Feilheting

Feilheting is a neologism used in discussions of online rhetoric to describe a structured, public pattern of critique aimed at challenging a claim by assembling evidence, highlighting inconsistencies, and coordinating responses across participants. The term is a coined word with no universally standardized origin, and its usage varies among different online communities and scholarly write-ups.

In practice, feilheting typically unfolds as a sequence: a central assertion is stated; participants introduce supporting or contradicting evidence; a cadre of commenters aligns to reinforce a common interpretation; the process often culminates in the conclusion that the initial claim is flawed or requires revision. The activity is often punctuated by ritualized safeguards, such as explicit appeals to accuracy, verifiability, and fairness, followed by public attribution of fault or responsibility. Some accounts frame feilheting as a form of collective editorializing, where the goal is to guide community norms and discourage misinformation.

Scholarly discussion treats feilheting as a manifestation of how online groups negotiate authority and consensus. Proponents argue that it can improve information quality and accountability; critics warn that it can become performative, coercive, or punitive, contributing to call-out culture and online harassment. Variants may emphasize speed and the number of participants, rely on cross-posting across platforms, or integrate with memes and formats to accelerate a perceived inevitability of a verdict.

Examples are largely drawn from analyses of debates in science communication, politics, and fan communities, where feilheting appears as a mechanism for enforcing shared epistemic standards. See also call-out culture, online shaming, digital rhetoric.