Talk:Enshittification

Not for Wired

While Wired did reprint my "Tiktok's Enshittification" essay, they did so under my Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license; the actual original publication was on my blog, pluralistic.net:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys Doctorow (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the article accordingly. — The Anome (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that according to Cory Doctorow, enshittification is how platforms die? Source: "Here is how platforms die: First, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die." Wired
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chancellor Hut
  • Comment: Alternate hooks welcome.

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk), The Anome (talk), and Grayfell (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 10:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Enshittification; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• This one'll do numbers! The article isn't quite there yet, though -- it has an unresolved clarification needed tag, and the rent-seeking claim is uncited. Once these get resolved, the article should be (while not passing GAN anytime soon) DYK-able. I'm mulling over the large quote in a short article -- proportionately it raises what's arguably a copyright question -- but I'm not sure if it should be perceived differently to use of an NFCC image in an equivalent-length article. (I also wonder about general-reader understanding of decontextualized "two-sided markets", but this isn't a DYK issue.) Vaticidalprophet 22:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• May I propose a tweak to the hook:
• ... that according to Cory Doctorow, enshittification inevitably leads to death? StonyBrook _babble 10:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • While Thriley hasn't replied over here, taking a look at the article, both issues are resolved. I approve both hooks. Vaticidalprophet 10:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, Thriley, The Anome, and Grayfell: We have WP:REFCLUTTER eight citations following the lead sentence and nine following another sentence under the examples section. It is distracting but not a DYK fail. The article does have WP:BAREURLS which must be fixed. WP:DYKCITE states that Sources should be properly labelled; that is, not under an "External links" header, and not bare URLs. I think my interpretation is correct, but if it is not, it is a best practice to format the references MOS:REF. Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't personally mind the ref clutter, given the sentence's content. However, you might consider combining all of them into one ref with bullet points for what each ref supports. In addition, I'd like to see that content be fully mirrored in the article body per MOS:LEAD. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17: I will leave it to others since it is not a DYK issue. I see the references are formatted now. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Last issue is WP:DYKHFC The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear.. right now the hook fact is in a block quote and I do not think that passes our requirement. Can it be separated out and cited end of sentence? Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I cited the hook fact in the article for expediency. Lightburst (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Rent-seeking

Googling around, lots of discussion threads make the connection between rent-seeking and enshittification, typically the former being the action or motivation and the latter being the effect on the end-users/consumers. Doctorow, refering[1] to one of his podcasts[2], says "#enshittification, and how it is a pathology of digital platforms, distinct from the rent-seeking of the analog world that preceded it:". It's not clear whether that means he sees enshittification a distinctly modern digital version of rent-seeking, or a distinctly different kind of thing even though it might have some of the same hallmarks. And the twiddler link doesn't appear to use the exact term "rent-seeking" in order to figure it out. So without WP:OR reading of that post, I think rent-seeking could be a SEEALSO (a main person who writes about enshittification makes some sort of explicit connection) but not an in-body comment. DMacks (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

This topic is new and "hot" (active research topic, topic of discussion and scholarly debate), so there are still not that many sources making this connection (explicitly). The only (very recent!) source I know of is Yanis Varoufakis' new book discussing exactly this topic. I think it's prudent to wait a while for more reliable sources to appear before making the connection explicit in the article. A mention in the "See also" section is fine by me, since the two topics are obviously related (if not connected). TucanHolmes (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Online platforms only?

Does enshittification apply only to online platforms? I am not the first to suggest not (see Gilbert Grape).

Enshittification also occurs when major retailers move into a diverse market, undercut local stores on price, eliminate competition, cut back on customer service, increase prices, curtail choice via pay-to-play, and undercut the whole market by favoring their own in-house brands. Elettricompagna (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You're describing dumping and anticompetitive practices. Enshittification explicitly relates to two-sided markets such as social media and online commerce platforms.

I would imagine that enshittification could also happen to something like entirely offline like a farmer's market by first grinding down the buyers by charging admission fees, then the sellers by increasing pitch fees, until insufficient value is left to justify the market's continued existence. — The Anome (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Term was coined before 2023

Doctorow actually first used the term "enshittification" earlier than January 2023, in the November 2022 Medium post "Social Quitting", which was later published in the January 2023 issue of Locus magazine. I remembered the earlier post because I made a comment on the brilliance of the term at that time. Funcrunch (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Added to article, thanks. PK-WIKI (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Unity Engine

I've removed the material relating to Unity. While the move by Unity certainly qualifies for criticism as a highly customer-unfriendly move, Unity was not, as I understand it, operating a two-sided market in the sense used by Doctorow in his definition of the term. — The Anome (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The Unity section was re-added, and I don't think it should have been. Unity didn't even go through with the proposed changes, so the incident is only "an idea that could have led to enshittification", which is just far too broad for a Wiki. 2603:9002:206:9506:C09B:FC88:B56F:E90 (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight given to term

This article concerns me as it takes a loosely defined and infrequently used term, and seeks to validate and expand on its definition, rather than simply inform. The article mixes and confuses the definitions for 'zombie acquisition' and 'platform decay', which are both pre-existing and better-understood terms (the latter being used by the attributed creator of the term 'enshittification' in this article: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/platforms-decay-lets-put-users-first). On the whole I feel that the article gives undue weight to the term 'enshittification', and reads to me like an advert for the work of the journalist that created it, and this isn't the purpose or function of Wikipedia. Interested to hear the thoughts of others! Baspinga (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

On articles about neologisms (WP:WORDISSUBJECT), Wikipedia likes to add examples that are based wholly on original research, i.e. examples sourced to articles that don't even use the term at all. It's inevitable unless pagewatchers are vigilant. WP:WORDISSUBJECT articles also tend to veer, over time, away from being about the term, and it's a mistake that causes confusion among both readers and editors. Articles about neologisms should be about the term, because they should naturally contain discussion about how accurately the concept reflects reality, what exactly it encompasses, and contrast the frame of analysis embedded within the term to other frames of analysis applicable to the issue (there are plenty). Trying to add examples based on passing use in news articles is more akin to the cruft we see in "In popular culture" sections in other articles. What's useful, is illustrating what the term means in practice, which requires sources that bring up an example and discuss why and to what extent the term applies; we have such sources but we're not using them well. DFlhb (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Enshittified Gizmodo

Company behind Gizmodo, Jalopnik and other media sites under their umbrella have deteriorated the user experience by introducing more slide-show articles versus long-form articles to increase their website's click count. Recently, the algorithm was changed to where there would be a pause after you hit next to hold users longer on each slide at the expense of the user experience. Tapac333 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Distinction between Enshittification and profitability

Typically, companies need to maintain a profit to exist. Therefore drive for profit needs to be part of the equation. What Enshittification represents is when the drive for profit supersedes the user experience, reducing the initial experience the platform provided. You end up with less, for more.

An example of platforms that balanced profit well so far without being enshittified:

1) Craigslist. I think the platform never tried to get between the users and the data flow. Apart from enacting a minimal fee for posting vehicles to combat fraudulent posts and to gain some profit, I feel like that platform still exists to serve the people with a similar experience they previously provided. Tapac333 (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Enshittification → Platform decay – The article describes platform decay, but gives undue weight to a late 2022 buzzword, the author who coined it (WP:UNDUE), and the some of the background of his coining of the synonym (which is, after all, a self-describing word: it relies on some of the synthetic characteristics of the English language).

It is, of course, relevant to mention the buzzword somewhere, and keep Enshittification as a redirect. As it looks like today, the beginning of the article feels like an over-verbose version of a page on Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary, coupled with some author/blogger promotion. Then it has several examples of platform decay where only Doctorow's perspective is given. I don't disagree with him, his input can be justified by all means, but he can't possibly be the one and only person who has made such remarks about the decline in quality of some products. It is a process that has been going on much earlier than the blog post where the word "enshittification" was first created.

Keeping the article under the Enshittification title will lead future editors to focus about two topics at the same time: platform decay and one specific author's perspective on platform decay. Anonimski (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - buzzword or not, it looks an awful lot like enshittification is the common name at the moment. Perhaps that will change over time as more academic papers emerge, or we'll want to have a separate article on platform decay while leaving this one to speak to its use at a particular moment in time. (Also, I'm not convinced that there's an UNDUE problem, as Doctorow coined the word and popularized the associated phrase.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:GRATUITOUS - "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Given that there is another fairly common name for it, we don't have to favor the more crude option as it is not required for the article to properly explain the subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  There's also the fact that the word "enshittification" itself can potentially mean almost anything becoming "shittier", and has nothing specifically referring to websites or platforms. It's simply less informative to a person searching for an article about such a thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Google Trends which shows Enshittification as a slight common name. Do think the article requires a cleanup and gives undue weight to the blogger, but that's not the job of a requested move.Esolo5002 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd also add that "platform decay" is used in other contexts. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - as others have noted Enshittification is the common name currently. I'd also invoke WP:NORUSH- it remains to be seen if a term like platform decay will gain/regain status as a common name. There's no urgent reason to change it, and time will tell if the term's popularity is a fluke or will remain in common use for this.
• Oppose - Enshittification is the common name right now. For example, I just encountered the term on a blog post (not by Cory Doctorow) which linked to this Wikipedia article. Rubinstein (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2023 (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.

Short description

Can we remove the word 'greed' from the short description, which currently reads Systematic decline in quality due to greed? IMO it's not accurate to attribute enshittification to greed when it's more a problem with the social media business model as a whole. That's up to debate though, so maybe we could remove that part altogether and say something like: Systematic decline in online platform quality? Open to suggestions. --Nsophiay (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

TikTok

TikTok seems to be going down the route of Enshittification.

Between the addition of TikTok Shop being forced down everyone's throats every other video, plus constant scam ads and sponsorship.

Just curious if anyone else thinks it's worthy enough of being included, or, if people feel like it doesn't fall into it yet.

TikTok is also mentioned in the January 2023 edition of Wired that is referenced in the Definition.

Lyeuhm (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Other languages

It may be worth having this page available in other Wikipedia languages.

Would it be ok for these pages to propose alternate translations of the term Enshittification, even if such (proposed) translations are not yet in use or no citation is available yet because the term is very new?

I could think of a couple French versions of Enshittification:

• Emmerdissement
• Emmerdification

Leagris (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia's policy on the reverse case is WP:TRANSLITERATE, but you'd have to check with e.g. the French Wikipedia's policies/guidelines to see if/how they differ. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Digg.

Honestly is Digg not one of the bigger examples of this? Just totally wrecked their entire userbase and essentially propelled a different site to stardom, which in turn turned to this. Or did I just get old Ruby.Boulton (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but... There are many, many potential examples of enshittification. For Wikipedia articles, we need sources to spell it out for us. If you have a reliable source which specifically mentions Digg and enshittification, please propose it. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Examples in the lead

Since it's been a recurring issue, I'll explain my approach bit more here. Right now, (revision 1205532644), each of the examples mentioned in the lead is supported by its own subsection in the body of the article, each with multiple sources. This helps with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and also helps prevent citations from getting too cluttered. To provide context and clarity, the article needs to explain why the term is being applied to all of these big tech companies. Examples need to be informative, and we shouldn't be adding examples based on broad mentions lacking context, or worse, our own preferences. Every example should be contextualized, and the body is the place to provide this context. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I think we should just keep it to the most common examples cited. With a term like this it's easy for people to throw in any social media or tech company they have a problem with, even if it doesn't apply. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Struggle to see how the term's definition starting the page - could be not wrong

Guys,

the page defines the term thus: "Enshittification is the pattern of decreasing quality of online platforms that function as two-sided markets". But i fail to see how could it be that

- say, _carrots_ could not be "enshittified". In fact, they really much are, as we speak, and for the last few decades: intensive agriculture, erosion of soil fertility (averaged worldwide) as observed by FAO, ever growing greed of both carrot producers as well as distributors, resulting in usage of ever so more exotic and often harmful in many ways fertilizers, preservers, etc - you name it;

- say, _personal relations_ could not be "enshittified". I definitely observe in my personal life how fellow citizens have become way more cynical, apathetic and self-centered than it was few decades ago, - on average. Personal relations definitely become shittier as a result;

- the term "enshittification", as per just above couple examples, - could in fact mean anything else, or anything other than, "degradation". When quality of something is decreasing, it means that that something - is degrading. Why invent a new word when we already have one meaning the same thing?

Just my 2 cents. Don't wanna wikipedia become _degraded_ by articles about, in essense, nothing substantial. Hope i'm wrong with the above, too; but what if i'm not? ;) 89.208.111.218 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

One might argue that Wikipedia articles that are written primarily as puff-pieces to advertise a specific author are an example of enshittification :P M4yj40 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"Infinite growth" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Infinite growth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 8 § Infinite growth until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Related idea: (intimate serendipity to) filtered sludge

In 2015, I (Joseph M. Reagle Jr.) wrote of some similar in concept and name to enshitification: "filtered sludge" and the cycle of platforms moving from "intimate serendipity to filtered sludge."

> Many social platforms move from intimate serendipity toward filtered sludge, and some manage it better than others. As investors begin to demand a return on their investment, the sites themselves are tempted to alienate their users with ever more intrusive filtering and ads. This is the life cycle of a social media platform.

-Reagle (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Steve Allen called it "Dumbth"

In Steve Allen's novel "Dumbth" he describes the core values of "enshitification," I should note here, underscoring the fact that the concept of decline of competence in the economic arena is a growing, global problem.

I wonder if the extant article might benefit from including a link to the article covering Dumbth, the novel. SoftwareThing (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Which article do you mean? Unfortunately, the book isn't discussed very much on Wikipedia. If you know of a reliable source which discusses the book, the article on Steve Allen would probably benefit from it. If there are multiple sources on the book, Dumbth could warrant its own article. Without more context, it's difficult to know how to incorporate that into this article.

As an aside, considering Allen's well-know aversion to profanity, linking his work to the article on enshittification is a bit ironic, but we shouldn't let that stop us. Grayfell (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

St. Rev used the word 9 years before Doctorow

A Twitter user called St. Rev used the word “enshittification” in 2013 as observable here, yet the history section does not mention anything from before Cory Doctorow “popularized the term” in 2022. Why not? JapanYoshi (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia (and not a dictionary) the concept of enshittification as an encyclopedia topic and the word "Enshittification" are two separate things. We generally don't cite old WP:UGC like tweets or blog posts or whatever without a specific reason, and that reason needs to come from a reliable source.

Even if we cite that tweet, it looks like St. Rev is just saying that The Onion's web design became shitty. They were probably right about that, but we need context. "Enshittification", as defined by the article, means something different from that. So does a reliable source establish that this has the same meaning? Right now, all of the reliable sources in the article are discussing a term for a specific concept which was coined by Doctorow. Grayfell (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the entire article depends a bit too much on "Doctorow" SpamHunters (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

From what source are you getting that Doctorow coined the term? The American Dialect Society post merely says that it became popular after he "used [it] in a blogpost". Coining and using are very different things. 130.44.188.49 (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This entire article reads more like an advertisement for Doctorow's work in all honesty. St. Rev shouldn't get credit for coining the word of course, but their (and other) previous usage of the word shows that Doctorow can't have "coined" the word. M4yj40 (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. If we're not crediting the people who first used it regularly (St. Rev), we shouldn't single out other random people who definitely didn't cause its surge (Doctorow). I say "inventor" is not needed on tbe page. 2604:2D80:D503:5100:1A5F:4DFB:795:CC89 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Imho the article shouldn't really exist as a standalone page, but rather be subsumed under "platform decay" or similar, and then the bits about all the awards that doctorow got can go on his page. That would also mean that the focus on him makes more sense if it's on his page, rather than having a standalone page that's effectively just a monument to his work M4yj40 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The concept was indeed crystallized in 2022, but it’s quite clear from its occasional use for years beforehand in overlapping social circles with Mr. Doctorow that the word itself is much older. To compromise, I’d propose wording which emphasizes that the complete idea was conceived of in 2022, and that the word was *adapted* to fit the concept. Something along the lines of “The concept was first described in 2022, adapting the term “enshittification” as a name.” Or something along those lines. Garnet Moss (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Cory Doctorow originally used the word "enshitification" (with a single T) when he tweeted from mobile

https://x.com/AKMA/status/1550459130695098370 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:BB:810:78AA:383D:21FC:A60B (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Christopher was the first to use the word "enshitify" but with a slightly different meaning

https://web.archive.org/web/20140903162302/http://thedailybanter.com/2014/08/president-obama-perfectly-zings-gop-border-bill-shitshow/

https://x.com/tommyxtopher/status/495380123336454144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:BB:810:78AA:383D:21FC:A60B (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The term encrappification has been used in reference to a book by https Wendy_A._Woloson#Books 2406:7400:BB:810:78AA:383D:21FC:A60B (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• All of this is WP:original research. To cite *any* of this, get a secondary source to cover it, not raw tweets. And more generally, even if a secondary source brings it up... so what? The "interesting" question is who popularizes a concept, not who is literally the first person to use the word. I have no doubt that somebody scribbled "enshittification" into a notebook in Erie, Pennsylvania after a Skeeball machine broke in 1978, but if nobody uses it or notices afterward, it didn't matter.
• More productively: If you do want to track down tweets mentioning the word, maybe a good thing for a blog post & comment discussion somewhere or the like? Just Wikipedia isn't the place, until & unless there's a reliable, secondary source talking about it. SnowFire (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  The article is already guilty of WP:original research. The claim about Doctorow coining the word should be removed as it is not supported any citations. In addition, the citiations that do exist seem to be used and written in a way to advertise Doctorow's blog. 72.24.155.152 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's trivial to find sources not written by Doctorow crediting him: https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/enshittification-the-2023-word-of-the-year , https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/30/tech_monopoly_doctorow/ . Maybe these sources are wrong but see Verifiability, not truth.

  Also, for funzies, I searched up St. Rev's big proud 2013 example on Wayback Machine: [3] . It had four likes in 2023 (it's gotten more likes after he posted it again since). This is truly equivalent to "Yo I wrote this on a private notebook that means I own it right." He only got 200+ likes after Doctorow popularized the term and St. Rev decided to start something by claiming he really made it. This happens all the time in media with, like, plots of TV episodes - somebody else wrote a short story that is very similar to the plot of that episode, but it never went anywhere. It doesn't mean that plagiarism or credit-stealing happened, it's just the nature of things, of course someone else would have innocently used the word non-notably earlier. That doesn't take anything away from Doctorow or make the article inaccurate. SnowFire (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  This article is the subject of a pretty high-visibility Twitter discourse right now, I have a feeling there’s going to be a lot of comments not terribly familiar with standards. That said, I would support the use of “popularized” or “adapted” rather than “coined” in the leading sentence, which has a somewhat shaky basis in the citations itself. Garnet Moss (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, feel free to edit it back in providing the Register article as a reference, which was not done before. That said, it would probably be better to avoid using a word we "know" to be incorrect even though it is verifiable. I'd still add that the whole article could use a rewrite, though. 72.24.155.152 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is a picture of Doctorow needed

This page is about a concept, not a person. The first image on the page should be something regarding the concept. There is surely a better representation of the degradation of websites. N7o2h3 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the image. Thriley (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Troll page

Why does this exist, it is clearly a troll page RainbowBambi (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've heard of this idea before I learned of the article today. Just because it has the word 'shit' in it doesn't make it vandalism. Over a hundred editors have contributed to this page, admins included. If we want to have a discussion around renaming this article Platform decay, that may be worth discussing, but it's an often-cited concept (at least on the parts of the internet I hang out in.) TheSavageNorwegian 19:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I’d support a renaming effort. If both “platform decay” and “enshittification” are widely recognized terms, then I think on the basis of encyclopedic tone it makes more sense to pick the former. Though obviously, those who prioritize branding or activism would prefer the catchier, more vulgar term. Garnet Moss (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Well it looks like back in December there was an RFC to to that effect, and they concluded the current title is the common name. I've heard both, and I couldn't say which is more common. TheSavageNorwegian 19:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have heard enshittification more than platform decay, however that may just be the internet circles I am in N7o2h3 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

According to Google Trends, the term "enshittification" has consistently been searched more than twice as often as "platform decay" over the past year, which does indicate that it's the more common term. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"Platform Decay" sounds like whitewashing of a term. Like calling the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress "B.U.F.F." the Big Ugly Fat Fellow or F.U.B.A.R. as Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition. In this case, the argument could be made to avoid the more vulgar name, based on Wikipedia:Article titles, but I think that is overly pedantic, and this title isn't particularly vulgar. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Financialization

My understanding (no, I do not have references) is that enshittification is either caused by financialization or is a synonym for the term financialization. At any rate, the relationship to financialization could be added. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Deviantart's enshittification

when we discuss deviantart's enshittification since May 21st 2020-onwards? Masonicon (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There are many, many potential examples of enshittification. For Wikipedia, we need sources to spell it out for us. I did find "The Tragic Downfall of the Internet’s Art Gallery". While this source does indicate there's something to this, we still need a source to directly contextualize this as enshittification or platform decay or similar. If you know of such a source or can find one, please propose it here. Grayfell (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

more sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOSTsJR8hHY https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/class-action-filed-against-stability-ai-midjourney-and-deviantart-for-dmca-violations-right-of-publicity-violations-unlawful-competition-breach-of-tos-301721869.html

it's okay enough? Masonicon (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Not yet. We need reliable sources which directly say that Deviantart is an example of enshittification.

For the video: Is Izzzyzzz a reliable source? Does that channel have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Very few youtube videos are reliable sources, since they are user generated content and do not have editorial oversight or fact checking. This doesn't mean the video is bad (or good) it just means it's not likely to be useful as a source for this article.

The press release is a WP:PRIMARY source which doesn't say anything about "enshittification". We cannot combine sources to support claims which are not made by any individual source, as this is known as WP:SYNTH.

Deviantart has its own article, so in order to criticize Deviant art on the Enshittification article, we need a reliable source to directly say that Deviantart has been enshittified. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's get rid of that list in the beginning (A variety of platforms have been described as examples...)

As someone who has this page in my watchlist, I notice a pattern of editors adding unsourced crap to the list of examples of "enshittification" in the lead. I believe that the "a variety of platforms" section is unnecessary and ridiculously long—it lists about a dozen examples, with some not appearing in the article. I endorse getting rid of it. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. Alternatively, we could mention just a few of the most glaring/well-supported examples, but I suspect that if we try that, it will incite edit wars on which ones specifically to include. --Nsophiay (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Paring the list further down the page might be difficult, but cutting it from the lead is a good start. There is never going to be a shortage of examples of companies being bad. TheSavageNorwegian 15:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

See also #Examples in the lead above. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Lacking citations

This article is lacking citations in the first section. Maybe consider reusing citations from later in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.198.87.199 (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see MOS:CITELEAD :). Cheers, -1ctinus📝🗨 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

See also

the See Also section on this article is ridiculously long. Somebody with better judgement than me should trim it. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit, but it might survive another pass. This might be useful for a portal, or template. Several topics, like link rot, and the dead internet theory have a very large connected web of topics we could start to put together to trim the respective "see also" sections. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Second comment, perhaps we could heavily overhaul the existing media culture template. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of a template for these similar ideas, but it really lacks a solid central theme besides "existential problems relating to the internet and DRM" -1ctinus📝🗨 16:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we could possibly expand the section of the {{Media culture}} template for "issues" by dividing them into "social" or "ethical" and "technical." This would make the issues section look like the "deception" section. The DIT could likely fit into the "deception" "others" section, and "enshittification" in a "technical" section under "issues." Looking at the "Media Culture" template, it clearly needs an overhaul anyway. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Every platform is going to use media in countless ways, but that's not really what this is about, right? The use of the term for Uber and AirBnB, for example, has very little to to do with media, and more to do with the services they facilitate. I don't know off-hand of any relevant templates related to platform economy, but it might be worth hunting around for something in that vein, as well. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I ended up removing the entire section as I roughly agree with 1ctinus. There are some broadly related concepts in there, e.g. closed platform or feature creep, but general readers are not going to recognize that without contextualized, likely in-article mentions. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I restored the section but trimmed it tremendously. I think the section has some links that can help "build the web," and topics like link rot and the dead internet theory are broadly related but not something we should work into the main text. I deleted the "further reading section." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)