Talk:Catfishing

Bots
Bots can be used to "catfish" humans. It is not just a problem related to humans on the Internet. As per the definition found within this article.

Identity
The definition in this article revolves around the false assumption that users of online social media should not be anonymous by default. And Internet history has taught us that in fact, users are much safer interacting online when they are afforded the security provided by anonymous interaction. Online video game communities and "gamer tags" are evidence of this.

On the Internet, differentiating between a perceived "fake identity" (a term even more deceptive and arbitrary than "fake news") and a username created for the purposes of user account anonymity are commonly very similar whilst also difficult to distinguish without such systems as Twitter's "verified user" tag. Especially from the limited information obtained as a result of tiny amounts of interaction with such a user account.

Caveat
This article needs to include some kind of caveat which explains that a person simply having a differing opinion to someone else on the Internet and that person repeatedly demonstrating that fact within their interactions with them, does not mean that an act of "catfishing" has occurred. "Catfishing" is a deliberate targetted attempt to cause others grievance via an act or series of acts of deception.

For instance; the fifty dollar bill on a fishing pole trick (seen in episodes of Jackass) is a type of "catfishing." The deception is caused by the instigator creating a situation where a victim perceives that there is money simply "blowing in the wind" and that it could be theirs if only they chase after to capture it. The instigator then pulls on the line attached to the money, just as the victim is within reach of their "prize." The trick continues until the victim looses interest and gives up, the instigator pulls the money out of view or the money detaches from the hook accidentally.

It's important to understand too, that in the above example, whilst being an obvious example of perceived trolling, the definition of trolling revolves around the fact that only the instigator laughed. It's easy to argue that people (more than just the instigator) laughed whilst watching the trick performed on the Jackass TV show. Confusing online abuse with trolling is both a trap and a mistake far too many people fall into. Please avoid doing so, especially within this article. Maintaining a clear distinction is extremely important.

Legality
There should be more information about how laws deter and punish acts of catfishing around the world. Along with links to the applicable legislation and examples of court cases, if any. Failing that, mentioning whether catfishing is at all illegal, classified as a form of fraud (and therefore covered by fraud legislation) or such should also be considered.

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

8 year old?
Is this factually true, that he believed it was an 8 year old girl? I'm not seeing this anywhere else. I don't edit, this just looked like defacement.

"He had cultivated a friendship with what he thought was an 8-year-old girl from the Midwestern United States and her family. The woman with whom he had been communicating was actually a 40-year-old housewife." Rpm5099 (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree, this needs some attention! His cultivating an online relationship with an eight-year-old (who turned out to be in rehab, even if that turned out to be a lie) seems pretty dubious. Seems likely this was either defacement or a typo. Perhaps the (fake) woman was 18, not 8? 2603:8000:D100:6E0:C03D:552C:A2A8:1B4A (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, this is true. The friendship was with a child, and he had a romantic relationship with what he thought was an age-appropriate family member. 72.231.198.80 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Benjamin Obadiah Foster - is this even catfishing?
By the article's own definition of catfishing ("deceptive activity in which a person creates a fictional persona or fake identity on a social networking service"), I think it's arguable that

(a) Foster allegedly changing his hair color does not necessarily create a fictional personal/fake identity (this may fall into the broader conversation of where catfishing starts and merely changing one's appearance ends); and

(b) the police report only noted that he was using dating apps to lure new victims, however does not note whether he was using a fictitious name, or doing anything else that would have thrown off people that would otherwise ID him. If not, and the people on these dating apps had no idea who he is, it feels closer to just a person on a dating app than a catfish per-se.

I bring this up in no way to be reductive of his atrocities; to me, it just doesn't fit squarely within the article's characterization of catfishing. HeDisconnected (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Image in Lead Section
I understand that the image of Nev Schulman has some relevance to the topic, but would it not be better to include a visual representation of the act of catfishing instead? I believe that an image of a person masquerading as a character (such as ) would connect better, but I wish to respect the significance of such a change. SapphirePimpernel (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the image in the lede could be improved upon. It's relevant, but it seems to offer the TV show host as a representative image of the act of catfishing. I'm not sure the proposed image is the improvement needed, though. I saw it as depicting a costume party, where the purpose of disguise is not necessarily to mislead others (all involved are aware that the others are not presenting their "true self"). A better image might be the one from The New Yorker: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog", even though it doesn't have any cats or fish in it.  signed, Willondon (talk)  21:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC) (P.S. I don't recommend anybody actually insert that image into this article. I'm not sure Wikipedia's fair use reproduction of the cartoon in the article about the cartoon extends to using the image to illustrate the concept in another article. Illustrating the concept in this original manner is probably still a right held only by the copyright owner.)


 * I see your point, although I believed that the Carnaval image would be a useful metaphor for using an attractive false identity. Regardless, I will attempt to find any better visual examples. SapphirePimpernel (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well costume balls don't necessarily mean intent to deceive, but it's probably a good place to look. Some depictions have a character at a costume ball, where everyone knows everyone else is in costume anonymously, but they solicit an interaction they wouldn't have, if the other had known of their specific identity. Maybe our dialogue will attract others to consider.  signed, Willondon (talk)  23:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding your suggestion from earlier: if the New Yorker cartoon is protected by copyright, then perhaps a different animal would suffice?
 * I have finally attempted to browse Wikimedia Commons for relevant images (which was more difficult than expected), and I am currently in the process of deciding between the image linked above as well as four others:
 * A painting depicting a head split into two segments, illustrating the adjective “two-faced”
 * An Internet safety poster focused on protecting children from unknown danger
 * An example of a fake driver’s license to illustrate a false identity without targeting a particular person
 * A photograph of two children sitting next to each other where one is dressed as a lion; using this image may be a distortion of its original context
 * Each image is licensed under the Creative Commons, with the exception of the Internet safety poster being available under the public domain. My current decision is to use the very first image linked, but I believe that it would be fair to receive your input as well. Thank you in advance for your attention. SapphirePimpernel (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything there that quite captured it. It would be a tough Pictionary task unless you used a rebus of a 'cat' and 'someone fishing'. In the spirit of not letting the best preclude the better, I would support the substitution of your original proposal (from Carnaval) as an improvement, if not the ideal.  signed, Willondon (talk)  22:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I will be inserting the Carnaval image now, in the spirit of “it’s not my problem.” Thank you for your time. SapphirePimpernel (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

imma think that wolf in the sheep clotheenq term is more accurate than a simple fish
the r33son why imma say this is obvious, the wolf with sheep clotheenq term It has a meaninq closer to that, since this term can relate to scammers n meowple with evil intentions, such as a wolf or annyother mammalian predator, also in the etymological part it is quite confusinq and erroneous, clearly those catfish could have been mistaken for cod and so on, and since catfish in the aquatic world are known to have more predators than prey, and the wolf has more prey than predators, imma guess we should change the title r give it a more direct meaninq 2800:810:5E3:429:E071:E8FE:63D8:15EF (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%! I think of a catfish as a fish at the bottom of lakes eating the dregs. Faking your persona is nothing new since any of the (un)social media platforms. People always pretending to be something they are not. Also this is just another example of a younger generation re-doing something already invented and taking credit for it. No originality at all. 2601:143:580:5170:8D80:544:45E9:6658 (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)