Talk:Rage-baiting

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Text and/or other creative content from User:Oceanflynn/sandbox/Rage farming was copied or moved into Rage farming. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Created page from sandbox

This page was created from the user's sandbox The full history of its development can be found there. I had also considered creating the page "rage click" instead of rage farm. Oceanflynn (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter lead needed

The WP:LEAD is much too long in proportion to the overall length of the article. Sometimes big articles like History of France where most of the content is generally well-organised and not too controversial can justify long leads, but that is not the case here. Redoing the lead will first require a thorough reading through the whole content, which mostly looks well-sourced. My suggestion for someone with the time to do this:

shift most of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 of the current lead to the body of the article, possibly as brief, complementary sections or subsections;
consider re-organising some of the existing section/subsection structure ("Examples" sounds a bit anecdotic);
then re-check the lead to see if it's a fair summary, roughly matching the sections and summarising them.

Boud (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better citations

Citations on the article are all over the place. Tried cleaning them up but I'm not entirely sure about what is entirely necessary to keep on the page. Aisterion (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

This article makes it seem as though only right wing news outlets participate in rage bait when in reality it's done all across the political spectrum. Just another example of left wing bias on Wikipedia. 2605:A601:AC39:1200:7DCB:CBC0:BA2E:6E36 (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL 1301

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 9 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LC1061 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LC1061 (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook's enragement engagement policy

It should be mentioned that Facebook employees came forward claiming Facebook had a stated policy that intentionally promoted enraging posts, and locked out tens of millions of users who thwarted the policy with convincing, reasoned, well supported, well written, replies. The employees called it the enragement engagement policy because it exploited Facebook's own findings that enraging users retained them on the site longer. One in a hundred users of this kind were locked out under false accusations of policy violations including false accusations of violating Facebook's real name requirement. A requirement Facebook already lost a lawsuit for enforcing on abused women, and transgendered people using a preferred name. There has yet to be a suit filed against Facebook for banning people who were using real names but falsely accused of not. But Facebook's policy on it is a direct violation of the FCC founding law, The Communication Act of 1934. Specifically the section on non discrimination in like fees or requirements for like services. Facebook has been demanding proof of identity from falsely accused people but not from all users. Demanding falsely accused users provide a phone number, and denying service altogether to everyone else in households that use one phone. 2600:8807:5400:600:6DB6:FAB9:F760:45EC (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]