This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Philosophy: Logic / Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Social and political philosophy Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Debating (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Debating, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DebatingWikipedia:WikiProject DebatingTemplate:WikiProject DebatingDebating

In the Description section we have two large block quotes. I fear they may be WP:COPVIOs. Any thoughts on that? Coretheapple (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. They're just quotes, and not even large at all. — Smuckola(talk) 21:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but large quotes like that are frequently boiled down for that reason. I'm rusty on the subject so let's see what if anything others say. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is technical/academic stuff (and contentious in places), and I think it is better to have the proper quote as used (properly attributed) than a summarised version of it, which would be prone to its own POV. Aszx5000 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the internet is full of explanations of what sealioning *is*, in abstract, but for those who haven't actually *seen* sealioning, those abstract definitions are very unhelpful, and could even be harmful.

All "sealioning" seems to be, on the surface, is a mocking word for those who ask questions. People shouldn't be afraid to ask questions when there's something they don't know! This is an important basis of any type of constructive discussion. This whole term could be extremely toxic where-ever someone would be accused of sealioning, quieting sincere questions. Maybe notable examples would be warranted in a wikipedia article, to illustrate why this term exists? Surely it shouldn't be hard to find actual examples, given how easy it is to find a definition. --Sigmundur (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: here's an example from SSC comments:

  The first notable sealion in usenet history is probably Sedar Argic, a bot that replied to every instance of the word ‘turkey’ with a long copypasta denying the armenian genocide — which became problematic around thanksgiving.

It's typically not about asking questions to genuinely gain knowledge, it's typically about bad faith question-asking because the sealion (incorrectly) thinks that any statement on social media is an invitation to public debate. If you're asking a stranger a question you already know the answer to because you want to use the other person's response as the setup to some logical argument you want to make against their position, then you're probably being a sealion. (If someone is into that sort of thing then instead of hassling strangers, they should join a debate club.)

But to answer your actual question, I don't think naming and shaming individual trolls is a good idea. I think that would be tricky for a number of reasons, including BLP and not feeding the trolls. ApLundell (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]