Talk:Hit-and-run posting

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This redirect 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

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

Check the TVTropes page here for general trolling, and here for a more specific page. They know their stuff on the internet there. However, you may just say, "OH NO TVTROPSE SUX IS AN UNRELIABLE SORCE LOL" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.13.202 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't done with the page, however now I've added context, relevant links and elaborated the topic. Is it enough?

Cheers, SLOB

It's a rarely used neologism that probably wouldn't get past Afd. Though, I don't think this qualifies as speedy material. --- RockMFR 22:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its hard to contend the usage of the term, however I've come across it as often as other used terms, such as flaming, flamebait, troll, trolling, socketpuppet - all present on Wikipedia. But I didnt find a similar reference on Wiki for it.

If you Google "Hit and run posting" you will notice it used quite often. [[[User:SLOB1|SLOB1]] 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

This needs sourcing; it isn't anything like as widely used as the other terms. The entire concept's flawed, anyway. I don't see any reason to automatically demonize people who choose to make a single comment in a threat. In fact, what generally undermines internet forums is the fact that every single discussion is drawn out into an endless series of rebuttals and counterclaims, usually going nowhere. IMHO people should try to summarise their point and leave it at that where possible.

Discouraging so-called 'hit and run' posting also allows those people who spend an inordinate amount of time on forums to dominate any given discussion, at worst descending into a type of group-thinking digital Maoism that savages alternative viewpoints. Granted, the article does note this in brief.

Personally, I see no need for the superabundance of individual articles detailing different aspects of net etiquette, with everyone attempting to carve out their etymological legacy. All the 'flamebaiting', double posting and so on could simply be combined into a single article discussing spam. The type of 'hit and run posting' you are talking about is so similar to 'flamebating' that the difference between the two could easily be explained in one or two sentences. The pomposity of separate articles is totally unecessary and more than a little annoying to browse through. Gunstar hero (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever my two cents are worth (not much), I think this is a legitimate article. Common sense isn't "More common than you think", especially when it comes to posting in forums. If it helps even one person be less abrasive online, I think it has served its purpose. -- Multicore 09:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multicore (talk • contribs)

Single paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph is mad long. Please make this article more readable. -- 201.69.46.4 (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]