Talk:On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleOn the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
October 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 8, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" is the most reproduced cartoon from The New Yorker magazine, and its title a phrase still used around the world?

Fair use[edit]

I am pretty certain that under fair use the cartoon can be reproduced here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Agree. Done. Privatemusings 05:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nomination[edit]

Thank you to SeizureDog who has nominated this article for Good Article status. I had considered doing it myself, but was not sure if it was long enough. I look forward to the feedback and will be happy to fix any problems that may be found. Cheers, ArielGold 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Length shouldn't be an issue, as it is not a criteria, only that it "addresses the major aspects of the topic". --SeizureDog 05:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Passed[edit]

This is a very good and well written article. As always more information will greatly improve an article. The article can benefit from a slightly longer lead also. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret talk 21:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One thing Tarret missed in this review was that, per the Manual of Style, no quotation of less than four lines should be in blockquote format. That last quote needs to have the format changed. VanTucky Talk 21:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. Fixed now. Thanks all! ArielGold 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A variant[edit]

I recall seeing in a computer magazine many years ago, a follow up cartoon, in two frames. In the first frame, a dog tells another the dog ...; in the second frame, he looks up at the screen and sees written on-line, Name: Heimie (or some name like that), Type: hound (don't remember the exact name of kind of dog), interests: chasing trucks, smelling butts...

It appeared to parody the notion of anonymity in the internet. It was around 1996 I think. Just thought it may be of interest to folks. AshLin 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can find a reliable source that shows it, or discusses it, it could certainly be mentioned! I've never seen that cartoon, personally. ArielGold 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally, is this useful? The variant. The web page where its found on the net. AshLin (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreferenced content moved to talk[edit]

Since this is a Good Article, unrefereneced content should be referenced quickly. Since it wasn't, I have moved the following claims here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OpenDoc and Cyberdog[edit]

It is believed that cartoon also inspired Apple to name their OpenDoc based web browser Cyberdog. The slogan had been used extensively in the OpenDoc and Cyberdog community.

But they know you buy dog food[edit]

The cartoon has also been spread with a second sentence: "But they know you buy dog food" showing the contrariness related to personal data in the internet. On the one hand, you can perfectly hide your gender, race or even species. On the other hand, all data that you provide can be stored and duplicated ad infinitum.

Tenacious inclusion[edit]

this inclusion is tenacious, and off-topic Such off-hand and off-topic discussions are really not approiate for this article.Scientus (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't think so. The editor who posted it gave a reference. I'm not reverting your edit but YOU need to show explicitly and logically why the cartoon is off-topic! Just your saying so does not make it off-topic! AshLin (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Everybody" knows you're a dog?[edit]

There's currently a sentence claiming that the opposite phrase ("On the Internet, everybody knows you're a dog") was coined as a result of the human flesh search engine phenomenon. Not sure whether this is true. Slate used the phrase in 2006 here, but there's an undergraduate thesis linked at this blog in support of the claim. Anyone want to look into it and see if they really came first? —tktktk 23:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Michael Kinsley, “Like I Care: On the Internet, Everybody Knows You're a Dog.”, 27 November 2006. and this book: "From “On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog” to “On the Internet, everybody knows you're a dog” (Kinsley, 2006)..."
  • that book: "On the Internet today, everybody knows you're a dog!” (Clive Thompson, NYT, 2008)."

earliest is

and in 2013 it was everywhere: [1] , [2] , [3]... --Atlasowa (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May also be relevance[edit]

The sentence "There may also be relevance to the possibility of using the internet for pedophilia" looks like WP:OR to me. It appeared in this edit (9 May 2008). Prior to that edit, the reference "Taylor, Maxwell; Ethel Quayle (2003). Child Pornography: An Internet Crime. Psychology Press. pp. 97." was used to verify the text "A study by Morahan-Martin and Schumacher (2000) on compulsive or problematic Internet use discusses this phenomenon, suggesting the ability to self-represent from behind the computer screen may be part of the compulsion to go online." The edit replaced the ref for that text, and inserted the "may also be relevelance" sentence with the Taylor ref. There is precisely zero evidence that this cartoon was intended to allude to that possibility. I suppose the content of this article might include commentary from independent sources, so the sentence could conceivably be recast along the lines of "Commentator X regards the cartoon as an indication that the Internet may be used for pedophilia", if a significant commentator who said something like that can be found. The dubious nature of the sentence was raised in October 2009 above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The original text should be reinserted, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed. It's definitely OR and you should feel free to be bold and remove it. Andrew327 10:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm lazy and was hoping someone would look at the ref and decide whether it is useful for this article. However, it seems a lot of fuss for a minor issue, so I restored the sentence to how it was, and removed the OR. My guess is that the ref (which I have not seen) cites the Morahan-Martin and Schumacher study, and someone added that cite here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Article Must Have Been Ruff To Write[edit]

I would just like to throw you a bone to reward you on your efforts in creating with this article. Danielbullis (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is saying this quote? Should this article be re-assessed?[edit]

I'm sorta thinking that this article is not longer up to GA status. It's not very extensive, there's a "popular culture" section, and the writing isn't all that clear. For example, this is a passage in the "Context" section (which should probably be split, with half the content going into "History" and the other half going into something like, "Critical reception" or "Reception"):

The phrase can be taken "to mean that cyberspace will be liberatory because gender, race, age, looks, or even 'dogness' are potentially absent or alternatively fabricated or exaggerated with unchecked creative license for a multitude of purposes both legal and illegal", an understanding that echoed statements made in 1996 by John Gilmore, a key figure in the history of Usenet.

Who is making this statement? Is it a quote from the study, or a quote from John Gilmore? I'm guessing it's the latter. Either way, probably the quote should be replaced with a paraphrase. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 03:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]