Talk:Reddit/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reddit Karma System: Profiteering With Groupthink

The Reddit Karma system goes beyond making users conform to community etiquette standards, primarily by discouraging users from posting legitimate criticism and telling inconvenient truths. The system dictates what users will publish and what users will read, shaping not only their rhetoric, but their very perceptions and ideologies. Moreover, political action groups, corporations, and public figures hire people to downvote posts that criticize them or their causes, penalizing people for speaking out while hiding any criticism, thereby creating a false image of the public's reception. Some subreddits also require that a user have a minimum karma score to make posts, effectively silencing anyone who doesn't use Reddit habitually and conform to the demands of the karma system, which is at this point still a large portion of the population. Furthermore, regardless of the obvious dangers of over-censorship, the karma system fails to accomplish its intended goal of culling internet trolls, because trolls simply post open-ended questions in RedditAsk and make posts on celebrity fan pages to boost their karma scores high enough to troll as much as they want. In summary, the Reddit karma system poses real sociological risks while failing to meet its intended goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:4200:61:511:DCF9:87F8:D3DE (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"Реддит" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Реддит. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2020 (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:

• Reddit Mr. Splashy Pants.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 24 March 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:

• Reddit Mr. Splashy Pants.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate sentences

In section "Site Overview":

   ...the front page will display the subreddit r/popular, featuring top-ranked posts across all of Reddit, excluding not-safe-for-work communities and others that are most commonly filtered out by users (even if they are safe for work).[21][22] The subreddit r/all does not filter topics.[23] 

In section "Subreddits":

   Meanwhile, r/popular features top-ranked posts across all of Reddit, excluding NSFW communities and others that are most commonly filtered out by users (even if they are safe for work).[21][22] The subreddit r/all does not filter topics.[23]

188.62.158.177 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)X May 21, 2020

Reddit premium

Reddit Premium is no longer required for the personalized snoo. You should also add that there have been lots more awards implemented into Reddit in the past 2 years, other than just gold, silver, and platinum.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Controversies

I think this section needs it's own page. It is starting to get long. Seems like every year they have their own controversy over something. I think having it's own page would keep the main page smaller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1204:4F7D:3020:4DF8:EBB2:B9DC (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

We already have Controversial Reddit communities linked from that section. -- Beland (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Reddit is not a social news aggregation

It is not accurate that Reddit is a social news aggregation. Social network aggregation is the process of collecting content from multiple social network services into one unified presentation which is not a functionality of Reddit. It is simply a social news platform that allows users to discuss and vote on content that other users have submitted.

"Reddit is home to thousands of communities, endless conversation, and authentic human connection. Whether you're into breaking news, sports, TV fan theories, or a never-ending stream of the internet's cutest animals, there's a community on Reddit for you." -

Calling Reddit a social news aggregation is misleading and not true to what the platform is. I recommend updating "aggregation" to "platform".

Thank you,

Jobdo (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Reddit seems to meet the definition of social news website but not social network aggregation; I changed the latter link to news aggregator, which is a supertype of social news. -- Beland (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June, 2020

In section "Company History" it is stated that "On June 5th, 2020, Alexis Ohanian resigned as CEO in light of recent events and planned to be replaced "by a Black candidate".[90]"

This is false information and not contained in the source. Alexis Ohanian was not the CEO of Reddit, and resigned instead as a board member. Please change language from "On June 5th, 2020, Alexis Ohanian resigned as CEO in light of recent events and planned to be replaced "by a Black candidate".[90]" to "On June 5th, 2020, Alexis Ohanian resigned as a member of the board in response to the George Floyd protests and requested to be replaced "by a Black candidate".[90] 2600:4040:103D:EF00:9C8E:8863:2E57:8262 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz should not be listed in the sidebar as one of the Founder(s) of Reddit

Articles like this make it clear that Aaron Swartz was not a co-founder of the website Reddit:

https://observer.com/2011/07/rumors-acquisitions-did-reddit-have-a-third-co-founder/

The website was founded by Steve Huffman & Alexis Ohanian. Later their company merged with Swartz's company. Even though Swartz was often named in articles as a Reddit co-founder, he was only really a co-founder of that merged company, not of the website itself, which existed prior to the merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:2738:f8c:b1dd:1077:ddf:ee1d (talk • contribs) 16:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC) — 2001:8004:2738:f8c:b1dd:1077:ddf:ee1d (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support I've always been confused why Aaron was referred to as a founder when Reddit has vehemently denied this claiming he didn't join until Reddit was operational for a few months. I don't get how you find something that has existed months before you knew about it. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Add to 2020 controversy

In the 2020 controversy section, please add "among all the banned subreddits related to politics, a meme subreddit focused on Big Chungus (a fat version of Bugs Bunny), r/bigchungus was deleted and unaccessable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzadestroyer420 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide sources to support this as a notable event. — IVORK _Talk 00:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

old: As of 2018, there are approximately 330 million Reddit users new: 2019: "430 million monthly active users" --> more than 430 mio users src: https://redditblog.com/2019/12/04/reddits-2019-year-in-review/?utm_content=buffer8df1d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer Progros (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Yourweek" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Yourweek. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Yourweek until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz as co-founder

This recent edit removed Aaron Swartz from the co-founders section of the infobox based on a first-party source, even though the third paragraph in the lead and the Aaron Swartz article both list him as co-founder. I think both perspectives are discussed reasonably well in the Company history section. Since the WP:RS in the lead all list him as co-founder, and for the sake of consistency within the article and across articles, I've re-added Swartz to the infobox. However, based on some comments here and on Talk:Aaron Swartz (archives), it might be worth an RfC. Certainly not worth edit warring over. ~SpK 03:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

SpK please ping people in the future (don't mean to be rude here). You can do so in the edit summary btw. Anyhow, I considered the first-party source had precedence in this case, no? Different sources could misleadingly call Aaron Swartz founder of Reddit, but he is in fact co-founder of Reddit. This could be better phrased throughout the article. If you think an RfC is necessary, could you start it? I never did an RfC and don't know how to.User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 13:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: Sorry for the missing ping, not sure why I omitted it. Might have pasted over it when I linked the diff.

I think that WP:PRIMARY is pretty clear when it says A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.. It's obvious to me that Swartz's status is is not straightforward, particularly given that every secondary independent source (on both Reddit and Aaron Swartz) lists Swartz as a co-founder. The only reference to the "well, actually" is in #Company history where Ohanian requests that the NY Times not call Swartz a co-founder.

If the consensus of reliable secondary independent sources is that Swartz is a co-founder, but Ohanian says he isn't, does the latter really merit removing Swartz's mention in the infobox/lead? That feels WP:UNDUE to me. I think Ohanian's tweet/request is addressed appropriately in the history section. Regardless, removing Swartz only from the infobox but leaving him in the third lead paragraph (Reddit was founded by University of Virginia roommates Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian, and Aaron Swartz in 2005.) creates an obvious mismatch. Do you think adding something like ...though Ohanian disputes Swartz's title. to the lead (with an appropriate citation) would resolve your issue? Curious to hear your thoughts. ~SpK 20:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

At this article's first mention of "Steve Huffman" the article should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Huffman 208.65.167.243 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Not Done - The first mention of Steve Huffman is in the lede, and it's already linked. The relevant sentence is Reddit was founded by University of Virginia roommates Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian, with Aaron Swartz, in 2005. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, going to accept your request Chris Ducker (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarity about Aimee Challenor

As a reader, I am confused by this section under the 2021 controversies. As it reads now it seems like the backlash was against her solely for the actions of her father and boyfriend. Reading the linked articles it appears that she kept her father on as campaign manager after charges were filed. Not entirely sure how to word that. perhaps "In March, Reddit users discovered that Aimee Challenor, an English politician who had been suspended from two UK political parties for retaining her father as her campaign manager after his child sexual abuse charge and partner's comments related to pedophilia, was hired as an administrator for the site." That doesn't really sound right though. What are your thoughts?--76.123.193.174 (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a rewording and your version, while not ideal, is already clearer than the present state of the section. My suggestion would be "In March, Reddit users discovered that Aimee Challenor, an English politician who had been suspended from two UK political parties, was hired as an administrator for the site. Her first suspension from the Green Party came for retaining her father as her campaign manager after his arrest on child sexual abuse charges. She was later suspended from the Liberal Democrats after tweets describing pedophilic fantasies were discovered on her partner's Twitter account." That way we have a more in-depth description of why she was suspended and which incidents are tied to which suspension. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

nsfw content

there's isn't enough talk of the nsfw content on the site and the regulations for it Cyclone26 (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Since that appears to be something you're familiar with, maybe you could add it? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"similar sites"

4chan and Tumblr are not similar sites to Reddit. Lemmy is.

Saying that 4chan/Tumblr are like Reddit is like saying 4chan is like an airplane because it travels very quickly or Tumblr is is like a roll of toilet paper because you can keep scrolling down on both. They are not good comparisons, and they're not justified in the same way comparisons to voat, digg, and hackernews are.

User:Mir Novov what's your justification? Would you say that The New York Times is a similar website to Reddit, since they both show the news? Or Pornhub is similar to Reddit because they both allow their users to upload pornography? I can't understand why you lump Tumblr and 4chan in with Reddit besides "these are popular international websites for English speakers" . I am not trying to be malicious by reverting your edit, I am simply trying to keep the page on point.

153 [x] 00:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed Lemmy since it goes against criterion #13 of WP:ELNO, but forgot to put that in the edit summary; sorry about that. There are (probably literally) hundreds of Reddit alternatives out there; all of them have just as much of a right to be included, and if they all were, then the section would be unnavigable. If you wish for it to be included in the list, create an article about it with reliable sources that prove its notability.

Both Tumblr and 4chan are general-purpose content sharing sites with a discussion component. Them and Reddit are based around an anonymous user base with a unique culture, and especially in the earlier part of last decade, shared numerous cultural ties. - Novov T C 02:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible improvements

Hello! So I have 2 things that I think could be improved on in the same sentence. The sentence is, "Posts are organized by subject into user-created boards called "communities" or "subreddits", which cover a variety of topics such as news, politics, religion, science, movies, video games, music, books, sports, fitness, cooking, pets, and image-sharing." First, where are the user-created boards called communities on the website? From my limited knowledge and being on the website I've only ever seen them referred to as "subreddits". Second, "which cover a variety of topics such as news, politics, religion,..." this should probably be shortened to something like "which cover a variety of topics such as news, politics, religion, and more" or possibly "such as new, politics, religion, etc." I don't really see the need to basically list all of the topics the subreddits cover as there are a whole lot of them. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Animemes

"On August 3, moderators of the subreddit r/Animemes banned usage of the word "trap" to refer to any person or fictional character. The ban was predicated on the real-world usage of the word "trap" as a slur against transgender people, with moderators citing the trans panic defense. In response, many users of the subreddit contended that "trap" was not being used in a transphobic manner, but instead to endearingly refer to cross-dressers, otokonoko, and characters with related identities in animanga. Many users flooded the subreddit with memes making fun of the rule change and the moderation team. Many left in protest, which resulted in a loss of over 100,000 subscribers."

the sources: https://nicchiban.nichegamer.com/2020/08/subreddit-r-animemes-bans-trap-loses-almost-100k-subscribers-in-two-weeks/, https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/08/12/trap-banned-reddit-anime/

Drama specific to a subreddit, in this case r/animemes, is not relevant to the larger topic (being Reddit itself). In addition, I would not consider hitc or nicchiban reliable sources, even on anime topics. For these reasons I'm removing this paragraph from the article altogether unless it can be shown to affect the website as a whole.

SpartaN (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

In section "Controversies", "2020":

• Original text, for context:

On August 3, 2020, moderators of the subreddit r/Animemes banned usage of the word 'trap' to refer to any person or fictional character. The ban was predicated on the real-world usage of the word "trap" as a slur against transgender people, with moderators citing the trans panic defence. In response, many users of the subreddit contended that 'trap' was not being used in a non-transphobic manner, but instead to endearingly refer to crossdressers, otokonoko, and characters with related identities in animanga.

• Please change the last sentence to:

In response, many users of the subreddit contended that 'trap' was not being used in a transphobic manner, but instead to endearingly refer to crossdressers, otokonoko, and characters with related identities in animanga. 189.10.216.68 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 00:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Reddit 2010 and 2014April Fools prank missing

For some reason I can't edit the article myself, but anyone who can should add the 2010 April Fools prank.

"Reddit’s first massive April fool’s social experiment was to make everyone on site an admin. For 24 hours users could ban one another, modify upvotes and delete comments and votes. This was all, of course, fake. Any modifications to reddit only occurred through the user’s perspective. While many caught on, others began threatening fellow users with their admin privileges and went on mini power trips demonstrating that not everyone can be trusted with great power."

In 2014, Reddit did "headdit" a joke way to navigate and use the website using the webcam.

Bigfreakingkelleher (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I can edit the article for you, but ok Chris Ducker (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

References

R/GenderCritical Ban directs to a TERF site

I'm not sure that it's necessarily a good idea to link to a TERF site while citing the ban of r/gendercritical, as it risks compromising the neutral point of view for the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloofMother (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@FloofMother: Can you explain what link you're referring to? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Link number 327 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloofMother (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@FloofMother: I think it should be fine as long as the content the reference is supporting is neutral. However I don't know what would be acceptable in this situation as I tend to stay away from political related things (TERF sites being one of the many things). You might be able to ask at WP:RSN about the source however I've heard that places is only for discussing the reliability of a source and not whether it would be appropriate in certain situations. So I would say wait for a more knowledgeable editor to answer. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Updated citation for academic studies on the "Science" section

Hello, I am the owner of the blog someone has cited discussing academic research on Reddit. I believe a better source would be this academic journal article: Studying Reddit: A Systematic Overview of Disciplines, Approaches, Methods, and Ethics of which I am one of the authors. It gives a much better up to date and in-depth coverage of the quantity of Reddit research, what disciplines are doing it, what topics have been covered, and methods used.

I an new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I have not edited anything myself as I believe it would be a conflict of interest/go against Wikipedia's values.

Throwaway Nay (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throwaway Nay: Hello Throwaway! Thank you for not editing the article directly as you are correct that you would have a conflict of interest. SOme advice for you would be WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Some subreddits have sites!

Well, I've found one: https://okbrofficial.neocities.org/ , https://okbrofficial.neocities.org/home.html https://okbrofficial.neocities.org/articles.html - important links to understand what this community about. There were also sites with other communities from Reddit. Should they be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.98.48 (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Austin.Lira.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tortalyni.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

New intro, please

Could someone please rewrite what this is, in the first sentences. I have worked in computers for years, and used them for decades, and I don't even know what is being said, much less basic computer users.... Misty MH (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This might help:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/what-is-reddit/

Misty MH (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

I wanna fix some mistakes i found 2001:569:502D:8B00:1024:6E70:7F8A:2BD5 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

is an British social network located in London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:241E:901:F200:2035:8CFB:772E:5B5C (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Dexxor (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

r/Chonglangtv

I cleaned up the section on the removal of r/chonglangtv however I want to propose its removal, it only has one source and genreally doesnt seem to be all that relevant, in addition it doesnt seem to be much of a controversy, if no one has any objections ill go ahead and remove the section. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 04 August 2022

In the controversies section under 2022, the linked source (Link 347) leads to [page not found]. Unchecked mail (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Added archive URL; thanks for spotting! Felix QW (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What about the collectionable avatars?

Collectible avatars are NFTs, but in the form of a Reddit avatar. A lot of Reddit users didn't like this, so it could count as a controversy.

~~ MegaValenX (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: about the collectionable avatars

I haven't seen that there was already information on them on this wiki page, so ignore everything I wrote up there.

MegaValenX (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2022 (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:

• Reddit logo new.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the word groomer actually banned on reddit?

The source article was removed and I see a lot of usage of the word on non-banned accounts. Here's an example of someone testing it: https://www.reddit.com/r/WEARESC_OT/comments/w25iem/is_the_word_groomer_banned_on_reddit/ . How else can we verify if this is correct or not? Cartossin (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Academic publishing is a leap to far

"Data from Reddit can also be used to assess academic publications."

I think this is too broad a statement. Is this suggesting that Reddit can be used to replace peer review, (because that is quite a leap and I doubt it applies to many sections of science especially medicine)? It needs to be expanded into more detail or removed.

~~~~ Novomanias (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC) Novomanias (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Reddit is ruled by fascist censors

They shadowban/ban/delete everyone, they dont like! Their nazi rules are Hitler's wet dream! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:CF32:7200:AFD0:5C3D:DD47:8D0C (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

i want to expand the article, by adding what countries it is banned in. Boxorox1 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Jen Wong under "Key People" should be hyperlinked

Current COO of Reddit Jen Wong has a wikipedia page: Jen Wong

Their name should be listed as a clickable hyperlink in the "summary" box on the right hand side of the top of the page. Rbgamblin (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Dexxor (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Reddit page is missing it’s political lean.

Reddit is a strongly liberal site. Page should be updated to reflect the lean of the site admins.

Disclaimer required that it’s not publicly admited. Redwikiwombat (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source noting this, otherwise your perspective isn't enough (and OMG you probably are only seeing a tiny bit of Reddit). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I think something about Reddit's bias should be on the page. This bias can be towards anything, but the way that reddit is set-up (volunteer moderators) leads to communities becoming eco chambers (this is compounded by a lack of transparency that is widely recognized) https://faculty.washington.edu/tmitra/public/papers/group2020_Reddit_Transparency.pdf

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-68207-5_12

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/20539517221076486

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907875/

Lastly, I don't have any data for this but based off of hate subreddits that get banned on reddit, the left leaning bias is prevalent. The subs that get banned (for the most part) deserve to be banned, but you can find nearly identical communities with different views (still advocating for hate, calling for the death of opposite viewpoint) and do not get banned. Again, I have no data for this, but perhaps this is where the original commenter was coming from, but having no mention of bias at all when talking about Reddit is disinguinous. 2600:8800:1B00:CA50:3517:1608:9C67:EE07 (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Replace "Nathan Allen"

Hi. My suggestion is to replace "Nathan Allen" in: "Nathan Allen speaks about the r/science community to the American Chemical Society" My suggestion is to replace it with "A forum moderator". The person is not notable, also not in this context; it's a forum moderator. Whose name happens to be Nathan Allen, yes, but the video itself already shows this information. For me personally, at least, the name added nothing. It just made me wonder if Nathan Allen is a famous person that I should know; and he's not. --2001:1C06:19C9:400:B2FF:CA0D:C1C3:53CB (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a difficult case. He's more than Just a mod on r/science since in the video it says that he's also a chemist. Maybe other editors could weigh in on this? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Does him being a chemist add to the video? Most people who are reddit moderators work a different job, but the important information here is that he is a reddit mod not a chemist or his name (in my opinion). If the chemist part is important (though it is not stated besides in the video from what I can tell) maybe "A forum moderator who works as a chemist"? 2600:8800:1B00:CA50:3517:1608:9C67:EE07 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Link to Mankind vs. The Undertaker

Under "Site overview", "Other features", the paragraph that starts with "In 2019, Reddit tested a new feature which allowed users to tip others" ends with a textual reference to Mankind vs. The Undertaker. Rather than linking to three separately related articles, I think the textual reference should link to the article dedicated to the event. Stiiin (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Stiiin (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It is unclear what you specifically mean by, "article dedicated to the event", and I do not see an article here on Wikipedia specifically about the tipping feature tested in 2019. --20:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Addendum: apologies to anyone reading. Somehow I used the incorrect number of tildas to sign my previous comment. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Should this be under "Current Events" because of the API controversy?

This is anecdotal so it means next to nothing, but some are even saying it could literally kill the whole site!

As outlined in the history section, there are already multiple reliable sources, mainly technology-related, focusing on this, so if we need citations we could just do this.

This article is even attracting nonsense vandals so it has to be protected! MasterRichinator (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@MasterRichinator Done - nathanielcwm (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If you mean on the front page: then you can submit it yourself at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates - nathanielcwm (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Sinophobia

Reddit is a sinophobic, racist hate site and this should be documented clearly on Wikipedia rather than censored like it is on Reddit. 97.90.41.3 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean "xenophobic" and if you have links to reputable sources that fit Wikipedia's policies, feel free to provide them. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be some genuine sentiment (and less so, which I will detail elsewhere) on the site that Reddit is 'sinophopic'. Someone would need to provide some notable sources backing this up before it could be included, however. If so, maybe it could be mentioned in a paragraph relating to a perceived North American dominated worldview, which I suggested further down on the talk page. Llamageddon (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

[1] this is the only relevant discussion that I've found on the topic so far. General racism brings up more results: [2], [3], [4] - nathanielcwm (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Should Reddit's outage on blackout day be mentioned?

Is Reddit going down relevant to the events that are happening?

https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/12/reddit-goes-down-just-as-a-site-wide-protest-against-its-unpopular-new-api-policy-kicks-off/

https://9to5mac.com/2023/06/12/reddit-goes-down-fully/ FunLater (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone added it already :) FunLater (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We should split into another article, its notable enough for its own page Pyraminxsolver (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. There is a likely chance that Reddit Inc does nothing as noted by the CEO's response. We will have to wait and see what impact the blackout will have. As of now, I do not believe it is notable enough to be a substantial separate article. Fuser55 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Dominance of North American/Anglosphere woldview

The following is anecdotal, though it is such a common occurrence that I can't help feeling there must be some evidence and sources discussing this in one way or another. If you see a comment on Reddit saying something like "The world is not just the USA" you will more often than not see a dismissive reply adding something along the lines of "Reddit is an American site". At a higher level, a similar explanation is often offered when someone asks why a sub seems to only talk about North American issues and events, as a reason why moderators are not interested in trying to widen the scope of the sub, sometimes with the suggestion that user should make a new sub highlighting it is not just USA centric.

Does anyone think it is worth adding information about this with something like a paragraph to the community and culture summary? I notice this section already unintentionally demonstrates this problem on a minor level, with the only country mentioned in the context of statistics, being the US (so maybe ought to be addressed in terms of WP:CSB anyway). Does anyone have any references they could share, either discussing these assertions I have read in comments on Reddit, and/or more globally inclusive statistics on Reddit users and usage? Llamageddon (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

If it's anecdotal, I'm sorry, but you can't add it to Wikipedia. They want serious stuff, not just whatever someone feels like adding. MasterRichinator (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Anything can be added to the article, as long as it's relevant in an encyclopedic fashion, and is referencable to reliable sources. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Troll/click farms, astrotrufing and brigading

I can't find any reference to troll farms, click farms or astroturfing. Whether more than a brief mention is justified probably depends on either the convention across wikipedia social meida articles, or if it can be claimed that Reddit is particularly vulnerable/problematic in this context (though I think it is).

'Brigading' should definitely be mentioned IMO. AFAIK the term and concept originated on Reddit as they had to come up with a name for it to make rules against doing it. It is a continuing problem, as well as, arguably, being an element of a Reddit 'subculture'. As I can't see any reason to exclude any mention of these, I might just go ahead and add the bare minimum information to the article to justify their addition to the page, and link to the related wiki articles. If no one has any objection, or would like to offer some suggestions, references, or insight on this, I might write up something more comprehensive at a later date. Llamageddon (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the best reference for brigading? I obviously wanted one of the many that, in this context, directly referenced its Reddit origins. Many are not very reputable or notable as sources, these are the best so far:

• Tony Blair Institute for Global Change ^(LOL) - What is Brigading?
• Miriam Webster - Words We're Watching: 'Brigade'
• Know Your Meme - Vote Brigading
• Dictionary.com - brigading

Llamageddon (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

There's also this article on a subreddit being brigaded, they mention how reddit defines "brigading". Also this on inter-sub brigading, another source on that.

brigading not on reddit but substantial that news source uses the term (and discusses) for this type of behavior.

Needless to say, seems like there's a lot out there and I think it is very much worth to discuss from these sources alone. Very relevant to internet culture in general I believe, might be worth its own article. Fuser55 (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Power Mods

I want to add a subsection in the Controversies section that talks about Reddit's powermods, including u/awkwardtheturtle. However, I cannot include Reddit posts that I have found myself since that would count as original research, and I cannot find a reference article that talks enough about the subject. What do I do? WilliamMarkRock (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This? --Meester Tweester (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be interesting, and the source provided by Meester Tweester seems fair, but I'm not sure if a whole section could be warranted. I know a lot of power mods do exist, but I think it would require a few more sources to be WP:DUE. Fuser55 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Moving all IPO/valuation/investment details to Corporate Affairs

There is a quite a bit of details on Reddit's valuation, outside investment, and being bought in the History section, but the Corporate affairs section might be a better place for some of this. I don't know if receiving investment is a notable moment in Reddit's history, but being bought might be? Maybe only moving everything related to its yet-to-be-seen IPO? All I know is that I think the History section can be improved if some of this was moved. There is no WP:MOS on this that I can find, thoughts? Fuser55 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of moving it to Corporate affairs. As it stands, the article has the same issue that Netflix has/had: one article talking about both the corporate entity and the consumer-side product that entity runs. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on having that information in the article introduction as well? Right now it's all laid out there. I don't think it's necessary, maybe just a statement on it looking for an IPO and current valuation. With so much info there, it's almost not worth searching for the Corporate Affairs section on the activities of investment. Also don't think it summarizes the website well as a whole for it to be in the intro. Fuser55 (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would just say it should be split into two articles - Reddit the social media platform and Reddit the company. That way the intro for this one would be much smaller and, in general, it would be easier to structure the information in a way that makes sense. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Revenue error

The wiki page states a revenue of 522.4 billion. The source given projects 522.4 million. 2003:E3:4F27:C289:C123:5630:E3F1:3DA2 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for noticing. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"2023 Reddit API controversy and blackout" split discussion

At time of writing, the 2023 API changes section is already over 20 kb, and it will only get bigger with time. The parent article itself already "almost certainly should be divided" according to WP:SIZESPLIT, so splitting out the content seems desirable.

Questions still left to be answered:

1. Is the API controversy and blackout event sufficiently notable to receive its own article? (Bear in mind that even if the answer is no right now, as the situation progresses, the answer may shift from no to yes.)
2. If sufficient notability is determined, what would be the best article title?:

• 2023 Reddit API controversy
• 2023 Reddit blackout
• 2023 Reddit API controversy and blackout

Now, go forth, and discuss: — Toast for Teddy (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

In my honest opinion -> No. This is a part of the culture around reddit, and a section in the main article is enough. 2A01:799:31F:5F00:6AC9:A87D:9C2A:A17D (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that it is currently sufficiently notable to warrant its own page. It is certainly important for the history and culture of reddit, but its current impact does not have significant effects yet. As you point out, when the situation develops, it may reach sufficient notability to have its own article, but for now it does not seem that the protest will induce significant changes on Reddit.

In regards to size, see my post above about IPO/valuation content being moved, which raised the question of splitting the article between the corporate entity Reddit and its product the social network Reddit. This kind of split can satisfy the size requirement of both prose and storage. The question is that kind of split itself warranted, besides the size requirements? Fuser55 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm should be split, it's being/been covered by most major news sources so it's definitely notable, and the section itself has become pretty long. Max BuddyRoo (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I support the split

There's an article titled "June 2023 Reddit blackout". I think that the article should be moved to encompass the blackout and the API change, which it kinda does, just needs a new name and some minor changes. FunLater (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Well if there is already an article for the black out, then it should encompass the API controversy as well since the two are so tightly linked. It would also give room to talk about the motivation for the API change itself.

I’ve been thinking and I am halfway convinced it deserves an article so long as Wikipedia:GNG is met. Fuser55 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

While not at the moment it is not large enough to warrant a page, we all can agree that the community potentially could do crazier stuff to eventually lead to an independent page for this event. At the moment, we got the large video of noise overloading the servers and the John-Oliver-only Subreddits (r/pics, r/gifs, with many more on track). JamesTDG (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Timeline and Data Error for Fidelity Devaluation

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "In June 2023, Fidelity, the lead investor in Reddit's funding round in 2021, devalued its investment in Reddit by 41%. It was revealed in a monthly disclosure that Fidelity valued its stake at $16.6 million, down from its initial investment of $28.2 million which had valued the company at $10 billion."

Proposed Updates: "In April 2023, Fidelity, the lead investor in Reddit’s funding round in 2021, devalued its investment in Reddit by 41% cumulatively. It was revealed in a monthly disclosure that Fidelity valued its stake at $16.6 million, down from its initial investment of $28.2 million which had valued the company at $10 billion."

• Why it should be changed: Timeline for the devaluation is incorrect in current copy. Adding in "cumulatively" after the devaluation percentage to more accurately describe the data point.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Citations added above. First citation identifies April 28, 2023 as when the new valuation for Reddit came out from Fidelity. Second citation shows that the 41% devaluation was cumulative over different securities.

JAustenFan (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

References

JAustenFan (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 22:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Timeline and contextual error around Reddit layoffs

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "This was followed days later by an announcement of plans to layoff 5% of Reddit's workforce and to reduce the number of planned hires for the year."

Proposed Copy Changes: In June 2023, Reddit announced restructuring plans meant to address business priorities and fund new initiatives . As a result, Reddit experienced a 5% workforce reduction and reduced the number of planned hires for the year."

• Why it should be changed: Timeline for announced layoffs is incorrect in current copy, as staff reduction was announced in June while the devaluation took place in April.

Also, the current copy suggests that the devaluation was linked to the layoffs. Proposed content offers a more accurate description of the cause for the staff reduction as noted in an article in the WSJ.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Citation added above. Article gives more context to the reason for the layoff and hiring reduction.

JAustenFan (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

References

JAustenFan (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Reply 27-SEP-2023

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. N It is not known what is meant by the phrase "restructuring plans meant to address business priorities and fund new initiatives". The stated reason "Proposed content offers a more accurate description of the cause for the staff reduction" unfortunately buries that description under additional language which remains vague (e.g., "business priorities and new initiatives"). Please elaborate in the proposed text (according to the source provided, if that source makes those priorities and initiatives clear) on what these plans and priorities encompassed.
2. Y The date of June 2023, being clear and concise in and of itself, was added to the article's text covering this topic.

Regards,  Spintendo  00:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Thanks! The statement "This was followed by an announcement..." at the start of the sentence still indicates or strongly suggests that the layoffs might have been a direct result of the devaluation, which is inaccurate. Suggest we remove that wording to make clear that these are two separate incidences.

The source provides no specific information outside of the addressing "priorities, including funding projects and achieving its goal of breaking even next year," according to their Chief Executive. Fine to leave out that context if still too vague. JAustenFan (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)