Forums / Discussion / Meme Research

Disclaimer: These are not meant to be guidelines, but rather a discussion :/

---

I've been thinking for a while now that we have a lot of different entries in the database, many of which are written by awesome writers, but its not exactly standard on how we should do meme write-ups before confirmation.

Diversity in writing is good, but plain inconsistency is weird.

So prepare for a tl;dr list that is basically my annoying opinions:

For the lazy writer:

About/Description/Usage: What is the meme, when was it popular, where was it popular.
Origin: If you can find it.
Links: Not only helping Entry Moderators figure out what you are talking about, but also helpful since we can build upon those links with more research.
Images/Videos: Yes, they waste space, but it looks more interesting.

That should take you like 5 minutes. 10 minutes tops.
Doing just those is already amazingly helpful.

But you already knew that.

Now for the more technical stuff.

For the not so lazy writer:

Evidence of Spread: You don't need links, but we need something (gained popularity on reddit, popular among video-sharing sites, etc.)
Evidence of Popularity: Can be addressed when you talk about spread, but numbers are pretty nice too (500,000 views).
Cite Sources: Link to them sources.

But those are pretty obvious too.

So now here's where I get super technical and show i have too much time on my hands.

For the paranoid writer:

Objectivity: Humor is okay, bias is not.
Good English: Good writing still applies here.
Background Information: If the reader might not understand it, explain it or link to a relevant KYM entry.
Translations: If possible, and if not possible- try to at least provide context.
Earliest Instance: If the origin cannot be found.
Describing a meme entry as a "meme:" You are on a website about memes. You don't provide anything by telling the reader your entry is about a meme (instead: image macro, YouTube poop series). Although I think the use of the word, "meme" is fine outside of the description section.
Aftermath/Response/Reaction: If it's important.
NSFW warnings: yea.

Optionals:
Analysis/Editorials: Of course not necessary, but can be pretty cool (like Amanda B's Epic Quitting: A History section)
Charts: Quantcast, Alexa, etc.- if it fits in with the entry
Google Insights: (and I am really guilty of this) We should probably tone down on the Google Insights charts unless 1) You have something interesting to say about it or 2) You are doing a comparison of different terms in the same meme or different memes.
Blockquotes: They look cool. or something.
References in Pop Culture: yea.

Uhm. so. My writing isn't great in comparison to say, the staff or many other users, but that's why I think some standards would be good? :|

So yea.
Anything else that should be standard? Is it necessary to have standards? Am I being too technical? Thoughts?

This is some great material, as usual.

I like that you put both "Origin" and "Earliest instance", if only for the fact that it highlights something important about the history of many memes. Case in point, there are a lot of memes that come from Spongebob Squarepants, but just as important as which episode of Spongebob the particular image/video/whatever came from would be where it first became popularized on the Internet. A lot of memes have this process of early spread, and it's useful to understand the full history.

Also, I do like that you pointed out that bias is a no-no, but editorializing can be appropriate; there's a fine line there that nonetheless is important.

I'll look at this list again later to see if there's something else that would be a useful addition, but I think you've done a pretty thorough job.