# Talk:Extremely online

@Headbomb:: When I wrote the article, I included a dril quote at the top (in lieu of an image illustration) since dril's mentioned by a lot of the sources as being a quintessential example of the phenomenon. If you'd like, I can add some more references/content to support that; but I think it should stay for now. I am working on finding an appropriate image illustration, and then I'd be fine with moving it down to the sections where it talks about him specifically. jp×g 04:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's funny but it's really not that relevant to the lead. DemonDays64 (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a better idea? Dril is emblematic of being Extremely Online. For example, [4]: "Dril’s persona, to the extent he has one, is an extremely online", "Dril’s work is commonplace among the young and extremely online". Benjamin (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it should not be in the article. There is no critical commentary that discusses the tweet. 2601:192:8800:6F60:31DD:4DEA:E7D8:71AF (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no requirement that specific illustrations be mentioned as topical by sources, so long as they are reliably illustrations of the thing being depicted. How would articles be illustrated at all if that were the case? As an example, look at the images on Frustration: are there individual citations verifying that these specific people were frustrated at the time of the photos being taken? There are multiple references in the article that dril is an example of this phenomenon, which is why a post from him is included in it. If you've got a better one, go ahead and replace it, but it makes no sense to say that it "doesn't belong" unless there is a reason what I've said here is wrong. jp×g 07:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't like the photo of the man. Nothing about it indicates that he's not merely normally online. Benjamin (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Extremely Online/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 10:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


### Lead section
Events and phenomena can themselves be Extremely Online;, I thought you already said so by saying above a person or subject.
Y Fixed. jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
latter half of the 2010s (...) increasing prevalence and notability of Internet phenomena in all areas of life. What made it so relevant now and not pre-latter-half?
  Most instances of the phrase appear specifically in reference to Twitter, which only reached ubiquity in the 2010s, and sources are in consensus on it having emerged around 2014 or so. Most if not all of the phenomena referred to in the article (constituting basically all use of the phrase in news media) took place in the late 2010; I can find a more solid citation for this if you want. jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Extremely Online people are interested in topics "no normal, healthy person could possibly care about",, did you forget a "that"? And I'll personally object to that, because I believe I'm Extremely Online but I'm not interested in dubious topics. You also didn't use "are described as", and you stated it as a fact.
Y I was conflicted about this while writing. There are only so many times that "described as" can be in a paragraph before it starts to get unwieldly, and this is something that sources aren't in disagreement on. I have added inline attribution, but it seems very awkward. jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


### Background
[9], the information about the dirtbag left doesn't quite fit with the article on the wikipedia, surely the show didn't have a different meaning?
  I'm not sure what action is recommended here. The Guardian article I'm quoting from says "the Dirtbag Left, a coterie of underemployed and overly online millennials who were radicalised by the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis, have no time for the pieties of traditional political discourse"; our article on them talks about their "left-wing politics that eschews civility in order to convey a left-wing populist message". These seem to be in general agreement: is there a disconnect between them, and if so, what would be a better thing to say? jp×g 18:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems I misread, I apologise.
What blackpilled means?
Y This seems more in scope for Doomer, which at a glance could definitely do with expansion. In the meantime I can add some explanation in this article. Explanatory reference added, with relevant quote. jp×g 23:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
and the doomer's "blackpilled despair" combines with spending "too much (...)", combined?
  This is deliberate: it combines, in present tense, since doomers continue to exist (as does the dirtbag left and alt-right). jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't feel "combines" is grammatically correct here. I feel it should be is combined. Editoneer (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Y Okay, I have changed it.
eclectic, what is ecletic?
Y Linked to Wiktionary entry. jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


### People and phenomena
What is Wint
Y Don't know why that was there, fixed. jp×g 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
In the shown example, pointing directions at the audience isn't encyclopedic.
Y Fixed. jp×g 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
have described as Extremely Online, have been?
Y Fixed. jp×g 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


### See also
Most of those are related to Extremely Online people?
Y Yes. jp×g 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
You can argue the changes at any time, good luck. Editoneer (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll do my best. jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I've made some edits. @Editoneer: thoughts? jp×g 23:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm honestly surprised this article is passing, it covers all the basics of the GA standard despite being some internet slang and also that you were really quick to correct the issues. But you missed one thing above. After that I'm going to put it on 2ndopinion. See ya. Editoneer (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Editoneer: How does it look now? jp×g 18:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Well... and 2020 campaign, I don't feel is grammatically correct without some "the". But I consider this can be hotfixed, so all the progress is done, I'm putting it in second opinion. Editoneer (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I reworderd to read better and hopefully address Editoneer's concerns. (t · c) buidhe 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, I wanted a second opinion to see if another person agrees on it passing, @Buidhe: Do you believe the article is worth passing? Editoneer (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


### Capitalization
Generally an article's capitalization style should be reviewed with respect to WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS.  Since sources don't usually cap "extremely online" (when they use it in a sentence in the sense meant by this article), we should be using lowercase in Wikipedia.  I realize JPxG disagrees, but the open RM suggests that this should have been fixed before this could be a Good Article (caps for emphasis).  But Editoneer already flipped that bit, it appears, so we're addressing it in arrears. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw this in the GA listings and I thought it was a really interesting concept, but I think the article is weak because it relies on describing the concept mainly through examples. That makes it hard to really grasp why this is something beyond just "folks who use the internet too much" or "internet celebrities", and probably even harder for folks outside of the online-culture interest to understand. 
Are there any journals that do a more broad over-view of this topic? Like the cause... or maybe how it fits into the 2010+ zeitgeist? Are there more statistics? Are there any quotable expert opinions on Extremely Online-ness? Are there any attempts to standardize the definition, like hours of engagement or number of posts? It is totally controlled (like some of the political examples) or is it a compulsive, additive facet of internet use? Is it explicitly an active descriptor? Like, content-creators, bloggers, taste-makers, activists etc.? 
I don't need answers obviously- but that's the direction I'd take for an encyclopedic article. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that I've seen, although that will likely change. Disturbingly (although unsurprisingly), newspapers seem to have started using the term more often since I wrote this article. Coincidence? Who knows! My opinion is that they should hire me to write newspapers. Another thing they should hire me to be is a college professor. Alternatively, they could hire me to teach journalists and college professors about making posts online. Anyway, I think that in the next few years we'll either be eating mushrooms we grew on the wall of the fallout shelter or looking at a vastly expanded version of this article. jp×g 10:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the article uses “Extremely Online” rather than “extremely online”? It seems like we treat the article’s subject as a proper noun, even though we sometimes use it as an adjective. I feel inclined to make changes to the capitalization that we are using in the article, though I wanted to put this on the talk page before moving forward to see if anybody else has thoughts. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It's possible to find it used both ways, but most sources tend to agree on capitalizing it, which does convey semantic content (for example, calling something a bad idea is different from calling it a Bad Idea). jp×g 10:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article and I WP:BOLDly lowercased it even before having checked the talk page. Sorry for jumping the gun, but I found the title case version very painful to read and borderline  pretentious. Per MOS:EMPHCAPS, This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context. It's obvious that the term "extremely online" is used in its special meaning throughout the article, so there's no need to provide semantic distinction. No such user (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@No such user: Wikipedia articles are not titled based on what one editor thinks is the least "borderline pretentious", they are titled based on what the name of something is given as by significant coverage in reliable sources. This is true even for weird shit like "That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is", "Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz" or "Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles". To demonstrate this, I will go through and check all 38 sources. Not all of them are being used to source the term itself, so not all of them mention it explicitly with either capitalization. The Outline mentions the "Extremely Mad and Litigious Guy"; Vanity Fair and Vulture are using it in actual titles, so while it's capitalized there, it doesn't imply anything either way.
But the sources which explicitly say "Extremely Online", with that exact capitalization, are The Daily Dot (Hathaway), Vox,  Korn Ferry, Reason, the Journal of Digital Social Research, Vox (Romano), WENY, and Politico; for the most part, these are not passing mentions of the phrase, they are the main references which support the body of the article. Specifically, the first reference is WP:SIGCOV from a WP:RS which gives a clear definition of the term and goes out of its way to say "Extremely Online" multiple times. I am not quite sure why you chose to change the title of a GA without checking the talk page, but I have requested a reversion at WP:RM/TR and advise you to actually open a move request if you think it should be titled differently. jp×g 18:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG: Fair enough. I would have reverted myself on your request, but I was Offline (pun intended) already. I opened a RM below. No such user (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What's with the unexplained creapy 2012 tweet in the lead?  I think I'll remove it and see if anyone comes back with a reason to put it back. Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems to pertain to much later material about a particular Twitter user (who is already getting arguably WP:UNDUE coverage in here; I think I detect a WP:OR insinuation that this user invented the phrase).  The tweet is already summarized there, so we have no need to repeat it verbatim, much less is an unduly attention-grabbing manner, especially since it also contains a vulgarity, and it is in no way necessary to understanding the topic (it's just "color" someone threw in). It's basically a pull quote (so, see MOS:PULLQUOTE) except that the version integrated into the prose isn't a direct quote but a paraphrase.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend you consult the discussion five sections above on this talk page, where the issue was discussed in January; it wasn't "thrown in", it was there from the first revisions of the article. The reason it's mentioned in the text is because a few people had said that inclusion of a specific tweet needed specific mention in the text to establish its relevance. (On a side note, no, dril did not invent calling stuff "extremely online", and if you're interested in unciteable OR, I'm not sure but I believe it was Nick Mullen. I didn't go very deep into the subject because, frankly, the specific identity of a person who coins a term tends to be both trivial and contentious. jp×g 17:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ironic for this to be an issue here, but should this article be using the off-brand dril avatar? It was thoughtfully retired from the dril article in favour of a plain blue circle a couple of years ago. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

With no response in a few weeks, I've switched to the circle. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG the image might have been added to the article 7 months ago, but it was uploaded in 2008. The "demotivational poster" meme format is entirely outdated and is essentially from another era of the internet as "extremely online". I get why the Chapo image shouldnt be the lead image but a 13 year old meme is almost hilariously out of place and has nothing to do with this article. Might as well use this instead. jonas (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this (although disclosure, I selected the image to add to this article). Motivational posters feel very dated and not with the era of this article. I mean, can you imagine Felix Biederman posting a motivational poster except as an intentionally lame joke?As alternative possibilities, we could have someone walking around livestreaming themselves on a mobile phone. I added an image in the past, but it was removed as being just some random guy (true, but the mindset is more what matters to me). We could also have an image of Nick Mullen if we can find a source mentioning him (I definitely think his longtime user name "extremely online guy" popularised the term.) Or some of the Capitol rioters like the Qanon shaman guy. Incidentally, searching for mention of this article is a lot of fun, I particularly liked this, this and this. Blythwood (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, when I first wrote the article, I'd used the embedded dril tweet in the place where a lead image would normally be. At some point this was swapped out and put further down the article (the idea being that it needed to be directly next to the part of the body text where said tweet was referenced). After that went to the pot, I went around trying to find a photo of Donald Trump making posts online, which involved plodding through hundreds of archive photos (and coming up with nothing), so I said to hell with it and just found a photo of a guy making posts online. The demotivator showed up a little bit later. I do think that Nick's screen name was behind a lot of the term's popularity (could never find a source for this but I know it's true). But just having one person as a lead image seems inapt to me -- what would you say to a collage of a few different images? I am not at my computer right now, but in a couple  days I will be, and I can show you what I mean. jp×g 21:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that either the demotivational poster or the picture of Chapo are useful for illustrating this concept. This doesn't strike me as the kind of article that needs a lead image. Spicy (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. None of the images are great, but the chapos have at least been specifically described as extremely online, unlike the unidentified guy in the meme. Benjamin (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I also looked for pictures of Trump on his phone, without success. How about this Trump tweet instead? Seems fitting. https://web.archive.org/web/20210107022900/https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/781926033159249920
These images might also work 

jonas  (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The third one would be okay, I guess. It's neutral, at least. Idk, none of them are great. Benjamin (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Missed this discussion when removing the image yesterday, which JPxG has added back. I'd agree with upthread comments that a 2003 meme isn't a great illustration of a term that didn't appear until 2014. Would also say that it doesn't match the text, that an "extremely online" person is someone too immersed in internet pop culture, where a "serious business" internet user is one who takes a trivial online discussion too seriously. (Looks to camera.) If we can draw a thread between the two memes then we should do so in "Background", which currently doesn't go back any further than 2010, and put the image there. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

How would people feel about this? It's the same image as the one used on the selfie injuries article, which is the only problem. But I haven't found an image as good anywhere else. Blythwood (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
A man ignoring a child while taking a cheerful selfie or (more likely) filming a bike ride doesn't seem to correspond to anything in the article. Ignoring someone while intently reading or typing something on a phone, perhaps, but not this. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This article currently doesn't contain any information about negative consequences that may arise from near constant Internet use (Psychological effects of Internet use) or why someone might be terminally online in the first place (escapism or loneliness). Or even that it may be a temporary state induced by certain external factors (like the COVID-19 lockdowns or unemployment). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)