This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In Dutch, the word 'lul' is an originally very course, but slowly gaining mainstream word for the male member. Given that swearing in Dutch is primarily genital (as opposed to anal), this gives a very different tone to the 'u' forms of the LOL acronym. 178.237.74.251 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2023
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I reverted their edit on the basis that I don't think an image of a historical figure laughing out loud is of any relevance to an article about the initialism 'LOL'. That image is not of someone 'LOLing'; it's of someone laughing out loud. The image of the person laughing out loud in a computer lab is far more relevant because the initialism is primarily used when communicating using computers – in fact, it's entirely possible that the person depicted could have subsequently typed 'LOL'. Even if they didn't, the link is clear.
JPxG re-reverted my edit with the summary This IS the "old image" -- it was in the article for several years and was removed without explanation very recently (in reference to my Old image was significantly better [...], and apparently ignoring the justification that followed). This is not an adequate reason for enforcing the use of an image that others clearly oppose: that a poor choice of image was used for a long time does not mean a poor choice of image must remain.
I mean, why would there be a photo of anything, in any article? It illustrates the thing we are talking about.
I created this file by cropping it from a larger image, some years ago, while I was going through a very large quantity of public-domain photos from presidential photographers of the 1960s and 1970s (which yielded a good number of photographs of people who otherwise didn't have any). Among these were some others, like incidental photographs of cities from decades past, which I would add to their articles. This one I put here, and in another article about five years ago. Most of them I have since forgotten about, except for this one, which I see every once in a while because people screencapped it and use it as a meme on other sites.
First:
The "history" section of the article talks about the late 20th century, at which point the acronym was created, prior to not existing. Nobody loled in the 1960s, but this was the thing they did before loling. It's the referent of the word. Likewise, we might expect the article on cars to have a picture of some previous thing analogous to a car. Indeed, in History of the automobile, we have File:Trevithick Road Loco 01.jpg, a photograph of a steam locomotive fitted with flat-profile wheels which is not a car in any modern sense. In Aircraft we have File:Aviation (Nouveaau Larousse,c. 1900) DSCN2832.jpg, a large assemblage of devices from the 19th century which are not aircraft (e.g. none of them worked).
Must these be removed, because they are not aircraft, and the aircraft article must only have images of aircraft?
Second:
The purpose of illustration is to assist the article in conveying the thing it talks about. It's an illustration that people have commented on elsewhere on the WWW. Inasmuch as the article's subject is Internet culture, must we to go out of our way to deliberately choose something uninteresting?
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.