Jump to content

Talk:Enshittification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK toolbox

(
)
  • ... that according to Cory Doctorow, enshittification is how platforms die? Source: "Here is how platforms die: First, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die." Wired

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk), The Anome (talk), and Grayfell (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 10:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Enshittification; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • This one'll do numbers! The article isn't quite there yet, though -- it has an unresolved clarification needed tag, and the rent-seeking claim is uncited. Once these get resolved, the article should be (while not passing GAN anytime soon) DYK-able. I'm mulling over the large quote in a short article -- proportionately it raises what's arguably a copyright question -- but I'm not sure if it should be perceived differently to use of an NFCC image in an equivalent-length article. (I also wonder about general-reader understanding of decontextualized "two-sided markets", but this isn't a DYK issue.) Vaticidalprophet 22:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I propose a tweak to the hook:
  • ... that according to Cory Doctorow, enshittification inevitably leads to death? StonyBrook babble 10:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet, Thriley, The Anome, and Grayfell: We have WP:REFCLUTTER eight citations following the lead sentence and nine following another sentence under the examples section. It is distracting but not a DYK fail. The article does have WP:BAREURLS which must be fixed. WP:DYKCITE states that Sources should be properly labelled; that is, not under an "External links" header, and not bare URLs. I think my interpretation is correct, but if it is not, it is a best practice to format the references MOS:REF. Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally mind the ref clutter, given the sentence's content. However, you might consider combining all of them into one ref with bullet points for what each ref supports. In addition, I'd like to see that content be fully mirrored in the article body per MOS:LEAD. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I will leave it to others since it is not a DYK issue. I see the references are formatted now. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last issue is WP:DYKHFC The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear.. right now the hook fact is in a block quote and I do not think that passes our requirement. Can it be separated out and cited end of sentence? Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the hook fact in the article for expediency. Lightburst (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples in the lead

[edit]

Since it's been a recurring issue, I'll explain my approach bit more here. Right now, (revision 1205532644), each of the examples mentioned in the lead is supported by its own subsection in the body of the article, each with multiple sources. This helps with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and also helps prevent citations from getting too cluttered. To provide context and clarity, the article needs to explain why the term is being applied to all of these big tech companies. Examples need to be informative, and we shouldn't be adding examples based on broad mentions lacking context, or worse, our own preferences. Every example should be contextualized, and the body is the place to provide this context. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think we should just keep it to the most common examples cited. With a term like this it's easy for people to throw in any social media or tech company they have a problem with, even if it doesn't apply. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struggle to see how the term's definition starting the page - could be not wrong

[edit]

Guys,

the page defines the term thus: "Enshittification is the pattern of decreasing quality of online platforms that function as two-sided markets". But i fail to see how could it be that

- say, _carrots_ could not be "enshittified". In fact, they really much are, as we speak, and for the last few decades: intensive agriculture, erosion of soil fertility (averaged worldwide) as observed by FAO, ever growing greed of both carrot producers as well as distributors, resulting in usage of ever so more exotic and often harmful in many ways fertilizers, preservers, etc - you name it;

- say, _personal relations_ could not be "enshittified". I definitely observe in my personal life how fellow citizens have become way more cynical, apathetic and self-centered than it was few decades ago, - on average. Personal relations definitely become shittier as a result;

- the term "enshittification", as per just above couple examples, - could in fact mean anything else, or anything other than, "degradation". When quality of something is decreasing, it means that that something - is degrading. Why invent a new word when we already have one meaning the same thing?

Just my 2 cents. Don't wanna wikipedia become _degraded_ by articles about, in essense, nothing substantial. Hope i'm wrong with the above, too; but what if i'm not? ;) 89.208.111.218 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One might argue that Wikipedia articles that are written primarily as puff-pieces to advertise a specific author are an example of enshittification :P M4yj40 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lately, this term is also used to include customer experiences with product modifications (more fillers, subpar ingredients, the redesigning of packaging to suggest more content but actually delivering less etc…). 24.222.72.232 (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troll page

[edit]

Why does this exist, it is clearly a troll page RainbowBambi (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of this idea before I learned of the article today. Just because it has the word 'shit' in it doesn't make it vandalism. Over a hundred editors have contributed to this page, admins included. If we want to have a discussion around renaming this article Platform decay, that may be worth discussing, but it's an often-cited concept (at least on the parts of the internet I hang out in.) TheSavageNorwegian 19:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d support a renaming effort. If both “platform decay” and “enshittification” are widely recognized terms, then I think on the basis of encyclopedic tone it makes more sense to pick the former. Though obviously, those who prioritize branding or activism would prefer the catchier, more vulgar term. Garnet Moss (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like back in December there was an RFC to to that effect, and they concluded the current title is the common name. I've heard both, and I couldn't say which is more common. TheSavageNorwegian 19:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard enshittification more than platform decay, however that may just be the internet circles I am in N7o2h3 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google Trends, the term "enshittification" has consistently been searched more than twice as often as "platform decay" over the past year, which does indicate that it's the more common term. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Platform Decay" sounds like whitewashing of a term. Like calling the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress "B.U.F.F." the Big Ugly Fat Fellow or F.U.B.A.R. as Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition. In this case, the argument could be made to avoid the more vulgar name, based on Wikipedia:Article titles, but I think that is overly pedantic, and this title isn't particularly vulgar. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get rid of that list in the beginning (A variety of platforms have been described as examples...)

[edit]

As someone who has this page in my watchlist, I notice a pattern of editors adding unsourced crap to the list of examples of "enshittification" in the lead. I believe that the "a variety of platforms" section is unnecessary and ridiculously long—it lists about a dozen examples, with some not appearing in the article. I endorse getting rid of it. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Alternatively, we could mention just a few of the most glaring/well-supported examples, but I suspect that if we try that, it will incite edit wars on which ones specifically to include. --Nsophiay (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Paring the list further down the page might be difficult, but cutting it from the lead is a good start. There is never going to be a shortage of examples of companies being bad. TheSavageNorwegian 15:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also #Examples in the lead above. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking citations

[edit]

This article is lacking citations in the first section. Maybe consider reusing citations from later in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.198.87.199 (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:CITELEAD :). Cheers, -1ctinus📝🗨 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

the See Also section on this article is ridiculously long. Somebody with better judgement than me should trim it. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed it a bit, but it might survive another pass. This might be useful for a portal, or template. Several topics, like link rot, and the dead internet theory have a very large connected web of topics we could start to put together to trim the respective "see also" sections. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment, perhaps we could heavily overhaul the existing media culture template. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a template for these similar ideas, but it really lacks a solid central theme besides "existential problems relating to the internet and DRM" -1ctinus📝🗨 16:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could possibly expand the section of the {{Media culture}} template for "issues" by dividing them into "social" or "ethical" and "technical." This would make the issues section look like the "deception" section. The DIT could likely fit into the "deception" "others" section, and "enshittification" in a "technical" section under "issues." Looking at the "Media Culture" template, it clearly needs an overhaul anyway. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every platform is going to use media in countless ways, but that's not really what this is about, right? The use of the term for Uber and AirBnB, for example, has very little to to do with media, and more to do with the services they facilitate. I don't know off-hand of any relevant templates related to platform economy, but it might be worth hunting around for something in that vein, as well. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up removing the entire section as I roughly agree with 1ctinus. There are some broadly related concepts in there, e.g. closed platform or feature creep, but general readers are not going to recognize that without contextualized, likely in-article mentions. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the section but trimmed it tremendously. I think the section has some links that can help "build the web," and topics like link rot and the dead internet theory are broadly related but not something we should work into the main text. I deleted the "further reading section." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why anything relating to paywalls have been removed. It's a key factor of the evolution of enshittification - ie. the move from a free to freemium to paywall model and the shift toward getting everyone to pay for a subscription. It's akin to removing the conclusion of the story from the Romeo and Juliet article on the basis that it's "a bit too long". --tgheretford (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One-sided?

[edit]

Is it just me, or does this article kinda come across as one-sided and non-neutral? I understand that there aren't a lot of sources arguing that this phenomenon isn't happening, but it's a bit disingenuous to assert that such a decline in quality in services is objective rather than perceived. Dunkahoop (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If our content is properly sourced, and if no proper sources say otherwise, I think things are in order. Nø (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence contains incorrect summary

[edit]

The article contains a sentence which begins: "Doctorow advocates for two ways to reduce enshittification: upholding the end-to-end principle, which asserts that platforms should transmit data in response to user requests rather than algorithm-driven decisions;".

This is an incorrect summary of the end-to-end principle, and will confuse many users who follow the wikilink, since it has no obvious relation to the content of the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a vanity piece for Doctorow

[edit]

This is obvious. The article is no better than forum cruft. Are we going to allow Wikipedia to become yet another ad platform for the well-connected like Doctorow?

It belongs in Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. 2601:240:C801:5040:5DD7:EB2B:265A:BB32 (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The large number of google hits [1] may not mean much, but the seriousity of the sources on the first page of hits suggests that a Wikipedia article may be relevant. (I am not commenting on the quality of our article.) Nø (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
outrageous claims require outrageous evidence. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is outrageous here? The word itself is (deliberately) bad taste, but the phenomenon is obviously real. Anyway, Wikipedia not in the business of collecting evidence; we collect sources. Nø (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of sources, I focus on Google Scholar rather then Google, and a Google Scholar search for "Enshittification" has several hits not on the article yet (I may have missed them). Specifically, we have these four publications in reputable journals that I think should be included, and that definitely confirm notability.
I'll be working to add these later, but thought I'd throw them on the talk page to help put this issue to rest, and in case anyone else wants to do it. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have known better than to expect a Wikipedia article discussing these issues to do so in a way that is impartial. Indeed, this article that pretends to decry the harmful effects of greed is being used to fill the pockets of yet another well-connected do-nothing, Doctorow.
Give yourselves a pat on the back, brothers. You are the vanguard, Orwell's boot stamping on the face of humanity forever. May the paychecks justify the shamelessness! 2600:1008:B08E:1205:D980:2CE0:4BFD:DFD (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Enshittification" has gone well beyond being a meme; it has established itself as a word as a part of the language, and as part of mass culture as a concept with a clear meaning, and evident notability. I think we have consensus here that this article is valid - if you still want to get rid of the article, please file an WP:AFD. — The Anome (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus, there are dissenting views all over the talk page. The word is not established in the language, as can be evidenced by discussing it with anyone over the age of 40.
Can I start importing the rest of Urban Dictionary to Wikipedia then, since it is full of terms in common use that are not discussed here? Can I use them to promote my business too, as is being done for Doctorow? 2600:1008:B08E:1205:D980:2CE0:4BFD:DFD (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I provided 3 peer reviewed publications; two from Elsevier (the Lancet and Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport), and the Sage Publishing journal Dialogues in Urban Research. I provided two book chapters, one from Sage, and the other from Springer. This is not click-bait journalism; these are respected peer-reviewed and academic publications. Like, I get not liking the origin of a term, but at this point this has clearly entered the lexicon and there is more then enough literature to meet notability requirements. The best argument against the term at this point is that it is jargon, but that alone would not disqualify it any more then Skibidi Toilet. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a due process for deleting articles. 2600:1008:B08E:1205:D980:2CE0:4BFD:DFD, you have the remedy of WP:AFD at hand if you want it. Otherwise, I feel there's little point in continuing this discussion here. — The Anome (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word is not established in the language, as can be evidenced by discussing it with anyone over the age of 40. This is not how that works. This is not how any of this works. Most importantly, that is not how language works, let alone a global language such as English.
There is no consensus, there are dissenting views all over the talk page. The existence of dissent is not the same as a total lack of consensus.
The internet and digital culture in general are a big source of linguistic innovation, and establish lots of slang words with a casual flavor (e.g. shitposting). Words used to describe decay will have connotations of decay, e.g. rot, waste, shit, or slop (see Enshittification § See also). This is unlikely to change. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enshittification vs Monopolisation

[edit]

It is worth clarifying the difference between these. All the cited examples are companies that have gained a monopoly and therefore no longer have the competitive incentive to deliver quality or good value. So it needs explaining how the process differs from the typical outcomes from monopolisation. Or is this just new slang for the same thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.253.50.55 (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article does touch in this a bit: "Enshittified platforms that act as intermediaries can act as both a monopoly on services and a monopsony on customers, as high switching costs prevent either from leaving even when alternatives technically exist."
If reliable sources explain this in more detail, it would probably be a good idea to expand this. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, however. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a special case of double marginalization. However, I can't find any WP:RS for this, so can't/won't add it to the article. — The Anome (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The origins fo Enshittification go to Esquire for Enshitten

[edit]

Here's the first widespread usage https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a25645143/facebook-privacy/

And another article supporting it: https://blog.greggant.com/posts/2018/12/27/welcome-to-the-enshittening.html 97.115.138.122 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this information. esquire themselves is not a secondary source, and greggant is a blog entry. guninvalid (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enshittification&oldid=1297540696"