Talk:Dead Internet theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dead Internet theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Dead Internet theory (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 15 March 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Mid‑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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Chris Gadek (November 1, 2024). "Marketers in a dying internet: Why the only option is a return to simplicity". Fast Company. Retrieved November 4, 2024. This idea—which Wikipedia describes as a conspiracy theory, and likely originated from 4Chan—has gained surprising levels of traction in polite spaces, earning the attention of respected academics and mainstream news publications alike.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.404media.co/facebooks-ai-spam-isnt-the-dead-internet-its-the-zombie-internet/ (behind paywall)

Conspiracy Theory

Is it really accurate to call this a conspiracy theory nowadays when there's more and more evidence of it being true? 2.102.130.62 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources still classify it as a conspiracy theory so no, such actions would be inappropriate at the moment. A09|(talk) 22:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources". 2001:4C4E:248B:100:299E:1F7C:81CE:C258 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of the sources. You are free to read them yourself. This kind of dismissal of sources that are counter to your opinion without providing counter sources is indicative of conspiratorial thinking. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a reliable source is defined at WP:RS (and especially at WP:RSP) and it's not something I've made up here. A09|(talk) 07:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Original research

@Gsalamander, I reverted a bunch of text that looked like original research to me. Opening this talk page section in case you want to point out exact quotes in the text that discussed the evidence in the context of the dead internet theory. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful editing GeogSage.

I think it's possible that you're over-enforcing the "no original research" pillar on this page. Allow me to appeal to your academic background on this matter. My argument rests on two core assumptions:

1) The articles referenced do not explicitly use the term "Dead Internet Theory," but the evidence they include is directly related to core aspects of the theory as it is spelled out on the page. I noticed you flagged another inclusion on state-sponsored bot traffic as original research on the talk page, as well.

While linking bot traffic more generally to Dead Internet Theory may be seen as "original research" from a pure textualist perspective, I believe it is worthy of inclusion. Perhaps we could break out a heading for "state-sponsored bot traffic" in the "Expert Opinion" section. It would also be worthwhile to think about including a "Corporate Consolidation of AI Traffic" section. Here is the first reliable news source I have ever seen mention the "Dead Internet Theory". This video is how I came to this page. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=251ywHaTnAs

2) "Dead Internet Theory," as a page, is 3-10 times more popular than related articles on misinformation, disinformation, state-sponsored bot traffic, corporate malpractice of AI traffic manipulation, or historical revisionism. Resting on both the values of neutrality and informing the public, I am arguing that we should utilize this page to funnel readers toward more specificity and a greater degree of understanding. "Dead Internet Theory" is effectively a layman's term for state-sponsored disinformation campaigns and corporate AI content hegemony. I tried my best to remain neutral in framing this phenomenon, but I am adamant that people are angry, confused, and hungry to learn more about this subject. I firmly believe it should be included in more places on Wikipedia, especially on popular, directly related pages such as this one.

Other talk threads on this page discuss how "Dead Internet Theory" straddles the line between conspiracy theory and generally accepted truth. A good deal of internet users are aware that bot traffic exists and manipulates discourse but may not have the necessary information to articulate how this plays out in spaces they occupy. By providing factual, well-sourced, and related context for readers, we are making them more aware of the delineation between conspiracy theory and reality, while not outright dismissing their concerns related to these subjects.

I implore you, please, for the well-being of the average reader (many visitors to this page presumably do not have a degree) to loosen your perspective on "original research" regarding this page. I feel your stringent textual adherence is preventing helpful context from reaching an audience that seeks to understand this phenomenon.

In order to preserve the integrity of the page as you like it, I am open to writing out a section in the "Expert Opinion," as I am a published academic on this subject, and well read of other experts in the field. I will happily re-format that section if you believe my contribution would be better suited there. Gsalamander (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to this issue, as I have some of my research has tangentially bumped into topics related to this, and have some opinions on the topic as well. There are many things I really want to include in this article that I can not because there just isn't a source. It's a bit frustrating, and anyone who is reading this that is looking to publish something on this topic for a reputable source, consider looking into, and stating directly if you agree, that "the dead internet theory" is now colloquially used to refer to "A lot of bots online". You've noted the page gets a lot of views, and because this page is so heavily viewed, I am extra conservative when it comes to policy. We're not trying to compile evidence for the theory or against it here, but write an encyclopedia entry is based on the existing literature. I've seen stuff I've written in YouTube videos discussing this topic, anything we say could be taken wildly out of context and spammed across TikTok, so we need to be careful. I suggest reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. If you are a researcher on this topic, I seriously recommend taking your ideas to a reputable journal and bring them back for inclusion once published. Use this pages sources to help you with your literature review, take the sources you've found, and publish your thoughts somewhere so we can include them within the strictest bounds of policy. There are 248 watchers on this talk page, if any of ya'll have a dissenting opinion, please feel free to jump in the discussion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be protected, and if so at what level

We get a lot of IP editors doing drive-by edits, especially in the lede, of this article. Should we request protections on it? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's cause to request protection. Not terribly familiar with the process, but I think a pending changes protection would probably suffice since it's mostly been IPs. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw someone requested auto/extended confirmed protection, thanks. Hopefully that'll fix the constant disruption. I've seen others more familiar with pending changes protection say that it's best used on articles that are only vandalized a couple times a year, so I'm not sure that would've been the best option here. Sarsenet (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be changed

It's not a theory anymore but a fact 2806:10A6:12:7516:384E:FE51:5AD0:28D (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We still list Theory of relativity is still a theory. The name that is used in the sources is Dead internet theory. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing the evidence section

The Evidence section is starting to look like a loosely collected bunch of topics. I think we can try and condense it a bit by changing the approach, instead of looking at each discrete piece of evidence, we can list common claims and give evidence for each. I think this will reduce page size a bit, but not much. Long term, I think this will be much more stable, as we will likely see this term used for media platforms that don't yet exist, and should think how we will be able to bring each in. Posting here, and waiting a few days before I boldly do this in case there is any strong opinions to a major overhaul. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]