Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

• Option 1: ... is that of an established subject-matter expert as described by WP:SPS.
• Option 2: ... is not that of an established subject-matter expert as described by SPS.

Q2. On UFOs / UAPs, xenobiology, aeronautics, and system / galactic astronomy, Avi Loeb is ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

Q3. On high-redshift astrophysics and cosmology, Avi Loeb is ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Some options, as well as important additional information, can be found in my initial comment below. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option A adopt the new guideline in its entirety
• Option B adopt specific subsections (please specify)
• Option C keep the existing guideline as is.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There is really 2 theories here – the sentiment "bot activity online is drowning out humans and it feels depressing" and the sentiment "bot activity online is brainwashing by them to control the world". And although both theories are generally referred to with the article title, they are extremely different in terms of what they propose, how they came about, and what emotions are targeted by their respective theorists. One is rooted in anti-AI and general doomerism which are quite recent phenomena, and the other is a renewed phrasing of the good-ol' "evil people are secretly controlling us" which is as old as antisemitism.

As such, I don't believe it works very well to describe the two in interwoven prose as if they were equal. For example, the topic named "New World Order" has been split across several articles, including the political sense and the conspiratorial sense. Similarly, brainrot is a separate topic from brainwashing although the two concepts largely present the same methodology. And as a third, and blatantly more obvious example, we don't talk about goyslop in Criticism of fast food.

So we should pick one and only one topic to discuss in this article. And it should be whatever the WP:COMMONNAME of "Dead Internet theory" is used for, as to be determined by the community. By my personal unsourced observation, the by far most prominent topic of the two is the anti-AI one.

How to accomplish this and what to do with the other topic should also be a point of debate – we could split or fork it off into a separate article, we could put it under its own heading here, we could deem it not within project scope and delete it, or do something completely different. Let’s hear it.

My personal opinion of how to resolve this: Contentfork this article into its two constituent topics, perhaps titled Dead Internet theory and Dead Internet conspiracy theory. They are separate topics that both deserve coverage but should be covered separately. Any actual overlap between the two may be described in the destination articles. If the community supports this path, I'd be happy to start writing towards it myself.