User:Alexandr.borchard/sandbox

=Article Evaluation of the Doge meme.= Article Evaluation of the Doge meme.

Relevance
Most everything within the doge article is relevant to the topic at hand. The only thing that seemed unnecessary was the information regarding how a scarf was used to cover the head of one of the doge dogs in a picture that went viral. It seems as though the explanation behind that was not particularly needed.

Neutrality
The doge meme itself holds no political or societal bias. The article matches this. There seems to be no sort of political or personal position that seems to be yearning to be achieved. The closest the article comes to that is discussing how the meme was used by a member of the United States Congress and how many people believed that the Congressman had managed to "kill" the meme. The article's cited for this reference, however, seem to be politically biased against the Republican senator and shows it in the writing.

View Points
The article seems to discuss how brands and political figures have used the meme. It is well documented on how it has become well commercialized. However, there doesn't seem to be a viewpoint that is underrepresented because there is no different way to see the meme itself. Being just a meme, there are no different viewpoints.

Outdated Information
All the information seems to be pretty up to date. It consistently mentions the ebb and flow of the meme's popularity throughout the years, citing that it was at its most popular during 2013.

Talk Page
The talk page of the "doge" meme article was extremely interesting and a lot more tense than expected. I originally expected very little to be said beyond corrections. However, there was a full fledged debate going on about whether or not the meme deserved a wikipedia page at all. Many claimed that memes were not notable enought to have any place in wikipedia. It lacked importance and deserved deletion amoung the wikipedia pages. They claimed that it was "stupid" and would not be remembered within a few months time. However, most people disagreed. Most people argued that as a meme, it has a valuable and notable influence on modern culture. They claimed that the people who wanted it deleted just did not like the meme at all. They cited the article that placed the "doge" meme in the top fifty most influencial images of the year 2013. Many argued that the article deserved a place due to it being meme which is considered a "cultural phenomena."

=Choosing An Article= Assignment for Digital Writing 3053: I have decided to pick creating an article on GhostSingles.com. There is more information on this topic and I find it the most interesting of my choices as well.

GhostSingles.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GhostSingles.com&action=edit&redlink=1

I am a huge fan of strange humor and weird jokes. When I heard about ghostsingles.com, I actually laughed out loud. There is no Wikipedia article on this website to discuss whether it is satirical or one hundred percent serious, which is hopefully highly unlikely. There is no article at all on this website. There are, however, multiple articles from Time and New York Post regarding this humorous website. Therefore, there needs to be an article in order to flesh out what this website really is.


 * Hah, that's pretty hilarious. I think this is a great idea; it's very well-documented online, tons of news articles: You mention Time and the New York Post, but also Fox, Gizmodo , Metro . The author has a personal page . Did you check out the "chat" on GhostSingles.com? Worth clicking through. Elizabeth.f.chamberlain (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Gabe the Dog Meme
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_%28dog%29&action=edit&redlink=1

I am a huge fan of this meme. There have been multiple pictures of this dog on different social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit, as well as videos of him barking to the notes of music being played. It is, of course, edited. I was extremely surprised to see that this dog did not have any sort of Wikipedia page. This meme is culturally relevant and, therefore, deserves a page.


 * This could certainly work. May be harder to find non-blog, non-social media sources for this one, but I see a mention on a NPR Social Web report. Elizabeth.f.chamberlain (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

OBOOKO
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OBOOKO&action=edit&redlink=1 https://www.obooko.com/

This is a website that offers completely free books. According to the website, every book that one sees is free. As an English major, I love books and reading so I was extremely excited to find such a website. A Wikipedia page would be good for the website in order for more people to find out about it and visit it.


 * May be even harder to find good sources on this; in a few minutes clicking around, trying different search terms and sites, I didn't see anything that wasn't a blog. But if you can find adequate sources, you could do this one! My vote's for GhostSingles, though. Elizabeth.f.chamberlain (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

=Draft for Article= Ghost singles https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/03/ghostsingles-ghosts_n_4035455.html http://techland.time.com/2013/10/03/finally-a-dating-site-for-ghosts/ http://www.ghostsingles.com/ http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/14/welcome-to-ghostsinglescom-dating-website-for-ghosts.html http://www.cbs46.com/story/23734015/dating-website-for-ghosts-launched http://geekologie.com/2013/10/well-of-course-there-is-a-dating-site-fo.php http://dontpaniconline.com/magazine/festivals/dating-website-for-ghosts-

Ghostsingles.com is a satirical online dating website that is made for ghosts. It was created by Randy Tayler in 2009. The mantra of ghostsingles.com is "Don't Haunt Alone!" (citations linked above; will add them later)

Creation: Ghostsingles.com is the product of Randy Tayler, a programmer and writer. Created in 2009, this website/chatroom was made as a joke. Tayler is quoted saying "All ghosts need love too" when asked why he created such a website.

Website: As one enters the website, it facetiously makes it very clear that this website is strictly for ghosts. "The living and undead need not apply" is stated on the website. The website only allows ghosts or ghouls of the age "18-1000+".Upon choosing to create an account, it will ask questions about the users' death. One can choose "horribly", "tragically", "mysteriously" or "suddenly" (huffpost).

The website is very clear that this chatroom is strictly for ghosts. "The living and undead need not apply" is stated on the website. The website only allows ghosts or ghouls of the age "18-1000+".Upon choosing to create an account, it will ask questions about the users' death. One can choose "horribly", "tragically", "mysteriously" or "suddenly"

Reception

The website gained attention from multiple news outlets such as Time Magazine, Huffington Post, and Buzzfeed.