Talk:Reddit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Update Notice

There are, according to the reddit itself, roughly 590,000 redditors subscribing to the Atheism reddit. Also, it is the case for almost all other top 20 reddits that their subscriber count in considerably lower than the current actual count. FYI VERTIGO825 (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like whoever was updating /r/atheism's subscriber count didn't take the time to update the other reddits, some of the numbers were off by as much as 500,000 subscribers. I went ahead and fixed this. Breadblade (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

4CHAN?

Why is there no mention of 4chan? I mean, I'm not here to claim that reddit steals all its shit from 4chan (which it does), but I really think the connection is significant enough to warrant a mention. At least in the culture section.

This is just raw personal opinion. Considering I don't feel that reddit takes everything from 4chan. This is just a bias comment, and should not be edited in.

" I'm not here to claim that reddit steals all its shit from 4chan (which it does)"

Kinda funny if done on purpose, kinda dumb if not.

Not going to get into my hatred of Reddit, but it does seem like the article skims over all of the criticisms of Reddit. In my opinion, it doesn't seem to be very fair related to criticisms of Reddit. The criticisms of Reddit need more even-handed treatment on both sides. The part about /r/mensrights is more evidence of this. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.57.10 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey 4chan, you can have Obama back if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.26.236 (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Team Avolition

I do beleve that 'Team Avolition', a video game griefing group, should be added as part of the reddit page. They are well known by redditors (my friend, who doesnt even know who 'Team Avolition' is, knew their name just because he went on reddit. I beleve they should be atleast noted somewhere within the artical, due to their obvious presence in reddit forums.

I will provide more information as requested.

Also can I ask why this topic keeps on getting deleted without any form of notice? Before deleting this, atleast explain why you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.191.241 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable Community contributions

In this section, Reddit is loosely tied to "community contributions" that Reddit is not responsible for.

Yes, the guy who created Imgur is a Reddit user, but is he also a Facebook user? A Twitter user? A Digg user? He doesn't work for Reddit so how does this belong in an article about Reddit? This reference should be removed.

Similarly, what does "Graphic artist Mike Mitchell" have to do with Reddit other than his work has been posted there? How is his artwork a Reddit "community contribution"? Again, this should be removed.

Also, how is it relevant to Reddit that "Reddit USERS were given a Homo Heroes award by the Lesbian and Gay Foundation"? Again were these users also Twitter users or ABC viewers or steak eaters? Should we add this text to all of those articles? And besides, how is that "notable"? This should also be removed. 173.76.47.241 (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is imgur was created my a reddit user initially for reddit users, in response to reliability issues with other image hosting services[1]. To this day, there is a link with an image to the related reddit comments when the image is uploaded to be submitted to reddit. Additionally, if you append /r/<subreddit name> to the imgur url, it will show all images uploaded specifically for that subreddit. All of this cannot be said for Facebook, Twitter or Digg. And as far as him not working for reddit, that is why it was under, "community contributions."Banksnld (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The link to the reddit post where imgur was announced doesn't seem to be working. Here it is again: [2] Banksnld (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem to work; it can be found on the page for imgur, in the top section where it talks about the creator announcing the creation of imgur.Banksnld (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

Sorry, didn't intend to sound harsh in my edit summary ("wordy and repetitive") Juliamae 22:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T REMOVE ANY MATERIAL FROM THIS TALK PAGE.

Here is the original discussion. PLEASE DON'T REMOVE ANY MATERIAL FROM THIS TALK PAGE. Feel free to contribute your thoughts, and don't forget to sign them.--qwerty967 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

reddit stinks because it is overrun with "vote up" entries. Probably over half the articles are 'vote up' articles. Reddit stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.71.32 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


I bet I could remove a hundred entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.10.58 (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says Reddit users want a wikipedia page? We bemoan the spotlight and bemoan diggification. Smart and articulate people will still find their way to reddit eventually. -Fauster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.220.109 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is pretty pathetic. that is mean i changed this this is a different person in this whole entire sentence woohoo. Its a poorly written page with lots of outgoing links to advertise Reddit. Brinkost


Agreed, reddit is not popular enough for an article at all. 60.241.50.163 07:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

--OK. That settles that then. Obviously if you don't use the site then it's not worth knowing about. Jackass. --59.167.104.22 06:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reddit is an excellent site, the information on how the link ranking works is very interesting.

Since I came here for the purpose of finding out about the history of reddit, I think it merits a entry. 198.162.45.143

Reddit is an extremely popular site with tons of active memebrs and it surely deserves an entry. Shabda 14:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time on Reddit, and I think it deserves an entry.

Agreed. If the editors delete this article, then be consistent and remove the article on Digg, a site much like Reddit.

Reddit should have an article. Wikipedia editors should stop meddling with stuff they don't actually know about...

Reddit should definitely have an article. To the best of my knowledge, it has tens of thousands of unique visitors a month and is unique in its way of user participation in news reporting. The statement that it isn't popular enough to be worth an entry surprises me to the point that it must either mean that the commenter has no idea what he is talking about, or that he is making a deliberate attempt to cover up reddit's existence. 16:32, 1 October 2006 84.48.164.139

reddit is as good as these recent comments make it out to be, but the wikipedia entry is as bad as the editors say. It doesn't even link to digg when it has the chance, for god's sake. --71.231.224.252 16:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I started using Reddit when I got tired of Digg...it's a great link site, and definitely superior (IMHO) to almost any user-supported link site on the net. The articles linked on Reddit are usually of a better quality than Digg. Reddit's popularity has been steadily growing. It definitely deserves an entry!

Didn't Jimmy Wales state that he wants there to be an article on everything by a certain date?

Reddit is my primary source of news and computer related stuff. I think it's far better than other similar sites on the web, digg included 87.11.120.47 17:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Reddit is as entry-worthy as digg or slashdot. The page just needs some improvement and elaboration. --Blogjack 19:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion is a prime example of why I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore. Of course Reddit deserves an article, and of course the article should link to http://reddit.com. The "Site Purity Team" seems way more concerned with grammar and with censorship of anything that's not their pet thing than with letting actual information escape into Wikipedia. They can have it. --Bart Massey 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote to have an article on reddit because it is significant in its category (social networking link blogs). I use it regularly also. --MMX 18:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I find that Reddit has an unusually large amount of political articles and do not agree that it should have its own entry

Reddit definitely should have an article. It may be smaller than Digg, but has higher quality. Which matters?

While Reddit is my primary source for both cs/tech news (programming.reddit.com) and regular news (it has supplanted both Slashdot and Digg for me), the crux of this argument seems to be whether Reddit is popular enough for a Wikipedia article. Question: does Wikipedia have an objective standard for popularity that, once met, allows a page on the topic to be created, and if not met, denies that permission? Or is that determination based solely upon the subjective estimate of whoever has the power to censor Wikipedia articles? Second, is there any objective data Reddit (or Digg, etc) could apply against either standard? The only two sources I can think of are 1) traffic stats for reddit.com and programming.reddit.com (yes, both must be considered), which only the site owners can provide, and 2) a Google trends analysis, which is freely available and illustrative, though not necessarily conclusive. fbg111 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

reddit is a great site it should be held in the highest regards.

The Great Reddit Crash?

This section seems overly dramatic for a simple site outage. Nobody is going to remember or care about a short outage in the future, it happens all the time. The content in this section is certainly not encyclopedic. I propose this section be removed. --Ghewgill 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be removed/rewritten sooner or later. But right now, it feels right. Right now, I'm suffering serious withdrawal syndromes. 84.137.115.18 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What's up with the crash? I can't find any other info anywhere. 206.210.72.22 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP is 72.5.28.218, add it to your hosts file. Blog post. Deadfones 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a lot of bullshit written on there. Very unencyclopedic, and unsuitable for Wikipedia. I removed most of it. Freshyill 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The "outage" section is no longer relevant as reddit is back online. Wikipedia is not a news service. --Ghewgill 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it online Freshyill 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Fear not: The internet is self-healing! --Ghewgill 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see it. --Danlock2 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Going on 24 hours and I still don't see it. I think that a major site like this being out for an entire day with no word from the admins may qualify as being Wikipedia-worthy. Freshyill 06:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
reddit continues work for me. They posted a blog entry explaining the dns blunder. If you can't read that yet, here's the google blogsearch result for it. Again, wikipedia is not (WP:NOT#OR) a news service. --Ghewgill 08:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The reddit blog posts don't work either, since they're hosted on reddit.com. The site doesn't work, but the rss feed keeps updating with new headlines for me, whats going on? 70.107.64.60 20:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's okay guys. I put it back up.


Open source version

Is there an open source version of reddit?Maaparty 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No assertion of notability

Please provide an assertion of notability, or I will nominate this article for deletion under WP:N. Thanks. --N Shar 01:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple sources in the article, and the company was bought by Conde Nast. It easily passes WP:N. -SpuriousQ 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I came to this article because a web site I visited tried to connect to it. I often look up web sites that many other web sites try to access to see if I want to allow them in my firewall. Unfortunately, this article did not give me that information. Why isn't reddit just a big 3rd party cookie? I meant that comment to give at least one reason why users might want to look up reddit. Bostoner (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reddit logo.png

Image:Reddit logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of name

So why is it called Reddit ? From "read it" or the latin ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.52.104 (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a little late, but it's just short for "read it," according to Alexis Ohanian's blog. I'll put that in the article.

Reddit was the name of the founder's dog.TechMology (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Bias?

Reddit is well known for having a very strong liberal bias. I don't see mention of that in the article. Time to make that change, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.80 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the bias is just liberal, I see many extreme right wing viewpoints as well as extreme left wing. I think it attracts extremists in general. 204.193.129.239 (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it has more Ron Paul threads than any site I ever saw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.231.88 (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Being that its content is user-submitted, the "bias" is dependent on the submitters of stories and could change at any time. 12.32.90.56 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been looking it over for a few months now, and despite the fact that it's user submitted and could change at any time, it hasn't. They've had a strong liberal bias for some time now, and I think it should be mentioned in the article. Bobman52 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the fact that the "bias" is based on the submitters and users that vote, this is no different then saying the bias of a newspaper comes from its staff and editors and they could change at any time.

I'm sorry, but can you cite your sources about Reddit having a liberal bias, or is this based upon your own observation over the last several months? <facepalm!> Linny harp (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that this belongs in the article, but Reddit has both strong liberal and libertarian elements. It does seem to almost completely lack conservatives though.

There are plenty of conservatives on reddit. Check the r/economics subreddit, among many others. 76.168.192.218 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

99.175.83.210 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not the "liberals" fault if conservatives don't know how to use the internets or dont like a certain website, everyone is free to join and submit any posts they want there's no bias. chandler ··· 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a variety of biases in reddit, but it is also very diverse. Also, the existence of subreddits complicates it a little further.(And also relieves it, as countering opinions can get their stories noticed there.) There are other problems, making an assessment of the biases in reddit is original work, and would be hard without giving a pov to this article. Further it might just make this article undue length.88.159.74.89 (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In my experience pro-Conservative links will be downvoted instantly or even deleted for some lame reason. I agree that Reddit displays a hard Liberal sway, or maybe Liberals just have more time to waste on a site like Reddit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.122.237 (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Reddit is very liberal. The average young, weed smoking, liberal, white male is a Reddit user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dano55555 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

reddit is a Wikipedia attack site.

According to SqueakBox, anyway. [1]

The link in question was a self-submitted article suggesting everyone donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation. Many people expressed that they donated money in support of the site. Others posted valid, critical facts about the site's flaws. Due to not being 100% on the site of Wikipedia, it has been denounced as an attack site.

I'm sure all the people who donated really appreciate being given this label, especially the redditor that donated $100, since this site is very mature and run by upstanding individuals.

reddit is not an attack site. However, if you have the tools, and a personal vendetta against reddit, you now have your firepower to ruin this article. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the influence of SqueakBox, or has the article been modified to make it appear as if reddit is an attack site? No? Then you have nothing to worry. Don't open the umbrella before the rain. I personally think The Inquirer is an attack site against Wikipedia (especially since the Everywhere girl article got deleted), but I don't go there and put my thoughts there. Good editors keep what they think and what they can edit separated. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it significant enough to mention that the logo frequently changes? RJFJR (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well for anyone that might not know what the site is, and they come on a day when the logo has changed there might be some confusion. --Sousveillipedia (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reddit uses whale techmology to ensure constantly changing minor edits to their logo.TechMology (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's considered a core element of reddit culture. An extremely popular, awesome, or reddit-related thread can quickly lead to a new temporary logo, which can also immediately confuse people since there is no clear explanation of what the logo is for. If someone makes a piece of toast with a reddit logo on it and posts the picture to reddit, and an admin decides that's awesome, they might crop the toast, size it down, and use it for a joke logo for a few hours/days, but there's no way to link the new logo back to the original toast post. Currently there is a subreddit just for posting explanations for the logo with links to the thread(s) being referenced, so people who weren't there for the joke can understand what the heck is going on. This was not always the case, aggravating many new or casual redditors who would then either be confused as to what was happening, or busy digging through links trying to find the right one, especially if the link in question was posted to a subreddit which the user did not subscribe to. I'd imagine including it on the wikipedia page was an attempt to explain to people new to the site that there is a method to the logo madness. Reddyenumber4 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Owner Moderation

The Overview section claims, "Reddit is not moderated by its owners," however, this is untrue. Comments are sometimes hidden to all but the original commenter, so detecting the censorship is difficult to detect without access to multiple computers. At this time, the hidden comments can be detected when a story claims to have X number of comments, but actually has X minus one comments. This article's Overview section should be corrected. --72.71.253.157 (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is moderation by forum (subreddit) moderators, but it's misleading to assume that involves the site owners at all (though it sometimes does). Anyone can create a forum, and moderate it, and invite anyone else to be a moderator. The handful of largest (and earliest) forums do have the site owners as moderators, but there's nothing magic about those forums other than being the oldest and having the most traffic. The hundreds of other forums are, as far as I can tell, completely independent of the site owners' authority. There is nothing stopping any redditor from creating their own subreddit, with their own rules and surpassing the current largest forums in popularity and traffic, without involving or inviting the site owners at all.
As far as it being a sign of hidden comments when the comment count is higher than the visible comments, I'll take your word for it that subreddit moderators can do this (without multiple computers I can't test it for myself), but I've also seen this happen when comments are deleted; the comment count in the header will sometimes continue to include the deleted comments. I don't understand why it's inconsistent about this, but I've seen it happen with my own self-deleted comments and it is not any kind of certain indication that a moderator hid a comment. 72.227.183.222 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Not seeing the relevance that there also exists subreddit moderators, in addition to the primary reddit forums. I have personally seen this moderation on my own comments, and I have read other Reddit users complaining of their own moderation. Unless you can provide a citation backing up your claim that the site owners are not involved with this moderation, then the misleading statement in the Overview section should be removed. I have removed the statement. Should you decide to override my change, then I suggest you put the text back in a way that will not mislead the reader into believing there is no comment moderation, in addition to providing a citation to your claim. --71.168.124.11 (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There is moderation. It is not by the site owners. It is by the moderators of a particular subreddit. The site owners are also moderators of some the the subreddits, but do not have moderation rights in every subreddit. These rights probably vary depending on which of the site's owners it is. I don't have a third-party source for this right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.25.85 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Here to further explain - all content on the site has to be submitted to a subreddit. Subreddits are moderated voluntarily by the people who create them, and they can choose to add more moderators whose powers are mostly dedicated to getting rid of spam. People can then choose to join subreddits to get different sections of news, which will be included in their personal front page. If a mod abuses their power and the other mods don't do something about it, usually the proactive half of the community packs up and moves to a different subreddit under new leadership, and since they're the ones submitting links, the more passive half ends up following them to continue getting the same news. Since the code that determines front page content takes into account the difference between subreddits with several hundred and several thousand subscribers, changing subreddits to avoid a troublesome moderator will also alter the weighting system for the front page, so if one were to hypothetically move from r/news to r/news2, where news2 had only 1/10th the subscribers, news2 stories would still compete with much larger subreddits in link aggregation because the site would account for it's smaller size, making it much easier for a link from a 50 person subreddit to hit one's personal front page, than a link from a subreddit with 25,000 people. The site admins basically add new features and fix things when they break, and they are the only ones that moderate the r/reddit.com subreddit. There are a variety of subreddits subscribed to by default with a new account, but they can all be unsubscribed to. Additional spam control measures are a set of detection features coded into the way the website works automatically, and a newly implemented feature that displays one possible spam link at the top of the user's front page, and asks for the user's opinion of the quality of the link. Between this and the voting system already in place, reddit has tried to rely on a free market for aggregating content, eliminating spam, and organizing community leaders for different subreddits, with the few actual employees of the website usually spending their time developing new features and plans for the community. If a meme becomes popular, the admins might add a new T-Shirt to the store regarding it. If there is a thread suggesting an idea like a reddit meetup day, the admins might make a blog post to officially endorse it. But for the most part, the community is run and regulated by the users, the mods they endorse, and the built in spam filters. Since this is original research, I'm just posting it to clarify how the system works in practice given my own personal knowledge of the subject. Reddit contains a series of F.A.Q.s and blog posts dealing with site design and functionality, so anyone looking to source this might try there. Reddyenumber4 (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete this Article

There is no reason there should be an article for reddit. The crowd that hangs there is *very* biased. I guess they just used their numbers to keep this page here.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.88.198 (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was very biased too, that is no reason to remove the article on him. If you mean that this wikipedia article is biased, you should point out where. (And as noted, it easily passes notability.) 88.159.74.89 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well played. Nalorcs (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Reddit really does not deserve an article though. No need to waste space on wikipedia for every small message board and site out there. It's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.248.83 (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Then the article for Digg would have to go too. They are very similar "message boards". PaulHat (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Reddit is a major website ranked #533 on Alexa rankings at the moment, saying it's not notable is incorrect. Link to Alexa stats
For reference, as of April 3, 2012, it is now #124 in total traffic according to Alexa, and #52 in the United States. Nalorcs (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
ROFL man with one red shoe 23:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The point is, that the reason I think this article shouldn't be here is because it exposes reddit's security. We can't have the whole world knowing about reddit! 72.230.135.196 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fantastically biased statement

This opinion is offered in the article:

Top topics on the site typically reflect the far-left of American politics extolling atheism and socialism. Some have commented that the rampant down-ranking of topics and posts whose only fault is promoting an idealogy different from the liberal consensus on the site, and not because of errors in content or clear trolling like many general aggregator websites, makes reddit little more than a "liberal echo chamber."

I recommend deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fimbulfamb (talk • contribs)

Can't disagree with that, so I removed it. Remember that you are encouraged to be bold and make such changes yourself. Thanks for pointing it out. Haakon (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yet, any objective person would find it true. Atheism and socialism are often top topics and can be tracked day in and day out on the website. And both constitute far-left ideas with respect to American politics. Does wikipedia not honor honesty if it hurts the sensibilities of those who espouse such views when they are right called far-left by American standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyaboveallelse (talk • contribs)
Oh, I absolutely agree with the statement, but just because some Wikipedia editors agree with something doesn't make it a neutral, objective fact. Statements about reddit's political bent can be included if it can be properly cited. Haakon (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo! Favicon

The favicon for Reddit now appears to be a Yahoo! symbol. Did Reddit get bought out by Yahoo!? Axeman (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

God, I really hope not. 72.230.135.196 (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Supported views

The community of Reddit in general is undoubtly leaning towards certain views. Posts that are anti-religion/pro-atheism, anti-Israel, pro-drugs often get to the front page (while ones opposing them have no chance of getting there), comments that support these views are also usually getting upvoted, while those opposing them get downvoted.

While this may not necessarily reflect the views of Reddit's administration, shouldn't there be a reference in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.153.182 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, if someone can find a source that says this. Without a source, it would be original research. Haakon (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Improper language ("sob stories" et al)

"reddit (or "Reddit", as called by less literate wikipedians) is well known for its self-congratulation. This often revolves around giving random strangers money or pizza in exchange for sob stories"

doesn't strike one (irregardless of level of literacy) as terribly encyclopedic. It also lacks sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jann.poppinga (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Way29, 24 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is also a Reddit Sidebar for firefox which can be downloaded for free at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/53873/

Way29 (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, please make any future requests in the format of "Please change x to y", otherwise it can be difficult for us to understand what edit you would like to be made. What would you like us to add to the article and where? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 12:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.per above. Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Down in external links I suppose Way29 wants this

Wikinews has related news:

changed to this

Wikinews has related news:

74.84.109.41 (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The wikinews link is from 2008. Unless reddit recently sent Helen Thomas roses, it's more like History than News - that link. Of course, the info should be incorporated in the article before the link is deleted. I guess Way29 isn't up to doing that, either. 74.84.109.41 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Guys I made a whole bunch of edits

but if you ask me to source anything I will just trollface cause I am lazy. Problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmm... (talk • contribs) 04:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Myriad" & Locked Article

Is the reddit article locked? I'm unable to edit it to remove the "myriad" adjective used to describe the "Reddit Gold" account. "Myriad" means "thousands" or "many" -- reddit gold offers well under 10 additional features. Fairly misleading. --Redditdies (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Reddit bias?

Shouldn't it be referenced to in the article? The Reddit community appears to have really strong bias towards certain topics. Topics that share (radical?) liberal views, oppose religion, support the legalization of drugs, support web piracy and oppose Israel always make it to the front page of the website. While opposing views are usually "downvoted" and therefore gain much less attention. 84.229.129.56 (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you provide a citation for it, its just an observation with no encyclopaedic value. Norlik (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reddit has an undeniable liberal bias. This has been mentioned many times in this talk page, and definitely should be noted in the article. [Here] a conservative user talks about how he was banned from a sub-reddit for posting the same text for one day that a liberal user got away with posting for a year. Reddit also blocks unpopular conservative users from posting for 10 minutes at a time[citation needed], while popular liberal users post at will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.47.241 (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because reddit's engine figures out on its own its users political views —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.195.6 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It's still very ambiguous the way it's written... pronounced like "read it". Is that a command, as in "you should read it", or is it past tense like "I read it in the newspaper yesterday"? (I know it should be the second way, but I don't know what the best way of clarifying that is). Amit (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be the second pronunciation, because Reddit's help page (which the pronunciation cites) uses the example sentence "I read it on reddit.". The words "read it" in this context are in the past tense, and should be pronounced "red" instead of like "reed". I'm going to change the intro to make it more clear. -Lebowbowbowski (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

upvoted/–67.241.190.171 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Registration" section of infobox

Just wanted to clarify my edit... according to Template:Infobox website, the correct usage of the "registration" note is to say either "None", "Optional", or "Required". 175.137.88.17 made a good faith edit by including Reddit Gold in the registration field; however, to preserve consistency, I have changed the registration entry to "Optional". If there are disagreements, I would suggest posting on the talk page of the infobox template to possibly modify the current scheme.  Amit  ►  14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed?

I have untagged this article as having a disputed neutrality because in every instance of its neutrality being disputed in this discussion page occurs, it has been resolved. If anybody is still disputing the article neutrality they must bring it up in here for discussion, not just "tag" it and leave. HorseloverFat (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable Information about News Corporation acquisition

All of the information added to the reddit page regarding the supposed acquisition by News Corporation has no citations supporting it and is therefore unverifiable. I have reverted all of the edits regarding that to a previously verifiable revision (412791434). --Tobyw87 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, needs sourcing. Rumors are not acceptable on Wikipedia. [CharlieEchoTango] 08:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
User:93.182.164.42 has reverted his edit about the News Corporation, yet has still not provided proper citation. If he continues to make this edit what is the process for getting an administrator to intervene? --Tobyw87 (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I have warned the user, if he continues to do so, do not hesitate to escalate the warning to a level 4 (final warning), and then if he doesn't stop, report it to WP:AIV. I'll keep an eye on the page. [CharlieEchoTango] 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"reddit" or "Reddit"?

The article uses a mix of "reddit" or "Reddit". What should it be? --Mortense (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's officially lowercased (take a look at the reddit FAQ page, for example), and I am in favor of using the official casing. -- psyced (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. —David Levy 06:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Added demographics section

It would be helpful to also have the # of users if someone has a good source for that.--Babank (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

70.166.89.121 (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

comment structure

I was surprised to see that the way reddit handles comments wasn't mentioned in the article. (I don't know if it has a name or not. Perhaps I missed it and it was in the article. Sorry, if so.) For me, the biggest thing distinguishing reddit from the numerous other websites with a similar purpose is how comments are not organized in linear threads but in a tree-like structure. Leonxlin (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning, but it's not that distinguishing, other websites use the same format for comments, slashdot for example. man with one red shoe 16:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Definitely worth mentioning.
Reddit comments are organized in a tree-like structure, rather than in linear threads.
Needs a second sentence explaining the above like I was 5 & familiar with neither tree-like comments or linear threads. --Ocdnctx (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Demographics?

I'm sorry but there's no way the avg user is 35-44. Alexa.com suggests it's around 17. 137.30.122.155 (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexa says "visited more frequently by males who are in the age range 18-24 and have no children" Can someone add that? 137.30.122.155 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing a section on types of post: IamA, AskReddit, TIL...

An important feature of Reddit is the different types of post: IamA, AskReddit, TIL. Perhaps worth mentioning in the article? pgr94 (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Content missing

I propose a few new section: one on subreddit controversies in handling of moderation; one on redditgifts which was just acquired by reddit; and another on notable celebrity interactions through the IAmA subreddit in which users can ask questions to those in high or unusual positions. The new employees have also not been added in the 'growth' section nor is their mention of any default set of subreddits that one is subscribed to. There is also no mention of the moderation efforts of users or how that is run.BepUK (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


Misogyny problem

Reddit has an enormous misogyny problem with comments in general being misogynistic and subreddits, such as for example r/beatingwomen(Warning: graphic content proceed with caution), dedicated to violence against women. I think that should be mentioned somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.218.208 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

reddit is open for everybody to post and create subreddits, if you want you can create a /r/beagingmen, reddit doesn't have a mysogyny problem, people who post in this kind of subreddits have their own problem, but it's strange to say that something that's free for everybody to post has a specific problem. Also... the Wikipedia policies doesn't allow us to add stuff based on original research or opinion man with one red shoe 14:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that there is a huge amount of misogyny on reddit, I don't see how this can be worked into the Wikipedia article and maintain neutral viewpoint, unless some secondary source can be found, such as third-party articles discussing said misogyny. Then maybe there could be a section title "criticisms of the site" or something. Googling "is reddit misogynist?" brings up several entries like this one: http://www.dailydot.com/society/reddit-beatingwomen-misogyny-images/ -- dunno if this would qualify as a reliable secondary source or not. Opinions? MinervaK (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think dailydot is a reputable source in relation to the misogyny problem on reddit. A section about it and subreddits that are a testimony to it, such as beatingwomen, should be included citing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.218.208 (talk • contribs)
Agree. I might even add the section myself, if nobody else comes along and does it soon. Given that there's a section on all the 'good works' the community has done, it seems only logical to include a section on its 'bad works' too. MinervaK (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
This would make for an extremely one-sided argument that has no place on an encyclopaedia. Anyone can come up with their own opinion and then Google for articles that validate that opinion to cite as references. I can just as easily 'prove' that Reddit has a serious problem with misandry (/r/againstmensrights, /r/shitredditsays, /r/feminisms, 'neckbeard', 'butthurt dweller', 'forever alone', 'nice guys', male users being heavily downvoted and banned from female-orientated subreddits based solely on their gender) and I can cite articles to back that up. That still constitutes original research because it's still my opinion. It doesn't matter that somebody happened to agree with it. Hermiod (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I've since decided against adding the section (myself, I'm saying), because I think that reddit is just mirroring a larger cultural problem within its demographic (20-30-something males). While I think that's a worthy topic of discussion, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to have it. MinervaK (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, Wikipedia is not the place to attack 20-30 year old males by stereotyping them. Nor is it the place to use obviously one-sided opinion pieces from Anderson Cooper or Gawker Media (who have a severe sexism problem themselves as demonstrated by their Jezebel site) as references for such opinions. Hermiod (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to thank user LegrisKe for edits, I think it strikes the perfect balance, conveying that the site encourage free speech and that some people use that free speech in negative ways. Personally I think that's the example of balanced approach that we need when we treat this kind of issues. man with one red shoe 19:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to the use of any Gawker Media website as a reference when dealing with sexism. Gawker have repeatedly attacked Reddit and have come under criticism themselves from Reddit users which speaks to possible bias. In addition, the blog Jezebel falls under their umbrella, a blog with a sexism problem far more severe than anything Reddit does. I will therefore be removing these edits until suitably unbiased references can be provided. Hermiod (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that Gawker is probably not a reliable source, I think the paragraph was balanced and well written, if you don't like the source you can remove it and ask for a more reliable reference otherwise it's a bit extreme to remove the entire paragraph because of one source, especially that is nothing that seems to be incorrect in that paragraph. man with one red shoe 15:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Impartiality problem

This article seems to lack any form of detail about the 'negative' parts of Reddit. I understand that these things can be hard to provide references for since things are removed, lack of external articles about problems. However, as mentioned above, there is the problem of misogyny, users attacking others (in a style resembling that of 4Chan/witchhunt/mob mentality) both online and people's personal lives (a recent example is the mod who was going to shut down IAmA began receiving threatening calls to his work place. examples that could be referenced; http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/jyrlu/announcement_there_will_be_no_posting_of_personal/ http://blog.reddit.com/2011/05/reddit-we-need-to-talk.html I may add a section on this, but wanted to hear people's opinions on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.225.124 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I vote to add a section on crticisms, with reliable secondary sources cited. I'll be glad to help MinervaK (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Having reliable sources (not random blog posts) is important, but equally important is not giving those presumed problems undue weight if a free service used by millions of people (no authentication is required to create an account) have couple of posts that are over the line, do those posts deserve a separate section in the article? At most we need to make it clear why and to what extent reddit has a problem if it does have one. To me that's not so much surprise that in the millions of people who post, you can find racist, misogynistics, misanthropes, evil spirited people, I hope the sources that we use will reveal how prevalent those people/posts are on reddit, otherwise it's pretty useless, it's like saying "bad people exist online". -- man with one red shoe 01:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Most sites allowing user-added content have some form of user guidelines prohibiting certain behaviors. I think the issue with reddit is not that individual users indulge in misogynistic behavior, but that the site itself allows fora like http://www.reddit.com/r/beatingwomen and http://www.reddit.com/r/rapingwomen to exist while banning reddits on other less-offensive topics. I will say that I have not had the stomach to go into those two reddits and find out for myself what, exactly, goes on in them, but my feeling is that even if they are intended as "jokes," their continued existence is remarkable on a general-user type site like reddit. MinervaK (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That would be good to mention if we have sources that say just that, that reddit bans less-offensive topics while it allows more-offensive ones. man with one red shoe 13:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've since decided against adding the section (myself, I'm saying), because I think that reddit is just mirroring a larger cultural problem within its demographic (20-30-something males). While I think that's a worthy topic of discussion, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to have it. MinervaK (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

page organization

I've started doing some general editing here in preparation for adding a section on criticisms of the site (see above), and am wondering if perhaps there isn't a better way to organize the information after "Overview." It seems kind of fragmented. For instance, the "restoring truthiness" section could go under "notable site contributions," but that section seems to be sort of floating in outer space. I think that there should be larger topical headings with these more specific things listed underneath them, like "site culture" could include demographics as well as references to criticisms; technology could be listed under "history," etc. What do you guys think? MinervaK (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the article needs a lot better organization in general. I'd recommend playing around with it a bit until you find something right. I don't recommend a general "Overview" section as the section name means nothing; it's just a place where people stuff things that don't seem to belong anywhere else. And, a "Criticism" section should be named something else since the section title is already biased, per WP:CRITICISM. Also, the article should be consistent with the capitalization of "reddit". Personally I think the lowercase version should be used throughout the article since you rarely see the capitalized version on any official pages; it's usually only seen on some newspapers and blogs that refer to the site, especially those that aren't as familiar with it. I would compare it to capitalizaing "IPod". Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree on the titling of the "criticisms" section, even though it seems pretty common (the articles about Facebook and Digg both have a "criticisms" section). The Slashdot article uses a "culture" heading, which seems more neutral. How about "site culture," under which I list criticisms as well as notable contributions and "good works?" MinervaK (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with the "site culture" idea if you plan to list criticism there, it should be really balanced view about the site and "undue weight" should not be given to minority views. man with one red shoe 21:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
MWORS -- I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you think that there should be a section titled "criticisms" rather than "site culture?" Please clarify... Thanks MinervaK (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Neither, we might have a "Reviews" section or something like that and there present balanced opinions, not cherry picked criticisms -- man with one red shoe 22:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
"Reviews" is okay. "Reception" is also reasonable; it's a common section in media articles about films, video games, books, etc. and not as common in websites, but it's still acceptable. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I don't think I'm going to work on this article right now. If anyone else is interested, please have at it. Thanks MinervaK (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've since decided against adding the section (myself, I'm saying), because I think that reddit is just mirroring a larger cultural problem within its demographic (20-30-something males). While I think that's a worthy topic of discussion, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to have it. MinervaK (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gary King above that reddit should NOT be capitalized in keeping with the official styling of the name. Casey (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. —David Levy 06:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Community website?

Why isn't Reddit listed in the Community Websites category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.188.45 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Combinator funding?

The History section says they initially received funding from Y Combinator, but this article disputes that, and seems to be pretty authoritative. Mchesnut (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

IAMA

Only seen a couple of topics on Reddit but from what I gather IAMA is where a verified known individual answers questions on him/herself. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article (by someone more knowledgeable) to explain it as some links on Wikipedia refer to this article in conjuction with "did an IAMA" but not explaining what an IAMA is. --Stalfur (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2012

This should be placed under the Culture section. I consider this to be one of the bigger things Reddit has done, yet goes unlisted.

As of January, 2012, through "http://www.firstgiving.com" The Atheism, Christianity, and Islam subreddits have raised - over $210,000 by r/Atheism, over $15,000 by r/Christianity and over $1,000 by r/Islam.

Examiner has a good article on this, but Wikipedia had the site blacklisted because there are some user comments on the article about "4chan". Annoying that I can't use that good article.

http://thesoundsnews.com/2012/01/online-atheist-group-is-%E2%80%9Cgood-without-god%E2%80%9D/ http://blog.reddit.com/2011/12/future-of-fundraising-and-altruism-on.html http://www.firstgiving.com/fundraiser/r-atheism/ratheism http://www.firstgiving.com/fundraiser/redditcharity/rchristianity http://www.firstgiving.com/fundraiser/ahmed-m/rislam

74.216.59.5 (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It was basically already done, but I put in a bit more information and mentioned that Atheism donated the lion's share. I don't know which Examiner you meant, but isn't that a tabloid newspaper? If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Demographics Section

There have been a number of polls to see what the spread of reddit users in the past year alone. I think that someone should revisit the demographics section of the article, as it has changed dramatically after the digg annex, and subsequent growth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.110.95 (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just happened to check Google's Ad Planner and the demographics don't match those listed in the article. The actual age demographics are: 53% aged 18-34, and 43% aged 35 and older, with 4% listed as under 18. As the person above mentioned, there have been a number of Reddit polls asking for user demographics (http://blog.reddit.com/2011/07/who-in-world-is-reddit.html). Unfortunately, because older users tend to visit the site less often, and spend less time on the site per visit, results tend to be heavily biased towards the younger demographic (who have a much higher likelihood of seeing the polls). I think any mention of Reddit's demographics should include both sources and explain why there might be a discrepancy between the two.--Da9iel (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Child pornography

As of February 2012, the 'free speech'/laissez faire attitude of admins has extended as far as there being an /r/preteen_girls, which is being used by users to share suggestive photographs of children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.44.100 (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As of 19 February 2012, any subreddit that focuses on erotic pictures or sexualization of children is subject to deletion upon discovery. Reddit users have tried to argue "free speech" to keep these sub-reddits open, but child pornography does not fall under any category of protected speech, per the US Supreme Court. X-Com goon (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

This article was recently vandalized to suggest that most of reddit's content is "stolen" from 4Chan. While the text was very non-politically correct, there was a valid point that could be added under a possible "criticism" section. Daviddwd (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to log in at first)

the SPLC did not designate any subreddit a "hate site"

Currently, it says:

"In March 2012, the Southern Poverty Law Center listed r/mensrights as a hate site as part of its coverage of misogyny and the men's rights movement.[58]"

This is a lie and is not supported by the cited source. The SPLC was contacted and Mark Potok clarified that it was an opinion piece. Contact them yourself if you doubt this. Sinnick (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I read the SPLC article, and it very much lists r/mensrights as a hate site. Also, who contacted the SPLC? When? How? Can you verify any of the preceding questions? If your claims aren't verifiable, then they're not fit to be used as a cite for anything, ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.81.212 (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC article never once calls that subreddit a hate site nor does it list it on it's hate site map.64.42.240.5 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In the "Community and Culture" heading "Culture" should not be capitalized. It's protected so I can't change it. Thanks.98.66.150.153 (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

the SPLC itself is not a reliable source. for a good reliable source, it must in its source give a reason why. for example "it is notable for the anger it shows toward any program designed to help women." they must give source and example in it. not a single quote or source from SPLC shows that they are simple fabricating it without actual arguments. if so, then they are not a reliable source and should be removed from the article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.83.237 (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reddit is a social news site that lends itself to the increasing amount of participatory cultures taking place online. According to Henry Jenkins, participatory cultures have "relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement...show strong support for creating and sharing one's creations...and members believe their contributions matter and feel some degree of social connection with one another." Reddit is founded on these very principles with most content coming from user-generated material. Especially under AskReddit, it is clear how participatory cultures function as a true means to finding solutions to public questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.115.43 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 June 2012

Under the Header "Reddit IAMA" the following line: "The two most popular AMAs all time are...." should include the word "of," as in "The two most popular AMAs of all time are...."

Eric Indiana (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2012

The information on the Subscribers chart is from may 7th, so it's about a month and a half old. I think by now it should be updated, or at least in the next week or two.

http://www.reddit.com/

Celestial Reader (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: for two reasons:
  1. Please provide the exact URL address where the information can be found?
  2. However, I'm not sure that the table adds anything of significance to the article, especially if it needs to be regularly updated. I would be in favour of removing it entirely, or at least narrowing it to a total number of subscribers. What's is your opinion first, is there a specific reason to include the full table?
Once you've answered the two questions below please change answered=yes to answered=no in the banner on the right hand side. Callanecc (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Table of subscribers

I raised this point in the above edit request. I don't believe that the table of subscriber numbers (here) dds anything of significance to the article, especially if it needs to be regularly updated. I would be in favour of removing it entirely, or at least narrowing it to a total number of subscribers rather than having them broken up into each subreddit. What is the community's opinion of this proposal? Callanecc (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'd be fine with either option, completely removing it, or just having it as total subscribers. The information changes frequently, and doesn't add great encyclopedic value to the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the number of subscribers for each subreddit, but left the default subreddits for the reasons above. Please feel free to change it back if you want. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 10:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"the front page was archived"

however, as of October 18, 2011, the general front page was archived owing to a changing community.

Speaking as someone who's been on the net for decades, but has little to no exposure to reddit: .. i don't know what that means. the sentence should either be rephrased, explained or dropped. just sayin .. Doceddi (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Reddit Moderators

Should there be a section about the reddit mods? They look like an important part of the community. "What is a moderator" "How reddit works"

Zer0dept 04:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2012

​

Someone needs to put up the story of President Obama on Reddit. Hello!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/obama-on-reddit-by-the-numbers/2012/08/30/1965cd5c-f2a4-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscoinspot (talk • contribs) 30 August 2012

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, Please remove "though the Christianity subreddit had a higher donation amount per subscriber" in section "Community and culture", bullet point 1.

The info is decidedly biased, uninformed, & unsourced. The /r/atheism subreddit is a default subreddit and as such has a far larger amount of subscribers, a vast amount of whom are no longer, or never where, active accounts. The inclusion of the above sentence serves only to further the unfounded stereotype that Christians are more charitable than Atheists.

At the very least, a source should be appended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.19.241 (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Supporting this. No source is given and, as mentioned, the info is rather uninformed. --FionnT

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose we remove the Demographics section from Reddit.

I am proposing we remove the Demographics section from reddit. There is no demographic information and it is a huge website that gets millions of visitors.

I have edited it slightly to remove some quite false information, such as 'most redditors are poverty-line' nonsense until someone finds a better citation/source.

The source listed for "Demographics" section, is completely false because Google doesn't have information on reddit domain. Google says: "Placement details are not supported for the type of placement you requested." When you type reddit.com or domain: reddit.com.

I suggest we remove it as there is no evidence of this, and no survey/scientific-poll was conducted on reddit traffic demographics. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


Should We Discuss The Recent Poor Press

That Reddit garners from media sites, like that Gizmodo writer and the /r/jailbait / creepshots debacle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dano55555 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Gawker? As in:
  • Kiss, Jemima (October 12, 2012). "Reddit blocks Gawker in row over 'creepshot' photos". The Guardian.
There does seem to be a lot of media attention about this since yesterday. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 20:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I do think it's worth including. I'll try to write a fair bit, feel free to improve. Cpbay (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC) (I'm not able to edit the article, so please add this text and citations if you think it works)
In October 2012, controversy erupted at Reddit when the blog Gawker revealed the identity of a moderator on the site who was responsible for founding and maintaining some of the perceived offensive subreddits, including r/jailbait and r/creepshots.(1) The exposé revealed that the moderator, Violentacrez, was well-connected and tolerated by the administration of Reddit.(2) Many parts of the Reddit community were outraged by the release of his real name, viewing it as a violation of privacy. Various subreddits preemptively acted to block posting of any hyperlinks to Gawker Media websites. (3)
(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/reddit-blocks-gawker-creepshot-photos
(2) http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web
(3) http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/13/gawker-vs-reddit-mods/
Cpbay (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this is worth including, and the paragraph above is a good start (though perhaps a little in need of balance, e.g. noting that not all redditors were 'outraged' and many supported Gawker's actions). Other coverage of this in reliable sources can be found here:[2],[3]. I note that someone's added mention of it to the Gawker article as well. Robofish (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
There's also this one: [4]. Peacock28 03:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of a coherent structure to organize 67,000 subreddits into domains relevant to seeker interests is a major weakness

A criticism of the page is that there are an overwhelming 67,000 subreddits (as of May 7, 2012), yet Reddit lacks any obvious hierarchical structure to make them browseable by a seeker's areas of interest.

Having 67,000 subreddits lumped randomly together in conglomerations of thousands and thousands is overwhelming, to the point of being of little use, and actually counterproductive. A browser must weed through Reddits irrelevant to the seeker's interests, wasting the seeker's time. The seeker will most likely run out of time before finding the Reddits best suited to their interests, ensuring a poorer match between the interests of the person seeking and the available Reddits.

E.g.,

Atheism Buddhism Mormonism Christianity Judiasm, Other Atheism, other Christianity, etc.

are lumped in with

Car mechanics, dating, etc.

Criticized for lacking a convenient way to browse, e.g., a front page set up with links to categories, e.g., Religion. Needs a page of broad categories that click through. Sort of like http://www.dmoz.org/

Better than dmoz might be categories and sub-categories move around based on what is currently hot, so that it forms a heat map. Optionally sortable by user into what's popular, or just alphabetical.

Edit request on 28 December 2012

Please take out the "Explain Like I'm Five" as being one of your automatic subscribed subreddits. It no longer is. Thank you. 216.137.224.148 (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, although I could not find any authoritative defaults list. On the other hand, nothing (including the 2011 blog post) lists Explain Like I'm 5 either, so there's there's that. — daranz [ t ] 09:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Most Popular AMAs

Currently the article states "The two most popular AMAs of all time are Neil Degrasse Tyson and Ken Jennings", using a source from May 2011. If we look at reddit's recent blogpost, it's stated that Obama's, PSY's, and Snoop Lion's AMAs were top-viewed on the site for 2012, though I'm not sure if they top the previous ones (Obama's probably does). Anyone care to discuss/investigate? Xxcom9a (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any useful sources that just outright say "these are the most popular AMAs." I guess as an alternative, we could include something like the top tab of the IAmA subreddit, as long as we remark what we mean by "most popular." — daranz [ t ] 19:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know what I'm doing but the end of the IamA section also says /user/karmanaut is an admin. He's a moderator. Anyone can be a moderator. Admins actually work for the company. It's in the citation given but wrong in the article. Also, karmanaut is a damn narcissistic asshole. That doesn't need to be in the article. I'm just stating the obvious. I have no wikipedia credentials but I know that about him from being on reddit so it shows I know what I'm talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.34.184 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that whole bit, since it doesn't seem like something that should be included in an encyclopedic article. The compilation of the list is a fact that's kind of meaningless in itself, unless we delved into the list itself or something.  — daranz [ t ] 08:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a request

But I think that PSY definitely needs to go in the list of people who have done an AMA. 67.242.208.166 (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Woody Harrelson AMA fiasco

"the audience wanted to explore other things with him, which caused conflict."

The audience, in fact, only wanted to explore one thing, namely the contents of this comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/p9a1v/im_woody_harrelson_ama/c3nijr7

wherein user AndyRooney alleges that Harrelson crashed a high school prom and took a girl's virginity and didn't call her afterwards. I'll give a registered Wikipedian the chance to clarify this misleading statement before I submit an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.26.236 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Why no criticism?

Why is there no criticism section?

The word 'criticism' doesn't even exist in the entire article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion

A merger has been proposed from the "Michael Brutsch" article to a general article about Controversial Reddit communities. Please weigh in if you are interested in participating. Thanks! Breadblade (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/7zlyd/my_gift_to_reddit_i_created_an_image_hosting/
  2. ^ http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/7zlyd/my_gift_to_reddit_i_created_an_image_hosting/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reddit/Archive_1&oldid=1144179676"