Talk:Sockpuppet (Internet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sockpuppet (Internet) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 graphic 2 Bogdanoff discussion 3 Puppetry 4 Sock Puppet = Limiting Term 5 Origins 6 Origin of the Term 7 Should NOT be a candidate for Wiktionary 8 Image 9 Reference to eBay 10 Psuedonyms and Sockpuppets 11 Meatpuppets 12 Humour 13 Original research?

[edit] graphic

Why is the sock puppet graphic on this page? Does it serve any purpose at all?

I find it funny. (Not the one who put it up)

Me too! (Not the one who put it up...either.) It's soo cute! <3/Teentitans! 22:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I would rather it stayed; articles with even the most tangentally related illustration tend to be easier on the eye than those with none. However, I'll discuss here before reverting removal! — ciphergoth 18:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with ciphergoth. It makes the article look more complete, having an image there, and at any rate this isn't the Take Everything in a Mortally Serious Manneripedia. I thought ol' Socky was charming. Lord Bob 20:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the picture (on the basis of the whole 'be bold' thing) because it has no relevance to the article in question. The article is not about literal sock puppets (there is a separate article on that, where the picture is appropriate) but instead about metaphorical sock puppets. I would not expect the article on the Internet Worm to have a cute picture of a worm, or an article on network switches having a picture of a light switch, or an article on Internet gateways having a picture of a gate. If it makes the article look more complete, it is an illusion. However, I'm not interested in having an edit war; if the consensus is that the picture adds to the article, then put it back. I just think it's rather silly and detracts from rather than adds to the article. TTFN. --Huppybanny 07:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I note that the sock puppet graphic is back. While it is a funny picture, I still think it is not terribly appropriate for this article. --Huppybanny 00:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

what would a serious picture of a sock puppet look like? perhaps a blueprint diagram? Bwithh 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but is a picture really necessary? Is our policy to be "we can't find an appropriate picture, so let's put an inappropriate picture instead - at least it's funny"? --Huppybanny 08:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the picture is a nice touch to the article. As said by ciphergoth, articles with pictures are easier on the eyes, and this picture seems to suit the article IMHO. --Murray-Mint 20:09, 03 November 2005 (UTC)

We should certainly lose the picture. A photo of a "toy" sock puppet is irrelevant to this article on Internet sock puppet. ("Funny" is also irrelevant to the purpose of this article.) ("Easier on the eyes" is also pretty irrelevant. If we wanted everything on Wikipedia to be "easy on the eyes", we'd put photos of beach babes and baby animals on every page.) Note also that the photo is visible at Sock puppet -- and more appropriately! -- for those who wish to enjoy it there. - 21 November 2005

Please keep it. I believe the picture aids in immediate comprehension for newbies as the accessibility of the metaphor greatly increases comprehension and the non-threatening picture reassures someone that they understand the concept, because it is simple and non-threatening. A picture of a light switch may not explain a network switch very simply, but I've used the metaphor of a railroad switch to explain how a KVM box works (when otherwise it just looks like any other electronic box) and there is a fair amount of literature in technical communicatons which supports the "some pictures are better than no pictures" argument, as illustrated in practice by various low-threat computer books such as IDG's "For Dummies" series. Being able to understand the metaphor instantly and anchor it to previous experience definitely aids understanding, more than technically (or rhetorically) gifted users may appreciate. - Not-Bob (aka Rorybowman 14:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

There is just no justification for putting up the picture. It ought to be removed, cause it does not serve any purpose for the article. Its cuteness does not qualify it for staying on this page. I will request the admins to look into this matter. Even after continous reverts by Admins like Sean Black this image is being continously put up on this article again and again.

Maybe a change in the caption, could sort out somethings for the fate of this image.

Possibly the caption has been changed since this post - but caption and image illustrate well the "talk to the hand" metaphor of the name "sockpuppet". I think image and caption contribute to comprehension and content, and should stay. Fast Rita 05:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

- Anirudh 1140 hrs 21 February 2006 (IST)

The picture does too serve as a use, it shows very clearly where the term sockpuppet comes from in this sense. Because a sockpuppet in the other sense is some kind of fake deception controlled by somebody else, which is the same general sense as what this article is about. Mathmo 23:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

While I fully understand those who think the picture should be removed on account of its irrelvance, I have to say that it's actually quite an apt picture to have up. The metaphor of a person using their hand to mimic a seperate entity is an entirely accurate way of describing sockpuppetry on the internet.

First, the fact that a sockpuppet isn't going to fool anyone who gives it a hard look applies to both actual and internet sockpuppetry. Second, the fact that the user in question is using his hand to create the illusion applies to the internet case as well, as they type their mendatious comments on a keyboard. -- Chris 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To the ones against the picture: please remember wikipedia is read in many countries -- including the ones where english is not a first language. The picture helps the understanding considerably, especially for objects not common in other cultures. Making puppets out of socks is not as popular around the world as you may think.

A more appropriate image might be the cartoon that was in funnytimes at some point of an office scene in which the boss was conversing with a cubicled employee with a sock on his hand, saying something like "all time-off requests have to go through Miss Fuzzy" or something like that Minitrue 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bogdanoff discussion

There seems no reason for the Bogdanoff affair to be given prominence over the many other examples of sock puppet allegations. Please discuss those reasons here before re-introducing your changes. Also, when your edits are disputed it's useful to have a Wikipedia account, which is easy to create. — ciphergoth 20:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's not allegations, it has been proved, and the Brothers themselves acknowledge it. it's not a matter of prominence for me, it's just a simple and relevant example. But if you don't want it, i won't fight with you. I just find it rude to erase my work,without a single word. Maybe it's "the way it is" here.

[edit] Puppetry

Whatever you say, I'm for it. :) Wahkeenah 12:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you say, I'm against it. >:( Wahkeenah 12:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

One advantage to being openly schizophrenic is that you can be your own sock puppet, and thus avoid the time and trouble of multiple registrations. :) Wahkeenah 12:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC) >:( Oh, yeh? Wahkeenah 12:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you probably would say that, if you existed... The Real Walrus 23:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppet = Limiting Term

My wiki Dual_troll was merged here. I'm not really complaining, except this merge is limiting. A dual is both a sock puppet used for trolling and a secondary account used to circumvent a ban. A sockpuppet is not used to circumvent a ban and therefore unless anyone objects, I'll be unmerging Dual_troll shortly Borgs8472 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be better if you added a section to this article beginning "A somewhat different use for a secondary account is..."? (subscribers to the Mergist philosophy would approve...) Thomas Ash 11:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, SPs are used to circumvent bans. Minitrue 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

What is the origin of the term sock puppet? If I may conjecture, might the "sock" part originate from the term socket?

This is very unlikely. While a lot of words share similar parts with "sock puppet" (internet), only "sock puppet" (the original definition) has a very close meaning. --24.86.70.170 02:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it refers to the fact that a puppeteer using sockpuppets could control more than one puppet at a time. -- 70.140.219.246 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the Term

Most likely the origin of the term "Sock Puppet" reflects what a real sock puppet is: a fake personality operated by an actual personality. Perhaps this should be noted in the actual article?

I think that the origin of the term is important to the encyclopedia entry. Even if we don't (yet) know why the author coined the term, we could say that the original meaning is lost to antiquity. I, for one, would like to understand why it is a "sock" puppet rather than simply a puppet or a hand puppet or a Muppet or a marionette, etc. Maybe a sock puppet is just funnier than any other type of puppet the author could think of. Why else would we have a picture of a sock puppet on the entry? It's funny!--Jcoman 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask about the origins too, so I'm taking the above two comments and adding them to the article. Rlevse 13:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Muppets", marionettes, etc. are carefully crafted and detailed works of art. They take time and skill to make. A nickname like that would give too much credit. A sock puppet can be made with a sock and a magic marker (and even the marker is optional) on the spur of the moment. It implies an identity quickly tossed together - simple and completely disposable. Kafziel 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should NOT be a candidate for Wiktionary

Recently, the "Move to Wiktionary" template was added, and I disagree strongly. The article not only explains what the term means, but also describes its applications and examples. While I think it would be nice for there to be a little more "meat" to this article, I definitely think there's too much to move it all to Wiktionary, and I'd rather have it here in its entirety than carved up for a dictionary entry. I'll wait for potential feedback before removing the template though. -- Hinotori 07:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't hear back from anyone, so I decided to go ahead and take it back out. If this is disputed, feel free to address it here. Cheers.

-- Hinotori 10:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly concur, Hinotori - Sock puppet is indeed a very valid and relevant topic. By the way, I added two paragraphs dealing with the difficult of combatting sock puppetry. Dr1819 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Erm, huh? The image is completely irrelevant to this article. Looking at the section at the top, I see people claiming it should stay because "it's funny". That's not an argument. Unless you give me some reason it should stay (an actual, relevant to the encyclopedia reason), I'm removing it again.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a metaphore, rendered as a sock puppet going to jail, i.e. a sock puppet that have done something illegal. _→AzaToth 01:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

...so? How does that make it encyclopediac?--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay. Yes, it's not encyclopedic in the paper sense, but then again, what paper encyclopedia would even HAVE an article on sock puppets? Let it live, man. --Rob ^T 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a little tongue-in-cheek humor is inherently opposed to an article's encyclopedic nature. I don't see any harm in including the image. As for the benefits, several users have already suggested that it is helpful aesthetically, and seeing as how internet-related subjects are hard to illustrate, a metaphor is actually about the closest one can come to a relevant illustration. I'm in favor of keeping it as well. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 03:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, let's have this argument again. Why not? I don't think it takes anything off the table and it's a light touch to a non-serious article; therefore, I think it should stay. Lord Bob 03:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, short essay:

Keep the image - it's a visual representation of the actual origen of the term "sock puppet."

I highly disagree, these images make the page look silly and appear as if it was never meant to be taken seriously in the first place. Maybe the image at the top could stay, but the rest make this article look like Wikipedia's the next Uncyclopedia. That's most definetely not what we're trying to achieve, now is it?—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 10:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, all the images currently on the page, with the exception of the pair of mugshots at the top, were posted by an indefinitely blocked abusive editor who created several socks in an attempt to get around the block. - Tapir Terrific 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be true. So, in this case, I see no further reason for keeping these images. I've taken them off the article.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to eBay

In the first paragraph of the article, a sock puppet is claimed to be one who bids on his own auctions. Frankly, I have never heard it used in this context. One who bids on his own auctions is usually called a "Shill." eBay does indeed have a policy against it here.

If I'm wrong about the common usage of the term, then I'd recommend that a link be provided to the more common term: shill If I'm right, then I would recommend that the reference be removed.--gargoyle888 01:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psuedonyms and Sockpuppets

Anonymous Ponders: Is there any precedent for Sockpuppets being used simply to allow for a user to be able to make a statement without fear of reprisal on their main account? 128.113.148.32 03:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure this is done all the time. Would you want a system where everyone is required to give their full identity to make a comment? Steve Dufour 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meatpuppets

The text "Wikipedians (and others) should remember however that the use of such terms may be perceived as highly offensive to the people involved. By definition the first contribution of a new user will be to a particular area, and they may start by expressing a view on what should happen on a particular before they subsequently add material of their own. Only if there is very strong evidence should such a term be used in relation to an account created by real person. Note also that "JDoe is a meatpuppet" can only mean "the account called JDoe is a meatpuppet" and to avoid offence the longer form is preferable" has been deleted. What do people think? NBeale 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am now confused. I had the impression that a "meat puppet" was a real person, a friend of the main poster, who was asked to come in and lend support on an issue. The article seems to be saying that it is another kind of false identity. Which is right? On the other issue, I agree that calling someone one could be offensive. Although a person could play this role from time to time, I don't think that makes him one. Steve Dufour 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humour

Minor silliness:

"I am not a sock puppet - I am a free foot."

(Not self-referential of course)

Jackiespeel 16:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

The majority of this article is a big pile of original research. The references are really only citing specific cases and incidents, they're not sourcing the rest of the article.--Crossmr 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's an essay from start to finish. This will need a lot of work. Chris Cunningham 09:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)