Talk:Dead Internet theory

Evidence section needs to be reworked

The evidence section as it stands serves to support the concept of dead internet theory being real by citing a ton of examples, and implicitly arguing it supports the theory. Thats not what this article should be; it should be explaining, contextualizing, and analyzing the theory. It reads less as an encylopedia article and more of like an advocacy document. Plus the section being so long in relation to the criticism inherently makes it seem a lot more plausible than it perhaps should be.

I suggested splitting off portions of the section, as splitting off the whole section doesn't seem practical due to the range of topics covered in the section.

Suggestions I have:

- Bot traffic content to Internet bot

- Social media to AI slop

Then the main article can get a cleaner two to three paragraph section ModlordD (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @GeogSage @~2026-29576-79 @Belbury and @The Anome ModlordD (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That section is a bit of a hold over from when we were trying to get enough sources for verification. The contents though are all verifiable examples given by proponents of the DIT within citations. To understand the DIT, it is important to see what the evidence used to support the theory is. The "expert opinions" section is mostly criticism. As for "contextualizing, and analyzing the theory," we can only report what is in reliable sources. I have some pretty good analysis I could publish IF I was in such a field where this was really relevant (and still might be able to relate it to my discipline), but the Wikipedia article is not the place for us to write analysis. That said, yes, the evidence section could be improved. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

We could probably merge the criticism and expert views section at this point as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

For the analysis part, yea I meant whatever analysis has been done by reliable sources. But I was partially wrong, I admit. Looking now, it does seem that most of the evidence isn't just examples of AI which would naturally be part of DIT, no they are all explicitly cited towards it. Thats not to say the section doesn't need work, but perhaps not the one I suggested.

This is just a suggestion too, but maybe this could become a split article? Something along the lines of "evidence supporting dead internet theory"? I'm still not certain a list of examples is super relevant to an article like this ModlordD (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem, it's a lot to take in at once and I can see missing that link making it look like it's focused to much on trying to build support instead of just identifying what supporters are using to justify their position. I've done a bit of work on the Bigfoot page, mostly with some minor wording and adding citations (I'm only responsible for 2.8% of that article, it was pretty well developed. Not surprising given the page was created two days before 9/11 while I was still in elementary school). When working on this page, I used the Bigfoot page as sort of a template for dealing with controversial topics, specifically I used the Bigfoot#Claims section as a model for the evidence section. I didn't think that claims was an appropriate name here, as the DIT is abstract and makes specific claims, so made claims separate and through the specific evidence used in the sources to support claims into its own section where we could stack sources. Perhaps, now that we have more then enough high quality sources to pass even a strict notability/verifiability check, we could merge the evidence and claims sections? Maybe summarize some of the more specific claims sub-sections. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, SocialAI, and Digg could be tossed into a section called "social media," and Youtube, TikTok could be lumped into "video platforms" (although TikTok is both social media AND video platform, so it isn't a perfect fit). Bot Traffic and Large Language Models could be merged as well into something like "Bot traffic and large language models." Result would be three sub-sections instead of nine, and these could be slapped into the "Claims" section, so it would look something like:

• Claims
  • "Weak" and "Strong" versions
  • "Leaner" dead Internet theory
  • Evidence
    • Bot traffic and large language models
      • ChatGPT
    • social media
    • video platforms

I don't think a list article would be super useful at this point, but if someone wants to throw one together and can get it past the new page patrol, we could work with it to move stuff there. Generally, would formally oppose it though on grounds that I think it would ultimately weaken the main article and produce a fairly weak list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, I agree with all your points here. I'm not entirely sure if ChatGPT needs its own subheading under the large language models, but it might be the case, I'm not gonna argue about that ModlordD (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Could probably be merged into the parent section, but would want to see what it looks like once a rework is implemented. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I've reworked the sections per this discussion. There is likely still work that can be done, and it can probably be reworded to flow better now that the sections are combined. I think it is an improvement though. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks much better! Thanks for your work ModlordD (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Glad it was able to satisfy your criticism. If you see anything else please mention it or take a crack at it. Feel free to ping me if you have future questions! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Change class to B

I believe the article has reached the B-Class criteria, and can be promoted. Want to ask before I boldly regrade. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with this rating ModlordD (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed it, if anyone has a major issue they can discuss. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated image

Wikipedia generally prohibits AI-generated images and there is an AI-generated image. I know there are exceptions sometimes, but I dont think this article is under that. Noxajatsocad (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Please look at the actual policy at WP:AIGI. "Obvious exceptions include articles about AI". Which this article clearly is.

If you want to dig deeper, see the RfC result at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AI images#Relist with broader question: Ban all AI images?

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Just want to say I participated in that RfC, and used Shrimp Jesus and this page as examples for why we shouldn't ban AI images completely. I just reviewed the discussion, and I don't believe there was much if any push back to this exception. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I looked at the policy but was not sure if this fell under that. Noxajatsocad (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I struck my original comment Noxajatsocad (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)