your suggestions in to 8chan#Rebrand to 8kun and return to clearnet. Let me know if I've omitted anything important, or made any errors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done—Looks good to me. Thanks! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello GorillaWarfare! I was wondering if you would be so kind as to update it? The Guardian has reported that the Russian connection remains active as of October 2020. (Today.) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/19/far-right-online-forum-8chan-loses-internet Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:  Done. Changed the wording to "service providers" rather than "hosting providers" since it sounds like this is discussing DDoS protection specifically. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Website links

(Redacted) - the main website of 8kun

(Redacted) Here is the tor dark web link(maybe sometimes doesn't work or obsolete)

(Redacted) - And I also found that there is also an alternative(?) website in the name of "8chan"

See #Inclusion of the link to 8chan. The links are omitted because we've chosen not to include them, not because we can't find them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

proposed split

Rather than #Move_article_from_8chan_to_8kun? by User:Sebastian Hudak perhaps we should consider moving the content about the old website to 8ch.net and content about the new site to 8kun.top

This seems like more than a name+logo change as there were significant changes on the new site including:

• /pol/ is banned and replaced with /pnd/
• users can't make their own boards
• mass involvement in captcha for posting
• Watkins refuses to restore a lot of controversial boards

Maybe others I'm not aware of. It appears that a lot of users abandoned 8kun for other image board hosts, like Anon.Cafe or other various "chan" sites.

There's also 8chan.moe which appears to have appropriated the old name, kind of similar to how there are sites appropriating Encyclopedia Dramatica's name after it rebranded to Oh Internet in 2011. WakandaQT (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@WakandaQT: Have you got reliable sources describing these changes? I don't think there's sourcing to support a separate article about 8kun alone, and despite the changes you mention they are still largely the same website. If there is sourcing about these changes, I suspect they would be better described in this one article rather than split. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nah... Even if sources for these changes exist, they aren't nearly significant enough to warrant a split. We have articles such as Nokia, a 150-year old company that was started in the Russian Empire manufacturing toilet paper, moved to Finland and into rubber products, became the leading mobile phone company, split off the phone business and sold the brand name to Microsoft, saw that brand shut down, and now merrily continues to sell network equipment from Finland. All in one article. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(I have a COI.) The article shouldn't be split; all the reliable sources only talk about 8kun in the context of 8chan, and anyway they're still using my software, which they're legally required to acknowledge on the bottom of every page due to the open source licensing in place. A split would only serve to strengthen the position that 8kun is somehow a different website than 8chan, which it is not. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of the link to 8chan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some IP editors have recently begun edit warring over the inclusion of the external link to 8chan, so I figured I'd start a discussion here. I'm inclined to agree with them that we should not be linking to a website where we know child porn is hosted; while Wikipedia is not censored, we also don't want to be directing our readers towards viewing content that could put them into legal trouble (not to mention the personal moral implications of viewing such content). GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, 8chan does have a bit of a reputation in this area. Due to the nature of image boards, it is hard to say if and when child porn is hosted, but 8chan may not always be careful or prompt about removing it. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, 8chan is best known for the controversies over its links to mass shooters. 8chan is not a dark web site requiring a special browser, so anyone can click on the link to access the site with a standard browser.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Well it's certainly easy to say that child porn has been posted there, as we do say so in-article. Whether or not there is currently any there, I have no idea and certainly no intention of going to find out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. While indecent images have been hosted there it's worth mentioning that they are actively removed by moderators given that it's against the site's rules. Yes, it gets posted too often and sometimes the moderators are too slow to remove them, but calling the site explicitly a host for child porn is inaccurate. Furthermore, I think this an issue of the past rather than one of the present. Keep in mind that 8chan isn't the only site that has been guilty of this: 4chan itself has also been known to have CP posted and be slow to act on it, and yet we still link to them. — Czello 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the stuff posted on 8chan either. The moderators at 4chan are very strict about child porn and will remove it quickly. The problem is that the content on image boards is changing constantly, so you never know exactly what you will get.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

They're certainly more strict than they used to be -- at one point 4chan suffered similarly to 8chan. The content still is being removed on 8chan, however. I suppose the best comparison I can make is to say that 8chan isn't 12chan -- the later of which was explicitly there for child porn, whereas with 8chan it's an imageboard with slow-to-act moderators. — Czello 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Czello: Do you have a source for that? If that's the case we may need to update the article text. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Sorry, a source for which part specifically? — Czello 16:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Czello: All of it; that moderators actively remove it, that the site is not a host of child porn, and that it's a past issue rather than one of the present. The article currently says The site is also known for hosting child pornography and your comments suggest we should mention that that impression is based on a past version of the site. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, I'm afraid not. The only thing I can say in their "defence" is that illegal content is against the site's rules. Everything I've said is what I've heard anecdotally about the site (which I realise isn't proof of anything). I suppose what I'd be interested in is knowing whether it's an active distributor of CP. — Czello 16:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for clarifying. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A link to 8chan should definitely not be included and there really isn't any legitimate reason to do so. That site (and its offshoots) is actively monitored and surveilled by multiple law enforcement agencies around the world that most likely log each and every visitor. Whatever the mods there do or don't do is irrelevant. 8chan is viewed by international law enforcement on the same level as ISIS/ISIL and other terrorism sites. This shouldn't even be an issue as a simple Google search will reveal the extent of international law enforcement surveillance and monitoring of sites like 8chan. Laval (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, considering the nature of 8chan, I'm surprised this article isn't locked to prevent IP editing. Laval (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Query: is there actually any Wikipedia policy that would forbid linking to 8chan? — Czello 16:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELNO includes "Sites containing ... content that is illegal to access in the United States". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough; if the site is still prone to hosting illegal content then it's appropriate to remove the link. — Czello 17:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Czello and GorillaWarfare: WP:ELOFFICIAL explicitly overrides ELNO so I don't see anything that would forbid linking to it. There have been plenty of other discussions about legally questionable sites e.g. pirate bay, sci-hub, silk road which have concluded that we should include links to the sites. In this case, there's probably even less reason to not link, as I imagine that CP would only constitute a small portion of the content there. SmartSE (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an excellent point; I didn't realise that WP:ELOFFICIAL takes priority here. In which case I'd like to reiterate my belief the link should be included. — Czello 17:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Czello, there is no harm in leaving the link out while we are discussing things--and next time, please do not revert without an explanation. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

My reversion was to undoing edit warring; the IPs had been instructed to discuss this on the talk page and had clearly refused, so my actions were appropriate. — Czello 17:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but "reversion to undo edit warring" is a Contradictio in terminis, and all I am asking is that you EXPLAIN what you are doing. In an edit summary. That's not too much to ask. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Dude, relax. When there's an edit war going on it's pretty standard to revert to the status quo as per WP:BRD; and I think it's fairly self evident that's what the edit was (especially given that the IP had already been asked to take it to the talk page). It's not a big deal. — Czello 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This is one of those "err on the side of caution" debates for me. What hurts the project more: Removing the link, or leaving it? in this case, leaving it does open the can of worms slightly, as even Google will not return a link to 8chan when searched. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason why they are currently on the somewhat weird .top domain is because they were having difficulty finding any domain and web host that would have them after the various mass shooter controversies. The site is controversial to the point where even search engines are reluctant to tell you where it is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a very interesting conversation, however I'm having an issue with the line of reasoning here. We are arguing that because the site hosts illegal content, we should not provide a link. However, has anybody here presented evidence that the website itself still endorses the distribution of illegal content? As far as I can tell, the 8chan moderation team has cracked down on the distribution of illegal content and made it against site rules to distribute said content. If we are talking about removing a link to a site because users, against the wishes of the site's administration, break the rules and upload illegal content, then would that standard not be applicable to sites such as YouTube, Twitter, 4chan, Pornhub, etc...? Even though those sites clearly outlaw the posting of certain types of illegal content, illegal content is still often posted and sometimes it takes a very long time for moderators to remove said content. What makes 8chan different? Somebody above also mentioned sites like thepiratebay, which actively takes part in what many censors would call illegal, yet we still keep the site link active. Overall, I would argue that it doesn't make sense to remove links to sites like 8chan, and, frankly, it would also send a bad precedent. If Twitter says it does not allow for minors to post nudes on it's website, yet somebody finds a minor's nudes on the website, does that mean Twitter is complicit in the distribution of Child Pornography and should have it's link removed? Or does it mean that Twitter moderators were not alerted of that minor's nudes quickly enough? I think that we must determine that 8chan is STILL endorsing the distribution of child pornography before we remove their link on the basis that they endorse the distribution of child pornography. Sixfish11 (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree completely, and articulated better than I did previously. — Czello 19:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sixfish11: (I have a COI.) Let me try to explain. Here on Wikipedia, we ban open WP:PROXYs. m:No open proxies notes that paid proxies are included on this. Admins, bureaucrats and stewards make a concerted attempt to enforce this, regularly updating the list of IP blocks to cover newly allocated/reassigned IPs, as IPs are constantly in flux. WP:SCHOOLBLOCK makes it simpler to block a range from a school or university with a disruptive student, and historically reports were even made to network admins in a concerted effort, and are still often done by admins acitng on their own. This means that to be able to edit Wikipedia anonymously, you pretty much need to use a consumer ISP. IP's can't upload images, either. So, through many years of trial and effort, Wikipedia has clamped down on abuse despite allowing anonymous editing. As far as other social networks go, it's verification galore: phone number, email address, and IP blocks as well because every site has long-term abusers, not just Wikipedia.

4chan, also, requires Google CAPTCHA and blocks almost every VPN in existence, sometimes I've found them to be even stricter than Wikipedia. Now let's consider 8chan. No perceptual hash database, no PhotoDNA, no machine learning attempting to even identify child sexual abuse content (CSAM), all VPNs are pretty much allowed, there are barely any moderators, and a proud display of CDA 230 which allows doing the absolute minimum. Owned by Jim Watkins, who registered domains containing terms as suggestive as xxxpreteen going back to the 90's, according to Mother Jones.([10]) So, yes, are the rules technically against it? Sure. Do they act and delete specific images when asked by a quasi-governmental agency like NCMEC? Yes. But do they do anything substantive and proactive to actually stop this content? No, not to my knowledge. I had many ideas for improving these processes that Watkins all shut down as "not legally required", "too expensive", "why bother" etc. Etc. Deleting CSAM isn't enough when they do next to nothing to actually control who is using the website, and when they have no interest in placing any automated filter!

Read his Congressional testimony for yourself:([11]) Moderation is mostly done by volunteers. There are no algorithms for content moderation in place. All 8chan moderation relies on human volunteers and one automated “bot” account (called botmod) to remove illegal content and spam, automated or human, based only on keywords. They are proud of this! When a user can just repost it, and NCMEC or whoever has to file another report, ad infinitum, for us to close our eyes and say, "oh well that Jim sure is smart with his legal loopholes that allow his users to run rampant nonstop", and not consider the actual effect of what his administration has wrought, which is non-stop CSAM and every other sort of illegal content, including a user who has flagrantly and unlawfully impersonated a federal agent since 2018 with no ban in sight, is unconscionable. 8chan is not Twitter, YouTube, or PornHub. Watkins does the bare legal minimum and is proud of that. The link removal was the right decision. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Free Speech" which is constitutionally protected and "Unprotected Speech" which is not constitutionally protected. Unprotected speech is expressly forbidden under law.

A link to Child Pornography has the unwitting effect of making Wikipedia Editors, Users, and Administrators Law Breakers. Law Breakers in the worst sense because a single Cached image from an unintentional viewing of Child Pornography meets the standard for prosecution.

There is an obligation on the part of Administrators and Wikipedia to remove Child Pornography and other unprotected speech immediately on receiving notice. Notice was given when I made edits to the page (which were ignored by administrators) and in the talk pages. This was a process failure on the part of Wikipedia.

If you are linking to Child Pornography: why are you doing so? Why are you doing so here? Are you aware of the potential ramifications to yourself and others?

This is a very complex issue in law v freedom. There is enough depth on the 8Chan Wikipedia page to provide a reasonable overview of the topic. A link to unprotected speech in the form of Child Pornography does not add to an overview; instead it creates law breakers. (some intentional and other unintentionally)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative group process but for this kind of issue takedown has to occur swiftly from the point of notice. without discussion or time lag. There really is no ambiguity whatsoever in removing a link to Child Pornography. I tried to remove the link several times and was ultimately locked from Wikipedia edits on my cell phone. I was obligated to report this matter to the US DOJ and I copied the Wikimedia Foundation.

At issue is a Wikipedia process failure, with the correct end result. Suggest administrators speak to in house counsel who should develop a policy that can be followed regarding the reporting finding and removing of links directing to Child Pornography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(I have a COI.) Absolutely the link should be gone and stay gone. For one thing, all the related domains are totally blackholed from Google search. So, Wikipedia was one of the top referrers. For another thing, 8chan, since being absorbed into the Watkins empire, always has been absolutely dogshit at removing child sexual abuse materials. As I told Mother Jones, Watkins didn't and doesn't care. I had many ideas for improving the situation and they were all put off or rejected. The site is anonymous and allows VPNs to post... Without some kind of machine learning to classify images, and a database of perceptual hashes, as is used on all the major social networking sites today, it's going to be absolutely flooded constantly. What they do over there is the absolute minimum: per Watkins, as long as you comply with everything NCMEC sends your way, you never get shut down. That, at least, seems true. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: But if Twitter doesn't remove their page, which has an indirect link to 8kun, why would Wikipedia have to? Is it because it's okay to show the indirect link? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There are many reasons that links should not be in the article. We're trying to be decent humans first, keep users legally safe second, and improve the article third. Is the discussion now about whether or not we should include the site's Twitter as a WP:PRIMARY source? That's a good question. Otherwise Twitter is absolutely not the standard-bearer for ethical behavior, but this talk page is not the place to discuss that website's many, many problems. Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Just want to strengthen the consensus against inclusion of the link here with an argument from WP:IAR (to override WP:ELOFFICIAL): we are first and foremost an encyclopedia and it is not meaningful factual information to provide a link to a site with sporadic, varying content that includes child pornography, incitement to domestic terrorism, and content which degrades too many demographics to list here. It is no service to our readers to link to the website. There is no requirement for us to do so. — Bilorv (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The site is meaningful factual information to support and serve as evidence for what the article is talking about. I think it is enough reason to not show the direct link just because it is marginally harmful, not because it is meaningless/useless. In other words, I would accept removing 8kun.top by some other previous arguments. However, as I suggested previously, our concerns don't directly apply to their Twitter page, which is kinda clean by itself. It would be the closest possible to a primary source. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, being a primary source is usually a bad thing. Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources in almost all cases. We are not obligated to include information which is only supported by unreliable primary sources. Nothing which comes from 8chan (including 8chan's twitter account) can be assumed to be factual. Even for anodyne companies, we don't give promotional sources the benefit of the doubt. 8chan's Twitter account is primary, unreliable, and involved, so it is a very, very poor source. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alexiscoutinho: (I have a COI.) I'm not saying we have a legal requirement not to link to them, just a moral requirement and a strong case that not linking to them increases user trust and safety. The case of Twitter is in any case different for two reasons: (1) on Twitter, they're writing about themselves, not us about them; (2) that Twitter account can't really be updated to be about 8kun without giving the game away that 8chan == 8kun, so they have essentially abandoned it. It's likely that if they were still using it a lot Twitter would have banned it by now, I think. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: My layman's understanding of the issue leads me to question that we have a moral duty to avoid linking to the site; at the same time, I can't justify disagreeing with you about the telos of 8chan. Given that there is probably no person in the universe better qualified to speak on the history of the site, I am going to second your claims here (for those readers not paying close attention: Psiĥedelisto definitely knows more than you about this and should be given the benefit of the doubt on it). jp×g 15:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems pretty simple to me, wikipedia policy is not to link to child pornography. It's obvious that on Twitter, Youtube, and so forth, child pornography can still (and has been) be posted, but as it's against site policy, it's removed when the hosts find out about it. The same applies to 8chan, it has always been against the rules to post anything illegal in the United States, and this has always been enforced. If they were complicit in hosting illegal content on the open web, they'd have been taken down. You might think they don't take it seriously enough, or that it's filled with pedophiles anyways, but in the eyes of the law (and Google search is not the law), it's in perfectly good standing. I don't think it really makes sense to exclude the link unless it intentionally hosts child pornography.

And, to get a bit opinionated, I find the "moral" argument laughable. It's clearly just an attempt to censor by people who disagree with the politics of users of the site, and I think ye shouldn't be so thin-skinned. There's links on the stormfront and pornhub pages, isn't there? Stormfront is a white supremacist site, and pornhub has been involved in accusations of sex-trafficking, so why link to them, since they're obviously "bad people"? And for 8chan/8kun whatever it's called nowadays, it's always been difficult to find due to being censored by Google in particular, and I personally think it's important that if a user wants to check a site out for themselves, whether to research it first-hand, or *gasp* if they actually think they might like it, whatever you think of the site (and I, personally, think it's a terrible site), they should be able to use Wikipedia as a resource for that. Hehpillt28 (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The real no-no is linking to child pornography, an area in which 8chan/8kun has a questionable track record.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The RS do not support your description of 8chan's attitude toward child pornography. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi folks. Sorry for any confusion, but our guidelines are pretty clear here: "Websites maintained by notable people or groups should be linked in their article, per WP:EL, though linking to them from other articles may not be appropriate. If a website is in itself notable enough to have its own article, it should be linked from that article." Thanks! -- Kendrick7^talk 20:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Is your argument that child pornography is "external harassment"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There are numerous other sites where illegal content is posted by users and later removed, and we link to them. The difference is that 8chan is a highly politically controversial website; let's stop pretending it's not about that. On the other hand, some of those who want the link to stay removed have been transparent that their motivation is preventing others from using the site. For example, take Grayfell's argument that the primary reason is "to be decent humans first". Would we ever apply this same logic to the choice to display the graphically violent cover art of The Dawn of the Black Hearts? No, because filtering others' ability to use the site through our personal codes of moral behaviour is a textbook definition of censorship of the sort our principles forbid. Replace the link. 50.0.172.144 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Which are the websites known for hosting child porn that we link to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter for one. Just like 8chan however, they remove it when they find it, as it's the law. I see no difference. Hehpillt28 (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not how sourcing describes 8chan's approach towards child porn at all. If there is indeed a similar proportion of coverage describing Twitter as being known for the child porn hosted there, then I would see the argument; however the article makes no mention of it. Either they are missing a lot of sources (in which case you should consider pointing it out to them at Talk:Twitter), or it's a very dissimilar situation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

May I simply ask, if 8chan is a host of illegal content, why has the US government (8chan being, to my knowledge, hosted in the US) not seen fit to take it off the clearnet? Because as far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia does not define what is illegal, the government does. Hehpillt28 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the policy of not linking to illegal content is, to my knowledge, motivated by preventing users from accidentally incriminating themselves by accessing illegal content. So if no action is taken by the government, clearly no laws have been broken, and there is no risk. Hopefully you see my reasoning. Hehpillt28 (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent question; I too wish I knew the answer. I suspect it has something to do with them using offshore hosting providers; I believe currently they are hosted by a Russian provider.

So if no action is taken by the government, clearly no laws have been broken, and there is no risk. If one truly believed this statement, they would be able to conclude that there is no illegal content on the Internet. One would also have to assume that all Internet content is under the jurisdiction of the US government.

Whether or not you or I personally believe there is illegal content there is somewhat irrelevant to this conversation; reliable sources have described it as hosting this kind of content, and that is all we need to go by. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just went and checked the article itself, checking the sources that claim 8chan hosts illegal content, and there appears to be only one relevant to the claims of hosting child pornography: this here Daily Dot article (https://www.dailydot.com/debug/8chan-pedophiles-child-porn-gamergate/). Reading the article as it stands today, the author says that 8chan is "walking just barely on the right side of the law." That, to me, means that according to this reliable source, 8chan is implied on the right side of the law. The author also says concerning content of questionable legality on the website, "If this isn’t outright illegal hardcore child pornography, it’s walking up to the line of the law and spitting over it with a smirk." I'm honestly not entirely sure how to interpret this, but I think he's leaving the issue up for interpretation by the reader. Of course, this was written many years ago, when 8chan was under a different administration, but as far as I can tell it's the only relevant source cited in the article, and it does not claim 8chan is breaking the law. If you have any other relevant sources, I welcome you to post them here. Hehpillt28 (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Might I add, you said you believe it is hosted in Russia. That, according to the article and the sources it cites, is false, as of quite recently as a matter of fact. It is hosted by a company called VanwaTech, which according to this here article (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/15/8kun-8chan-capitol-breach-violence-isp), is hosted in the state of Washington. Hehpillt28 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The article has three sources to support the claim; the Daily Dot one, a Washington Post article, and an Ars Technica article. I do agree that more recent sources should be found. You're totally right about VanwaTech, though, I'd forgotten they moved to them even though I may have been the one who added that information. Too many articles to keep straight. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't checked those citations as they weren't in the relevent section of the article, but again, allow me to quote the articles themselves. The Washington Post article states "It is no wonder that 8chan hosts, in the words of Gizmodo’s Chris Mills, “some of the nastiest s*** on the Internet.” Not explicitly illegal stuff, mind you, but stuff in the gray area, nonetheless: think threatening “dox” files on unsuspecting victims and softcore photos of children wearing thongs." "Not explicitly illegal" is the phrase which I ask contributors to give their interpretation of. Can something be "implicitly" illegal? I have no idea, I'm not a lawyer. And if you ask me, the ArsTechnica article doesn't seem relevant, as it only discusses Google banning 8chan from its searches for "suspected child abuse content", suspected being the operative word here. Somehow I have a feeling that not many reliable sources will claim that it is illegal to view 8chan, although I am reminded of CNN's Chris Cuomo's claim that it was only legal for journalists to view certain documents. Hopefully this can be better discussed if all the relevant quotes from relevant sources are directly interpreted based on Wikipedia policy, rather than going on moralistic, political rants like we see on this page.Hehpillt28 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We are in a policy grey area here regardless of whether it's explicitly or illegal or not, because there isn't really codified policy of when official links to sites ought to be omitted or included; and as far as I know it's a case-by-case basis. I don't think we should be providing a link to "threatening 'dox' files on unsuspecting victims and softcore photos of children wearing thongs" regardless of the legal status, as I have already stated. I also imagine the legality varies greatly by jurisdiction, but IANAL. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There is an official policy. That policy is not to link to websites which host illegal content. What you "think" we should be providing links to is irrelevant. Also, non-US law is irrelevant to Wikipedia. From WP:ELNO "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist." Also, from what I read in WP:ELOFFICIAL, the official link to 8chan/8kun should be exempt anyways! See WP:ELNEVER to see what websites are completely disallowed from being linked (you will find that illegal content is not included) Unless you can show us a reliable source saying that it is illegal to access 8chan in the United States, this whole discussion is null. This wish-washing about "grey-area" and "case-by-case interpretation" is ridiculous honestly. Can we reach some kind of consensus or will more irrelevant points motivated by a desire to censor this stupid website no one visits anymore be brought up? Or perhaps we will decide to completely ignore Wikipedia policy on this matter? Because that honestly seems to be the view of the average contributor here. Hehpillt28 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am familiar with the external linking policy; I am saying that I think 8chan falls into a grey area not well-described in policy. Can we reach some kind of consensus That is what is happening here. I have given my opinion on whether I think the link ought to be included, as have many others, and it seems to me that consensus is leaning towards not including it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• This misrepresents my argument, and is false equivalence. However, this kind of simplistic free-speech absolutism demonstrates the problem. Not every slope is slippery, and editors can defend someone's right to speech without amplifying or endorsing that speech. This weird idea that because someone has a right to say something we have to step back and pretend all speech is exactly the same is utter garbage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for free speech. We are not obligated to include anything and everything as long as they claim that that it might be technically legal in a particular country. Per reliable sources, 8Chan is primarily known as a source of fringe material, including illegal material. In fact, this is the only reason any reliable sources discuss it at all. We can reflect those sources about 8Chan without promoting the site or providing arbitrary examples, and whether or not we include the link is ultimately up to our discretion as editors. Further nobody here has the power to be filtering others' ability to use the site. That's just silly. Grayfell (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that there has been a somewhat similar RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: active violent extremist websites (hate groups). Unfortunately there wasn't a clear consensus, but some of the arguments there are worth reading. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So we should exclude this link based on an ongoing discussion to change policy? That's not current policy. And there was consensus against excluding links to so-called extremist/terrorist content (terrorist being a term which in my opinion should never be used in a neutral fashion, which, on wikipedia, should always be done). You might continue to argue based on illegal content, but again, Wikipedia does not forbid that, no matter how you choose to interpret it (and no matter how you choose to interpret sources that do not claim 8chan contains illegal content). This discussion needs to be closed honestly, it'll just keep going around in circles. Excluding the link has no basis in policy, and is only being pushed for clearly political reasons. Simple as. I welcome anyone who can cite any part of current Wikipedia policy that would justify excluding the link, but I have not seen it. Hehpillt28 (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I was linking to the RfC for informational reasons only, as it is a somewhat related issue and I hadn't been aware of it. I thought my wording and placement made that pretty clear that I was not trying to use it to support any arguments here. It is also not an ongoing RfC; it was closed earlier this week. If you think this discussion needs closing now, WP:ANRFC is the place to go. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 8chan logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)