Talk:Habbo

Archives

1

The infamous Habbo Raid

This section is an attempt for a renewed, serious discussion on the habbo raid. The main arguments against including it seem to be the following: Firstly, it does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability standards. Secondly, it is not notable enough, and should therefore not be included in an encyclopedia. Now let's see...

·The fact that there was a raid is hardly disputable. In fact, here's a video of it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ipACsinKe0Y. Various other videos exist on YouTube with the famous raid, and also other smaller ones. Therefore, the event is perfectly verifiable and is not a result of original research. Okay.

·I don't think one can rightfully argue that the event is not big enough to be included in the Habbo Hotel article. First of all, it was organized: a site was created for the specific purpose of directing people to the attack and making it easier (www.poolsclosed.com), not to mention a hacking tool made fo the specific use of trolling (PoolTool) and private documents that were to be available only to the Habbo moderators that were leaked and made publically available can be found there (http://www.poolsclosed.com/viewtopic.php?t=105). Secondly, one only has to google "habbo raid" to see that it is widely known and talked about (here are some random links from various unrelated sites: http://www.digg.com/videos_comedy/GIGANTIC_Habbo_Troll_Raid, http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=525516, http://www.shoujoai.com/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=36010 and others). The very fact that it takes up 90% of the talk page should be enough, too... It was also a first for Habbo Hotel, and the mods were unable to act properly (leading to further chaos; "raids" are still going on regularly and many innocents are occasionally banned).

The above lead me to see the purposeful exclusion of the event from the article as being against wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. 212.205.213.78 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone edited some info in, which is good really, but I think they should have mentioned something in this talk page... Also, it needs some re-writing, I believe. We should avoid terms such as "nigras" and at least mention "4chan". What do you guys think? 194.30.223.1 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, keeping the lexicon to formal terms will be good, even though Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored in the first place. Also, to 212.205.213.78, the proof above has indeed been presented in a non-NPOV fashion, but the evidence itself, in additional to the existence of the items in question, rather than the specific interpretation of their contents, can stand as NPOV references. Just like this discussion taking up most of the talk page and the majority of unique vistors to the page, it is not the obviously POV (how could it be otherwise? Is not describing buildings as "tall" also POV? Should we eliminate adjectives altogether?) statements made, but the overall presence and context of said statements. Now, I don't know how this will be presented into the article, as I am not particularly zealous about this (I'm merely speaking on principle), but I agree 4chan should be mentioned as a frequent presence somewhere in the article, as they made up most of the raid. --Dch111 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like someone keeps deleting the section about the raid without even mentioning anything on the talk page. What now? 85.75.89.227 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Look in the archives. Mentioned many times. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've actually mentioned it after the July raid below, where I said "Because it's neither encyclopedic or newsorthy and no one cares." lulz. 4chan van! (^_^) - Hahnchen 23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"...and no one cares." <--Ahem. Please avoid flaws in logic. Also, it was referenced on at least four counts. The sources included numerous screenshots, including one of a mod banning a blockader, citing the reason as "raiding." You can't prove its nonexistance/nonsignificance. Heck, the raids are more popular than some of the games in the same section of the article.--Dch111 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer, this thread is an attempt to reply at the concerns raised at the archives, not to mention that the archives are too full of mindless trolling to go through. If you have a reason why this should not be included after having read this whole thread, please say so and don't just remove stuff without mentioning anything. (The "it's neither encyclopedic or newsorthy and no one cares" part is covered on this very thread too, not to mention it's merely a POV). To be perfectly honest, I can't understand some people's dedication to making sure this info doesn't reach the light of day. And please, for the last time, don't just silently remove things from the article, that's common sense. Thanks. 85.75.89.227 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahnchen,care to explain why the deletion of the raids were bullshit? How many times was it referenced and proven... --The jazz musician 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

With sources that fail WP:EL. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer said, "With sources that fail". I believe he is saying the raids' sources were a massive FAIL and perhaps the raid was a FAIL, too. Anomo 06:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

At 9/11 there was a huge amount of people trying to get in(nearly 11,000),there's proof. That's all I'm gonna say(god I love bold letters). --The jazz musician 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you specify what part of WP:EL in particular? The wikis were original research, yes, but the screenshots in them are what we're really after. Are we allowed to reference screenshots (a collection of them)? A moderater banning for "reason: raid" clearly acknowledges the activity. In fact, if the particular dates are not mentioned, the raids hardly have to be referenced, if at all, since they are just like the other uncited activities habbos do that are mentioned in the article. It's just plainly part of the site's events.--Dch111 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"With sources that fail?" Are you seriously saying the raids didn't happen and all the links (including videos and screenshots for god's sake) are all just fake?! 87.203.86.99 09:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

While these pics are still good, see [1], [2], [3] from this thread. Anomo 19:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This section of the talk page was removed from the main talk page and moved to the archives without reason or notice, and the title was changed to "The Infamous Habbo raid WITH SOURCES THAT FAIL". This is vandalism. If you think the sources "fail" state so and say why. I've moved this section back to the current talk page. 85.75.113.27 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

New Suggestion

I vote those of us who don't have our heads up our asses start a new article about the debate over whether or not to include the raids in the Habbo Hotel article. I'd say we have all the source material we need right here. -Anonymous

Snakes on a Plane + Raids

Well, now that the raiders are officially cited in this SoaP discussion, it's justifiable to include the raids, which have had a great impact on Habbo altogether. It doesn't matter whether or not "you" think it's not notable enough, despite an official Habbo response and many changes to the word filter, it's not "your" decision on what is and isn't notable. The fact of the matter is, it's happened, it's gained prominence, and it's about damn time this article stopped sounding like one gigantic ad. --Almighty WALKER 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen, article is retarded. Countchoc 09:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No one reads the big boxes at the top of Talk pages anymore. Shame, if they did they'd learn a lot. --james^(talk) 10:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Shhh. That's too hard. I also think that the OP should look at the archives, to see why we decided not to allow that crap on here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh,it was a big giant ad.--The jazz musician 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The true plausibility of the raid ever being mentioned.

Very slim. (Though not impossible)(This will likely be my final post here nope, apparently I was wrong) I sympathize with those who witnessed and know the magnitude of the event (I personally want it included), but from an analytical standpoint, it won't be accepted by Wikipedia. It should be, but, unfortunately, it won't and you should not waste any more of your effort trying. For a few reasons:

• 1. The context of the raid. The people watching this article who are not as familiar with internet culture hear about the "nigras" and "pool's closed" and they immediately don't want something like that tainting their hard-worked-on article. Even if the word "Habbo" sounds silly anyway.

• 2. It is an "internet phenomenon." Internet phenomenons and Wikipedia have not historically got along together well, and in fact, the List of Internet phenomena page has had several attempted deletions on it, which it has fortunately survived through. In the words of an attacker on the Internet Phenomenon deletion discussion page: "What constitutes a true "internet phenomenon" is inherently a matter of personal opinion and can never be mutually agreed on." The main thing is that, despite the significance of such events/items, they remain largely esoteric to the generation that has yet to finish their education and start influencing the world on a scale taken seriously.

• 3. People who made/moderate this article. This is mostly speculation, but there may be some users who really don't want anything negative about Habbo being said, whether it be for commercial reasons, or personal reasons, such as their being a big fan of the site, and they have the upper hand (see below) so they won't let anything that goes against their bias enter. The other type of person is the Wikipedia administrator who is busy with other things and will take a quick glance and, after seeing the context mentioned in my first point, write it off as vandalism. Again, unjust, but there's nothing one can do about it.

• 4. References and sources. BAM. This is the main reason, and one that gives most unbudging users the "upper hand" I mentioned earlier in controlling the information in this article. Untouchable. This is a very specical obstacle specific to internet culture that probably will not be overturned for at least 10-30 years, when all the current journalists, reporters, historians, etc. are retired and replaced by the current teenage generation. It's not that not enough people care, it's just that not enough people with influence in the world care. If you check out all the internet meme pages, most of them will have the "does not cite its references/sources" tag on them. Wikipedia cannot possibly understand why they should accept such information with good faith, especially as it is lacking in "seriousness." My only defense against this, as summed up by another user, is that "If the standard for Wikipedia is to wait for information on a topic to show up in a library it will make it much more difficult to build up and revise content on a topic." Too bad the administrators don't really care, esp. for this kind of topic.

So my advice to those dismayed by the lack of the blockade inclusion? Wait it out, if it means enough. In time it will have substantial proof and backing, but as of now, you are fighting an uphill battle, as I was. Yes, there are sources, but sources that strict Wikipedians will not accept because they're tainted with a sense of silliness. (that Youtube/Googlevideo video is proof when you ignore the random images that make it look unreliable, which many people will not do)

My last word to the so-called "protectors"? The article is fine as it is right now; no vandalism or significant mention of the raid. Don't go on overzealously deleting those "citation needed" statements just yet; they don't really detract from the article in any way (in fact they generally add to the article, and are not glorifying the raid in any way (in fact, only one even mentions a raid at all)), and the fact that no one is adding anything else more should be satisfactory for now. In addition, most of those current "citation needed" parts of the article can be verified just by going to the site. I don't know how to cite that, because apparently, I cannot use the site itself as a reference. In that case, I'll just remove the citation needed signs for the ones not in question for now, you can add them back up if you feel the extreme need to do so. They are true and helpful to the article, just not "covered" yet; there is no rush or real obligation to delete them. Other then that, that's all I have to say, and may things work out as they should. Have a great rest of summer to all. :-) --Dch111 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Great post. You hit m:Eventualism right on the head. Well done. :) --james^(talk) 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though some people,dont want the mention of the raid included in the article(doesn't make sense since it was a massive raid anyway,look at YTMND,ebaumsworld,etc),I agree 100%.--The jazz musician 04:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Competitors

Are there any and should they be put up here? --71.109.37.168 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaia Online's towns feature is remarkably like Habbo. Calicore 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Critisisms

Why was my article on the critisisms deleted? Not as if I was the one critisising them, I spent time compelling the critisisms from the various Habbo Hotels, and found out there were many

It was one giant weasel. Here is the page history if you want to correct it by citing sources and removing weasel words. Please don't revert to that if you are - just copy the mentioned text, edit it, and paste it into a new subheading. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not PT

Actually, the portuguese Habbo is ran by the Brazillian Habbo. It rans in the same brazillian servers, with the same language (pt-br!)... the only thing different are the people and adverts.

Verification.

This wiki documents the 9/11 raids, if ayone needs verification, or wants to include the link here (since I don't feel like registering):

http://www.trendpediawiki.com/Habbo_Hotel_9/11/06_Raid

And let's be honest, the raids are just about the only notable thing about "Habbo Hotel." No raids, no one would give a shit.

"Anywhere else on the Internet" is not a reliable source. Also, "no one would give a (poo-poo)" is a pretty accurate description of how most people feel about the raids themselves. Thunderbunny 01:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"'Anywhere else on the Internet' is not a reliable source." <--Plenty of references are based off the internet.--Dch111 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It also has no relevance to the game in that it is not encylopedic quality. Let's leave all the drama to that other wiki or to Encylopedia Dramatica - where it is more suited. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw Habbo Started this group called Emo Oranges that are supposedly based on the avatar style of the raiders, but with orange afros instead of black ones. Anomo 00:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that according to wikipedia, notability seems only for the topic to be an article, and verifiability is more for what in it. It's easy for the pool blocking to pass verifiability as the screenshots are everywhere. I think the massive amount of screenshots proves it is not "Sources of dubious reliability". Please remember also while anyone can personally see the raids, that supposedly is original research, so the blocking prank itself is more verifiable. However the screenshots still are self-published and WP:V says:

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

Well the last one is hard because the screenshots are anonymous. Habbo Hotel doesn't appear to mention the raids on its site. As for the website mentioned in this thread, it has a screenshot here http://www.trendpediawiki.com/Image:Habbo_Brian.png and it's mentioned that the owner of the website took the screenshot so it's someone stating they wrote something.

If Habbo Hotel put something on their website, it would be so easy to mention. I don't think a newspaper article has done any mention of the Habbo raids yet. Anomo 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do the afro pool blocking raids fail at sources?

There are videos, screenshots, etc. Are all these sources a FAIL? There must be some source that does not FAIL. Anomo 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is not a "common" feature that you would like to presume. This was one isolated incident whose primary source was not what would be considered a reliable source. The Encylopedia Dramatica is considered a tertiary source, and is also a site who may not be experts in their field (after all, they staged a mass-raid) and does not hold the same level of credibility as a source, say, by Wired or a magazine or credible zine.

Not to mention that Encyclopedia Damatica's satirical nature doesn't make them a reliable source for a whole lot. --CCFreak2K 23:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter to the numerous vandals that have resulted in the protection of the page. I originally came into this article because of the intense vandalism after the raid, and Encylopedia Dramatica was often mentioned. Their satirical nature, and their stance on vandalising various games, makes it unworthy of a mention in this article. But don't tell the official policies to these detractors - it just goes from ear to ear. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it is easy to introduce bias into this article because of the raid, and the bias may not be self-evident 100% of the time, a user should not be satisfied with one source. Multiple sources from other sites that can be cross-checked are preferred. If there are multiple reliable sources independent of each other, and they all agree or fall along the same lines with each other, then it may be considered a reliable source.

Key: Bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion.

The tertiary source does not have any primary or secondary sources that are credible. It also contains strong bias against the moderators and the game, which may or may not be biased. No one is real sure because the raid does not have a strong counter-point. I hope I get my point through with this post, because I'm not going to continue to repeat it time and time again if this raid nonsense keeps popping up. Want it to be on the Internet? Then post it at Encylopedia Dramatica where their standards for encylopedic quality are much lower (after all, they instigated a raid!). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not speak of ED. I meant the many videos at YouTube, google, and others in addition to screenshots all over the internet. Many articles use sources that are serious sites but that are not notable. Anomo 22:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The photographs Anomo posted earlier are definitely reliable, as well as certain screenshots of habbo, and a poster or two. You'd have to be blind to deny its verifiable existance. I call bias on the part of closed-minded wikipedians. --Dch111 02:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if many of those editors can't seem to help themselves. It's just a stupid prank done by some stupid site to showcase their immaturity. How is this building a more knowledgeable encylopedia? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dch11,to quote someone from 7chan:"It's like the holocaust,nevar happen. Oh,lawd."--The jazz musician 05:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"There is no win without fail." - cracky-chan. Anomo 18:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Habbo Is Stupid

I wrote a page on someone on wikipedia which was important and it got deleted and it makes me angry that Habbo Hotel is on wikipedia. How could Habbo be important. Phh this is one of the lowest places wikipedia has ever gone (no offense). Honestly I say GET RID OF HABBO HOTEL ON WIKIPEDIA Harry Kewell #10 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Any constructive comments on why this article fails to meet the standards for Wikipedia? I'm not a player of the game and hold no opinion for or against it, but to discredit it based on the raids by an "encylopedia" makes it appear that they win. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)