Wikipedia would never use a source such as 'A random myspace user', or 'A grandmother'. I'm actually not discussing if Fawkes News is a reliable source, but if the investigation is reliable. Jéské Couriano ( v^_^v) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your answer. Also, the Fox report was not about 4chan but about Anonymous 4chan is associated with them. 86.197.57.147 ( talk) 07:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC) As much errors as they made, Fixed Noise is still considered a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Only one person pretending to be 'an anonymous', a man who bought a dog, nothing wikipedia would normally use as a reliable source.)

Therefore, I think we can not use Fox News quotes as a reliable source for wikipedia, as their own sources are extremely doubtful (no real government investigation, no official document. To finish with, Encyclopaedia Dramatica, which was taken as a source and qualifies the /b/ board as 'the asshole of the internet', have a whole article about this Fox News investigation ( search the site, article HACKERS_ON_STEROIDS ). I'll try to find the original post if the forum still exists. Lulz is the plural form of 'lol', as it comes from an old forum where people tried to find plural forms for various internet-wide used words. Some quotes, such as 'Hackers on steroids' (?!) or 'an underground hacker secret website' (4chan is public), make it, actually, 'lulzable'. Problem is, they never did, and a little 'demonstration' is shown in the corner of the screen.Ī lot of things are unrelated to 4chan, and extremely ridiculous. I'm not quite sure this source can be used on an encyclopedical article, as a lot of the information provided during this so-called investigation was proven false or over-exxagerated (for example, they show an image of a van exploding, claiming 4chan users did that. While reading the article on, I saw a sentence which is used a lot to make fun of Fox channels, which is 'Lulz, a corruption of lol'.

4chan archive indiana thread