Jump to content

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Still a victim of ED

As before, we're not the ED Helpdesk. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I see my earlier post was closed without much discussion. I have tried to contact the people running ED, and all I got was an email from someone telling me to hang myself, but take nude photos of myself first, and then they'd "think about it". I really feel that this cyber abuse should be addressed on the page, and not covered up. I'm not their only or even most popular target. They've gone after several women and children who are not celebrities.

Death threats are not to be taken as "lulzy". FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We're not here to portray personal opinions about ED.ch or any of its users. The point of this page is to document the ED, Oh Internet, and ED.ch as they are reported in reliable sources and present them neutrally. If you are having an issue with death threats, then you should contact your local police station. If you're looking to get them shut down, i'd say try to contact someone in politics or in a similar position of power, perhaps internet-based power. SilverserenC 06:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Would there at least be a way to neutrally mention cases like mine, without sounding like this page is taking one side vs. another? Maybe without mentioning names/screen names, we could at least add a short note that many of the targets on the .ch page are not famous celebrities. FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can get your situation written up in a newspaper or news website, no. We have to follow what reliable sources say and not put in original research, which means anything that isn't reported in the news shouldn't be in the article. SilverserenC 06:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So the actual .ch page is not considered a reliable source, even though this page covers it? So even a screen cap of the page wouldn't be considered reliable, right? FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue with a screencap is that it could easily be tampered with or changed. And we would also be interpreting what is in the screencap, which is not what Wikipedia is for. We report what the news says, we don't make up our own interpretations of events. SilverserenC 07:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for clearing this up for me. FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that we're not able to help. SilverserenC 07:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

possible new source

Idk if it's notable enough, or if there is even any usable information, but I was quoted in a printed newspaper which mentions ED. http://neighbourhood5.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/the-good-the-bad-and-the-anonymous. --Zaiger (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how this is a printed newspaper? It looks like a Wordpress blog to me. SilverserenC 01:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain to me how you didn't notice that it is a wordpress blog transcribing a written newspaper article? Did you even look at it? I have the actual printed newspaper here. --Zaiger (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this the newspaper in question? A student newspaper is most likely not a good source to use, unfortunately. --Conti|✉ 02:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Like I said IDK if it was notable enough, just thought it was worth mentioning. --Zaiger (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

New Website

I have one source of ED's new advancement to another dinner, site.75.171.14.76 (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Who killed Encyclopedia Dramatica ??

This is a well researched article highlighting that the conclusions in this article and its adherence to the DeGrippo version of events is a major distortion of the truth and potentially POV-pushing.

http://www.techtangerine.com/2011/05/09/who-killed-encyclopaedia-dramatica/

Interestingly and I wouldn't be bothering with this at all, save for this very interesting fact is that the author has discovered that a cabal of mods from the ED site had already established user names at the new OH Internet site months before it was launched.

The article concludes, and IMO I agree, that "the demise of Encyclopaedia Dramatica was not the single-handed doing of Sherrod DeGrippo/girlvinyl. Secondly, profitability or financial constraints may have not been at issue." Therefore a conclusion that smacks in the face of propaganda/misinformation found in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.66.199 (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides the obvious (we don't use blogs as sources, usually), the article very longwindedly claims that a) financial problems were probably not the only reason for the shutdown of ED and b) it wasn't just DeGrippo shutting down ED, but DeGrippo a group of people close to her. Well.. Duh. :) --Conti|✉ 18:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy in regards to this. DeGrippo has stated before that her reason for closing down ED was because of the way the community had gone, which she disliked, because it was more about perpetuating stupid memes rather than why she made it in the first place (or something like that? I think she explains in the ROFLcon video. I haven't watched it.) And the fact that other admins and mods were involved wasn't a secret at all. They've all stated as much. Read the Oh Internet section of this article, it already says this. SilverserenC 19:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

techtanerine.com is an blog without any editorial oversight. The author Hamad Subani (apparently the only author of that infrequently updated blog) obviously doesn't understand how the "Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License" works. He's basically saying that we can't make derivations of images that are painstakingly derivatives (of non-free images) themselves. techtanerine.com is also run by the same people who run cabaltimes.com. A person working on those sites could publish whatever the hell they want without any fact-checking. Their legal disclaimer also makes it clear that they aren't responsible for what happens after an article is published:

3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. shall not in anyway be held responsible for the damages you incurred through the use of this website. Under no circumstances shall 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd., website administrators, editors, contributors, or any of their respective partners, officers, directors, employees, agents, associates or representatives be liable for any damages, whether direct, indirect, special or consequential damages for lost revenues, lost profits, or otherwise, arising from or in connection with this website, the materials contained herein, or the Internet generally. We makes no, and expressly disclaims any, representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the Website, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. We make no, and expressly disclaim any, warranties, express or implied, regarding the correctness, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and reliability of the text, graphics, links to other sites and any other items accessed from or via this Website or the Internet, or any other material. or that the services will be uninterrupted, error-free or free of viruses or other harmful components. If the jurisdiction does not allow the liability limitations described earlier, this website shall only be liable for the amount you paid to access this website.

This lack of responsibility means that they don't have any incentive to be accurate. 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. basically say, "Here's a website for you guys. You can do whatever the fuck you want because it won't do any harm to us." 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. doesn't provide any editorial advice or oversight. techtanerine.com is a tabloid. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Who killed Encyclopedia Dramatica ??" this article hints that Daniel Brandt was at fault, which I'm sure is the answer most of those involved with ED would tell you if you were to ask directly. Itgetsworse (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am the author of the article. I cannot help giggling at the audacity anonymous, maybe ANONYMOUS Wikipedian who thought he could link it to the Wikipedia article. But that would be the equivalent of linking this article on a Wikipedia Cabalster to the Wikipedia page on Pan Am Flight 103. In other words, it aint gonna happen. I accept that. But the rest of you don't have to resort to WikipediaSpeak to drive home that point. User Michaeldsuarez, I do understand how a Creative Commons License works. To illustrate my point, let me give you an example. Suppose in India, a copyright expires after 60 years. Therefore I use an image with an expired copyright in a work, and then I release that work under a CC license, It would be technically OK to reproduce that work in India under CC. But suppose in another nation where copyright expires after 100 years, that would not be the case. You call that a caveat. Regarding the disclaimer, check out Wikipedia's. To quote, WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. So going by your logic, "Here's a website for you guys. You can do whatever the fuck you want because it won't do any harm to us." I understand that Wikipedia has had an acrimonious relationship with ED, and I am aware that even an ED page was not permitted because some Wikipedios did not like it. Please show maturity.(-----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC))

[1], [2] – If you "accept that," then why are you using your own blog articles as sources? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are sources for some technical information that I discovered, and I could not find "other" sources for the same. BTW those are very different articles than ED. Ummm what exactly is the sin involved in openly "using your own blog articles as sources?" especially when others are not available?(-----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)).

WP:SPS. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok...so Jimbo says it is a sin. Go ahead and delete them if that is the case. Interesting how no one found the links for those two articles questionable, even though they were openly self-published. But when someone else wanted to link to a Wikipedia-critical article on ED, the same website becomes questionable. Pretty much sums up the situation here(-----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC))

.ch is now .se

We've lost our .ch domain, so we're now at encyclopediadramtica.se encyclopediadramatica.se. May I please change all instances of ".ch" in the article to ".se"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Way too soon to start putting it on Wikipedia. I don't even think .ch deserves a mention. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, change it. We're not going through the same "we need a reliable source!" stuff that we had to endure at the Wikipedia Review article when the URL was temporarily M.I.A. but the site was still accessible via its IP address. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with keeping it updated without a reliable source. We usually have official website links without sources anyways. SilverserenC 22:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Just for clarification, it's "encyclopediadramatica.se," not "encyclopediadramtica.se." And don't bother including it on Wikipedia if you don't have a reliable source. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is your reliable source. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to add it now, as "I don't think .ch deserves a mention" is not a good enough one. --Zaiger (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Done. SilverserenC 03:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: The Twitter did not claim that brandt was behind the block. The Twitter claimed he was full of shit when he posted to his blog that the domain had been deleted from the registrar because of representatives of Ryan Cleary. It wasn't, we still own the domain, it's just suspended until we can furnish a Swiss mailing address. I never said that he was behind the block on Twitter. This had nothing to do with Brandt and we did never claimed that it did, we were just addressing his speculations. Also, we didn't "start over", none of the data moved from the server it was on, we just changed the domain suffix. --Zaiger (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but please don't add info that isn't stated in the source. I changed the section to address what the update to the source actually says. SilverserenC 05:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Encyclopedia_Dramatica&diff=483398296&oldid=483361220 – I've fixed the timeline of events. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The .se site can't be accessed. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 15:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any problems accessing the website. Make sure that the address that you're trying to access is encyclopediadramatica.se. JohnnyLurg noted a typo in my original statement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, it's ok now. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 15:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Friends of Ryan Cleary and EncyclopediaDramatica.ch

Daniel Brandt accuses "Friends of Ryan Cleary" and Encyclopedia Dramatica for the alleged DDoS attacks against his websites:

Should this (or at least the information within the two Betabeat articles) be mentioned in the article? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The Betabeat stuff is fine, but i'm kinda iffy on using the other stuff. Regardless of how "true" we think it is, I doubt they'd ever get counted as reliable. Even if one is a post from Brandt himself, you could easily argue that that isn't him or something like that, which is why we never consider forum posts to be reliable (there's a few exceptions, but they're really rare). SilverserenC 17:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • To say "Brand said, 'x.'" All we would need is where he said it. To say it's fact maybe not, but it would be fine for a quote, no? 64.123.99.139 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little curious as to what any of that has to do with ED though. It seems more like wiki drama than the topic at hand. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I feel that this is notable drama. A news article concerning Scroogle's closure was tweeted around over 260 times, it received over 50 likes on Facebook, and both Scroogle and NameBase are deemed notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
If it's notable drama, then it's best covered on drama sites. If it's also notable by Wikipedia standards, then possibly it should be covered here too. I really don't think you imagine that criteria like "over 50 likes on Facebook" decide that here...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my opinion wasn't really on whether it should be there or not, it was more an opinion on an opinion. Above it's debated whether .ch should be listed as the current ED. If not then why mention its current dealings? That would be indirectly related to something that's indirectly related. I'm not saying I'm for or against one way or the other, I'm just bringing the discrepancy to light. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It's already been decided that .ch is a different site. But it isn't notable enough yet, like Oh Internet, to have its own page. Therefore, as they are both continuation of the original ED, the information on them is housed here, including anything new, until they are deemed notable enough to be split out into their own article. SilverserenC 22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

On March 31, 2012, wikipedia-watch.org, google-watch.org, scroogle.org, and namebase.org were all redirected to http://josephevers.blogspot.com/2012/02/scroogle-shuts-down-for-good.html. On that same day, the following text was added to http://josephevers.blogspot.com/2012/02/scroogle-shuts-down-for-good.html:

Please visit the main page of this blog for more on Ryan Cleary and his friends who run Encyclopedia Dramatica.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OhInternet and the Daily Dot

http://blog.ohinternet.com/11618/wikipedia-questionable-content/ – Apparently, OhInternet is upset about the sources used in this article:

We’ll start with a website known as “The Daily Dot,” which, according to Wikipedia (yes, I’m quite aware of the irony here,) is an online newspaper that covers internet topics. It aims to be the “hometown newspaper” of the internet. The site was started by a pop musician who, as far as we can tell, has no background in journalism whatsoever (Fact-checking? What’s that?) This site came to light when one of their writers spewed hundreds upon hundreds of words about the hilarious ShitRedditSays subreddit, most of them ill-informed. A cursory search indicates that The Daily Dot is cited as a reference on a handful of Wikipedia articles, despite being little more than an internet rumors blog masquerading as a legitimate news source. More damning is the fact that the site seems to think the “Men’s Rights” movement is valid and not filled to the brim with misogynistic hate groups.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OhInternet is not the only one suspicious of The Daily Dot's quality. Heck, I just clicked on a random article and found it to be full of errors. Though what is any of this doing here? WP:RSN is that way. --Conti|✉ 16:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
RSN would be a good idea. I made one a long time ago, if you remember, but that was only for that specific author of that Daily Dot article, not the news site as a whole. If it fundamentally has reliability issues, then that goes far beyond just its use in this article. SilverserenC 23:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

On referring to the site in past-tense

Al-Jazeera mentions ED here [3] and the context appears to refer to it as a presently existing wiki, rather than one that is defunct. If enough sources refer to ED.ch/se simply as "Encyclopedia Dramatica", or discuss Encyclopedia Dramatica as something that presently exists, will the intro section be changed to reflect this? My own subjective assessment is that virtually everyone across the internet who had been interested in ED, including the site's userbase, readerbase, and even arch-enemies, presently perceives the site that is up now as, simply, "Encyclopedia Dramatica", rather than a mirror of a defunct site (the only serious exceptions being Sherrod DeGrippo herself and her inner circle). Adlerschloß (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a mirror (anymore), it's its own separate site that decided to use the same name. But that doesn't change that it's a different site with different people in charge. The issue is that if we're really going to consider ED to be still active, then we would consider it to be Oh Internet, as a new incarnation, since that's where both the owner is and where the URL redirects to. But it was decided on this talk page that it was better to just consider them both separate, new sites that will, for now, be kept as sub sections in this article. Once either of them achieves true independent notability, they will be spun out into their own articles. SilverserenC 03:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This gets rather tangly, perhaps even something sort of like a Ship of Theseus problem -- the only relevant parallel I'm able to find at the moment seems to be the article on History of the Washington Senators which notes the Senators team from 1901-1960 becomes the Minnesota Twins, while a new and separate franchise also called the Washington Senators was created in 1961 (this team later moved as well and became the Texas Rangers); the Washington Senators stub article itself does not give any real priority to either team as being the "real" Senators, although we might wonder: if the expansion Senators never moved to Texas and retained the same name to this day, how would we deal with that on Wikipedia? I'd imagine that the Washington Senators article would refer to the current team. If, positing an alternate history, the owner and franchise moved and changed their name but otherwise there had been a very high amount of continuity between the 1960 Senators and the 1961 Senators (let's say the owner was different and the "franchise" technically new and separate, but that through a special deal all of the players from the old Senators remained on the new Senators team [we see deals somewhat along these lines in sports history]) and aside from changes in ownership and certain specific legal changes there was a general perception among fans that it was "the same team", how would we deal with that in charting the history of "that team"? The case of the Cleveland Browns (whose owner moved his team to Baltimore but gave up the "franchise" to the NFL who resurrected the Cleveland Browns name several years later) also appears interesting in these contexts. Essentially, if ED.se can be shown to be clearly notable in its own right, and is referred to across the media as "Encyclopedia Dramatica", should it have some priority over the defunct site and URL? And, given the overall continuity between the two sites (which is extremely high), in that case would it really benefit readers to have two separate articles (Encyclopedia Dramatica (2004-2011) and Encyclopedia Dramatica (2011-))? I think the question here is, what is this "thing" Encyclopedia Dramatica to which the article refers? When media refer to "Encyclopedia Dramatica", do they mean the exact site that existed at ED.com, or something larger than that (a wiki associated with Anonymous which has a complicated history involving multiple incarnations over time)? Adlerschloß (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be easier to just wait to deal with this until independent notability is shown. At this point, it doesn't seem like ED.se or Oh Internet will get to that point for at least a year, if not longer, unless a burst of coverage comes around for some reason. Once it does get notability, then we can figure out how we're going to work the naming system. The most neutral way might be to move this page to Encyclopedia Dramatica.com and the other one to Encyclopedia Dramatica.se and then put up a disambiguation page here at Encyclopedia Dramatica that can then direct people to either spot (and we could throw up a link to Oh Internet that will link to the section in this article, unless it gets independent notability as well). SilverserenC 16:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
When this issue becomes more relevant as ED.se receives the necessary amount of media coverage over time, I honestly think we'll need to revisit this all on this Talk page again, and that the issues are not as simple as you state. Another parallel that comes to mind is Andrew Sullivan's blog. While we only have a page on Sullivan himself and not a separate page for his blog, if somehow Sullivan himself were less notable outside of his blogging activity and didn't have his own article but if we did have a Daily Dish article, would we assert that each time the blog changed to a new server (from independent to Time to Atlantic to Daily Beast) that we would call it a "new and separate" blog? If the blog received enough media attention at each location to warrant notability, would we have four separate articles detailing each? Of course not. Also, the content of FiveThirtyEight was moved to the NYTimes server, and there aren't two separate articles about the two locations of that blog. A difference here is that in each case, the content creators were the same people who had control of the domain name, and so andrewsullivan.com and fivethirtyeight.com always redirect to wherever the blog is located at that time. What if either Sullivan or Nate Silver had some legal issue involving transferring the domain rights, but were able to still transfer all of the content, and kept the same or similar names for their blogs? Would that warrant multiple Wikipedia articles, or just clear explanations within one Wikipedia article? And so, in the case of ED, we may be privileging the importance of DeGrippo's ownership vis-a-vis the continuity in the content and community behind the content on ED. My thought is that there's a difference between site and domain, and I look forward to a more extended discussion on these issues at the appropriate time. Also, perhaps somewhere this has already been addressed, but I wonder if those individuals who were admins on ED.com and today maintain admin accounts on both OhI and ED.se (Meepsheep and Hipcrime) might have useful ways to describe this problem. Adlerschloß (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
As a lurker of encyclopediadramatica.com, and an avid user of encyclopediadramatica.se, I can honestly say that .se is the current incarnation of ED. Oh Internet bears no resemblance to ED, and very few EDiots migrated to it. .se is certainly not just a mirror of .com; it has a large userbase, and the Wiki is still very much in active development. I don't understand how ED can be considered defunct at all, especially considering the huge amount of admins and sysops that migrated to .se/.ch. --Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 14:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone has submitted an academic thesis to Baylor University citing encyclopediadramatica.ch as Encyclopedia Dramatica.[4] Adlerschloß (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Two things. 1) The reliability of theses is rather specific. It's a PhD thesis, so that's one better point, since Master's theses are generally not accepted, but we usually only use them as sources if they are theses that have been widely cited elsewhere. Since writing a thesis isn't really, by definition, being published. It would help if you could find a copy of it on an actual university website or something, rather than a random upload on Scribd. By the way, I haven't read it yet, does it have any new, usable information?
2) I'm fairly certain we already discussed this above, but the name ED.ch has chosen is Encyclopedia Dramatica, that doesn't mean that it is Encyclopedia Dramatica.com. At this point, this article is about the .com site. Both ED.ch and Oh Internet are not that site, so they are separate and require their own notability to be spun out into their own articles. I mean, at this point, there hasn't really been any major articles on ED.ch outside of The Daily Dot (and the same author that writes all of them). And, other than the initial burst of stuff about Oh Internet, there hasn't been any more news for it either beyond mentions here and there, like ED.ch has been getting. SilverserenC 07:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The thesis does not directly discuss Encyclopedia Dramatica but does cite it as a source in numerous places. There is discussion of Lulzsec (aspects of that case are tangential to issues around ED, although not discussed in that context in that thesis; perhaps those connections are so obscure that they generally receive no academic or media mention to this point despite relevance to subjects which each have received media attention in the past). It's an interesting read and it's good to see academic attention around such sociological phenomena but I think more in-depth treatments on related subjects are likely still forthcoming. My own interpretation of realities would be that Encyclopedia Dramatica is a wiki associated with Anonymous which was originally located at encyclopediadramatica.com and is now located at encyclopediadramatica.se. Saying that because ed.com redirects to Oh Internet that ed.se is not "the real ED" would be like saying that the People's Republic of China is not really China -- specifically, on that, I believe that for many years on Wikipedia the article for "China" was not about the PRC, even though whenever anyone says "China" they always are referring to that country and government. Note that the China article now deals with the present People's Republic of China but also discusses past regimes through Chinese history. The "thing" China does not find continuity through a specific "regime" (otherwise we'd do something stupid like have the article on China just be about Taiwan) and a change in ownership or leadership did not change realities of what China is; anytime anyone says "Encyclopedia Dramatica" they mean something rather specific, and are not referring to the defunct location ed.com -- no one would ever say "ED was great/terrible, I'm sad/happy it's gone, although there are forks of the site still up" -- everyone acknowledges that the wiki itself is still up but at a different location. Also, isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica (ed.se) a sponsor for ROFLCon this year, and could that warrant a mention in this article? Adlerschloß (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It would warrant a mention, yeah. Your best bet for a reliable source on it would be something directly from the ROFLCon website.
As for the rest of what you're saying, I don't think comparing a website to a country is a very proper argument. Especially not China, when Wikipedia has been having naming issues with it for the longest time. The difference in opinion we're havbing is that you think ED is the community, while I think ED is the website. Though the article, as written as a whole, seems to agree more with me, in that ED.com was a specific wiki that, in itself, is no longer operational, though its name has been taken up by a new site. SilverserenC 18:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

We Are Anonymous

http://books.google.com/books?id=ncGVPtoZPHcC&q=dramatica

Thank you, Adlerschloß. This looks somewhat promising. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think a mention is useful for much of anything. But the book is...interesting. Not very much direct discussion about ED though, from what I can see. Michael, what do you think is usable from there? SilverserenC 08:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

SilverserenC is POV pushing beyond the bounds of incredulity

I have just read the posts on this talkpage...and can only conclude that the aforementioned "holier-than-thou-stick-in-the-mud" is deliberately trying to keep their version: the one where EA died for good after De Grippo left. However this is irrespective of the reality, EA.se et all lives on.

Will some registered user who actually can get passed the block on this page please WP:BOLD and change the page to reflect the realpolitik. The EA article just gets the tone so right regarding Wikipedia editors like SilverserenC whose only possible reward from being so obtuse and pigheaded, is "unwarranted self importance".

Note the fact that SilverserenC just uses misdirection and fallacy (shifting the burden of proof) to hang on to their tenuous version. They state this article is about EA.com not EA.se. Then someone else points out, hang on, this article is just about encyclopedia dramatica (no mention of .com) therefore any "encyclopedia dramatica". Then its a problem with the content? What has got that to do with anything, another fallacy (Moving the goalposts). It just goes on and on.

When is someone with the balls and the brains going to override this person and do the right thing? We have now reached the point where the content in this article is so far from being factual, its like demanding this: water is wet [citation needed]!!

EA exists...get over it!86.145.5.23 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting editorial. Got sources to back it up? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

FunnyJunk

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/finding-the-mystery-man-behind-funnyjunk/ – Encyclopedia Dramatica apparently played a role in outing FunnyJunk's owner. One thing that the Ars Technica article hints at but doesn't meation is SuperIrene's earlier ED account "Mightyirene", which was active in late August 2011. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A sentence mention or so seems appropriate. Just about how they were involved in revealing the identity of Funnyjunk's owner. SilverserenC 21:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Mightyirene / SuperIrene used ED to publish some information (or maybe it's only gossip) on Admin:
  • https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=FunnyJunk&diff=236739&oldid=236667 (August 2011)
  • https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=FunnyJunk&diff=237541&oldid=237097 (August 2011)
  • https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=FunnyJunk&diff=324440&oldid=322835 (January 2012)
The Ars Technica article mentions a bit of this under the "IRL" heading. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Boing Boing

BoingBoing has referred to ED [dot] se as "Encyclopedia Dramatica", without any qualifier, such as "fork", "unofficial continuation", etc. it seems like everyone has now acknowledged ED [dot] se as Encyclopedia Dramatica except Wikipedia. -badmachine 08:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's because referring to a mirror as a mirror over and over again is a bit redundant. 120.59.35.191 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You don't get to interpret what a source means when it states something, unfortunately. So that's one source so far, and IMO if we see it referenced this way in another then all the "past tense" and "defunct" bullshit is coming out of this article. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
ED.se chose for its name to also be Encyclopedia Dramatica, so it's proper to refer to it as that, but that doesn't make it this Encyclopedia Dramatica. An example is if Wikipedia shut down and a new site was created that decided to also use the name Wikipedia. While, in the beginning, news sources might called it mirror or fork, eventually, they would just call it Wikipedia. But that doesn't make it this Wikipedia.
And i'm not going into copied content and userbase and all of that, because then you have to bring in Oh Internet and it's a big mess. This is just a simple example. SilverserenC 15:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
A recently published book on the subject of Anonymous appears to discuss Encyclopedia Dramatica in some substantial manner, but as of this moment I have only seen the book's index here: [5]; the book has already been reviewed by big media sources, and I'll make some efforts to find and include any information that may be relevant to this article, although someone else could go ahead and do the same. As far as the discussion above, I would argue that ED.se is the same site as ED.com, which just moved to a new server after a bunch of wacky drama. The fact that the original server address now points to Oh Internet isn't as messy as one would think really, and I think the article's present structure would only need to be moderately modified. (Oh Internet only appears notable in itself through its association with Encyclopedia Dramatica, and so it's justified to keep it as a section in this article relevant to ED's total history.) Adlerschloß (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
It's really not that simple. You also have to factor in that the owner changed the site to Oh Internet and that some users went and made the other site and, no matter how much it's protested that its not, illegally copied the content from Oh Internet. I mean, that's why it's on servers like .ch and .se, you can't get it taken down easily from those places. Not to mention that the userbase did split, some of the userbase is still at Oh Internet, which really does count more for being a continuation if we're going that route. But we're not. The situation is already complicated enough without involving all of that. SilverserenC 23:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Though that book looks like it's going to be good for a number of article subjects. It has a good publisher and a rather notable author, good find. The question is whether it's discussing the beginning history of ED, which means it's discussing .com or if it's discussing stuff since the server switch. If the latter, I think that info would be more than enough to finally split out ED.se into its own article. If the former, well...that's useful for that and just that. We'll have to see. When's it coming out? SilverserenC 23:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
source plz? especially the 'illegal' part. imo this seems like a non-neutral opinion. -badmachine 07:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It is just my opinion, though I think a few early on sources (maybe it was one of the Daily Dot ones?) mentioned how ED was under copyright and that DeGrippo had been sending takedown notices for ED.se (.ch back then) because of the violation. Not sure how that all turned out. If i'm remembering correctly, the takedown notices worked at one point, but they just changed service providers (or servers) to get out of it. Along with changing who was the registered owner, I believe. It would certainly be nice if a news source made a clear timeline of it all, but alas. SilverserenC 08:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the BoingBoing mention, pp. 317-318 of Parmy Olson's book We Are Anonymous states that Ryan Cleary helped host Encyclopedia Dramatica, and "served as an administrator" of Encyclopedia Dramatica. The book says nothing about Cleary hosting "a mirror". I don't know if this is relevant, but more and more sources show that the new site is accepted, at least by this group, as Encyclopedia Dramatica. 8nate (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that Olson's book generally refers to ED in the past-tense (in the style of this Wikipedia article), but then also mentions that Cleary hosted ED on his servers and was also an admin -- does anyone recall offhand whether he had been an admin on ED.com or just ED.ch? There's no description at all regarding the circumstances behind his hosting the site, no indication that he hadn't hosted the site over a long-term period, and the lack of detail could confuse a reader of the book unfamiliar with the subject especially as there's no specific discussion of the domain transition. That is, most references to ED in the book would appear to refer specifically to ED.com, except then there's that passage about Ryan which makes it murky. If we're referring to ED as something that Cleary hosted, we shouldn't also be referring to the site as if it were defunct (which would be the limited interpretation of ED.com as a "real ED"), so that's a sort of inconsistency in the book to note. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, in the glossary of the book, ED is described in the present tense. 174.254.228.241 (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Press release from Daniel Brandt

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/cloudflare-watch.htm – Daniel Brandt apparently sent a press release about a new website of his to Cryptome, which is a website for privacy advocates. He also talks about why he became interested in Encyclopedia Dramatica in the release:

My interest in CloudFlare came from my battle with Encyclopedia Dramatica. This started in mid-2010 with a bio on me on encyclopediadramatica.com that Sherrod DeGrippo refused to take down when I asked her nicely. So I helped a friend start the site josephevers.blogspot.com to research the anonymous admins behind ED. It had some impact -- ED.com was abandoned by DeGrippo in April 2011, in favor of a mild meme site at ohinternet.com.

I've added this information to article. Feel free to look over the changes.

One thing to keep in mind is that in the press release, Brandt claims that Sherrod "refused" to take the article down, but according to a post blog that Brandt published on the Wikipedia Review, Brandt said,

I was informed by [an] insider that the Queen [Sherrod] got my email, didn't recognize my name, and then informed this insider that she (the Queen) had decided not to reply to me.

It seems to be a case of Sherrod not caring ("didn't recognize [Brandt's] name") or not wanting to interact with Brandt rather than outright refusing to delete the article. As a result, I used the words "chose to ignore" in the article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now that section heavily implies that Brandt was the reason ED.com got closed down. Didn't DeGrippo dispute this? If so, we should probably mention that in the paragraph. --Conti|✉ 14:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that Sherrod ever mentioned Daniel Brandt in public. The paragraph only mentions the original ED's closure once, so I wouldn't call it "heavily implies". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
That's kind of my point: It offers the reader one single possibility for ED's closure. If we talk about ED's closure, we ought to mention all the possible reasons. It's just a minor quibble, but that's what caught my eye. :) --Conti|✉ 14:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I have emails from her where she admits it if anyone is interested. She was literally scared for her life. --Zaiger (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Past tense agenda....

I just came across this article and noted immediately that it's a load of hot air. Firstly why is EA referred to in the past tense, when its website the first choice before this link in a google search? Secondly why does it purport that "several mirrors" exist when there are actually none of note, only the Encyclopedia Dramatica.se site? Thirdly, as I can see from the talk archives, whenever this point is raised there seems to be a POV-derived campaign to deny the existence that EA existed after DeGrippo pulled the plug in favor of OhInternet?

In my view the logic on show here is nothing shy of POV pushing. Firstly just because something closes and then restarts does not mean it does not exist. Secondly the fact is does exist but is not in use/manufacture does not preclude it from being talked of in the present tense. For example, people no longer ride horses to work, they therefore were not beasts of burden because they remain beasts of burden. Likewise the ending of a TV series does not it "was" a TV series because it will always exist as long as no one destroys all the copies. However a lost film could be referred to as "was" because it really is "was" as there is nothing else like it.

On reading this article, it could be surmised that EA existed, was withdrawn and then "several mirrors" (i.e. many pale imitations were spawned) began but they were not the original EA. Hardly, the EA.se website is just as much like the old one. It therefore seems completely misleading and ridiculous to suggest that the original was the only one. TBH after reading EA's article about WIkipedia, I have to admit beyond the hate and bile, there are some very fair observations about this site, its users and its creator Mr Wales. I can only concur that with such criticism even Wikipedia is not immune to altering history a la totalitarian regime.

The point of this article seems to be, there was only one EA created by DeGrippo and anything else is not real! EA is a meme, it exists to troll and it does not matter how many portals, or reincarnations of it exist. I suggest the people who defend this article's slant take their high horses over to pages on religions, for instance Christianity. I would like them to use their logic to decry sectarianism, for surely the Church established by Christ has absolutely nothing to do with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism because all the latter denominations were all created long after the original church ceased to exist.

It makes me think that DeGrippo is being treated like a messianic figurehead whose ownership of an idea far outweighs the subscribers to that idea! Go on, trot over to Christianity and tell all those believers that their churches are false as they worship versions that were not created directly by Jesus. DeGrippo lost control of the thing she created, that does not mean the idea she spawned ended with her too. Until you get your heads around that this page will be permanently blocked from editing. Not because of stupid swearing but because it is patently not true.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.117.223 (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before. Sherrod DeGrippo created the ed.com site in 2004, but lost interest and stopped hosting it in 2011. There is now an accurate mirror of most of the old ed.com content at encyclopediadramatica.se, but this is not the same website, any more than mirrors of Wikipedia content are the same as Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Slap of the forehead heard around the world*. Just because DeGrippo started the site does not means that she owned the idea. Benz created the gasoline engine, does that mean all cars that use a petroleum-piston-driven engine must be referred to in the past tense. It seems to me that again the POV pusher rears their head. This perpetual argument seems to derive from ownership. DeGrippo invented a site called Encylopedia Dramatica (e.g. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, Louis Pasteur invented innoculations; Voltaire invented the electronic circuit; the Earl of Sandwich gave his name to the sandwich). All of things had a creator but none their creations are referred in the past tense because their creator is no more. The keepers of the sacred seal on this article seem to be unable to seperate ownership from usage! This logic befuddles me. The whole story of this site is thus: DeGrippo created the site, she walked away, the site continued. The content of the site has not changed, neither has the way to edit or its purpose. In fact unlike the examples of invention, I have made, EA remains exactly as it has always been !! So what is the problem?? POV pure and simple. The lede should be something like this: "Encyclopædia Dramatica is a satirical open wiki that was launched on December 10, 2004. The site, which uses MediaWiki software, lampoons both encyclopedic topics and current events, especially those related or relevant to contemporary internet culture. It was created and managed by Sherrod DeGrippo until she relinquished control in 2011." This is not rocket science. Just the facts. 109.151.217.23 (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A better analogy would be if you were referring to the specific engine that Benz built, in which case you would be referring to it in the past tense, because you are referring to the one single, specific engine. Similarly here, we are referring to the specific satirical wiki Encyclopedia Dramatica.com, which I think we can all agree is not in use anymore. Just typing in the URL would tell you that (and you'd end up at Oh Internet). SilverserenC 18:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
"Just because DeGrippo started the site does not means that she owned the idea."
Actually it does. DeGrippo owns the intellectual property for the idea, and she retains ownership of the content. The ED copyright license for contributed content was not free. The mirror sites are infringing. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Really? we would love to hear her to claim ownership herself. This whole time she has been distancing herself from taking responsibility for the entire site's contents, but now she retains ownership? Please, it would be an honor to hear that from Sherrod's own mouth. --Zaiger (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I also think it shouldn't be presented in the past tense. It doesn't matter if the owner walked away or that it now says ".se" instead of ".com". Do we need to resort to a vote in order to resolve this? Acoma Magic (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about votes on what people want. The problem is that a large amount of the sourcing refers to the ed.com site, not ed.se. Although the current round of edits is unhelpful, there is no "past tense agenda".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You can easily find sources referring to the current Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, the sources refer to Encyclopaedia Dramatica, not Encyclopeadia Dramatica.com. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
True, but ed.se did not exist in 2004, and there is less sourcing referring directly to the .se era than .com. I've tried to avoid setting off circular editing on this, but the article needs to accept that .com and .se are not the same sites.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it's a good thing that the article isn't named "EncyclopaediaDramatica.com". Acoma Magic (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but just because the title doesn't specifically say .com doesn't mean that isn't what it is talking about. The first line says that ED is a satirical open wiki that uses MediaWiki software that was launched on December 10, 2004. Was ED.se launched in 2004? SilverserenC 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Was ED.se created by Sherrod Degrippo? Does ED.com go to ED.se? SilverserenC 06:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The real risk is confusing a first-time reader who is not as clued up on all of this as the regular editors. The article should make clear that there have been two main eras for the site: ed.com (2004-2011) and ed.ch/se (2011-present). The "is or was?" debate is becoming stale, but unfamiliar readers should not be given the impression that ed.se was launched in 2004.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. Really, I don't feel the current sectioning of the article is really the best way to do it anyways. Really, we need to split the content section into content and then a history section, which are completely separate things. And then Oh Internet and ED.se could go as subsections under the history section. I think that's a better way to do it than the way the article currently is. SilverserenC 08:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding "a large amount of the sourcing refers to the ed.com", that is...I don't even know what to call it. Sources refer to "Encyclopedia Dramatica", period, full stop; what its URL happens to be is not even secondary, it is simply irrelevant. When sources discuss ED material in the present day, as Ars Technica does, that pretty much confers legitimacy on the present-day website. Things move, things fork. They don't become illegitimate once they do as long as they meet our notability guides. If "Oh Internet" someday gets reliable source attention, then it will qualify for an article of its own too. We'll note the split in the history section here and provide a pointer to that article. ED is a functional, active website, here and now. That fact ruffles some feathers, but life ain't fair. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know why you're referencing the Ars Technica article, as all that says is "Writing on the meme wiki Encyclopedia Dramatica earlier this year", with earlier this year being before ED was shut down, so it is referring to ED.com. Furthermore, as has been already explained before on this talk page, what else would ED.se be referred to as? They picked the same exact name, so if one is going to refer to the site, they will just say ED, but that doesn't make it ED.com. And, yes, you're right, ED is a functional, active website, it's called Oh Internet. Any of the arguments you can use for ED.se can also be used for Oh Internet. That's the issue. Which is why it was decided in the past that both Oh Internet and ED.se are just separate sites, sites that split from ED.com, yes, but not the same thing as it. SilverserenC 02:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh Internet is not ED. Being a redirect is irrelevant. This article is on Encyclopaedia Dramatica; it's still in existence. A change from ".com" to ".se" is even more irrelevant. Until a move to "EncyclopaediaDramatica.com" is established, then it stays in the present tense. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
In the immediate aftermath of DeGrippo ditching the site, there were several forks and mirrors all claiming to be the true successor, and it was unclear if any of them would last for very long. The mirror at ed.ch (later .se) has by far the best claim to be the true successor, but it is run by different people and is not the same site.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I wonder how has this peculiar rule of "different owner means different organization" came about, and how selectively it is being applied project-wide. The case here is rather straight-forward; a project was abandoned, the project was picked up by another user, reliable sources still refer to it and cite it in articles under the same name. That's all there ios here. Owners change and addresses change over time. The product, when it can be verified by reliable sources, is constant. Article Rescue Squad people like Seren here have argued for years for keeping the most absurd articles, from helicopter cats to JetBlue flight attendants to Lord knows what else. Yet here, it is the ultimate of nattering nitpicks. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Except the owner of the organization didn't abandon it, but instead changed the name and the rules of what proper content is. DeGrippo still owns ED.com. She is still in charge of it. The people editing Oh Internet are, as far as can be seen, are still the same community. Not all of them, clearly. Then the rest went to create other offshoots, of which ED.se has become the most prominent. However, that doesn't make it the same at all. Oh Internet and ED.se are at the same level and should be presented the same. Since they both can't be presented as being ED, it's better to just call them both splits from the original. SilverserenC 00:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It depends how you interpret what happened. I would describe it as: DeGrippo abandoned ED and created a new website. ED was then continued with a different owner. This article is on ED, and if Oh Internet gets enough attention, then it deserves it's own article with a brief mention of the history of the site which would involve ED. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
That's another issue. How can you say that someone else continued it when DeGrippo still owns the copyright for it. As has been pointed out before, ED.se remains a complete copyright violation of ED.com, in name, logo, and its content, since ED.com's copyright page stated that all content added was then copyright to ED.com and not to the content adder (unlike how Wikipedia works). That's one of the main reasons why .ch and .se were used in the first place, as it is much harder to stick a copyright claim to foreign internet providers. SilverserenC 05:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we stop wasting time with this issue? We're building an encyclopaedia and the copyright rules they're violating is irrelevant. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just using it as an example of how the situation is complicated and that both directions have arguments. It is far better just to have both ED.se and Oh Internet be separate sections and then, eventually, separate articles. SilverserenC 07:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I reckon treat Oh Internet as separate to ED and .se and .com as minor details regarding the same encyclopaedia. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The community splitting over two different Wikis, Degrippo still owning ED.com, .se going through multiple owners hands time and again because one is arrested and the others are likely to be, and even changing server locations because of a copyright claim catching hold on the .ch server because .ch/.se are copyright violations of ED.com are minor details? SilverserenC 22:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, quite minor. You can't seem to come to grips with the fact that reliable sources refer to the present website as ED. Not a fork, not a mirror, no analogies to a Baltimore Colts team smuggled away in the night. Encyclopedia Dramatica is now located at the .se address, that's all there is to it. As for the copyright issue, that's really beyond your ability or knowledge to offer commentary on. But apart from that, it has no bearing on editorial decisions here, otherwise the articles for Megaupload and The Pirate Bay would be in trouble. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Silver Seren is right that DeGrippo probably still holds the copyright on the 2004-11 material, but there needs to be reliable sourcing to make this an issue worth mentioning in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If sourcing is found making mention of some copyright issue, by all means put it in the article. It seems tho that it is being used by some as some sort of argument against acknowledging the legitimacy of the current website and owners. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I see we're just not going to be able to agree on anything here, since we have pretty much opposing opinions on what to do with this article. However, that means then that you need to reach a consensus to make the change, per WP:BRD. The two of you and the two of us is just a stalemate. The other reverters were Zaiger and 8nate. Zaiger, being an ED Government member, would have to be taken with a grain of salt and 8nate turned out to be a sockpuppet. So, at this point, there needs to be an RfC or something for this change to remain. SilverserenC 08:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Article manipulated again

I discussed this article a couple of years ago with partial success (as the consensus was reached and edits made) and now that I've stumbled upon it again I discover that informations and sources about gore/shock/etc materials being widely used in E.D. have been deleted. The lead now says E.D. is merely a "satirical site". 83.7.161.227 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you find and link to the reliable sources that were used back then for such information? SilverserenC 02:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
ED is not a shock site, although it does contain some material taken from shock sites.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There is the one page I remember that goes with the Offended template that says something like, "if you're offended by this content, go here" and it links to a page with a ton of...well, it's purposefully bad. But, regardless, reliable sources are all that matter. SilverserenC 05:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That's just one of many examples where E.D. article intends to trick a viewer into seeing gore graphics and adds more shock value to that already prsent in materials it uses. I'm bussy this week but yes, the article definitely needs rewriting with more sources. Of course I can't do anything against the will of E.A. enthusiasts who have been patroling this article for years. I invite everyone with good sorces to this topic. Please hurry, this talkpage might get zealously archieved 83.7.159.111 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
ED (what the hell is "E.A." ?) is not a shock site, and will not be characterized as such; "go find sources" is not going to support a factually incorrect assertion. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This IP editor's if A then B logic conclusions are a bit...poor. ED is an encyclopedic compendium many many things, some of which are articles on shock sites; that does not make ED itself a "shock site", any more than the Wikipedia hosting pornstar bios makes this a porn bio website. lemonparty is a shock site. Eel Girl is a shock site. efukt.com is a compendium of only shock images and videos. ED is not. Tarc (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Fox News article links to ED (yes, .se)

At 50 shades of Wikipedia? UK head banned after bondage porn ties, ED is used as a citation for the fact that "Fae" being Van Haeften's Wikipedia username. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is that useful here? SilverserenC 01:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
More evidence that the present website is indeed "Encyclopedia Dramatica", as cited by yet another reliable source. Yet another nail in the "past tense agenda". Tarc (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I just did a Ctrl+F search just to be sure, but the name Encyclopedia Dramatica is never used in the article. There is a link to ED.se in the article, but a link doesn't mean anything. I don't see how it has anything to do with the "past tense agenda". The only use a link in a news article is without accompanying discussion in the article is when a news article links to Wikipedia and then we add the article to the Media mentions template on the article subject talk page. Other than that, a link is completely meaningless. SilverserenC 03:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The link is all that matters in this case. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm calling bullshit on seren here. He is totally owning this article. Nobody can make any changes without going through him first, it's totally counterproductive and he should really find something more in his interest to hover over and stalk changes. It's like he is a one man committee, nobody can make any changes without getting his personal approval. Wikipedia isn't supposed to work this way. He has an agenda and it is poisonous to the growth of this article and the project as a whole. --Zaiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It's disappointing that Silver seren changed "is" back to "was". The ed.se site is the de facto successor to ed.com, at least in terms of content hosting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't checked this for months. I like the new wording of "mirrored and continued" in the infobox. Months ago we could still have doubts about the successor of ED, but now it's clear that .se has become the replacement as the new ED. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The issue is the very few sources actually discussing this. Besides the Daily Dot articles way back at the beginning, pretty much everything else is just mentioning ED.se and that's it. Not discussing it to any extent that helps. This is exemplified by the fact that there is really nothing more that can be added to the .se section in the article and, as can be seen, other than the Cleary controversy and the .se site going down and being covered in the one Daily Dot article, there's nothing else. And, it's quite easy to start a request for comment. Do that. SilverserenC 08:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done --Enric Naval (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfc: Is Encyclopedia Dramatica dead?

RfC result is clear - the .se site is the current de facto site for Encyclopedia Dramatica, and so Encyclopedia Dramatica should be referred to in the current tense, and encyclopediadramatica.com in the past. No apparent consensus on how to cover Oh Internet. Fences&Windows 05:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

encyclopediadramatica.com was closed, but all the articles were mirrored in encyclopediadramatica.se, who has a different owner. Should we speak of Encyclopedia Dramatica in the present (.se is a website) or in the past (.com was a website)? Enric Naval (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No it is not dead, Silver seren is in the minority over this issue. The WP:LEAD should make clear that there was a split in April 2011, but referring to the site in the past tense is not the best approach.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to give a bit of history here, the original ED.com was closed by its owner, and the original URL was redirected to a new site (Oh Internet). The community split up over this, some going to Oh Internet, some creating various mirrors of ED from their cache and the internet archive (without permission from the original owner). Eventually, ED.ch was established as the alternative/new version of ED. ED.ch was closed due to TOS violations, so ED.se was created, which remains active until today, with completely different owners compared to the now dead ED.com. --Conti|✉ 12:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
There are many reliable sources that refer to ed.se as Encyclopedia Dramatica at present. Also the whole userbase is at .se, and most of the staff save for maybe half a dozen out of 30 or so people (with more returning to ed.se almost daily). And while it may be completely different owners, those owners were known users or staff on ed.com. Sherrod (the old owner) threw away Encyclopedia Dramatica and we simply saved it from the dumpster, washed it off, and resumed business as usual. ED.se is Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Zaiger (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to gather all the sources referring ED.se as the current ED for those with no familiarity with all this. The point of an RfC is to get outside opinions, after all. --Conti|✉ 16:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
These should be more than good enough:
I have a question on this topic. Doesn't WP:BRD only apply in preventing edit wars or removing vandalism, not promoting them?
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
Nobody here was working in bad faith. Maybe an admin could explain the legitimacy there. 173.219.77.134 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with reverting a good faith edit per WP:BRD. The idea is that the person adding/changing content has to create a consensus for these changes, and not the person wanting to retain the status quo. --Conti|✉ 20:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
But it wasn't a single revert, it was 5. WP:BRD is not policy. WP:3RR is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.77.134 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I was replying in more general terms. :) The edit war certainly wasn't appropriate (on both sides), that's why the article is protected now. --Conti|✉ 12:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
All refer to it in present tense as "Encyclopedia Dramatica" as well. 173.219.77.134 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No It doesn't seem that difficult. There's an active site known as Encyclopedia Dramatica, so our article called Encyclopedia Dramatica should refer to it in the present tense. Statements specifically about the old version can still use past tense. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica = Cleveland Browns

I submit that encyclopediadramatica.se should be officially referred to as Encyclopedia Dramatica in the same way that the 1999 NFL expansion Cleveland Browns are considered as THE Browns, with the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns) discussing the entire history of the franchise, not just what happened before the move, and after the expansion franchise.

Art Modell owned the Cleveland Browns. He decided to move the team to Baltimore and call them the Ravens.

Sherrod DeGrippo owned Encyclopedia Dramatica. She decided to rename the site Oh Internet.

New ownership formed a franchise in Cleveland and named them the Browns. That team continued on AS the Browns, and as time advanced, they built their own history AS the Browns.

Ryan Cleary (amongst others) created a mirror site with cached information and titled it Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site (first .ch, then .se) continued on compiling new articles and expanding upon current articles, thusly creating or rather extending the life of the current site KNOWN as Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Just as the Baltimore Ravens aren't considered to be the Cleveland Browns in actuality, nor is Oh Internet still Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Because the parallels exist, and because all changes concerning the Cleveland Browns franchise is referred to in its entirety pre and post move, this should be the way that the Encyclopedia Dramatica article should be formed, using the Browns as a true precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.73.92 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for starting this RfC. If we're going to go with a continuation thing, taking into account the existence of Oh Internet, the best method would be a restructuring of the lede, with the first sentence saying something like, "Encyclopedia Dramatica is a series of wikis, with Encyclopedia Dramatica.com being created on...blah blah talk about split and the existence of ED.se (.ch first though) and Oh Internet". That way, we are covering the split itself and the existence of two wikis. That would be the best way to describe it as a community, if we're going to go that route. SilverserenC 10:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If reliable sources refer to "Encyclopedia Dramatica" in the present tense and/or make specific note of content currently at its present .se address, then that is all that is needed. There's a waning Wikipedia clique that still clings to WP:BADSITES and wishes to practice a form of WP:DENY to websites that are at odds with the Wikipedia's mission. Look at the history of AfDs/DRVs for this article and for the Gay Nigger Association of America. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Do note that I supported the GNAA editor and his improvements to the article and opposed the banning way back when. Please don't think that I am unilaterally one-sided in regards to subjects such as this. I just want the article to be improved properly, without an improper amount of higher POV support of one side over the other just because of the involvement of POV editors from one side. SilverserenC 08:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That is unrelated. Seren's bias is shown by his "one-sided" edit war to prevent the link to the current iteration of ED, despite several reliable sources referring to the site, in the present tense, as ED. 174.253.245.62 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've already explained above how it should be worded in the present tense, since there's going to be two separate Wikis included in the article (ED.se and Oh Internet). SilverserenC 23:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • OhInternet is not Encyclopedia Dramatica. They wanted to distance themselves, so there is no reason (Other than promotion and spite) why there should be mention of them as a part of a "series" of Encyclopedia Dramaticas. --Zaiger (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Dramatica still lives, and it lives at .se. For anyone to sugggest otherwise, they should re-aquaint themselves with the facts to stop embarassing themselves.  TUXLIE  17:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay?

Well, that's just unhelpful. The RfC wasn't ever actually closed. What now? SilverserenC 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty clear that the sources provided in that discussion above show ED.se in the present tense...not a mirror, not a fork, or any of that...and the consensus of participants supported that notion. So I think where we're at on this matter is settled. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. You have to consider several facts. 1) The IPs are clearly random ED.se members, potentially linked here on purpose, perhaps not. 2) Zaiger is an admin (essentially) on ED.se and Tuxlie is a member on ED.se, so their positions are rather involved. 3) The only other people involved in this discussion are Enric Naval, Ianmacm, Conti, BDD, you and me. Of them, Enric and Conti don't seem to have advanced a position for either side. Ianmacm is on your side (sorta, though he could be more clear). And BDD wants something that's more in line with what i'm thinking. So, i'm not seeing a consensus.
Do remember though, at this point, i'm not advocating for a past tense version, I just think this needs to be done properly, without over emphasizing ED.se when it hasn't gotten much coverage at all. I'm still advocating for the series of wikis thing though, since that would more fit the whole community thing that ED.se members keep stating. SilverserenC 20:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty clear. I'm with Tarc on this one - Alison ❤ 20:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain then exactly how there is a consensus? SilverserenC 20:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Give it up, you are embarrassing yourself. You are obviously the only one who wants it past tense, and nobody wants a "series of wikis". OhInternet is not notable. There were a couple of articles mentioning them in the very beginning, but until then they have steadily declined into obscurity. It is obvious to everyone that the only reason you are keeping this alive is to try to grasp onto some feeling of control, or having something to hold over ED's "head". It's time to let go. --Zaiger (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You are completely ignoring what BDD said above, where the original ED parts should be past tense. And, i'm sorry, but ED.se is less notable than Oh Internet. Remember that the Daily Dot only counts as one source, no matter how many articles they write about ED.se. Everything else is just trivial mentions. SilverserenC 08:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I find it highly amusing for an WP:ARS adherent to be using the "trivial mentions" argument, seeing how when one likes an article, those "trivial mentions" morph into "significant coverage in reliable sources. It is a demonstrable falsehood that Oh Internet more notable; ED is the one that still gets regular Reliable Source coverage, while OI gets...nothing. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
But what exactly is the "regular coverage", a sentence? That is trivial. And don't compare me to other ARS members, please, without actually looking at how I source things. SilverserenC 18:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I see sporadic, but recurring coverage mentioning or addressing ED as a "current" site. I have not seen coverage of it as a "former" site. If it's going on the record that ED is deceased/retired, it would be nice to have citations for that condition. If OI is significantly more notable than ED.se, it shouldn't be hard to find citations of better quality than those offered for ED.se. --Robert Keiden (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
There are multiple ways to respond to that. Like how ED.se is also calling itself Encyclopedia Dramatica, so it is pretty much impossible to determine if, when news are using the name Encyclopedia Dramatica, they are referring to ED.se as a continuation of ED or just using ED as the name of ED.se. And there were already sources about it being gone, like this and this. These sources even say that Oh Internet is the successor.
But I understand that, since there's two sites in question (Oh Internet and ED.se), the article should be as clear as possible. And multiple ED users have noted on this talk page over the years that ED is about the community and not a specific site. Which is why I proposed having the article discuss them all as a series of related wikis. SilverserenC 00:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
What, like Dewey defeats Truman? Or the dozens of sources from ~2002 that stated definitively that Iraq possessed WMDs? Sometimes a source, even a reliable one, reports something that happened in-the-moment that latter turned out to be inaccurate. It is quite safe to say that the reports of OI being ED's successor have now proven to be inaccurate. You're simply not going to win this, no matter how long you drag it out. Tarc (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Addressing just one sentence of my response, indeed the least relevant sentence to the point I was making, doesn't really give you a good argument to go on. SilverserenC 01:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
As it begins to get tedious to see you say the same things over and over and over, we're left with little choice but to pick out the funnier bits. Reliable sources describe the website at encyclopediadramatica.se as "Encyclopedia Dramatica". Not a fork, not a mirror, not a rogue. Sources do not seem to make much mention of OI at all; if you can find some, feel free to un-redirect Oh Internet. As we're covering no new ground lately, and the RfC didn't go your way, IMO there's nothing else to discuss. Tarc (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let's try this. I've already stated before that neither site has enough notability to have a separate article. Since you're so sure that ED.se is more notable, then show me the sources that discuss it in significant terms. Sources other than the Daily Dot and sources that are actually talking about the site and not just mentioning it offhand. The closest you have is the one Ars Technica article and that's barely more than a mention. SilverserenC 02:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and the RfC was never closed, so it didn't go any way. But you can pretend to yourself whatever you want. SilverserenC 02:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The sourcing issue has been discussed to death above. That you do not accept those sources is not something many here are terribly concerned with any longer. The unofficial RfC is moot. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
So, basically, you don't have the sources and you're trying to divert the issue. SilverserenC 01:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Nothing like a bunch of no-life Wiki editors arguing over relevance. Sate your appetite with knowledge. The collective community known as ED has followed the "mirror" site and Ohinternet has faded into obscurity. Encyclopedia Dramatica is an idea, and ED.se IS Encyclopedia Dramatica. Ohinternet is really just a footnote in this article, as it is simply a branch in ED's history. Any normal person could see that, but I think SilverSeren has an article on ED or something. It makes me lol 174.134.156.86 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You just made my point for me. ED is the community, so this article should treat it as such, noting the separate websites in that regard. Therefore, it is a series of separate wikis, as, no matter how much you don't want to admit it, some of the community did go to Oh Internet, making that a part of the ED community just as much. SilverserenC 02:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't work that way. ED is a website currently hosted at the .se address. Period, full stop. Apart from a common point in history, OI is irrelevant to ED. There is nothing you are going to gain by further saying "no no no" and repeating the same thing you said the day before, or the day before that, or a week ago. You can't edit-war your way into your preferred version, and you are just about a lone voice pushing this minority POV. So what's the next step? Tarc (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Probably Dispute Resolution, considering everyone but you (the but you is debatable) has a significant link to ED.se and probably shouldn't be involved in this page at all. And I feel like you're just here because you enjoy being of the opposite side of a discussion than me, full stop. SilverserenC 03:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I just closed the RfC, see above. Fences&Windows 05:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_23&oldid=1189653357"