Jump to content

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
As far as I can see, all or most of the notable sources refer to it as Encyclopedia Dramatica. Then again, I only checked two, so I could be wrong.  Esper   rant  22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • 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)
Ridiculous. Just stick a note about it somewhere where it'll seem relevant in the article. Why would there need to be a focus on it?  Esper  rant  22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoul Guy (talk • contribs)

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)

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)
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)
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)
You mean ddos servers? They recently changed a new server, but i dont think the owner is guy who owns facebook, who sold it to girlvinyl ho. Grawp/Hagger dude is pain in the ass, many of them have tons of different accounts, also used them in spying or checking on loyalty of other users. Wikipedo is a slang as is edpedo, its something funny they made up, but way too manyt hings are pathetic, terrible attack on jews and i dont mean just for fun, i am all for it if its to have healthy attack, even lowlife, attack on muslim, christians is way out of order not to mention sick pics. FCC should look into these psychos. I support both terms ed and wikipedo! They Sound just right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.1.193 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
No, it's DDOS'd. ED has plenty of bandwidth for normal usage, even surges of it, but not extended DDOS. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
For future reference, it was indeed DDOS'ed. By some idiots over at RaidChan.  Esper  rant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoul Guy (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes, it's null routed, because that's the easiest way to respond to this DDOS. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
No current status is active!
: : 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! But that's normal once you become administrator?lol 66.99.0.162 (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about, please stop trolling on this page. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

talk page edit war

FFS, stop reverting stuff on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the history for the talk, it seems to me there was some talk-page vandalism. Lots42 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it was an unnecessarily broad definition of vandalism. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Shutting down

Just today Encyclopedia Dramatica have posted that they may be shut down forever if no one donates it was posted on whoever acesses the site, and no one can curently use it. Should this be noted in a section? YBK 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, but in my opinion, if this becomes just another bump in the road, I'm not sure this should be kept in the article - perhaps it can stay here for a while, if it's not very advertisement-like in nature. Basically, encyclopaedias aren't changelogs. If we're talking about a genuine turning point in the site's history, well, that's probably notable, but a lot of sites have financial hickups every so often, I'm sure that ED contributors are able to handle this situation, and soon everything is just as it was, right? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems that another user removed it anyway. As expected, I sort of concur. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

504 error

With the recent talk of shutting down I've seen on the site (and also mentioned in the section above), it concerns me that just today accessing the site gives me a 504 error. 504 is a gateway timeout error, which suggests the server is not working or has been shut down. If I recall correctly, last night, ED still was asking for around $4,000. If they weren't able to pay off whoever they needed to payoff (I'm not quite sure), this could be the aftermath. I'd like to add this to the article, but I'm unsure if others are receiving the same 504...it could be my computer (I hope it's my computer, because I wouldn't like ED to die). Cervantes de Leon (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Disregard that--I no longer get the 504 error. It was probably my computer. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The site currently redirects to a shutdown notice and donation page --Shruti14 talk • sign 14:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

J Readings - bluelink bingo

Has now tried removing the fact the site is in danger of closing due to a lack of funds three times now. The first time he tried citing WP:OR (not the case, as you can CLICK THE LINK), the second he said it needed a third-party reference (not the case, those are needed to prove WP:V and WP:N; these are already met, so a primary source is okay, if not preferred), and he's now citing there's no WP:CONSENSUS and for the information to be included, and may have thrown WP:NOTNEWS in for good measure.

It's basically a case of "I don't like it so I'll keep throwing blue WP: links at it until one of them sticks". I don't see why the owner(s)' claims the site is nearly closing isn't relevant to the article about the site.

Other WP: links J needs to try citing before he can call "House!" - WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:5P. Neıl ☄ 09:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone else removed it as it was uncited (why not just tag with {{fact}}?) - I have provided a cite, now. I don't believe this counts as a revert, as content is different. Neıl ☄ 09:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You're being remarkably rude, Neil. I'll give it a day before I do anything. Then I'll come back to this page. One thing is clear: you don't have consensus --others clearly disagree with your reasoning--for such a ridiculously brief (non) news event that has not been covered by journalists (and why should it?). And yes, I believe that you have already exceeded 3RR, but it's not a big deal yet. I'm not going to report you. Regards, J Readings (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I am being facetious, yes, but not "remarkably rude". By giving it a day, I trust that doesn't mean "wait until I won't broach 3RR and then remove it again". The others who "clearly disagree with [my] reasoning" appears to be just you, at present. I know lots of people have this page watchlisted, so hopefully a day will allow for some comment. I am in favour of adding the content. J Reading is not. Neıl ☄ 11:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point in having the paragraph as it is right now. ED redirected all its pages to a shutdown notice for much less than a day, so it's pretty much a non-event blown out of proportion. Mentioning the message asking for donations might make more sense, but I'm not sure about that yet. Will it matter in a month or a year that ED once asked people to donate? --Conti|✉ 11:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a serving of WP:NEWS, please. With a cloud of milk and two cubes of sugar. Let's wait to see if it becomes a relevant event or just a temporary hiccup. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That's Numberwang! Wait, wrong game. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Damn, I forgot to make a bluelink to Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down! --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record: I stated above that mentioning that the site is closing down is inconsequential right now. In my opinion, it's entirely reasonable to leave such recent information uncovered unless it's clearly remarkable. It's entirely reasonable to leave it out on the grounds that mentioning such things here and now is promotional in nature. However, citing any other reason presented here smells, to me, like dramatic wikilawyering. Needs to be covered in reliable sources? Oh please. Of course it theoretically and practically has to be covered in reliable sources, like all facts in Wikipedia, but there are so many better reasons to keep it out of the article. Common sense reasons. Not reasons that have to be conjured forth with dark wikilawyering arts. This article has seen enough drama as is, so please at least try to apply common sense at this point and not make up catch-all excuses to keep random stuff out. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Meh. It is really either/or for me. If it is some relatively inconsequential change in their funding stream (sites have donation drives all the time), thn we shouldn't cover it unless some external source decides it is important enough to cover. If it is permanent or serious (the site goes down forver) then we can obviously cover it. Noting policy based reasons why it might not be included isn't so much wikilawyering as discussion. And honestly, most policies in wikipedia don't diverge from "common sense" all that much. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, Protonk, I got the impression that it was directed at me, but it's nice to know others had the same thoughts. I agree with your reasoning and I certainly don't consider myself (and I'm sure you don't either) as some kind of evil wikilawyer looking to disrupt legitimate edits. We have these policies and guidelines to avoid chaos and improve articles. As you say, most policies in Wikipedia don't diverge from "common sense" all that much. J Readings (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I was going to mention this earlier, but I let it go. The edit summary on the main page only allows a couple of sentences. If I could have concisely listed all the reasons why I thought adding the newly created and short-lived fund drive was a very bad idea in that limited space, I would have. In retrospect, I should have just listed them all on this talk page before anything else as I have in the past. That seems to be the most effective approach in conveying thoughts. Despite Neil's mistaken impression, I stand by each one of them. J Readings (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the fresh opinions and replies. And it looks like the current consensus is to remove the material for a variety of policy-based reasons (because there are so many at this stage). Another editor has already removed the material, so unless there are any fresh perspectives from new users, I guess there's nothing left to be said. Regards, J Readings (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

sections or no sections

I think the page looked better (and flowed better) with no sections, like this revision, rather than the current revision. what does everyone else think? Protonk (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • that's a very good point, although I find that given the tender loving care this article receives we are bound to hold expansion in abeyance without further sources. But I didn't consider the value that prompting expansion had for the article. Protonk (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As TPH indicated, this was to encourage expansion. I think you've had enough experience with me to trust that I'm happy that there are sufficient indy thidy-party sources that this will come good. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh absolutely, I'm just a sucker for aesthetics. :) Protonk (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Add to list of online encyclodpedias

Category:Online encyclopedias add at the bottom --Xenutu (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. ED is a parody (or mockery, or whatever you want to call it), not an actual encyclopedia. Hmm, then again, Uncyclopedia is in that category, too. --Conti|✉ 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The tone is satirical. The breadth of coverage makes it more like an encyclopedia. I would look there first for anything to do w/ anon. Protonk (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Added. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Present tense

I suggested present tense for most verbs in this article because ED is still operating. I don't know what the MOS has to say, exactly, on things like past references that might happen again, "Encyclopædia Dramatica is sometimes cited as a reference on Internet culture by print media publications The Observer[13] and the New Statesman,[14] as well as weblogs such as AlterNet,[15] Language Log,[16] and the Gothamist network." And similar sentences may be better in the past tense, I don't know. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wired, Trolling, and the New York Times Magazine

In his or her latest edit, I notice that Giggy removed a clause from the article on the definition of trolling because the e-zine Wired did not specifically use that term. OK, fair enough.

What about a compromise -- we add back the clause, put it in the same place, slightly reworded of course, and this time include the direct mentioning of Schwartz' New York Times Magazine article, which definitely does use the word "troll" and "trolling" in connection with the Encyclopedia Dramatica? Schwartz goes to some length in both his definition and examples used. In addition to the Wired citation at the end of the sentence, of course we add a further citation to Schwartz' article.

Does that sound reasonable to everyone? J Readings (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"His". :-)
I've no objection at all to this proposal. I probably should have done so myself, but wasn't really thinking. I just didn't recall seeing mention of trolling in the Wired article (I read a fair few of these articles in detail when researching for 4chan (soon to be at FAC)), and Ctrl+F found nothing. Feel free to make the change. Cheers. —Giggy 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Assuming no one else has any objections, we can add that back. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jason Fortuny

Plz update the link to this article kthnxbye

done. Protonk (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Contentious language

Resolved
 – Restoring the second point per WP:COMMONSENSE. Ottre 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think the website is notably critical of social networking rather than any one style of user, but these changes are blatantly POV:

Why was the qualifier "prominent" removed, considering this is the main gauge of the website's presence on the Internet?

prominent was removed because while these websites are the prominent among those that cite ED, they aren't exactly rocking the socks of internet traffic relative to other sites. In the case of the disputed sentence, prominent modified the websites, not their mention of ED, so it wasn't appropriate. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well... Language Log is very prominent, right? Ottre (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It is certainly prominent among blogs about language. But not prominent among blogs. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Missing the point. Cyberculture revolves around organisations of learning... you know, memetics?! It is very prominent among blogs as regards the subject's focus. Ottre (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
But the sentence doesn't assert that language log is prominent among blogs discussing memes. It just asserts that it is prominent. That claim isn't made by a cited source (AFAIK, I may be wrong there) and it isn't strictly necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair call. Ottre 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The website has served as a collaborative area for Anonymous to develop new words and memes.[6][7]

It's common sense that the website serves as a gathering point to learn the application of new words and memes, based on the principles of free representation in the *chan communities, with speakers there presiding. If the article is to remain concise, there is no more correct term available to describe this phenomenom. Ottre (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that language implies that there is some kind of organized effort involved in the creation of memes. This invokes visions of Moot, Mr. Cockmonger, Millhouse, the advice dog and a plethora of cats in a boardroom meeting having votes about what the next meme will be. :) I think it's fair to say that most memes are the product of spontaneous generation... but I have no sources to vouch for that. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Fuck you guys, the world hates you. Ottre 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Refs

  1. ^ Hind, John. (2005-06-05). "What's the word?". The Observer. Retrieved 2008-08-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Hogge, Betty (2008-06-05). "A lesson in hai culture". The New Statesman. Retrieved 2008-08-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Cassel, David (2007-03-08). "John Edwards' Virtual Attackers Unmasked". AlterNet. Retrieved 2008-08-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Zimmer, Benjamin (2007-05-18). "Lol-lexicography". Language Log. Retrieved 2008-08-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ "Anonymous Protests Outside Scientology Sites". Londonist. 2008-02-11. Retrieved 2008-08-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference ninemsn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Whipple, Tom (2008-06-20). "Scientology: the Anonymous protestors". Times Online. Retrieved 2008-06-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Remember what you are talking about

Try to remember that this is also a wiki, open to be edited by anyone with any agenda. There ARE bots around for anti-OMGMYENTIREPAGEJUSTGOTDELETED-style vandalism, but they are less for what wikipedia uses them for. As you go around and debate certain things on what ED is and isn't, remember it's content is driven for and by it's users. It's almost like looking at wikipedia, and saying that EVERYONE who uses it are scholars, university or college graduates and generally totally correct in their knowledge on a given subject. Obviously, some are, but not all. Gollod (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_12&oldid=249104326"