Talk:Human flesh search engine

Untitled

I'm sorry, but what on earth does any of this mean! 86.136.121.188 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this has been going on for a while in Sweden, mainly on the forum Flashback.org, which is the largest swedish language forum. There was never a special slang term for it though. 188.126.82.5 (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this the kind of thing that 4chan does regularly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.15.140 (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Doxing, global perspectives

Made a small change to the lead. HFSE is similar but not identical to doxing, which essentially concerns personally identifying information and doesn't necessarily imply crowdsourcing. Also removed the global perspectives tag -- partially for the same reason, but also because the name of the article is that of a specifically Chinese term/concept.

Perhaps it would be better to pull doxing out of the personally identifiable information article and create a new one that this article could be folded into? I'd be willing to help with that if someone wants to take the initiative. --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That came from Benli's posts here. For what it's worth, I'm against folding the concept over. We've already got a pretty fleshed-out article here. Someone already made an article on doxxing, albeit misspelled, and it can just link over here for the Chinese treatment. — LlywelynII 15:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Cyber-violence"

Article uses the nonce word "cyber-violence" without a definition or source; it's just gibberish. The only thing that could possibly actually qualify for such a word would be video game or other simulation characters/avatars fighting each other, but that obvious has nothing to do with anything in this article. Please stop adding meaningless, nonsensical buzzwords to Wikipedia articles. Makes it look unprofessional and written by nerdy kids. Oh yeah, it IS written by nerdy kids, I forgot. >sigh< Temp4590 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A large majority of content on Wikipedia is undeniably written by children, by the child at heart, by teenagers, by the feeble-minded, and by people who have no idea what they are doing. Wikipedia:General disclaimer affirms that at no point in time should you trust anything that is written on Wikipedia. Doing so is a choice made on your behalf, and the blame lies with no one else.

If there is something that is wrong with an article, as a community we encourage contributors to be bold and fix it; after all, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Complaining here with a passive-aggressive attitude isn't going to fix anything; I won't be fixing the article (I sure as hell don't feel like it), and neither will anyone else. If you want to make Wikipedia a better source of information, you can start by removing things that you see are factually incorrect yourself. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Temp4590: - not taking the trollbait in the latter part of your comment, but you're right that "cyber-violence" is a goofy term without proper definition. However, if you read it in context and then look at the source cited at the end of the sentence you'd see the reason it's there is because it is a goofy term that was used by a Chinese court to refer to these acts. I put it in quotes. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see senses of humor are alive and well. The quotes, I suppose, resolve the issue, as long as people understand they're there because it's quoted from the source and they're not "scare quotes". Why not just actually quote the passage verbatim? P.S.: Not everyone wants to be an editor here. I'm a reader. Editing is professional work to me. I'm like someone submitting a bug report about software, who has no intention of submitting a patch through your version control system. Temp4590 (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about quality, is about veritability, the rules say that. Dont go to wikipedia if you think quality is above veritability.

Prior art for software patents.

Hi,

Does this definition applies to research for prior art in software patents, in order to invalidate some of them?

If so maybe theses prior art researches should be mentioned.

GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 12:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any updates on this?CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you clarify the question? I don't know how it relates to the subject. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

HWNDU relevancy?

It seems the HFSE relates to a strictly Greater-China phenomenon, which the characters behind the HWNNDU project do not fall under. I propose that the blurb on HWNDU be moved into the article on doxing. 47.20.71.190 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I also wondered about this and agree that the HWNDU blurb should be moved. -- Afgmcdonald (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Let us remove it. Zezen (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cyber manhunt in Hong Kong

Both articles are about the same topic, which is "Cyber Manhunt". Masdggg (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ping Masdggg - I have read both of them and I agree. Zezen (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: I suggested that both pages be merged to Doxing, for they are no longer neologisms and can be considered regional variants of doxing. Some online dictionaries, like Youdao, even explain doxing as 人肉搜索 (which exactly means "human flesh searching"). There is really no much difference between human flesh searching, cyber manhunt and doxing. They were just given different names separately in separated regions when the internet wasn't as developed as it is today. --H₂NCH₂COOH (Talk) 02:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree too. Zezen (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)