Talk:Wojak

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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. Λらむだυうぷしろんδでるたαあるふぁcιいおたτたうγがんま 02:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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:

• Wojak with NPCs.png
• Wojak.jpg

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• @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)

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)

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)

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)

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

=

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)

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)

Add a Gallery

Add a gallery of all the different variations of Wojak. AVeryUncoolGuy (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting this article be registered users only due to toxic forum board raids

I don't know how to describe it but basically there are trolls on a 8chan like forum board called "soyjak party" who often raid Twitch streamers, Wikipedia pages, dox people, and generally be scummy people. I suggest people remove future mentions of "Cobson" (a soyjak only really used on that site), "kuz" and "soot" (owners of the site) and site slang such as IAS, NAS, Coal, Gemmie, Ack, Brimstone, and keyed (I could make a whole section about the slang known by them as "soyspeak"). I suggest you only interact with the soyjak section of the article if you know for certain you don't have identifiable information. Peace! User:Tearuss (User talk:Tearuss) 16:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, though don't dismiss ALL information about soyjak.party as "raiding", it is an important part of soyjak's impact Formerlychucks (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I get the reference in your name and yeah, I guess that's true. User:Tearuss (User talk:Tearuss) 00:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

We should be putting info out, regardless of whether the “sharty” will raid us. There is a boatload of info out there, and the soyjak was created by /qa/, the sharty’s predecessor. We should not censor but rather discourage their antics. HaytchT (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Soyjak.party

moved from here

on the wojak page, you dismissed my edits concerning soyjak.party due to it being an unreliable source, yet the first reference on the article is know your meme, WP:KYM

i would like to remind you that soyjak party has a KYM article aswell, dont be a hypocrite

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sites/soyjakparty Formerlychucks (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It isn't hypocrisy. Unreliable sources can't be used but we still get articles of poor quality using them. We don't have enough volunteer time to enforce that. Usually, someone is supposed to find a better source instead of removing content wholesale. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

But in your case, the WP:BURDEN is on you to show that your content can be attributed to a reliable source. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is hypocritical, why are you removing my content wholesale when "unreliable sources" are casually used in the articles and are only given a [better source needed] tag? your mental gymnastics contradict logic, also, please assume good faith.

Also, it seems you deleted my addition hastily and haven't checked my source, the source i am using, followchain.org is made by Lim How Wei, this man has 8+ years of experience in social media marketing, and has been quoted and referenced by major publications and media companies like WikiHow, Fast Company, HuffPost, Vice, New York Post, The Conversation, and many others, and despite having poor english (that still gets the point across and can be corrected thoughbeit) he can still research obscure social media websites and provide adequate information for them, i would argue he is more reliable than even know your meme. Formerlychucks (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a spammy source at best. Primary and beware of WP:ONUS. Please try to work with us and find an actual reliable source. And also bring it up on Talk:Wojak instead of here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"Spammy source"

That does not matter, it gives valuable information about social media.

All news articles are spammy, technically.

WP:ONUS: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article"

Mentioning soyjak.party presents the impact of the soyjak and how it created an entire thriving community, that definitely improves the section (and by addition; the article) by adding interesting and notable information about soyjak.

Do you understand now? Formerlychucks (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

No. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not be ignorant, you are an admin.

We are trying to have a discussion here. Formerlychucks (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In conclusion:

User:0xDeadbeef is being hypocritical by removing content entirely while allowing content with verifiably weak sources

User:0xDeadbeef dismisses experts with 8+ years in social media marketing

User:0xDeadbeef doesn't understand WP:ONUS

Why do you not understand? Formerlychucks (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you are wasting our time here by trying to give vanity to a website that has virtually zero coverage in any reliable source. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sites/soyjakparty 2001:9B0:1:1603:176:10:248:194 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I repeat, it is an important part of soyjak's impact, Mentioning soyjak.party presents the impact of the soyjak and how it created an entire thriving community.

That's way i want it presented on the section concerning soyjak. Formerlychucks (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Call it a thriving community all you want but all from what I can see is a 4chan clone that dox people and hate on trans people for fun. No encyclopedic value can be gleaned from covering a website like that. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

by that logic you better delete the Kiwi Farms article, huh? 2A00:23C7:F31C:4B00:6DCC:5B12:58FE:35DD (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't act like im making a brand new article, this is a trivia paragraph for soyjak, Kiwi Farms is a Something Awful clone that doxxes and hates on trans queens for fun aswell. Formerlychucks (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you just need to understand that we probably won't cover your site. Also, I thought you believe that contributors to Wikipedia are just NPCs. Why would you care? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"Why would you care" 2A00:23C7:F31C:4B00:6DCC:5B12:58FE:35DD (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I dont care about you covering the site because you wont cover something like Tetragonoderus eximius or Orodromeus either, wikipedia is the free online encyclopedia that people with different interests from different backgrounds can add to.

And i dont understand what you mean with that second sentence. Formerlychucks (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:ScottishFinnishRadish please read this discussion. Formerlychucks (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Having read it, it's fairly clear you're the one who doesn't understand WP:ONUS. You also don't seem to be aware that we don't support WP:TRIVIA. Find better sources or let it go. Period. Alternatively, if you really think your site is somehow reliable, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for independent community evaluation. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It is already on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard you can find it here, i hope you're willing to discuss. Formerlychucks (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, my addition and its source does conform to WP:TRIVIA, quote: " A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item."

It is from a secondary source, and it includes the cultural impact of the subject (soyjak)

And how didn't i understand WP:ONUS? Formerlychucks (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, since there seems to be some confusion here: Kiwi Farms was originally the CWCki forums, which came from 789chan some time before that, which came from legi0n and partyvan in the immediate post-Chanology era. It's true there was a SA thread about Chris, but the main base of posters there were channers, same as the sharty (which came from /qa/ some time in 2020). It's true that 4ch (from which all of these sites ultimately derived) originally consisted of goons, but that's going back to 2003, and it's beside the point anyway.

The "trvke", as you might say, is that the 'tation you want in this article is dust. You've said that Know Your Meme is coal, which is valid, but it's not being used as a source here, it's in the external links section for supplementary reading. It's not an inline citation in the article. Frankly, it's not clear that it really ought to be listed in the external links section either, but that's neither here nor there. If you want the honest truth, it's difficult to write Wikipedia 'rticles about memes, because a lot of sources are on the outer fringes of credibility, and we have to take what we can get. For the subject of Wojak in general, it's been demonstrated pretty thoroughly that the character is notable, so it makes sense to have an article about him, and it makes sense to then try to seek out and reference the coverage that we can find, even if it is not maximally gemmy. For the subject of the sharty, its notability in the first place has not been demonstrated at all.

We cannot just have any random website be mentioned in any article where it's tangentially relevant, and then source its notability to random clickbait slop; many thousands of utterly coally sites would have to be included in articles if we permitted that. If the sharty teens want to achieve some kind of lasting notability, maybe they should do something with their website besides be a hostile nuisance. Why don't you guys just stick to stealing GETs from other boards, which is actually funny and epic win, instead of this /pol/ trash, which is fail aids? Why do you guys raid and wipe other altchans? Why do you guys dox people? Why do you guys post racist nonsense etc all the time? You can hardly roll up out of a website that does this and then complain when you're treated with suspicion. What do you expect? Maybe if you quit doing that stuff, people will like your site more. jp×g🗯️ 18:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

>t. does it for free jp×g🗯️ 19:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is this guy an admin? Soyjak.party is not a “random website.” Yes, it’s often rude and vicious to people. But that doesn’t mean it’s a “random website”. We know you’re a 4chan user, and 4chan users often clash with soyjak.party users. For hell’s sake, at least allow a single sentence mentioning its origin, /qa/, as well as a small summary surrounding the culture on the late board. HaytchT (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

All you seem to be doing on this article is PREVENTING good information because of your petty dispute with a site that is equally as worse as the one you support. Honestly, get over it. Also, cut it with the buzzwords and dogwhistles. You’re an admin, not a random IP address. HaytchT (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not good information, it's poorly sourced unreliable information. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

All I ask is for /qa/ to be referenced in the article. That is how the soyjak even came into existence. Denying it is denying well-known information that has been covered multiple times. HaytchT (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that make this assertion? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This 4chan thread, archived by automatic systems. It is the earliest sight of the face HaytchT (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

... you win... Formerlychucks (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding sources

Currently on the "Soyjak" section, there's a citation from a Spanish source called "Elplural", the source makes no mention of the so-called "Soyjak". The second source also makes no mention of "Soyboys", how did the article come to the conclusion that "Soyjak" is a portmanteau of "soy" and "wojak"? How did the article come into the conclusion that "Soyjak" is an illustration that has features of a "soy boy"? This is a clear violation of WP:OR, I demand experienced editors to look into this and decide whether the section should stay in its current unsourced state, or whether it should be removed entirely. 45.153.118.225 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the paragraph to fit the sources. Formerlychucks (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)