Talk:Wojak/Archive 1

NPC Wojak

Lots of context for NPC Wojak. I've changed the auditorium caption to be as neutral as the meme itself, however. kencf0618 (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Agreed, we don't really need to quote the "N.P.C. MEME GO AWAY WE ARE PEOPLE HERE TO STAY" chant81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

My apologies to the person whom I removed your image. The formatting of the article was looking pretty messy, and some aren't even sure as to whether this article should have 1 image, let alone 2 for how short it is. Also, the first image (vanilla wojak) was very poorly placed into the article, and well, i thought the best way to clean it up would be to just get rid of the images now, and if we have one it should just be the standard illustration of normal wojak (non-NPC). Thoughts anyone? -Anonymous User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.36.65 (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that NPC Wojac has received BBC & NYT coverage it is an important iteration. kencf0618 (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does look weird to have a short article with two images but that concern will fade if the article gets longer. NPC Wojak has been the only type to receive mainstream press coverage so it should be included. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced images with a single non-political one. It depicts the standard Wojak, NPCs, and uses a popular format from the pre-Trump era as seen here. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit makes no sense given that the meme has become a political meme, a fact which is well cited. kencf0618 (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kencf0618: there are no sources discussing that obscure Jordan Peterson mockery. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The seminar itself was not obscure, given that Richard D. Wolff and Peter Rollins were our keynote speakers. Furthermore the image itself speaks for itself as usage of the meme in the wild. (For those of you in the cheap seats who need some context, however, the far left has co-opted a right-wing meme, the far-left here being New Symbolization Order (of which I am not a member) and the Democratic Socialists of America (of which I am a member -indeed, I am a founding member of the Boise chapter, and our banner was on prominent display in the lecture hall). kencf0618 (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I, the original writer of the apologies, think this is a smart move, as this singular image facilitates both the non-political and political side of the meme (this meme was non-political for a LONG time, and that is worth noting so that it does not get confused as a purely political meme. Now, if only wikipedia's bot would stop removing my edits based on the unfounded myth that knowyourmeme isnt a valid source of information about memes (despite the history section of the article quoting the website) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.36.65 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2018‎

It's genesis was apolitical, but it is indubitably political now. The generic Wojak surrounded by NPCs provides no illustrative political context whatsoever, whereas the Responding to Jordan Peterson Conference illustration did. It doesn't make sense to neuter the political context. File:TheLeftCantMemeColonNPCWojackNewSymbolizationProjectAudienceSimulacrumEdition.jpg !kencf0618 (talk)

I am amenable to going WP:3O on this matter. kencf0618 (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPC was mainly non-political until recently. When it is it is mostly used by Trump supporters, not to mock Jordan Peterson's audience (I don't even like him. I agree with this image on how he got popular.) Non-NPC Wojaks were also used politically (look up "mike pence wojak"). Replacing the images with the stand-alone standard Wojak per WP:RECENTISM and because I agree that two is too much for a short article. If others really want the NPC meme to be represented I suggest discussing whether to include a non-political one, screenshot of an NPC account that got banned, external link to the original NPC post, or something else if it comes up in the news again. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "standard Wojak" should be the main image, but I re-added the NPC image to the section discussing said meme for better understanding. Λυδ α cιτγ 02:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Responding to Peterson: An Intervention in Lieu of a Debate seminar hosted by the New Symbolization Project imagery was self-mockery, not mockery of Peterson per se, and in any case its a good example of usage the meme in the wild, not just on the screen. kencf0618 (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

TheLeftCantMemeColonNPCWojackNewSymbolizationProjectAudienceSimulacrumEdition.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in citation given

Yeah maybe if somebody hadn't REMOVED MY SECOND CITATION, then it would make sense. I actually cannot be bothered finding my citation again just so someone can remove it, I'm done with this stinky article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.105.43 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Twitter ban needs work; is currently misleading and does not match source material.

The current description of the banning of 1500 "NPC" accounts has a variety of problems. The ban under discussion happened on Twitter, not "social media" (I will fix that momentarily). Twitter never issued an explanation of what happened. All that was reported is that anonymous sources familiar with the matter, who are not necessarily Twitter employees, told NY Post (ref [7] of article) the ban was for "coordinated platform manipulation"; and the NY Times ([9]) that "a few accounts" posted misleading election information, including encouragements to vote on Nov 7, the day after the real election, and this prompted the ban as it violated a specific Twitter rule. A timeline and much additional information appears in the Zerohedge article

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-16/4chan-sparks-mass-triggering-npc-meme-twitter-responds-ban-hammer

I don't know the status of Zerohedge as a source in general, but it is reliable in this case since the added information in their report is transparently sourced: a sequence of images of Twitter posts. They trace the ban to an Oct 14 tweet by a (presumably liberal) user "@DemocracyStorm" stating that the NPC accounts were bots, were posting misinformation, that some of this misinformation was about the upcoming election, and calling upon readers of the tweet to report the accounts to Twitter for banning. From the dates of the articles the ban happened very shortly after the tweet.

Essentially the current wording of the article reflects the idea of coordinated pro-Trump disinformation campaigns on social media (election manipulation) that was heavily pushed by US media in 2016-2019. But as even the NY Times, a major pusher of the theory, interprets the Twitter ban, this was basically a joke done by clowns from 4chan, with no evidence of any attempt or coordination to manipulate the election. There was merely some content that clearly violated rules, which together with the widely circulated request to report the accounts for banning, led to Twitter taking action regardless of the detailed nature or origin of the NPC posts. I'm not entirely sure how to summarize this in the article but wanted to record the research here. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. the article correctly refers to Twitter with a WP link, but the WP entry for Twitter is currently unavailable(!). More jokers... 73.149.246.232 (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NPC.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:

NPC.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better image quality

The 'default wojak' image is clearly a compressed version of the original Microsoft Paint drawing. If anyone is able to discover the original wojak (without downscaling, anti-aliasing, or artifacts), it would be a great addition to the wiki.

Flameoguy (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flameoguy: sorry but, see WP:Non-free content. The meme artwork is assumed to be copyrighted and not freely-licensed (CC or PD). Downscaling is a standard for unfree images, so it is better to have low quality, low resolution version of the image than a high quality one that substantially infringes the original artist's copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
how exactly do we know what license it is? we only know that it was allegedly published to undocumented forum vichan by a polish user. LOLHWAT (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Wojak meme

"Black Wojak" memes are spreading through Black Twitter, Instagram and TikTok. The many memes come with a sub commentary of being against the Wojack meme's racist origins on 4chan.

Know Your Meme is not meant to be a source it's added proof I'm telling the truth

Know Your Meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/black-wojaks

Daily Dot: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/black-wojak-memes/

Stay Hipp: https://stayhipp.com/internet/memes/black-artists-create-black-wojak-meme-characters/

2603:7000:1F00:6B91:B979:6C70:A0EA:5A7F (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Thanks for these links. I'd prefer to wait until one more solid source. The Daily Dot is pretty good for this, but I'd prefer a somewhat better reference than StayHipp.They lack a clear editorial policy, are new, have a small team, and appear to have an affiliate program. I did a search, both these are the only sources I found too. If you keep an eye out for another solid link, I'd love to include this content (or you could, if you prefer). Consider looking at WP:RSP for help evaluating sources or just ask again here. Wikipedia is always lags behind popular culture, but with luck we'll get some more coverage on this soon. Thank you again! Jlevi (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Wojak cizim.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bad pronounciation

Americans got bad pronounciation. It's not ,,woʊdʒæk but ,,wo-yak. 188.164.151.106 (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)JG[reply]

=

Removal of infobox?

I feel like the presence of an infobox does harms this article more than it assists it. It lists only two categories: first appearance and nickname. Both of these present information that is easily found elsewhere in the article, treat Wojak as a "character" rather than the meme it actually is, and are somewhat misleading ('Feels Guy' is another name for the the drawing, not an in-universe nickname). Loytra (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name a portmanteau?

A very well-knwon bald character was "Kojak". A Kojak in woe would be a Wojak and would look just like this meme.Gpapke (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]