Wikipedia:Peer review/Dead Internet theory/archive1

Dead Internet theory

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this to good article status.

Thanks,

This article has been on my radar and definitely needs improvement. More scientific sources and up-to-date sources. Not sure how the article should be laid out though. Essentially right now it is a definition and a load of examples which doesn't look great. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 16:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments from GeogSage

Thank you for pinging me on this and setting up the peer review! I've been working on this article a bit for a while, and agree it needs improvement. I took this on as it is tangential to some of my personal research, and because I saw hunting down good sources as a fun challenge, knowing that it had a massive footprint on YouTube but less coverage reliable sources. I'll put my current goals/comments I've had in mind so others can help.

• The article needs more sources overall. If someone can find additional reliable sources, that would be fantastic, but this may be a struggle still unless you have a search approach different from me. While the topic is now verifiable by reliable sources, several sources that cover the topic are questionable, even if they look good. For example, I've learned that Forbes Staff articles are not considered reliable recently when I tried to include The Dead Internet Theory, Explained as a source. Many other sources are leaning heavily on the Atlantic article. We may not be able to resolve this problem for some time, as the sources may not exist, but I suspect in time more will be published. There is one article, Artificial influencers and the dead internet theory, in a peer-reviewed publication I included that could be looked at for more content. If any researchers are reading this, here is your gap in the literature.
• The article needs to be expanded on, and sections need to be added. I've been trying to structure it following the bigfoot article as an example. Using that, sections for "history," "professional view," and "in popular culture" might be appropriate if we can find sources . Existing content could be moved around to do this. (I'll create a small in popular culture section after posting this with some of the existing content to demonstrate).
• The most important part in my opinion is clearly distinguishing the "dead internet theory" as a conspiracy theory from "there are a lot of bots online." Most of the sources use the word conspiracy, but we get a lot of editors who take issue with use of the "conspiracy theory" term. A section on this might be meaningful.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]