This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
Discuss on whether to include the new trend revolving around the office assistant Clippy onto the Office Assistant page. The trend originated with a video posted by Youtuber Louis Rossmann (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Dtmpe9qaQ), where he encouraged viewers to change their profile pictures to Clippy as a way to protest the way large corporations have handled their social media sites. CARROT B0B (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that this trend is relevant to Clippy. It's explained more in another video about the situation (link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMzwJRs5z8o&t=902s&pp=2AGGB5ACAQ%3D%3D) but the main reason this trend relates back to Clippy himself is that Microsoft's original intention for him was just to help the average user, unlike newer tools that Microsoft trains its AI off of whenever you Google something, write something in a word document, etc. I am in no way trying to suggest that including this is a matter of personal opinion, but rather due to its widespread popularity. PityCruiser (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, how is this relevant to Clippy? This article is about the software. I am aware of the guy and watched his content but it is hardly a significant or encyclopedic aspect. Andre🚐02:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the trend is centered around the Microsoft assistant itself and how it used to be intended for non-malicious purposes. I know it may seem obsolete with all the other pop-culture references on here, but in terms of how it relates to the product's functionality compared to newer tools that Microsoft offers. Clippy is being used as a retrospective to show how Microsoft (and larger corporations in general) once cared more about the user experience but have slowly declined in favor of what the corporations want to enforce upon the users (much of which, as mentioned in that video, consists of using actual human/user statements to train AI without explicitly stating so, forcing consumers to upgrade to newer software essentially making the device that they paid for obsolete, or locking features that used to be free behind a paywall). It has to do with eshittification and how the "customer/user first" ideology that Microsoft once had (via the availability of features like Clippy) faded away overtime which IS significant from a historical standpoint. The movement in general (in regard to Microsoft) has prioritized the development of its artificial intelligence over the experience of people that use their software). The videos linked highlight this and how it's connected to the larger of idea of planned obsolescence as a whole. PityCruiser (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable observer might speculate that Lou Rossmann's followers are trying to promote him and his movement. Not saying he personally is doing so but his followers aren't doing him a favor by WP:MEATPUPPETing Wikipedia to astroturf this campaign, if that is indeed why there is such an active contingent of new and unregistered users weighing in that they are interested. Wait until it gets some real coverage (if it will) Andre🚐00:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft was brought up as an example, but the topic in general centers around, as the article suggests in its current state, anti-consumerism. Whether or not corporations, for lack of a better term, “being evil” is a “non-issue” or not is ultimately a discussion that wikipedia isn’t the best grounds for, but personally, with the recent insurgence of the internet being changed in ways many are unhappy with (such as the shoehorning of ai), and the notability/sources that seem to be available, I would personally consider this to be an “issue” enough to be discussed about on wikipedia. HAZPUNK (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add I am not an active viewer of whoever started this trend, and if this truly is a form of promotion then I apologize, but as it stands the notability for clippy as an anti-consumerism icon has me convinced this should have a place on wikipedia. HAZPUNK (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should also clarify by “wikipedia isn’t the best grounds for” I don’t mean it can’t be discussed on wikipedia, just that drama/online arguments should not be started within talk pages from the discussion unless it is directly relevant to the page. HAZPUNK (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, there is a reference in the pop culture section that has only Spotify as a source. This trend deserves a mention. CARROT B0B (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think the forum mentions and videos yield only so much credibility without a news source, which is usually what seems to be preferred for stuff like this. PityCruiser (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean at least it deserves a mention in the Popular Culture section. Keep in mind one of the entries there is about a song about Clippy, with only Spotify as a source CARROT B0B (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this article to see an explanation about this trend, so I think it is relevant to what users are searching for. I agree that a good source is necessary though. Charlesmartin82 (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it again after it was added a couple more times because the sourcing is poor. WP:DAILYDOT is not great, and Fast Company is probably fine but then that is one source. If we get 3 or more good reliable sources I will relent. Andre🚐05:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that now checking W:Reliable sources that Distractify is not the most reliability, but I don't see any discouraging information for any other source. Multiple news sources should be enough to support Dailydot's claims. CARROT B0B (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even IF all of them are garbage sources (Wikipedia does not go out of their way to state these sources as ones that need to be avoided), W:RSP allows for Daily dot sources to be published, given they aren't contested. Are you seriously denying the trend's existence at this stage? Searching anything related to this trend gives pages upon pages of people talking about it. I do not understand why this mention in particular requires explicitly "3 reliable sources" to get a serious mention... CARROT B0B (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RSP entry for Daily Dot reads, "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." I say it does not. same for Phone time and Primetimer. Even if I give you Distractify that is 2. I don't see this being picked up on CNet, ZDNet, the Verge, Gizmodo, let alone a major newspaper, TV network or online newsmagazine. The bottom line is that the trend exists, but this is not about Office Assistant which is a software interface that happens to be Clippit the paperclip. The sources are just routine junk blog sites. It can go on Rossman's own article since he has one. Andre🚐01:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a mention in the Pop Culture Section? The whole point of that section is for references to Office Assistant characters. Entries such as Clippy in a video game (source is a Youtube video by Corridor crew), or Clippy in a song (source is a Youtube video) don't fall under scrutiny for not having 3 reliable sources, yet this reference does? CARROT B0B (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say everything did, I said this does. For something like Clippy appearing in an already established notable thing, one that is more established and notable than Clippy, I think it basically counts as de facto 2 sources since it is the original thing ie Clippy was in this major video game or on NPR, and then the sources themselves are often higher quality, but in this case you are grasping at pretty crappy sources. For Clippy profile pics that a Youtuber wants to do that is not really the same kind of thing. That being said, I will do a little more trimming in that section per your urging while trying not to be POINTY (e.g. deleting the whole section) Andre🚐19:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get what you mean by this... Also it isn't just "a" Youtuber doing this, as I've stated earlier, a simple search will show pages upon pages talking about it. This is literally the only reason why Clippy is even relevant right now. BTW I found an article from Artsy.net that mentions the trend. They seem pretty reliable to me. CARROT B0B (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article". Just because those sources haven't reported on it doesn't mean that it isn't significant because it is. There are now at least four or five mentions of it in articles (here's one that doesn't constitute as junk and was updated to reflect the trend https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-life-death-microsoft-clippy-paper-clip-loved-hate). The original video has over four million views (which would constitute it as viral compared to other videos mentioned on this site). To say that this trend doesn't have weight is simply not true given how widespread it is on YouTube. Go into any semi-popular video comment section right now and see how long it takes you to find a clippy profile picture. The fact that people are still participating in it weeks later shows how significant it is. From what I've observed, you seem to be the only user who is opposed to adding this. Why does this need 3 sources when plenty of other articles on this site that are higher on the content assessment scale have only one source listed for certain sections? Also, lest we forget that the origin of this movement has his own Wikipedia article. This article is of low importance and that's why it had pop-culture references and whatnot. If you truly believe that this doesn't warrant a mention, then by all means go ahead. Just don't be surprised if people come here seeking an explanation of the trend or re-add this section. PityCruiser (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this comment. This is everywhere at this point and given that Primetimer (a credible source) released an article about it, I think it is enough to warrant a mention given that there are other sections on this site that have only one supporting article. PityCruiser (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly is reliable about Primetimer? Do they have editorial controls or boards or ombudsmen or some kind of reputation for accuracy and being an of-record publication? Andre🚐19:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Windows RG has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23 § Windows RG until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)