Jump to content

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.99.1.116 (talk) at 00:23, 7 August 2008 (jerx from uk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Multidel

Move to Encyclopædia Dramatica

The site claims on their main page and throughout the site that the correct name is Encyclopædia Dramatica, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I usually refer to it as Encyclopaedia Dramatica because that is closest, but it is not actually accurate.

I propose that we move the name of the article to Encyclopædia Dramatica, with redirects from Encyclopedia Dramatica and Encyclopaedia Dramatica. I further propose that we have a disambig page from ED, as that is its most common abbreviation. - I note that that is already there.

What say you? Dyinghappy (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. From what I can see, ED refers to itself as Encyclopedia Dramatica. The logo says æ, yes, but lots of companies use stylised logos, you know? Its main page says "Welcome to Encyclopedia Dramatica", their about page uses Encyclopedia, their disclaimer page uses Encyclopedia, their article on themselves uses Encyclopedia, even their URL uses Encyclopedia. I understand that using æ in a URL would be problematic, but ae could have been a substitute, you know? In summary: Throughout the site it uses Encyclopedia to refer to itself, as far as I can see. Dreaded Walrus t c 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be æ if more people knew how to type it on their keyboards. The name of the site uses æ. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
But then even Britannica.com, the web site of Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., uses <title>Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia</title>. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what's that got to do with what ED do?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.13.127 (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ED says the spelling used in the URL was entirely due to the fact that URLs cant have these kind of special characters in them.:: unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.1.115 (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question marks

"The intended style for Encyclopedia Dramatica is to figuratively place topics in a humorous and opinionated way."

1. Is this sentence necessary? What does it add that's not covered in the previous sentences?
2. "Humorous" and "opinionated", according to whom? These are POV adjectives. Which reliable third-party source did the editor get it from? It's unclear.
3. "to figuratively place topics" is a split infinitive. It's best to avoid it.
4. For style, overall, maybe we can consider re-writing it by deleting the wordiness and avoiding the split infinitive -- provided that the sentence can be sourced.

What do others think? J Readings (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another sentence with several question marks:

"The website has served as a "virtual" Thing for Anonymous to visit[6] and learn new words, or memes, from.[18]"

1. The sentence ends with the preposition "from." Stylistically, we should avoid ending sentences with a preposition.
2. Do we really need to say "virtual Thing"?? "Thing" itself seems to be an archaic piece of jargon divorced from current mainstream usage in the English language. At least, that's what the linked text indicates. Second, the cited source does not make any mention of a "virtual Thing".
3. Couldn't we simply cite what the third-party reliable source actually says here -- "favorite haunt"? What would be wrong with that?
4. Is there any way we can cut down on the conjunctive "and" in this article? Whoever originally helped write the first article (I wasn't part of that editing), did a good job of keeping the sentences simple and clear. Speaking only for myself, it would be great if we could maintain that structural clarity.

Last sentence with question marks:

"Evidence suggests that Anonymous now uses Encyclopædia Dramatica as a planning hub for the majority of its strategic management operations."[1]

1. Evidence suggests...? That smacks of original research and original synthesis, no?
2. The citation for this sentence is an improperly sourced TV program that cannot be verified per WP:V. We need an exact date so one of us can go to the library, etc., in order to verify that the source directly supports the claims made in the sentence. Right now, it doesn't work.
3. It could be the sentence is fine with a little polishing, but the source is inappropriate, in which case we should remove the citation to the talk page (or just completely from the article) and replace the citation with the previous one.
4. If that's the issue, this sentence and its preceding would then seem redundant. Do we really need both in that instance? If so, why?

Thanks for reading, J Readings (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures Therein

I think more focus needs to be put on the fact that ED hosts graphically shocking pictures...but I don't know how to do this without hitting the Original Research barrier. Lots42 (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay? Maybe I'm missing the point. I don't care to watch the 'operation channel' so it still weirds me out when I flip the channel and see actual flesh cutting. Lots42 (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first reference in the Goatsee page is a link to the shocking image itself. If that shocking image was put in there, why can't others be put in here? We can at least mention about them (and put the wikipedia links related to them /for those who have/) 09:17, 04 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.84.116.16 (talk)
  • Because we aren't a directory of links to shock sites. It would be absurd to not have a link to goatse on the goatse page. What would you propose we add to the ED page? Protonk (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'a much less funny online encyclopaedia'

--does not refer to Wikipedia, but 'Uncyclopedia.' If you've ever been to the latter, you'd know that Wikipedia is a lot lulzier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christf**k (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it does, the quote directly links to EDs Wikipedia page in the ED:About page--Kip Kip 20:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times article about internet trolling mentions ED and its users in detail

How can we work this into the article? There's a wealth of information there about Encyclopedia Dramatica.--Hope of the Future (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the users who was editing for me on certain wikipedos said many edpedo administrators have different accounts, playing good and bad cops, total anarchy! Many are porn maniacs! Lots of good stuff but overdoing on sick things!
I agree there are gross pictures on ED but there is no need to accuse wikipedia members of being pedophiles. Lots42 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at ED, and some people involved with the Grawp/Hagger stuff refer to Wikipedians as "Wikipedos" just as general slang, without any serious implication that they are pedophiles - that would be absurd without evidence.--Hope of the Future (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: Users like grawp/hagger attacks wiki big time with blue advark, some of them may be voronic and lateral from uk! White monkey acts is if he owed the world there!
Also, ED seems to have been down for most of today. I'm not sure why, another DDOS attack like the ones that have hit the chans recently?--Hope of the Future (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, people are reading the web copy of the Sunday NYT magazine and checking out this "internets" thing. My guess is that it only takes a small percentage of the NY Times reader base to bring their servers down. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's DDOS'd. ED has plenty of bandwidth for normal usage, even surges of it, but not extended DDOS. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Current Status

Due to lack of money and the host of Encyclopedia Dramatica null routing it, the current status is inactive. 72.161.25.201 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's null routed, because that's the easiest way to respond to this DDOS. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

About time

This is just to say it's about damn time this article came back to WP. Honestly, getting involved in this debate a couple months back was probably a good part of reason for me not coming around here very often afterwards. I'd like to share this quote from my talk page: "Reality check: ED? It's not getting an article on Wikipedia, period/full stop, no matter what legalisms you try to bring to bear. It be dead, and you can't breathe any life into its corpse."

Thanks for finally coming to your senses. No thanks for acting like whiny children. Seriously, this is the most prevalent research site in the world for every subject imaginable (yes, I said research, as in even scientific research), and yet a handful of powerful people successfully censor it for years because they were cyber-bullied?

To comment on the article itself, removing the brackets around the d in "[d]one in the spirit of..." would be in order, as changing capitalization at the start of a sentence is not something that needs to be clarified as a correction, unless WP has a drastically different style guide. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for rudeness. There are many nuetral editors on Wikipedia willing to take a look at things if you have a dispute. Lots42 (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah dude. Thems the breaks. It's nice to talk a good game about being even handed, but what did you expect? ED gets part of its notoriety from crapping all over Wikipedia. Did you honestly think that it would be treated like any other site by this community? I stopped getting fired up about that stuff when I was 17. People are people. The system is designed to not be censored (hence ED is here after a long process), but that doesn't stop people from pushing back against the article for their own reasons. Just because the system is designed to be a certain way doesn't mean all (or even most) of the users will behave in that fashion. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start to 'C' class

Sections or no, this article gives a clear understanding of the subject (given the sourcing limitations), sources verify the text, there are no copyedit problems and the article is stable. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction". 2006. Global Television Network. {{cite episode}}: Missing or empty |series= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica&oldid=230307519"