Talk:Meme/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Meme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Add mention of evolutionary gametheory

I think a mention of evolutionary gametheory, as applied to economics, should be made. Without being an expert in either subject it seems to me that memetics and evolutionary gametheory are based on similar ideas under different names. In particular the drawing of analogies between the spread of genes and the spread of ideas.

/Johan Richter

Meme List website

I removed the external link to something called "The Meme List", as it does not seem to have any memes at all. It appears to be a collection point for websites that have lists of topics to blog on. Those aren't "memes"; they're just "ideas". — Jeff Q (talk) 06:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Same thing. But I don't want any lists of lists, either. If we listed memes, we'd have to list every thought and subthought and group of thoughts that ever existed. --Omegatron 14:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

TODO: Common misconceptions about memes and memetics

I think it should be the main part of any meme discussion at the present time, because the most sources I've ever seen refer to completely wrong conception of meme and memetics. This seems the main reason why many sources consider memetics completely speculative and NOT a science at all. The article seems lacking without this topic. --Neonil 13:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for help Stevietheman. Neonil 16:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But how can you say that every possible piece of information is a meme? That means that the statement "every possible piece of information is a meme" is a meme too, and so on, but that makes all logical thinking and truth illusionary. Such a statement is by its very nature self-destructive, and in my opinion, that's the reason why memetics hasn't evolved into a mature science. --Michael

Strawman, Michael. Memetics does not assert that every last bit of data is a meme- do measurements of the orbital velocities of red giants in the Andromeda galaxy, surely valid real data, live or die based on their attractiveness, or mutate while being propagated through imitation? Surely not, and memetics is not so silly as to say that. To put it simply, memetics is concerned with ideas that spread and change (read "mutate"). There are enough arguments against memetics, no need to go around misrepresenting it. --maru 00:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we need to focus on what the purpose is behind treating an idea as a meme. Any idea can be thus treated, but it's often pointless to do so. For example, the idea that the sky is blue could be considered in memetic terms. However, the easiest way to account for this popularity of this idea is to point out that any idiot can look up and see the sky. In contrast, it's not obvious how, say, the belief that masturbation is immoral became popular in some groups but not others, or why its popularity has changed over time. Here, memetics can help by pointing out what makes this belief spread better under certain circumstances. Note that this description is entirely independent of the truth (if any) of the idea itself. It is this aspect that makes memetics so good at dealing with issues that are subjective, controversial or held largely independent of facts (such as religion).

Alienus 00:55, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Politics

I just reverted the following addition:

Politics: memes were used to manipulate the Soviet society into believing that life in the USSR was bad. Example of the memes are "USSR produces too many tractors" (in reality an order of magnitude less per hectar than in Europe), "there is a shortage of food" (actual consumption of most products was higher than in the United States, with the exception of meat). These memes were believed by most people and propagated , and this eventualy created a climate of irrational aversion towards the Soviet order.

Frankly, I can't make sense of it. Perhaps it's salvagable, but it needs a redraft. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert and sorry that my addition was so messy. I will clarify it below and hope that together we can reedit it so that it can fit back into the article. --Paranoid 21:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point was that during the 1960-1980s a number of memes (ideas, stories, misleading statistics, etc.) were injected (not necessarily by some evil body, but still there must have been some authors) into the collective mind of Soviet people. These memes successfully reproduced and spread, as a side effect, cultivating an aversion to the Soviet order among the people.

Examples:

"USSR produces too many tractors" - someone (an economist? It was often repeated by Aganbegyan- a famous economist, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences) at some point claimed that because of the inefficient planning system, the Soviet economy was susceptible to imbalance. One quoted example was that it produced too many tractors that were useless to the agriculture. Sometimes people quoted the number of tractors that the United States produced, sometimes they didn't. The conclusion was supposed to be that the USSR needs a market economy that would magically produce as many tractors as needed.

In reality the number of tractors in Soviet Union (per hectare) was an order of magnitude less than in Europe and the US. In 1988 there were 12 tractors per 1000 ha in USSR, 34 in the USA, 77 in Poland, 144 in Italy and 476 in Japan! Note also that the USA has a totally different climate (comparable only with Kazakhstan). But it was claimed that the USSR had 3 times more (and even 10 times more) tractors than needed.

This incorrect claim was widely believed by the public, often repeated and was adopted by the people as an illustration of "why the system can't work". It is a meme and it was a very notable one (although probably not as well known outside the USSR).

"There is a shortage of food" - again, the "deficit" of food was an extremely common claim. The argument was that since there are "empty shelves" in the Soviet Union, the economic system is ineffective and should be replaced by free market. It was argued that in a free market economy everyone will have access to an abundance of nicely packaged western-like supermarket food.

In reality constant lowering of prices by the planning agencies simply led to an unfortunate side effect. As the prices dropped below the equilibrium point, people were always buying all available stock, leading to "empty shelves". The actual food consumption was high, but psychologically the empty shelves proved to be very hard to endure. Even though per capita consumption of most products (with the exception of meat) in Soviet Union was higher than in the United States, people were unhappy. In 1988 consumption of milk and milk products in the USSR was 356 kg per capita (260 kg in the USA), but 44% of the Soviet people said when polled that they were not consuming enough milk. In Armenia, where people consumed 480 kg of milk (1989) 62% of the people were not satisfied with the consumption levels. The situation with most other products (including both food and consumer goods) was similar.

This meme was extremely popular and it spread despite contradicting reality in a sense. People could see that they have plenty of food on the table (and even in the stores, most of the time), but they instead repeated the lie about deficits. These memes were believed by most people and propagated , and this eventualy created a climate of irrational aversion towards the Soviet order. I think they are interesting examples, although I may have been guilty of not explaining them well. --Paranoid 21:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting. I totally understand what you're driving at now. Now it's just a matter of reworking the new content. Let us know if you need assistance. Cheers! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was unsure about adding a large section to the article, so I tried to fit it into a one paragraph format of the examples section. Now it doesn't look like it can be explained in one paragraph. Do you think adding a separate section on use of memes for social manipulation or may be on their role in the USSR specifically may work? --Paranoid 01:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Anyone else have any ideas for what to do? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I think this comes under the heading of orignal research, and as such is not appropriate. If references to the linking of memetics to these concepts can be given, then the idea may become acceptable, but it isn't at the moment. --Noisy | Talk 14:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't original research. A number of authors have talked about this (the one I am most familiar with is Sergey Kara-Murza). They didn't use the term "meme", but they were talking about the same phenomenon - it's only that memetics has not become popular in Russia yet. --Paranoid 21:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

per hectare of what? The USSR was also the largest country in the world, are you talking about arable land or land in total (or area in total)? 24.22.227.53 19:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Fellow deletionists

I hope we all can see now why using memetic terminology liberally throughout articles not directly concerned with memetics or meme theory is not only unnecessary, but a violation of the NPoV. Memetics is, after all, on Wikipedia's List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. Meme theory is a controversial issue which is still being debated (http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-2716.html). Since it's yet to be seen whether memetics is a proto-science or a pseudo-science we shouldn't use it as if it were accepted fact, in theoretically objective articles. As I have posted on the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians) on Meta-Wiki (member 38#), I encourage everyone to either delete unnecessary memetic terminology or reword it to uphold the NPoV. --Maprovonsha172 15:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding memetic terminology has nothing to do with deletionism. --Joe D (t) 15:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, deletionism is more about prose elegance and keeping Wikipedia on encylopedic subjects and data. --maru 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sort of new at this. But I thought that deleting unnecessary or POV information was what deletionism was all about. I suppose avoiding memetic terminology isn't deletionist, but we ought to, anyway. Don't you agree? --Maprovonsha172 15:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm a deletionist too, and I'm likewise lost on your point. Besides, you haven't even named these other articles where this "terminology" is being used. At least give us some kind of starting point for discussion. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

It all started with Godwin's Law, which I posted a NPOV-template on, after having deleted the memetic terminology used there (meme, counter-meme)

(Despite the fact that the eponymous Godwin wrote an article for Wired, linked to in article, that explicity stated he thought of and designed it, with memes and memetic terminology. --maru 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC))

and it was all re-posted. I have since changed the wording to avoid the memetic words yet still convey more or less the same meaning. Also, I changed the Hypersigil page which said 'memetic-complex' to collection of images and/or ideas. On Internet Phenomenon I changed how the word meme was used, from something like 'these are good examples of memes,' to 'some would say...'. I also explained the other side to that by expressing the skepticism of many regarding meme theory ("...but it remains unclear how ideas can replicate themselves as people choose to imitate what they like.").

(And with that you reveal you do not understand memetic theory at all. Of course people choose what they like! They also choose what convinces them to harbor or spread the memes; that is how they 'self-reproduce', by being attractive or convincing so that people remember them. --maru 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC))

I removed 'memetics' from the a list of the protoscience page, since no one knows if it's a protoscience or a pseudo-science yet. I made an alteration on the Friedrich Nietzsche page similar to my change on Internet Phenomenon, simply changing a definite statement to a 'some would say' uncertain statement. I also removed the word meme from Nevada-Tan and thus replaced "internet meme character" to "internet cartoon character," which isn't exactly the previously intended meaning but to give it that intended meaning (of a self-replicating system) would defeat the purpose of my correction. And finally, what I meant in saying that all deletionists should be going after this unnecessary and POV phenomenon of putting memetic terminology in all sorts of articles not directly related to meme theory is case in point when one scrolls down at Nevada-Tan and realizes there is an entire category of so-called 'internet memes.' So I realized this wasn't just one or a few incidents, but an ingrained problem, and as I have shown, to use memetic terms as if it's solid science is underhandedly endorsing meme theory and hence contradictory of Wikipedia's NPoV policy. --Maprovonsha172 18:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced "meme" in that article - whether you like it or not, "meme" is a widely accepted and used term referring to Internet-spread phenomena. Whether anyone completely agrees with "meme theory" does not change the fact that "meme" is now a word that is here to stay. As the meme article states, "In casual use, the term meme sometimes refers to any piece of information passed from one mind to another. This usage more closely resembles the analogy of "language as a virus" than Dawkins's analogy of memes as replicating units." --FCYTravis 20:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to note that I wrote a considerable entry on Internet Phonemena, seeking some clarification of the issues and common ground (as Travis can attest), but have received no reply despite the fact that Map has had liesure time enough, it would appear, to edit this and related aticles. --maru 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Internet Meme

There has been some discussion (and several deletions) on Internet-related pages regarding memes. However, even if incorrectly, the term "meme" does apply to things such as All your base are belong to us or Nevada-tan. The term "meme", insofar as the net, has been in use for some time (the earliest I can remember "meme" used in conjunction was in the mid-90s). Perhaps a seperate article for "Internet meme" should be created. --Mitsukai 17:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If I understand what you're saying you mean that there is an internet slang that uses 'meme' in a different way than say, Susan Blackmore does? In that case we would need an article to clarify which would be meant. --Maprovonsha172 18:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

No- the usage on the Internet is essentially the same. A bit more modest, usually in the sense of 'evolving ideas which live or die based on ability to get people to spread'em', with few of Blackmore's overarching claims, but definitely not distinct enough to warrant another page. --maru 18:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Over-reaching claims are precisely the problem. The idea that a phrase or image replicates itself is the issue, or whether people just spread what they like. It seems that memetics personifies these things, as you say, "based on [their] ability to get people to spread'em." It seems to me that to swallow the pill that is memetics you have to accept Blackmore's theory the Self-plex, which leaves us with no say in what we re-print, repeat etc. because the self is an illusion. Of course that's not falsifiable, and so, here we have the task at hand to eliminate implications that memetics is any true science (at least for now. --Maprovonsha172 18:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

No- is that your real problem? To accept the 'Selfplex' theory (which has got to be the most ambitious feature of Blackmore style memetics, and one even I am rather ambivalent about) is to by necessity accept memetics. But you know a little philosophy Map, so I'll use their jargon. 'Memetics is necessary for the 'Selfplex', but definitely not sufficient.' --maru 21:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps in the case of Internet memes, perhaps a section on the main meme article. While I agree that people are hardly quoting Susan Blackmore when referring to net memes (in fact, I'd be surprised if most in those cases knew anything about her), net memes have been around for quite some time and are more than just "catchphrases" or "memorable pictures". I think it's still important enough to warrant some sort of mention above that of a decdif in Wikitionary. --Mitsukai 20:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it perfectly fair to question meme theory. But the usage of "Internet meme" is indisputable - it is, in fact, in widespread use on Internet communities ranging from Slashdot to FARK to DailyKos. To deny it by deleting "meme" from phenomena which are considered memes is denying reality. --FCYTravis 21:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

FCYTravis, just because some people use the word in their internet communities doesn't mean that they are using it properly, or that Wikipedia should respect their fad conception of an academic question. I wouldn't be denying reality, I'd be denying it's encyclopedic validity. Moreover, we shouldn't speak of memes as if they are definite things; no one can be so sure. You say, "I find it perfectly fair to question meme theory," but you tilt the discussion in your favor if we allow the word to be used freely in what are supposed to be objective articles. If you must use them, word it a certain way, as I have, to uphold the NPoV. Don't say 'these are memes,' instead say, 'some would say these are memes.' Mitsukai, you say "net memes...are more than just 'catchphrases' or 'memorable pictures.'" What are they, then? Because if you say they are 'self-replicators,' that’s the real (Dawkins, Dennett, Blackmore) definition of meme, and then net memes would be as PoV as what I've been arguing against. --Maprovonsha172 22:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Now Map, who is committing classical logical fallacies now, hmm? 'just because some people use the word in their internet communities doesn't mean that they are using it properly'- now really. Ever hear of the 'No true Scotsman fallacy'? --maru 21:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Maru, I have heard of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy and not only do I find it irrelevant to what we are talking about, I resent your condescending tone. No True Scotsman? Just because you can't make such a hasty generalization about Scotsmen (that they all eat their porridge without sugar), or any other analogous generalization, doesn't mean you can't point out when a word is used improperly. What kind of a red herring accusation is that? --Maprovonsha172 01:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant? You snobbishly proclaim that they are not using the 'true' meme, that you know better than they, and you complain about my condescending tone? Also: what on earth on you talking about with your 'generalizations'? NTS (as I shall abbreviate) is not about that, or inference o anything of the kind- its about redefining; just check the Wiki article No true Scotsman. And what red herrings are here? Usage of words is precsiely the issue. --maru 03:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Who's to say that someone is using a word "properly?" Who defines that? I'd say it's POV for you to claim that a group is using a word "improperly" when that word is being used in accordance with its dictionary definition. The Merriam-Webster dicdef of 'meme' is "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture" - and clearly that's what Internet memes are. They "spread from person to person" via the Internet - often among particular subcultures of those sites I referred to earlier. Your ideas regarding "meme theory" are entirely irrelevant to the fact that nowhere on Wikipedia has "meme" been used in a manner inconsistent with its dictionary definition. It's incumbent on you to explain why properly using a word is somehow POV. --FCYTravis 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm heavily in agreement with FCYTravis. If at the very least, we should have a section on meme for internet memes. However, realistically, I think it just be easier overall if someone just started up the Internet meme page. --Mitsukai 00:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree. Any place meme is referred to where it meets the dictdef in its explanation of some phenomena, esp. where it's widely discussed (and therefore encyclopedic), e.g., "Internet memes"--this is entirely appropriate. I might only agree with Maprovonsha172 where "meme" is applied to a phenomena in a manner that is not properly sourceable (or POV-balanceable). It matters not really whether memetics is a science or a pseudoscience; it matters most that "meme" has a definition and can be used to describe phenomena, albeit sometimes from a POV (as long as that POV is balanced). This is how we let in subjects like "Intelligent design." LOL. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

To expand on this, is it POV to use the word "evolution" in an article on Charles Darwin, or do we have to say "some people think Darwin created the theory of evolution" for it to meet NPOV standards? It is not POV to state a fact - and whether something is a meme or not is a fact. Now, the deeper, more complex issues of "meme theory" are controversial, certainly, and as such, should be mentioned in the "meme" entry. But to call something a "meme" according to its strict dicdef is completely NPOV. --FCYTravis 00:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

FCYTravis, to ask "is it POV to use the word 'evolution' in an article on Charles Darwin" only shows that you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion. I have repeatedly said that it is fine to use memetic terminology in articles DIRECTLY related to memetics. It's the unnecessary and POV memetic terminology in articles on internet fads that I'm talking about. In that case it is POV because it assumes the validity of meme theory; obviously, in order to call something a meme one must first assume that there is such a thing. And it doesn't matter that meme is in the dictionary. Dictionaries give usages, not definitions. As such, dictionaries only reflect how word is commonly used, and we can't base what we deem objective truth (enough to place in an article as such) by commonly held ideas, to do so would be to commit the logical fallacy of the appeal to the majority. Also, to say that we can allow POV material in as long as we balance the POV is only justifies what I've been trying to do in rewording articles to stamp out the pro-meme theory bias. What I'm saying we need to do is not use the word 'meme' as if it's an undeniable fact, which it certainly isn’t. We should only use the word in articles directly concerned with meme theory or if it must be used somewhere else we should make it clear that it’s only what some people think. It is, after all, on Wikipedia’s List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. So, as far as I’m concerned we can uphold the NPOV by either not mentioning meme theory terminology when unnecessary (which is almost always the case) or by instead of saying “this is a meme,” saying “some people would call this a meme.” After all, to paraphrase Stevie, that’s how we let in subjects like Intelligent Design (“ID advocates argue…”). --Maprovonsha172 22:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

So if we don't follow dictionary definitions, what do we follow? There is no "appeal to the majority" here - the simple fact is that they are "memes" because the word usage has evolved to define them as memes. Whether that usage is in complete accordance with every facet of "meme theory" is irrelevant. The concept of "memes" on the Internet is firmly entrenched in the Reality-Based Environment. There is no "meme theory" bias here. The English language is an evolving one - and whether the creator of the word "meme" intended for it to apply, the fact is that it does now apply, and Wikipedia would be denying reality to claim otherwise. There is no dispute (beyond your philosophical ivory tower) of the existence of memes on the Internet insofar as the common usage definition - "an idea that spreads from person to person." Whether that idea is some sort of living whatever is another issue entirely. --FCYTravis 04:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

FCYTravis, this is similar to what Mitsukai has said. If there is such a thing as an 'internet meme,' defined differently than the (Dawkins, Blackmore, Dennett) definition of meme (as a self-replicating system) than we should explain that in an article. As it stands, there is no such distinction made. If we are to accept that there are two definitions, the one associated with meme theory and the one associated with internet fads, we should explain that instead of using the same word in different contexts. It is an appeal to authority argument to assume a common usage is a proper definition, but as we've figured out here, that could be remedied by explaining the two different usages of the word meme. Internet fads could still be called 'memes' in such articles, as long it's clarified that by meme they mean something which is passed from person to person, not something which passes itself from person to person as meme theory speculates.

We could comprimise by explaining which context the word is used, making the distinction clear between the meme theory usage and the internet fad usage, and as Mitsukai has proposed, we could make a page explaining the difference. --Maprovonsha172

I added a section to the "casual use" paragraph, explaining that this casual use is the one generally referred to when people speak of memes on the Internet. --FCYTravis 20:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

See! Some good *is* coming of this mess! --maru 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The Controversy that is the Study of Memetics!

As a great lover of Wikipedia, I have some criticisms of the article in its current state!! "Memetics" is a highly controversal area---considered by many (most??) scientists to be but a pseudoscience. As far as I can tell, there is no formal education available in memetics, nor are there many (any?) publishing journals in memetics. (My cursory search revealed one which is no defunct, but "soon to be relaunched" at http://www.jom-emit.org/). By these standards, Memetics carries scientific respectabilty comparable to crytpozoology---in fact, slightly less---since cryptozoology has at least one functioning journal which I am aware of. In contrast with this article on Memes, however, the Wikipedia article on cryptozoology stresses the fringe nature of cryptozoology. The Meme article does not do this---indeed, this characteristic of Memetics is likely one of the most relevant characteristics of the field for one who knows little/nothing of what memetics is, and should be well-featured in the article. I'm sure a lot of us like memes, but Wikipedia is not a forum! We should be trying to write a fair and balanced article about memes that relects both characteristics of the discipline, and how it is perceived by the scientific community. As such, I do not think the article is currently neutral, so I am adding a POV check tag to the article. --Anonymouse

While I am a critic of meme theory, articles referencing the "meme" concept as plausible have appeared in Science, Nature, the Public Library of Science: Biology, and various anthropological journals. Given that memetics is a recent and highly interdisciplinary field, it may not be fair to criticize it due to a lack of functional journal. Many interested in memetics may prefer to publish their work in established interdisciplinary journals dealing with cultural change, evolutionary theory, or scientific controversies. My informal impression from paying attention to memetics for the past 10 or so is that the meme concept is considered of theoretical interest by at least some highly respectable evolutionary biologists and philosophers, but is dismissed or ignored by most psychologists and anthropologists. On the other hand, cryptozoologists have a far better track record of providing evidence for their claims, such as the mountain gorilla. But no one is going to publish their discovery of a new primate species in a cryptozoology journal. --James Polichak

There's no need to be so emotional about it (with all the exclamation points). Geez. But, at any rate balance is a good thing, and I agree that criticisms of this subject should be included either in this article or in memetics. In fact, I think the discussion of memetics as a science or pseudo-science (or whatever) belongs in memetics and not here. I would suggest that most material related to the study of memes go into memetics and let the NPOV work go on there. In this article, we should just simply describe what a meme is, give examples, and discuss them in relation to memetics. What does everyone think? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to recommend that you register for an account here at the Wikipedia. Staying anonymous may weaken your position on discussing these matters, even if you're in the right. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should argue about whether memetics is a science or a pseudo-science in memetics and not here, however, we shouldn't leave meme as it is. As it is, it treats a hypothetical as an absolute. We can't treat something in an article as if it were definite fact when we're not sure it even exists. --Maprovonsha172 21:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Me again. (original emotional controversy person!!!) I agree that memetics is a good place for much of the discussion of the science/pseudoscience area, but I agree with Maprovonsha172 that this article shouldn't treat a meme as an absolute thing: in particular, the disagreement over a precise definition of a meme (even among memeticists) should probably feature strongly in the article, as well as the controversy over whether memes exist at all. I'm going to try to do some cleanup of the article now... feel free to change back anything people think makes things worse! --Anonymouse (same as previous)

Hello again. I see someone cleaned up my cleanups---they look good. I was wondering... many of the sections under the "biological analogies" heading seem very long and musing... do people find this out of place? I'm thinking from the standpoint of how an encyclopedia article should look... what are peoples thoughts? This article seems rather too long write now, no? (Currently quite a bit longer than the recently featured article on Irish Poetry, which might be a rather broader subject matter than memes). Do people think this is a good area to cleanup? How to go about it? --Anonymouse (same one)

Any way you can reduce the material, while keeping everything that's relevant, is welcome, as far as I'm concerned. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

(Note for Maprovonsha: that is a genuine expression of deletionism.) --maru 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Archival

Cut it out. These conversations are from April at the earliest, and shouldn't be archived yet. Don't revert war anymore. Discuss it here. --Omegatron 16:09, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

AGH! Ok, the ones from before April can be archived. Someone reverted again while I was editing. --Omegatron 16:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

There wasn't enough to archive there, Omegatron. Besides, Steinsky did not tell us where the archive he created is! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete things because they are "unrelated", steinsky. I have no problem with archiving old stuff, though, because this page is large. Maybe he was in the process of moving it? --Omegatron 16:15, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

There was plenty to archive, and it is in the existing archive. There is no need to archive 50kb every time, and there is no need to create a new archive page every time. Joe D (t) 16:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You archived stuff from yesterday. Put it back. --Omegatron 16:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there was enough to archive, but one month? Further, YES, a new page should have been created, as once an archive is created, it shouldn't be touched again. Archive 1 is about a specific time period, up thru the end of 2004. This is all just insanity going on here.. haven't seen anything quite like this in my 14 months as an editor. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have, regularly. Moving discussions to an existing archive page is considered more desirable than creating an excess of pages. I can only conclude you have had a very secluded editing life, if you've never seen either removal of discussions that aren't about the article, or not using excess archive pages. Maybe I have, in two years I've never seen the policy that says archive pages shouldn't be expanded bit-by-bit, as and when needed. Joe D (t) 16:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

But you should have created a new ongoing archive file for 2005 topics. That's what I will go ahead and do w/o objection. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that that's what should have been done, and don't consider it neccesary, but I have no objection with other people wasting further time on this trivial issue if it doesn't involve me. Joe D (t) 16:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Good. Just don't archive anything that's still ongoing. --Omegatron 16:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, may I request that everyone stop archiving and reverting until I can reformatt this page? I've made some progress, and the page really needs it (I'd be done, except for some lousy luck- namely edit conflict with Map, and a old copy of Navigator (Damn admins!). --maru 21:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay- I am pretty much done. Flame away, and I'll clean up afterwards. (And thanks to Omegatron, I know the right template to use too.) --maru 02:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Does anybody have any specific cleanup related issues with this article? The cleanup template is generally used for neglected articles that have e.g. formatting problems or bad prose, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Cleanup generally isn't used for issues of neutrality or incompleteness. I am removing it from the page as it was originally inappropriately added on an issue of neutrality. --Joe D (t) 15:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)