You should be able to solve this
- Home
- Board: /sci/ - Science & Math
- Reading: You should be able to solve this
MIT:
posting stats, trends for 2 week sample:
http://projects.csail.mit.edu/chanthropology/4chan.pdf
disruptive memes:
http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/mit7/papers/Saklofske%20MIT7%20Paper.pdf
the raids of 2008-2009:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/comparative-media-studies-writing/21w-784-becoming-digital-writing-about-media-change-fall-2009/units/mob-mentality-4chan-vs.-scientology/MIT21W_784F09_Anonymous_pr.pdf
other uni's:
history of trolling/folklore:
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/12204/phillips_housethatfoxbuilt_2012.pdf
general anonymity online:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~xia/resources/Documents/kang-chi13.pdf
comment systems analysis:
http://courses.cms.caltech.edu/cs145//2014/CrossTalk.pdf
normies worry too much:
https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Victoria_McLaughlin/files/2012/04/McLaughlin_PST_Thesis_2012.pdf
hipster trash:
http://writingandrhetoric.cah.ucf.edu/stylus/files/2_1/stylus2_1-liu.pdf
faggots homework report, basically trash:
http://www.phelixophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/eCAR_7.pdf
you cucks should be able to read those? right?
Damn I want this to be a lain thread, but I just find statistics boring. I just skimmed the first link, but that's all raw/processed data and some unabridged conclusions. I understand both that the full explanation is neccessary to understand the information, and that nobody in his right mind would write a shitty webnews article to summarise it, but I won't waste my time trawling through all those words just to find out a statistical conclusion about memes.
>tl;dr: tl;dr
>>7803708
This. It's unbelievable that empty articles like these get churned out by highly respectable institutions.
