Talk:Slacktivism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shayanr5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ilovelucy22092. Peer reviewers: Kheine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 14 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessicawhita. Peer reviewers: Mcooley509.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 27 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AspirationallyAmy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition

Should it rely be defined as "little or not practical effect"? If what you do has some effect, than I don't think it's fair to consider it slacktivist. Once the definition is opened beyond having no effect, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Is donating $100 to cancer research slacktivist? It will obviously have very little effect in the grand scheme of things, and for some people, would be easy to do. Therefore, I propose the meaning is only for thing that really have no practical effect, such as internet petitions and bracelet wearing campaigns. Also, here's an article that gives my definition: [1]. --MikeMan67 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Buy Nothing Day and Earth hour do have effects. Therefore, the author of this page is incorrect is saying these slacktivisms has "little or no practical effect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.223.62 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Slacktivism should be redifined to having no practical effect, as the definition of "little or no effect" leads to ambiguity. As Mikeman67 noted, is donating money to organizations slacktivist? At what level of donations does slacktivism stop? 1,000 dollars? 10,000 dollars?

To be meaningful, any definition must address the "PR" or awareness raising effect of some actions. To take an extreme example, South Vietnamese Buddhist monks burning themselves in protest during the Viet Nam war had virtually no direct practical effect, but a vast effect on awareness and opinion. There are huge PR and advertising industries whose main purpose is to get attention. If the purpose of wearing an American Flag lapel pin or a Breast Cancer ribbon or a POW/MIA bumper sticker was to magically fix the problem directly, then indeed they would have no effect - but nobody engages in that behavior for that reason; these actions may be fully effective in fulfilling their actual intent. Perhaps "no substantial direct effect" would define it? The problem may be that it's a fuzzy neologism more based in projection and imputation than in analysis and real meaning. That is, a definition may be hard because it's mostly in the eye of the beholder, subjective and emotional rather than clear and substantial. Perhaps the shape of the article needs to address that more directly, rather than treating it like a dictionary word with a real and agreed upon meaning which can be analyzed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.68.186 (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As for Earth Hour, it does limit the emissions of a few hundred tonnes of CO₂ from being emitted and raises awareness of climate change a lot more than magnetic ribbons on cars or facebook groups.76.226.192.156 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A perfect example of slacktivism is people that tweet "revolution" and do nothing more to try and achieve a revolution. HardeeHar (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternative use of 'clicktivism'

I added this new section. Basically there have been a lot of protests (students, anti-cuts) in the UK recently where activists have relied on social media to organise and publicise protests in the streets. The media have latched on to the word 'clicktivist' to describe it, regardless of its previous use (the BBC as well http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12394181). Ideally I think it should be another page but I'll leave that for further discussion. Its the first new section and reference I've done so I hope its OK. MyaliasisFred (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's review the CONCEPT of "clicktivist". One ELECTS, on a LOGGED website, where IP and "vote" are registered. That is less than a vote in a ballot box, which is even MORE prone to corruption? Very well, ALL votes save the one with the most violent group should win, since democratic notions are obsolete today! Or, one ACCEPTS the label and continues on with the current successes and expands on those.

I FAR prefer the latter to the former, which would involve guns and violence. One advances a society by increments, not by double quantum leaps!Wzrd1 (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Negative vs. Positive

I think the discussion on whether to include the term has petered out, with 'include' having won the day. I'm not sure that the negative connotation of the word is the only meaning associated with it. People who participate in slacktivist activities have co-opted the term in a positive light to refer to their actions. Often the term isn't intended to project the idea of useless actions, so much as small, incremental actions that are meant to be carried out by large numbers of people. Individually they are slacking, but collectively they are a useful tool in promoting a cause or agenda.

Part of the problem may be that more activities have now been described as 'slacktivist,' many of which are not meaningless actions. The micro-donating or micro-volunteerism of the Obama campaign would be a good example. A person donating $10 may not make much of a difference, but when the process of donating that amount is so simple that millions can do it from their computer, the aggregate of their donation becomes something of a phenomenon. The same goes for someone spending an hour doing a phone-bank from their home.

Essentially, I want to update the article to reflect the expanded meaning of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldrobertsoniii (talk • contribs) 08:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the author/s of this article are trying to counter, rather than simply explain, the term "slacktivism", and hence this odd seccion of "Criticism vs. Defense". Slacktivism is a negative term and this is an encyclopedia. You may add a paragraph stating that "some people disagree", but as it is now it reads like an "op-ed" from an Internet activist trying to defend himself from an accuastion. Very POV in my POV [karl] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.213.205.18 (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, during THIS ELECTION YEAR, it is rather significant. Hopefully, future historians will learn from our mistakes and deeds or something.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

Support -- Although this term is not used commonly, I believe it is deserving of an article on wiki. If this term is offensive to you, it is because it is meant to be. The article describes the word as a pejorative and thus it is assumed that the user means to disparage or belittle people engaged in (what the user deems to be) slacktivism. I even call it slacktivism when I let the checkout clerk scan a certificate so that I donate a dollar to some charitable organization. I appreciate that they make it that easy. However, true slacktivism should have the following elements: 1) it should have little or no effect on it's intended issue; 2) it should require little or no effort on the part of the person; and 3) it should create a false belief in the person that they have actually contributed to the solution.Toddelia (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Support -- Slacktivism seems to be a more recent development, while the term armchair activist has been around for a while and is more commonly used. --Michael White^T·C 02:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Support -- I've never heard the term "slacktivism" used, but I've heard "armchair activist" used for years. Therefore, I think it would be much more appropriate to have this article (perhaps rewritten) at armchair activism. --metzerly 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Support -- Might as well keep the term. The 2002 NYT and 2001 Newsday citations now verify its use. Here we should function like linguists and record the use of language rather than attempt to dictate its use.

Support -- I have heard the term used in Israel (in English) in several conversations regarding Earth Hour. It was written about in various respectable newspapers, in blogs (Google it), and mentioned in entertainment shows. Pejorative as it is, it is a real notable perspective of a social phenomenon. It should definitely stay. 93.172.153.242 (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Support -- Armchair Warriors seems to be a more common term. It dates at least to the 1963 Twilight Zone episode No Time Like the Past where a man that is tired of war travels to the past and criticizes a man who advocates sending others off to battle. 22yearswothanks (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose -- We all should be following our dreams and participating with passion in the activism(s) that appeal to us, but as long as one has to work a 9-5 to survive, what other options do we have besides "slacktivism?" Really. I don't think this phenomenon and it's negative connotations should be placed on the people. Most of us are doing the best we can. As long as I'm going to school full-time, working 2-3 jobs on the side, being incredibly active in the student groups of my choice, and trying to fit in time with my friends and family of top of it - no I'm not going to have much time to do more than join a facebook group and post on its wall every now and then and/or blog about a cause that I believe in. In that case, it is unfair to label these behaviors as "less than."

Further, is this term implying that other (or "real") forms of activism do not cause one to feel good about themselves? Just because something is painful (I'm sure Cesar Chavez's hunger strike was far from painless) doesn't mean that it isn't rewarding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariposa625 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One counterpoint is to consider those who do do more, who make it their 9-5 jobs to work on these causes, even at some significant cost to their ability to realize their own dreams. Also, blogging can be "more than" slacktivism, when you're actually contributing significant thoughts and content, not just signing your name to something. Winged Cat (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems you oppose the dismissive use of the term. But do you oppose or even deny that there is a notable perspective called "Slacktivism"? 93.172.153.242 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I've heard the opposite; "Slacktivism" used more than "armchair activism". The other article could be a redirect, and there could be something specified in the article as to lack of clarity as to which term came first, but "slacktivism" was made notable by Snopes and is, in any case, the term more currently used.--み使い Mitsukai 05:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So you actually Support this article, no?

Therefor, no argument against a policy is valid unless is is met by a rally. Therefor, an armed rally is far MORE valuable, than an anonymous vote that was already protected under the constitution or something. In short, YOU support armed insurrection before action, rather than a rallying cry on the internet over any corporate controlled media (or support corporate/party controlled media), hence totalitarian society. Happy zieg heil to you!Wzrd1 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think this article is in accordance with Wikipedia's Notability guidelines, and does not respect a neutral point of view either. I recommend it for deletion. Gapagos (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - This is essentially nonsense. If someone creates an internet petition for a cause and a massive number of people sign it, that result indicates to those who signed it how many others share their opinion. If there is massive support that may trigger an action such as the anonymous Scientology protests. The people first needed to know that others wanted to protest before they committed. 24.67.198.2 (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal

What is the actual proposal here? Move from where to where? Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay, perhaps it's a regional thing, but I've never heard the phrase "slacktivist." Perhaps I could make a separate article for armchair activism that refers to this pejorative as well. --metzerly 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That might work, considering that there's different terms for Limousine liberal, chardonnay socialist and champagne socialist are three different articles regarding three different regional terms for the same concept. The explanation of the terms within the article is mainly what differentiates them.--み使い Mitsukai 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This term is obscure enough that it does not warrant its own article, and would be improved by being one among several related terms in a more coherent wrapup as suggested (with a redirect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.68.186 (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

So, we're signing our names to Internet petitions, for and against, on whether to have an article discussing the act of signing names to Internet petitions? Winged Cat (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

POV and Weasel tags

I removed these two tags because this article is about a social perspective (a valid subject, just like Nihilism for example). Pejorative as it may be, the phenomenon is described neutrally. 93.172.153.242 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Still, skepticism of slacktivism certainly exists" is very POV, for example. I changed it to "Skepticism of slactivism exists" to remove the implication that it is widely accepted and criticism "still" exists. 121.127.214.230 (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing FreeRice

There was a section called "Other Examples" which consisted solely of FreeRice. I've removed it because, although it does have some characteristics of slacktivism (supporting a good cause without leaving your chair), unlike most slacktivist efforts, it has a very real benefit if enough people participate (and they do). So I don't think it would be good to lump it in with other kinds of slacktivism. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that our judging whether an example action will or will not have a real benefit "if enough people participate" is too close to OR. We should not create examples ourselves, good or bad! We should find usage examples in reliable sources, then paraphrase and reference those. For each example, follow the reference and see if the reliable source validates that as an example; if not, it's out of place here. (A reference which just validates that some action exists, but does not label it slacktivism, is irrelevant; I deleted an example whose reference only described the phenomenon without associating it with slacktivism - only the editor who inserted it made that asserted connection, which is at best OR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.68.186 (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Numeric one, I consider the American Revolution one of slacktivism moved toward armed activism. It meets BOTH stated goals and literal accomplishments. Need we risk splitting hairs under the current political climate that balances between fascism and the current general viewpoint?Wzrd1 (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary?

This article seems much more appropriate for Wiktionary; see WP:NOTDICTIONARY. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben & Jerry's and Charity

I was born and raised in Massachusetts, where we consume a lot of Ben & Jerry's iced cream. Nobody ever associates Ben & Jerry's with charity. Ever. I don't know what reference #21 is talking about, I think that they are just promoting a company they like. A much better example would be Paul Newman branded items, which are directly connected to charity. Again, NOBODY thinks of charity when they think of Ben & Jerry's, just good iced cream.

Brand connections

I recommend that the reference to brands such as Livestrong wristband and Product Red be better clarified as why it is considered slacktivism? At least some citations or statistics are needed to prove that these campaigns are indeed to no practical gains, otherwise such mentions to the brands will not contribute to Wikipedia's neutrality cause. Lavoile (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Poor citations

This article's citations need to be cleaned up. Why, for example, does the Defense section appropriately cite research on the topic, then cite later sentences to blogs which rely on the original research? It just makes it seem like citation carpetbombing to make the section look better researched and reliable than it actually is, both from a WP standpoint and an objective, scientific standard.

154.20.65.60 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are permitted to engage in original research. If not, then we couldn't ever cite any academic works. Only Wikipedia users are prohibited from engaging in original research, which is defined as adding stuff to an article that no source has ever published in the real world.

http://csic.georgetown.edu/research/215767.html might be a good source, but it's not the one actually used. You need to make sure that your link actually says all of the things that the old one does before deleting the old one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Dead refs

About this: it doesn't matter whether you can understand how slacktivism on the job could create liabilities for you; a reliable source (a major human resources consulting firm) said so. The URL is dead. You therefore need to follow WP:DEADREF rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Boko Haram Kidnappings

I added a section on the Boko Haram kidnappings. There has been tons of discussion about slacktivism as it relates to this high profile incident, with many calling it slacktivism as well as many saying it wasn't/isn't, but the term is heavily associated with the incident and the hashtag campaign so figured it needed a section. Could probably be flushed out a lot more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.167.246 (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Slacktivism

Cyberbot II has detected links on Slacktivism which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://news.change.org/stories/victory-chinese-dissident-ai-weiwei-freed-after-landmark-changeorg-campaign

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Slacktivism

Cyberbot II has detected links on Slacktivism which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://news.change.org/stories/victory-chinese-dissident-ai-weiwei-freed-after-landmark-changeorg-campaign

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slacktivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219093616/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23914725-the-clicktivists---a-new-breed-of-protesters.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23914725-the-clicktivists---a-new-breed-of-protesters.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on October 23, 2020

I suggest adding the link useful idiot to the See also section. I csn not do it because the edit filter falsely identified it as vandalism. Understandable, but it isn't the case here. --84.147.38.121 (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Yeah, definitely a false positive there, but still, this seems a bit too unrelated for a "see also" entry. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)