| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | Sources: | | Sources: |
| | There is https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2016/08/17/489516952/npr-website-to-get-rid-of-comments?t=1559755447034 to tell you that NPR moves to Twitter and Facebook because they found that 491,000 comments came from only 19,400 commenters[[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 17:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC) | | There is https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2016/08/17/489516952/npr-website-to-get-rid-of-comments?t=1559755447034 to tell you that NPR moves to Twitter and Facebook because they found that 491,000 comments came from only 19,400 commenters[[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 17:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm not sure if these are "comments", so much as they are tweets being "quoted" by this article. That seems to better explain the last entry, which appears to be meant as a self-referencing quote. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.4|108.162.241.4]] 18:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
| |
| − | :This is entirely correct. The comic is clearly referring to the practice of quoting posts/tweets to support an article's thesis. See e.g. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/01/collection-action-kills-innovation.html [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.169|173.245.52.169]] 20:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
| |
| − | :I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation! I agree that many times articles display copies of tweets, but the article title specifically mentions random comments, not random tweets. I believe the comments are indeed from readers of the article, but that's just my impression. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 21:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Well... Can't tweets be comments as well? Comments do not need to be in the comment section. Even if I tell my coworker at the water dispenser about an article I read, and that I didn't like it, that is a comment on that article... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 05:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
| |
| − | A lot of XKCD comics reference or allude to current events/reality. Are there a lot of articles that focus on the first few reader comments? Aside from NPR's move, is there something else Randall's referencing?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I think everyone is missing the real point of this comic. What it's really satirizing is the way the news media elevates a handful of negative comments about something to mean "The Internet is outraged".
| |
| − | [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | There's a distinct lack of attention to the fact at least one of these comments/tweets are entirely stripped of context. The second to last one has absolutely no mention of the topic at hand, just a general statement. This delivers a particular punch coupled with the article's hand-picked comments to support a narrative. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.213|162.158.93.213]] 07:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | While it's not current news, several years ago there was the Starbucks Red-Cup Controversy, stirred up by the media claiming everyone was outraged. In fact, only a small number of people were actually outraged about the cups, while most people were outraged by the controversy itself! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 11:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
| |
