Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Notably critical of MySpace?

I think this should be removed. MySpace is not the major focus of ED, and it's misleading. What would be more accurate is to say that it focuses on Wikipedia, YouTube, DeviantArt, LiveJournal, 4chan and so on because there are whole portals for these areas. Do you see what I mean?--Whimsical biblical (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Ideally there'd be a fairly comprehensive (referenced) list there of stuff ED is critical of rather than the sentence ending there as it does. -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

its "Category:Myspace" section and the 102 articles may suggest otherwise. Though possibly "critical of everything everz including itself. But not Mudkipz" might be a more accurate description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.13.127 (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Critical of mainstream media, pop culture, and internet culture in general seems, to me, to be a more accurate description. AlmightyHamSandwich (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This Article is Weak

This is article is pretty weak in terms of encompassing the 'spirit' if you will, of Encyclopedia Dramatica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDelveiseinn (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The general feeling seems to be, if anyone wants to learn more about it, they should go to the site. It is, after all, a wiki. AlmightyHamSandwich (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And.. so? This is Wikipedia, not ED.  Aar  ►  00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It can only be explained really in terms of what others have written about it. It's clearly a notable and controversial website, but Wikipedia policy relies heavily on sourcing.--I've Never Been to Me (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

4chan?

I note that 4chan isn't mentioned anywhere in this article (except in the references). Surely it should be? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that ED is the official wiki of 4chan, or something like that (judging by how many pages it devotes to documenting 4chan memes). Is there no actual link between them? Robofish (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No. In fact, lurkmore.com is as close as you could get to an "official" wiki of 4chan (since it was started by a mod). ED was found by newbies who would Google memes they didn't understand. Shii (tock) 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, 4chan and ED, although they may go together like sex and drugs do with rock 'n' roll, are not officially affiliated. Besides, ED covers far more than just 4chan - there's entire ED portals on Wikipedia, YouTube, DeviantART, LiveJournal, Video games, Homosexuality, Furry fandom and Project Chanology, with a 4chan/memes portal expected soon. I would agree that 4chan/memes do tend to penetrate almost every article in ED to some extent, though.--I've Never Been to Me (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible source?

News article mentioning ED.--I've Never Been to Me (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, put that in please.--Whaaa aaahW? (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Displaying external link

Besides the distressing and shocking nature visitors would be unaware of, on http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/encyclopediadramatica.com users reported browser exploits and malware.

• Yawn. We've discussed this several times before, and the conclusion seemed to be that ED itself does not contain anything harmful to your computer, but that you should take care when clicking links (much as you should anywhere else on the internet). -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on or edit Wikipedia, but I can't believe there isn't a better warning on the external link or in the website description. Terms like "crude", "offensive", "obscene", and "shock value" are too vague; these are the kind of words that could just as easily describe network TV by media critics.

"Take care when clicking links"? That's good general advice, but it doesn't apply so much to ED, where a benign thumbnail picture links to a shock image. I'm adding a warning to the external link. 77.222.43.93 (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh... never mind. Can't edit. But honestly, would it hurt to add "contains extreme graphic violence" warning? I'm not looking for a discussion; I'm probably never coming back to this page, I just wanted to write something so some poor unsuspecting person doesn't wander into this because they did not understand the extent of the material. 77.222.43.93 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: whitelisting the "About" page

Resolved

 –  Done [1] Per below unopposed RFC. –xeno^talk 13:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we whitelist the link to ED's "About" page? It has been used as a reference for months with no problems. Also, it's a fully-protected page that only admins edit, and is actually a serious page. A request to the local whitelist was made here, but the admin rejected until it was shown that there was "arbcom, foundation or equivelent community support" for the whitelisting. I choose community support, so here we are. Please opinate if there is a problem or not with whitelisting this page:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About

Past discussions:

• first discussion about Arbcom decision
• RfC that resulted in whitelisting

Arbcom links:

• "Links to attack sites" principle that resulted in the blacklisting
• refusal to pass a motion for specifically blacklisting ED

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support --Abd (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "equivalent support" couldn't be determined here, but this could be a good basis for seeking it. An RfC on an article talk page isn't equivalent to ArbComm or the Foundation. I'd argue that if the nowiki'd URL has stuck, it's sufficient evidence for an actual link. If it shouldn't be linked, it shouldn't have a nowiki link either! --Abd (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I highly doubt the page will remain a "serious page" if we link to it. Not sure if that matters. Over all I'm neutral on this issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Effectively the same thing as having the base domain whitelisted. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTCENSORED. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support adding to whitelist. On the offchance that they redirect it to goatse or something equally silly, we can just delink it. Firestorm ^Talk 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Nobody is going to change the content of that page. It is full protected page that has only had 3 edits since 2006. -- Zaiger _talkplx 02:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a culture that idolizes trolling... I doubt they will let the opportunity pass. Anyway... yeah, we can de-link it without too much issue. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I know all about the culture of ED. I'm very active on that wiki. The site administration has very different ideals for the site than the general user base does. I am saying that as long as I have the keys to that page, it is not changing. -- Zaiger _talkplx —Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC).

• Support to get rid of another of the vestiges of BADSITES still hanging around. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support The rational for blacklisting it is not nearly strong enough, IMHO. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support it can be changed back if the page gets edited to something bad.--Cddoughty (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some People Say

I thought we weren't supposed to use the term "some people say" on wikipedia. In the Content section, first paragraph there is a line that reads "...which some argue implies that it is a platform from which to intentionally provoke a negative emotional response." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paskari (talk • contribs) 08:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's called a "weasel word" and yes, it would be better if we avoided it. How would you recommend the section be reworded? -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems someone has already fixed the problem. Paskari (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor addendum

I'm not sure that anyone cares, TOW has been used as an acronym for "the other wiki" as stated in the article, but is more commonly and originally understood to mean "that other wiki," with the condescending undertones that go along with that wording. --Dlb ed (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unless there's some significance attached to the acronym, and an authoritative source as to what it stands for, including it doesn't add value to this article.  Skomorokh  20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm only noting it because it was listed in the article as an unsourced (and incorrect) ref. But I see that you've edited it to reflect that. --Dlb ed (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pity we don't have a RS for this. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is actually listed all over the site, including the Wikipedia article itself. I added it with the instead of that by mistake, but a dewikified ref to the Wikipedia article on ED should be good enough. There is no sense in accepting pages like ED:ABOUT and not others as references, That is just silly. We all know what it stands for, there is no need to get nit-picky about it. -- Zaiger _talkplx 04:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edit

As a regular user of Encyclopedia Dramatica, I know the "Das Trollparadies" article by c't. This article (I mean this Wikipedia article) claims that the c't article describes "Encyclopedia Dramatica" as the troll's paradise. This is not the case, it refers to 4chan. The c't article only mentions ED once. "Zwei von 4chan unabhängige Wikis dienen zur Instruktion der Neuzugänge: Wikichan und Encylopedia Dramatica[...]" In other words, ED just instructs the newly arrived, it's totally independent from 4chan. So, half of the first section should be deleted, because it's just plain wrong. MC Dirty (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. In the translation we cite, the only reference in the piece to the encyclopaedia is in this brief paragraph concerning 4chan's /b/ board: "As a matter of fact, /b/ does have rules of conduct; however, they are outsourced. Two independent wikis serve to instruct the newly arrived: Wikichan and Enyclopedia Dramatica - the latter self-ironically features a fused ae in its logo." This would seem to support your point, and I have altered our article accordingly.  Skomorokh  16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironically the latter also serves to mock and scare off the newly arrived. LOL IM VEGETA254 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ae

I think they actually care about the ae in their name. Why does the Title here use the simplified e? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.219.142 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you check the archives of this page, you'll see that this has been discussed several times before. One point is that the title of ED pages list the "simplified" version, as does the welcome ("Welcome to Encyclopedia Dramatica “In lulz we trust.”") and the About page. Wikipedia articles generally use the most common name for a topic as their title. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No criticism?

The website contains images of dead bodies and crime scenes. That's nothing wrong? Some images are okay like from accidents, but I dont think it's normal to post a picture of a naked woman trying to cut a dead body or animal torture. If anyone thinks such images are supported with the freedom of speech, they need to read the law again (international law or the law of your or any country). The freedom of expression does not allow such things, it clearly says no hate speech, no promotion of violence, no images that disturb the public, yet a child can go on that website and see images unimaginable in their minds. Did some stop thinking? Are many coldhearted and take it out on others because parents neglected them? Making websites with shock value already tells that these type of people are looking for attention they never got when they were growing up. First time I went on 4chan website, I saw a picture of a crying sexually abused child even if it says in the rules that such images are forbidden and it took a long time for picture to be taken down. At least 4chan article has criticism, but not ED. What is going on? I thought ED is only being funny until I came across to very offensive articles such as Nikki Catsouras. Her family doesn't need to see in google search that her daughter is described as a whore on a website running on MediaWiki. Are people creating these articles any better themselves? Many abuse drugs themselves and drive recklessly, anyone can see these type of people posting pictures and videos of themselves abusing drugs or reckless driving.

I already had issues with Wikipedia before. People were telling me not to change the content while I was correcting it or trying to add some related content. As a philanthropist I was glad to plan on donating for Wikipedia, but now it disappoints me, I won't be donating anything. There is more benefit to feed a malnourished person. Yes, knowledge is important, but Wiki is not the only source of it. Most of my knowledge comes from documentaries. And to see that my contribution was deleted and ED article has no criticism, I'm really wondering if Wikipedia is still a free encyclopedia, or a dictating encyclopedia. And I wouldn't be wondering if this post ends on ED or 4chan. Internet is full of cowards and sociopaths that need to seek help for their mental disorders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamphilanthropist (talk • contribs)

Hi there. Firstly, there are no connections between ED and Wikipedia other than that they use the same software, Mediawiki, which is freely licensed for anyone to use. Secondly, they are actually covered under freedom of speech (and parody, for ED) laws - that's basically a fact here. If it wasn't, they'd be shut down years ago. Thirdly, Wikipedia is not censored and I can assure you there are vast swathes of material on here (and on Commons) that you, I and many others would find unsuitable for children. Such is the way. I'm not too impressed by the Catsouras article, to be honest, neither on ED nor here, and even put it up for deletion, but what can ya do. In many ways, WP and ED are different sides of the same coin, but bear in mind here that they're unrelated to each other. Jes' sayin' ... - Allie ^❤ 07:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He just doesn't understand the lulz.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Name

The title of this page is Encyclopedia Dramatica, with just an e. But the website is referred to throughout the text as Encyclopædia Dramatica, with the ligature. Shouldn't the page be moved? Teh Rote (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was placed here because most users aren't going to know how to make æ on their keyboards. --Smashville^talk 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been moved back and forth. Personally I don't think it is worth much effort to get the name down, as sources are mixed on what the rest of the world calls ED. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the article uses æ and the site uses æ, shouldn't the page title use æ? Is there a MOS page on this? Teh Rote (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Or we could just redirect Encyclopædia Dramatica to this page. Also, the url is encyclopediadramatica, so, yeah... Throwaway85 (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica already redirects to it :) - Alison ^❤ 08:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it should be the other way around! This page should redirect to Encyclopædia Dramatica because that is the correct name. That is the name used everywhere on the site, except in the url because most people cant make a æ. HambSolo 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says that articles should be named according to its most commonly known form, even if that is not the official or "correct" name. Most people I know don't use the ligature. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See the sixth reference - "Encyclopædia Dramatica, the online compendium of Anonymous high jinks (encyclopediadramatica.com), defines “I Did It For The Lulz” (IDIFTL) as “a catchphrase that serves as a catchall explanation for any trolling you do or any Internet drama you cause.”" HambSolo 14:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One reference uses the ligature, but references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 use it without. Encyclopedia is clearly the common name. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure everyone is thoroughly aware, there has already been discussion of the use of æ is referencing ED. I came across this and recalled the ED page on the wiki itself, linked here. Nevermind, its blacklisted... If you visit Encyclopædia Dramatica, and then go to the Encyclopædia Dramatica article, it states

  "The proper spelling of Encyclopædia Dramatica includes the little æ; 
however, those characters are not allowed to be registered in domain names, so we used
the mundane spelling." 

It would seem that Encyclopedia Dramatica itself does use the æ and, in my opinion, should use it in this article. Nikandros (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of our sources don't use the ligature, so we shouldn't either. WP:COMMONNAME is clear on this. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, motivated by examples such as Brasil/Brazil. Even though the correct spelling of this country is Brasil, the English WP redirects Brasil to the page named "Brazil", an incorrect spelling which is, nevertheless, the common and accepted spelling in English. WP must reflect the environment of its users. Of course, there is nothing wrong with stating in the ED article that the correct spelling of ED is Encyclopædia Dramatica, just as Brazil states that its correct (in this case, Portuguese) name is Brasil. Thus WP starts with accepted fact, but then reveals more interesting facts. This helps make WP maximally useful and educational, unlike most dictionaries, which rigidly require knowing the correct spelling of any word one wishes to look up. WP is not a dictionary in more ways than one. David spector (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

shocksite, gore content

Why is this site described merely as "satirical"? I've just stumbled upon an article where I was exposed without any warning to GIF animation showing actual murder where person's face was crashed with several hits of a hammer. Then these teenagers started to knock a dying men's stomach with a scredriver and then his eye.. Tha text as well as editing was intended to make the situation funny. On the left there are porn ads. Later I discovered that there are much more articles of this kind on ED.

In conclusion this wikiarticle should include a CLEAR WARNING in its opening sentences of the "ED" content. Currently there's a vague mention of "shock value" but this just isn't enough78.131.137.50 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What would you propose we add as a warning? We don't review sites or recommend/warn against them. ED contains shock images, that's a given, but it's not a "shock site" since this is only one element. The majority of articles there are about memes and trolling, with a minority containing gore or extreme sexual content. So the lead paragraph deals with these in that order: memes>trolling>shock value. ED is a collaborative wiki, like Wikipedia, so the content is going to be to put it mildly; "eclectic". It's the whole internet condensed, with all the nastiness retained. Fribbler (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you seem to have run into 3guys1hammer, but that's really not Wikipedia's fault. Wikipedia does not tell readers what they should and should not read, and Wikipedia does not contain disclaimers or warnings. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about informing readers, not telling them what to do. The sentence "Many articles are illustrated with shock and gore images as well as GIF animations, displayed without warning." would sound objective to me. I also find it relevant because in many legislations exposing a person to such content without his/her agreement is a crime. BTW the current intro sounds promotional and I'm surprised to get 3 responses, so fast. 78.131.137.50 (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So don't visit the site. It's really that simple. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have visited the site if I was informed about its content. As simple as that.78.131.137.50 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This started off as a complaint about the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs, which is known as 3Guys1Hammer on ED. Don't go looking for this if you are easily offended. Generally speaking, it is not the job of Wikipedia to give disclaimers about the content of other sites. ED does not fit the general profile of a shock and gore site (some do, but I'm not giving the names here). Poor taste is the biggest problem on ED, and 3Guys1Hammer is a good example. See also WP:NODISCLAIMERS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1) I was looking for informations on the murder. Instead I got the scene dispalyed on my monitor with some "comic" editing to it.

2) "(...) it is not the job of Wikipedia to give disclaimers about the content of other sites(...)See also WP:NODISCLAIMERS" My idea is not to put any disclaimers and even if it was WP:NODISCLAIMERS says only about diclaimers on Wikipedia content not other sites' content.

3) I see You're Encyclopedia Dramatica enthusiast but try to be honest and objective. If You want to view massacred corpses, murder scenes, hardcore pornography and so on, feel free to do it. But why to force others? Why hide this information? Currently the article portrays ED as satirical wiki (description that fits Uncyclopedia better) Yes, there is a mention of shock value but when You click further Mohawk and breastfeeding are given as examples. That's why I think the phrasing should be more accurte. I don't see a reason why Wikipedia articles should give only selected facts. Including the truth in the article won't harm "ED" as there are milions of ppl who will click anyways78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone being forced to watch anything, to be honest. You visit it, you don't like it, you click away. ED is primarily a site covering memes and internet drama. We can't plaster big WARNING!!! messages on the article. Some people are offended by images of breastfeeding, too. Should we post big disclaimers on the La Leche League article, too? Where should this end? - Allie ^❤ 22:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Einstein once You know "you don't like it" it's already too late. How hard is this to understand? And I'm not postulating "plastering big warnings". I want the text to describe "ED" content more accurately so that ppl who want to see it, see it and ppl who don't, don't. This obviously can be done in neutral way, without using normative terms.78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this may have started when you typed 3Guys1Hammer into a search engine. Not surprisingly, the first result that this brings up in Google is the ED article of the same name. Google does not censor its coverage any more than Wikipedia does (see the huge row about Michelle Obama today.[2].) The Internet carries risks of this kind, but Wikipedia cannot be held responsible for warning about every poor taste thing on the Internet. For the record, I am not a fan of ED, and am annoyed that it trivialises the case of the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. The ED article on Wikipedia could point out more clearly that the site contains some highly disturbing material culled from the shock sites (eg the Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy), but Wikipedia is not the Internet Watch Foundation's twin brother.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You continue to ignore my basic point. Wikipedia is to inform. 78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's look for a consensus here. How could the article describe the material on ED that would inform a reader, but without reading like advice which would go against WP:NPOV?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At last. Ok, which of my propositions You find particularly unneutral or untrue so we can discuss them?78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To summarize what has been said already: ED is not a shock site, but it does contain some material taken from the shock sites. The Wikipedia article about ED talks about "shock value", but does not specifically mention the worst gore content. Should the article do this to be clearer about what readers may find on the site?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I ment as long as it's not hidden deep down or dilluted to mean nothing. How would You put it in the intro? Further in the article there might be a few examples described to back the original claim78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Some more explicit mention of the shock content could be in the lead - I don't think that would be at all problematic or counter to our goals as an encyclopedia. –xeno^talk 23:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for joining discussion and making Your point :)I appreciate it. 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the lead, which may set off a WP:BRD cycle. Some of the content on ED goes beyond a joke and raises legal and ethical issues, and the WP:LEAD should reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I see a good faith in Your edit but one thing still bothers me. Many people don't know what shocksites are and wikiarticle on the subject is very imperfect. It doesnt refer to situations we were describing at all. Maybe it's a good idea to reedit it. I'll do it tomorrow. Thank You for cooperation 78.131.137.50 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine. The article did look a bit "fun for all the family" without it. Fribbler (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I guess that's the marketing idea behing "ED" to make a shocksite without calling it so. This way the site wins clicks from random people who wouldn't normally visit gore galleries.78.131.137.50 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Going far to accomplish your goals

78.131.137.50, please stop spamming unrelated article talk pages like you did on Talk:Human rights. One can only assume that you posted a rallying cry on Talk:Human rights in attempt to start an "epic battle" between human rights activists and Encyclopedia Dramatica. This discussion is about disclaimers, not human rights. Personally, I don't think anyone could just accidentally click on an ED article. You're over-reacting. This issue could be solve by starting a discussion on this talk page alone; you didn't have to post on three separate talk pages. I'm posting here, since you have a habit of censoring your talk page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If You mean my "Friendly Invite" thread it was viewable for abot 3 minutes yeterday so Your timing is a bit off. Yes, I wanted more opinions from wider circle of interest. I see nothing wrong with that because I've seen such requests from other users before and I guess it's an acceptable practise. Yet, I admit I wasn't sure which talkpages are right for this- only project talks? My mistake. BTW Aren't You overreacting right now because the compromise has been achieved here and You come up angy with Your ad hominem attack. BTW I see You have an account on Encyclopedia Dramatica. What does it say about Your neutrality. Practise what You preach MichaeldSuarez and say hello to Allie 78.131.137.50 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You can say hello to me for yourself ^_^ - Allie ^❤ 17:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Allie - another "ED" editor :) There are very few outsiders here and that's bad for the article.78.131.137.50 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Allie. Also, there are few "outsiders" here because the people who edit the article tend to be users who are interested in the subject. I wasn't angry. I observed your contributions here and made a logical conclusion based on those observations. From my observations, you are clearly using FUD to get what you want. See your comments here and here for example; you're attempting to build a misconception and cast doubt on the editors of the ED article. You are trying to say that ED editors are trying to portray their site as "family-friendly" while your statement is both untrue and baseless. In addition, Wikipedia isn't affiliated with ED and it isn't in the business of "marketing" anyone. I also believe that you posted posted the "I don't know where to post" disclaimer on Talk:Human rights in order to fool people in believing that you don't know any better. It doesn't matter if it was only there for 3 minutes. Users watching the Human rights page will still receive a message about changes to the page via Special:Watchlist. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The article currently says: "Some of the content on Encyclopædia Dramatica is sexually explicit or disturbing, including uncensored material taken from shock sites." It is tempting to link to the ED article "Offended", which is the most popular way of illustrating the truth of this statement. However, it would probably violate WP:EL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, but it wouldn't be a very good idea.... It's quite hard to find a reference to support the statement, surprisingly. Although it's true, it seems no WP:RS has highlighted this aspect of ED. Fribbler (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is very little in the "mainstream" media about ED. It is something that they may not want to highlight for obvious reasons. ED is well known to the Internet community, but try finding an article about it on BBC or CNN.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this Wired article describing ED could be used as a source: "all of it calculated to offend, along with links to eye-gougingly horrific images of mutilation, sexual perversity, and, yes, kittens in blenders."[3] Siawase (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

IanMacM, Fribbler I really appreciate Your attitude so far. Please help me find a citation that is not a traditional shocksite or "ED" itself In the nearest future I'd also need citatations for shock site wikiarticle too. Currently it contains few examples and relative terms that mean everything and nothing. Maybe it will be better to describe some of the material You've seen in article "offended" on "ED". That would be more informative78.131.137.50 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• For anyone who has not seen it, "Offended" is ED's showreel of the most controversial content on the site. It includes just about every tasteless Internet meme that you have heard about, and a few more besides. Wikipedia cannot link to this type of material, and it is also unwise to say "Hey folks, have you seen this yet?" which is a way of playing ED's game. The current wording in the article highlights the controversy that ED sometimes causes, but tries not to add to it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO no one clicks on the ED article for Dnepropetrovsk maniacs by accident. Protonk (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See [4]. Google likes to cover its *ss in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

ED's article is the first result for '3guys1hammer' in Google, so it is possible if you were unfamiliar with "teh lulz" to click it after having only heard the nickname of the incident. Fribbler (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd still have to search for it and click on it. It isn't as though he navigated there naively from the only non-blacklisted link wikipedia has to ED. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's saying he got to it via Wikipedia, just that our article didn't mention this type of content being on ED. Incidentally, of the search results for '3guys1hammer' on Google, ED's article is strangely enough one of the least graphic options. Not that there are any "good" results from that search term. Fribbler (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has gone to great lengths to ensure that users do not run into the wilder content on ED (or some of the shock sites). Anyone who knows the right search terms can find it on Google, which is why the site has a disclaimer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Protonk, I was searching for "Viktor Sayenko" after reading article in newspaper and then I saw this noble word "encyclopedia" and clicked... In my country it ranks high in Google search results. This being clarified, I don't see how it matters here.78.131.137.50 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the anon who started this nonsense just wanted to start a fight with ED. The anon must have known what "3guys1hammer" was in order to search for it. He was probably expecting to find gore on certain sites. He accuses me of ad hominem, while the anon attacks ED users using BOLD TEXT. He could be trolling us. Really, he's basically begging for a flame war. Just so everyone is aware, I like the idea of placing information about shock material in the lede; I just disagree with the anon's methods. Posting on Talk:Human rights was uncalled for. Should we add the news item that User:Siawase to the article as the source for the shock material statement? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. It is within WP:LEAD to point out the controversial nature of some of the material on the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to see the issue resolved. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)