Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Removal of Oh Internet section

After reviewing the comments above, I feel that we should remove the "Oh Internet" section and add the information to the history section. That or make a separate article as was proposed. Mwalimu1 (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Both sites are forks of ED. Neither of them should be given more prominence than what is given to them in reliable sources. Silverseren^C 08:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop calling everything forks until you have a grasp of its meaning? OhInternet isn't based on ED's content. I wouldn't describe Canv.as as a fork of 4chan just because moot was involved. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Except Oh Internet does have a lot of the articles. They took a lot of the articles on meme-ish subjects, removed all of the bad words, and used them that way. They didn't copy all of the content like ED.ch did, but they did copy some. So it's still a fork. Silverseren^C 19:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - Oh Internet is not a fork, it is another project entirely, run by some of ED's former admins. At most, it deserves a line or two in the history section about where some of the former ED people wound up. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Mwalimu and Tarc mention a "history" section, yet I don't see any such section. Perhaps it would be better to rename the "Oh Internet" section to "EncyclopediaDramatica.com's end". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In order to minimize the OhInternet content, I suggest that we remove speculation about selling the website, especially since it was mostly fear-mongering. There isn't any need to document events or sells that didn't happened. This would cut a third of the content from the section. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Mwalimu1 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the original ED domain redirects to Oh Internet and ED's original owners started Oh Internet while announcing ED's closure, it would be pretty strange not to have a section explaining Oh Internet's relation to ED. So, oppose. --Conti|✉ 20:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose. the section could be shorter just barely, but it isn't a big deal. Also Oh Internet isn't a fork in the traditional software sense but we could characterize as such very broadly. I wouldn't get caught up on whether or not we call it a fork as it doesn't materially add to our understanding (and yes I know the arguments that the misuse of the work makes understanding suffer). Protonk (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Original poster is a sock of a banned user. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, gee. Surprise! --Conti|✉ 19:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a troubling revelation. Nevertheless, it doesn't invalidate the concerns raised in this discussion. Although I believe that we can safely conclude that the OhInternet section should remain, I trimmed some fat from the section due to the complete lack of opposition to my suggestion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Activism?"

Right now the "Activism and Vigilantism" section is almost entirely devoid of descriptions of either. It reads more like a typical criticism section. There's nothing wrong with having one of those, but it should be labeled as such. A page getting deleted from Australian Google for being racist, for instance, has absolutely nothing to do with either of these things unless you intend to suggest that they created the page specifically to violate Australian law with some purpose in mind. I seriously doubt that was the intention, and the article doesn't make an attempt to insinuate it, anyway. Being bullies is not the same as being vigilantes; I don't profess to know which word better fits the site's users/administrators, but it seems that all the evidence listed here leans toward the former, even going so far as to explicitly call them that. I get the feeling this section used to be more robust with some relevant examples, but for whatever reason, they're absent now. 04:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.241.82 (talk)

The section is about activism and vigilantism against ED, not from ED. It's called "Activism and vigilantism" because ED's "critics" (some outright called themselves ED's enemies) do more than just criticizing ED; they also attempt to pressure ED to change through legal means, hate (E)mail, DDoS attacks, and exposing the real-life identities of ED users. This goes beyond simple criticism (saying something is wrong) by taking action, and we called this activism in some cases and vigilantism in other cases. If you can propose a better name, go right ahead. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, it's quite misleading to label the section as it is, because typically the subject of the article is the one doing the activism when there's a section like this. Look to pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society#Activism to see what I mean. In any case, I still don't think most of these activities qualify as "activism" or "vigilantism." For instance, the Australia example I cited straight-up can't be either - both are terms that describe the actions of non-government-affiliated persons. The section on "operation payback" doesn't seem to be related at all to either idea - the operation itself surely does, but the only action being described in this article is the handling of the article ABOUT "operation payback." Again, the line about the donations page alludes to some "attacks," but doesn't elaborate on what these were. The final paragraph reads like a typical criticism section - it doesn't contain any description of acts being taken against ED, but rather just outside-party critiques of it. The only section in here that seems to be relevant to the heading is the first one about the "trolls," and even that's questionable since it seems more like people were just carrying out a personal grudge - activism and vigilantism, respectively, refer to attempts to bring about societal change from within and extra-legal punishment being exacted upon a lawbreaker. Neither definition aptly fits that situation.

So, I think what we're left with is just a loose connection of situations where various organizations discussed ED and its users in a negative light, with some vague references to other things that are more easily identifiable as activism. Given that, I think "criticism" makes for a much more accurate title for the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.241.82 (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe try "Criticism and opposition" ? Or something slightly stronger, but I can't think what. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The "In the media" and "Awards" sections are basically criticism sections as well, so there wouldn't be much to distinguish a "Criticism and opposition" section from the other sections. Perhaps it would be best to merge the three subsections of the "Reception" section together. What's everyone else's thoughts on this? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with renaming the section as "activism" tends to mean "activism on the part of the subject" in many of our articles. However I do agree w/ Michael's comments above about lack of distinction. Protonk (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've merged the subsections together. If someone can offer a better solution, please do so. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Date

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/04/18/6489864-notorious-nsfw-website-cleans-up-its-act

Helen A.S. Popkin made a mistake. The article says Saturday night (April 16, 2011) instead of Thursday night (April 14, 2011). The geekosystem.com article it quotes was published on April 15, 2011. The geekosystem.com article correctly says, "Last night" (April 14, 2011) in the second-to-last paragraph. The Digital Life source also simply summarizes other sources, so I don't see much value in using it as a source, especially if the mistake isn't corrected. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: the Gawker article also says Thursday (in the second paragraph). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

it's back

encyclopediadramatica(dot)ch/Main_Page

someone who has the time should update the article 71.60.235.69 (talk)user:Caturday2 —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

It's already mentioned in the article. --♣thayora♣ 07:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

TEH FORUMS ARE BACK AS WELL. YOU WANT SOME UNDERWEAR GEORGE?????? 04:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a different page. The address of ED just changed because the person who owned the old one is a toolbox. As usual, Wikipedia is more interested in cliquey arguing about the version of history they choose to represent than whether or not it actually represents reality. ED.ch is the real ED. ED isn't defunct, new content is being created every day. This article is inaccurate; there have been multiple mainstream media reviews covering the return if you're worried about "citations" to use. It's not an archive, as Wikipedia purports. it is the real deal. Girlvinyl is no longer affiliated with the site, but that doesn't mean she can declare it over and done with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.134.251 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Epic Win for Anonymous

I was searching through Google Books in order to see if there was enough material to write an encyclopedic article on upvoting / downvoting on the Internet (I've concluded that there isn't enough), and in that search, I've found Cole Stryker's Epic Win for Anonymous: How 4chan's Army Conquered the Web, which was published by the The Overlook Press. This book has extensive information on Encyclopedia Dramatica and Sherrod DeGrippo (the section on ED begins on page 136). I don't see any reason why this book shouldn't be considered reliable. If someone has access to the pages not available in the Google preview (ie. owns a copy of the book), can you please give us a hand in adding material to this article? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems like it would be really, really useful for information on the creation of ED. Nice find. Silverseren^C 03:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I now have access to the book's entire text, including the text not available in the Google preview (pages 137, 138, 142, and 155). Asking other editors to purchase the book would be asking too much, so I've decided to add in the material myself. If anyone believes that I'm making information up, you're welcome to Email me, and I'll try to clear things up. Due to WP:COI, you have the right not to assume good faith. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, the book contains an error on page 139. The book says that mediacrat's last LiveJournal entry was made on July 19, 2002; the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on mediacrat says the entry was made on July 19, 2004. The 2004 date is the correct one. I'm just letting everyone know in order to prevent the two-year difference from confusing anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you're making anything up, but I am a little concerned with the tone of the paragraph you added, which doesn't sound very neutral. First off, you need to explain in the paragraph that LJdrama is a website, as the current use of it makes it seem like you're using it as a general word. Also, wording like "enthralled by the attention-seeking antics" and "When relationship collapsed and became bitter" being presented as the paraphrased wording of Wikipedia doesn't sound neutral at all. Put what you need to include in direct quotes from the book and the rest you should reword to have more neutral language and tone. Silverseren^C 04:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it any better now? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Much, thanks. Though I am a bit confused on what this LJdrama stuff has to do with ED. Silverseren^C 14:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The book doesn't cover every detail. I recommend reading the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on mediacrat. LJdrama was behind some of the drama. Encyclopedia Dramatica stated soon after LJdrama member Jameth failed to created a Wikipedia article on mediacrat, but the book doesn't mention Jameth or the attempted Wikipedia article, although ED's article on itself does mention the Wikipedia incident. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

New Daily Dot article

[1]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was decided to not add any info about Brandt in the ED.ch section? I mean, other than that, it discusses the issues with keeping the site up, which I guess you could put in a sentence for. Silverseren^C 03:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Really. Where did this enlightened Brandt-shall-be-protected conversation take place? Tarc (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably on the site which shall not be mentioned. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't a discussion like that at the Wikipedia Review either. The actual discussion centered about the reliability of the Daily Dot's previous article. I asked Brandt to verify or refute what the article had to say about him. The discussion didn't result in any agreements. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, Brandt info is in reception section, I got confused about where it was placed. So we can use it in the reception section easy for that info. Silverseren^C 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

@Silver_seren: There's more value in the article than just a sentence's worth of information about the outage. Read the article's second half. Here we learn about ED's diversity, its stance on free speech, and how they respond to external pressures. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

True, I didn't see that part. The FTP thing seems definitely useful, along with the free speech stances, though that would be going under the ED.ch section, since that's what it's referring to. Silverseren^C 15:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that Daily Dot piece merits an entire paragraph. For starters, the opening sentence "According to Gawker, "Entire blogs have been devoted to exposing ED's staff as cyberbullies."" is a misstatement. The Gawker piece clearly attributes that to DeGrippo (the relevant sentence starts "DeGrippo claims..."). That sentence seems to be the coathook upon which the Daily Dot info is hung. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Gawker article went through several revisions. It was revised to include information from Sherrod's interview and to include that "Whoops, the blog post is exactly one year old!" statement. The article used to say,

DeGrippo claims she's been receiving death threats because of her role overseeing the site, and an entire <a href="http://josephevers.blogspot.com/">blog</a> has been set up to expose ED's staff as cyberbullies.

The author or an editor must've changed it. I have evidence that it once only referred to josephevers.blogspot.com: [2], [3], [4]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the original version of the Gawker piece does anything except highlight how flimsy this section is. The comments still come from DeGrippo, but it is clearer that the phrase "entire blogs" is referring to a single blog. So we have a single blog by an unknown author which appears to be in part about cataloguing the various misdeeds of people who may have been associated with this now defunct website. Plus some really trivial stuff about a spat with Daniel Brandt. This is exactly the kind of stuff that should be covered by the Daily Dot and Gawker, not Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how you continue to arrive at the conclusion that they're somehow Sherrod's comments? Read the earlier version, which is older than the text I posted above:

"DeGrippo wouldn’t comment on future plans for the site, which is constantly under attack for its trollish content. (You can check out all of the mean things they say about me, here.) An entire blog has been set up to expose ED’s staff, including DeGrippo, as cyberbullies. But for now, it looks like ED is still here, for better or worse."

The claim about death threats weren't inserted until a later revision, and in the current version of the Gawker article, the two sentences were connected by the conjunction "and" for flow and transition. Also, note the comma (,); it separates two ideas. If the comma weren't there, then it would be something Sherrod claimed. Gawker's Adrien Chen is sharing an observation; he isn't repeating a claim made by someone else.

Also, what do you suggest be done? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we remove the entire section and let people read sites like the Daily Dot or Gawker if they want to know the minute-by-minute developments in internet infighting between various groups. If this makes it to multiple reliable sources, feel free to include it, but right now it looks like you may have trouble being objective about what belongs in this article. I don't mean to suggest that the josephevers blog is yours, but having it appear four times in a short paragraph makes me wonder if you have some other agenda. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"That name again..." I'm a member of the Wikipedia Review, as are you. You probably seen my name there. If you had visited my userpage, you would've known that I'm also an Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop. I've left a message at the top of the talk page in order to avoid further confusion. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_102#The_Daily_Dot – Consensus previously established The Daily Dot as a reliable resource. Can you please provide a reason for why that should change? I was hoping that a third opinion (eg. Silver_seren, Tarc, Protonk) would appear. If a third opinion doesn't present itself, I'll remove that paragraph (or you or someone else could do it). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You ask and I appear. But I must admit that i'm not entirely clear what you two are discussing here. Can one of you give me a condensed version? Silverseren^C 16:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also unclear as to what the specific dispute revolves about and what some of the latent issues here are. Protonk (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle is better fit to provide an explanation, since this discussion is about his complaints and not mine. The first issue concerns the Gawker article line included in the Wikipedia article. He called it a misstatement and mentioned WP:Coatrack. I showed him evidence that the Gawker article referred to the josephevers.blogspot.com specifically, but it as later edited out (due to privacy reasons perhaps?). I also showed him that the statement about the blog isn't some claim by Sherrod; instead, it's an observation made by the Gawker author. The second issue concerns the inclusion of what Delicious carbuncle perceives as trivial information. He believes that the article would be better off if information concerning Brandt were removed from the article. Since Moore is accusing Brandt of being behind Sherrod's decision to close the original ED, and since he's accusing Brandt of harassing his fiancée (Brandt admits that he did it in retaliation for spam he received), I somehow doubt that that information could be dismissed as being trivial. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll wait for DC to comment then. Protonk (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren has started another discussion about the reliability of the Daily Dot. See my comment there, I think it will explain my comments here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment there. For ease of discussion, my basic opinion is that the content in question is pretty marginal. I think we can wait and see if more sources pick the issue up and discuss it before adding it to the article. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The RS/N discussion had been archived, and the archive can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_105#Daily_Dot_revisited. Are there any further comments? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is it past tense?

The site is still going on, it's the same website, just different owners, why is this fact completely disregarded? 76.195.146.250 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The new site, EncyclopediaDramatica.ch, is a separate site and not the same as ED. The new site is discussed in a section in the article, just like Oh Internet is. But the original site that this article is meant to document no longer exists and the article reflects that fact. Silverseren^C 05:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be regarded as the same thing though 76.205.146.115 (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, however, if this really is an issue, simply create a new article for EncyclopediaDramatica.ch 65.30.35.48 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There aren't enough reliable sources discussing ED.ch at the moment. There are only 3, two of which are from the same news site. If a separate article was created, it would just end up being deleted and merged back here. It's the same thing with Oh Internet, there isn't enough coverage of either of them for them to be separate from this article. If either of them get more coverage in the future, then it would be easier to split them into their own articles. But, for now, there isn't enough sources. Silverseren^C 00:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Providing closure for the straw poll

Way back in June, Polyquest started a straw poll in order to gather opinions about whether the article should include a link to encyclopediadramatica.ch. The complete poll can be found at this permalinked location. The poll was finally archived in early September after seeing its last comment in August. The poll was never closed, analyzed, and summarized; it was basically forgotten. I wanted to start this discussion back in September, but some began to doubt the reliability of the Daily Dot articles. I decided to wait for that RS/N discussion to end (it was archived on october 2) before starting this discussion, since there wasn't any point in discussing encyclopediadramatica.ch if consensus had decided that the Daily Dot articles were unreliable.

The main problem with the poll was the lack of a deadline. There wasn't anyone who knew when to press the "STOP" button. Most of the discussion took place in June. July would've been a good time to close it. Instead, we allowed the poll to drag on and lose gas. We shouldn't be discussing the poll in October.

Now it's time to put the poll to rest. Is there anything to learn or consider from the poll? If it's appropriate, we could use Template:RfC and have a sysop analyze and interpret the poll. Judging from recent comments ([5], [6], [7]), the issues the poll concerned itself with are still prevalent today, so it's better late than never. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it was never closed and we left it behind because the validity of any outcome that could be drawn from it would be in question, considering the number of IPs and new users that came to vote in it. I don't see any reason why we can't agree that, for all intents and purposes, most if not all of those IPs and new accounts came from ED.ch. Silverseren^C 21:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That isn't entirely correct. See the table I posted below. Only a single unregistered account participated in the discussion, and that anon didn't vote. Only three of the accounts that participated were created after the original ED's closure (April 14, 2011), only three accounts currently made less than a hundred revisions, and only a single voter is currently blocked. I don't believe that the entire poll should be discounted due to a few. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the table makes it kind of obvious that there's been quite some single purpose accounts in that poll, though. 5 editors alone had less than 200 edits, and pretty much only edited in regards to ED (and topics relating to ED). --Conti|✉ 22:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

200 edits is way above the median for even accounts with more than 2 edits. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's not the only factor one should look at, anyhow. I don't consider Polyquest a SPI, for instance, but Equivamp most certainly looks like one. --Conti|✉ 12:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@Conti: I know. Accounts such as those are expected to appear in any contentious discussion. AfD discussions still produce results that reflects the community despite interference from single-purpose accounts. Single-purpose accounts are easily identifiable and if appropriate, dismissed. I don't believe that the appearance of five such accounts are enough to dismiss the entire poll. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that it should, I just felt it was worth pointing out. If an admin is going to close the discussion, he should simply take this into account when coming to a decision. --Conti|✉ 12:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. I agree. If we invite a sysop to close the discussion, then that sysop should take WP:SPA into consideration. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone remind me, did we link to ED.com while it was still active? Because, should we accept that ED.ch is the new ED.com, the very same arguments for linking/not linking to that site should apply in this case, right? --Conti|✉ 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We whitelisted a single link on this article to ED, but any links to ED elsewhere on Wikipedia were blacklisted. Silverseren^C 22:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Links to encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page and encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About were allowed (still allowed actually). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that the allowance means much, since they go to Oh Internet now. Silverseren^C 19:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the voter statistics are helpful, as they could be seen as implying bad faith in some of the votes. As stated before on the ed.ch issue, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I am no longer opposed to a link to the ed.ch main page, but not to links that are deliberately offensive etc. The copyright issue has faded, as ed.ch has begun to establish itself as a site in its own right. However, it is not the same as the site created by Sherrod DeGrippo in 2004 and should not be described in this way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The site now is no different than it was when run by DeGrippo. Many sites and organizations relocate or change management over time. I never took part in the initial straw poll, but you can put me down for a "support" now. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the stats are helpful. They force us to talk honestly about the poll rather than just ignoring it with lurid accusations that it had been tainted by SPAs. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My stance has also changed. Even if .ch isn't ED by right (ie. ownership by its originators), it's now ED in name, in spirit, in that Sherrod and the previous sysops abandoned that name and spirit, and in the lack of a rival fork sharing the same spirit. When the discussions about .ch first began, .ch was only a little over a day old, it was only one of at least three competing forks, it didn't receive any attention from the media, and its future and chances of survival were in doubt. Those things aren't true any longer. When people talk about ED nowadays, they're talking about .ch. I support the whitelisting of links to encyclopediadramatica.ch/Main_Page, but the rest of site should remain blacklisted. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we decide things based on whether a site is another "in spirit". Oh Internet also has some of the ED community that decided they were fine with the change, doesn't that mean they are also ED "in spirit"? This really isn't going to get us anywhere. Both ED.ch and Oh Internet are separate sites. Do we even have a link to Oh Internet in the article? I just checked and, other than the written out URL of ED in the infobox that would redirect to it, we don't have a link to Oh Internet, and that's proper, because both Oh Internet and ED>ch are separate sites and sub-topics in this article and shouldn't have links to their websites. Silverseren^C 15:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should've said character, identity, or even zeitgeist instead. I didn't mean that ED became a ghost and that OhInternet and .ch became new vessels for that ghost / spirit. The original ED shares more characteristics with .ch than it does with OhInternet. .ch also identifies as ED (the name and theme), while OhInternet is entirely new. ED also shares the zeitgeist of the original by preserving its articles, look, and feel, while OhInternet has preserved little and has a different look and feel. The article doesn't include a link to OhInternet because this isn't an article on OhInternet, and OhInternet's only relevance to the article is how the original ED ended. Information about OhInternet that doesn't relate to the original ED's end doesn't belong. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A substantial mirror, yes, the same, no. Sherrod DeGrippo (Girlvinyl) is off the Christmas card list at ed.ch, and her article is completely different.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is the nature of forks. For example, Foswiki and OpenIndiana were created out of dissatisfaction with the leadership / owners of TWiki and OpernSolaris, respectively. .ch is similar to OpenIndiana in that they were reactions to their respective predecessors' discontinuations. It becomes complicated here because .ch decided to keep "Encyclopedia Dramatica" as its name. I don't believe that .com and .ch are one and the same, just like I don't believe that the French Fourth Republic and the French Fifth Republic are one and the same, yet people today accept the Fifth Republic as the Fourth Republic's replacement. .ch is the best live (as opposed to static) representation of how the original was, and a link to .ch when provide the curious and researchers easy, straightforward access to a live representation. It's difficult to learn about the original ED's dynamic community and evolution of articles from the Wayback Machine, but .ch provides a good approximation. The inclusion of a link doesn't mean that Wikipedia is endorsing a view that .ch has become the original ED. If it'll satisfy opponents of the link, the link can be clearly labelled as a link to a fork. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity when the full URL is stated in the article as it is. There doesn't seem to be any need to try to overstep WP:ELNEVER (among other things) just to include a link here. Not including a link isn't any real hindrance to our readers, since we do include the URL for them to utilize. Silverseren^C 04:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#encyclopediadramatica.ch – I've started a discussion at WP:EL/N in order to gather some thoughts from those who usual participate in discussions related to external links. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The WP:EL/N discussion has been archived, and may be viewed by clicking here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, I do agree with Silverseren that a not including a link is not a real hindrance to readers. However, I do think it would be more convenient for users if we included a link to the site in the external links section. I would also be for including a link to Ohinternet so readers can conveniently see what a chunk of the old management created to replace the original. I see nothing in the external link policy that argues for such a strict determination on what should be linked to, when the link is relevant and not harmful. I see the inclusion of the link as a convenience not an endorsement. By the way, I think the table Michaeldsuarez posted is really helpful in explicating the poll and I wish similar tables were posted more often in these kinds of situations. Polyquest (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What instigated this edit? Silverseren^C 07:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in particular. I have been traveling for a while but now I have a little time and thought I'd add my two cents to the discussion.Polyquest (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, I hope you had fun in your travels. Silverseren^C 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't imlying anything negative, I was just wondering since they hadn't edited for a while. Silverseren^C 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, mate. Polyquest (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

wiktionary:instigate – The word "instigated" often connotes that something negative has been done. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Voter statistics

Voter	Vote	Edit count	First appearance
Aquillion	Oppose	3,071	2004-09-26
Badmachine	Oppose	2,571	2008-01-10
Borgmcklorg	Support	196	2010-12-29
Demiurge1000	Oppose	8,610	2010-06-11
Equivamp	Support	125	2011-04-18
H644444	Support	32	2009-03-13
Ianmacm	Oppose	13,712	2005-12-11
John_Nevard	Support	12,978	2007-10-16
Michaeldsuarez	Comment	4,586	2007-02-19
KiloByte	Support	336	2005-10-30
NexCarnifex	Support	463	2010-04-03
Node_ue	Support	6,676	2003-09-12
Polyquest	Support	190	2011-05-29
Protonk	Support	20,154	2008-04-17
Silver_seren	Oppose	13,837	2006-06-21
Syntoxic	Comment	4	2011-06-01
Tataral	Comment	958	2010-01-27
ThanatosXRS	Support	10	2010-11-21
Zorblek	Comment	526	2005-03-03

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Article in The Bolton News

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/northwest/9307857.Vile_website_mocks_murder_of_Sophie_Lancaster/ – Sam Chadderton has written an article in The Bolton News about complaints against ED from a murder victim's mother. I'm not sure if we should include the complaints and criticisms in the article, but it should be noted that The Daily Dot isn't the only website that talks about .ch in more than just a mention anymore. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the event of making the article on Sophie is important enough to include in the section, but that article can absolutely be used for the info about where the site is hosted. And it clarifies that it is registered in the Netherlands, but hosted in San Francisco. I think this should be added and clarified in the ED.ch section. Silverseren^C 02:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Murder of Sophie Lancaster occurred in the UK in 2007, and received a great deal of media coverage. This is a rare example of the mainstream media mentioning ED, because it knows that it will simply cause people to go and have a look and see what the fuss is about - I did:). As for article notability, it is not as notable as the fuss made over the article Aboriginal in 2010, because it is a fairly basic news mention in a UK local newspaper with no long term notability at the moment. If the national media and politicians started getting worked up, it would be more suitable for a mention in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if it actually causes them to change the laws on hate sites, that would make it notable enough for inclusion, by far. Of course, it's not like they even need a reason to add more laws like that, with all of the added censorship stuff they've been doing. Silverseren^C 07:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the Bolton News article says that ed.ch "claims to be hosted in Ukraine which it says doesn’t recognise copywright [sic], defamation or libel." Just as well, bearing in mind the far more infamous 3Guys1Hammer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

wikisource:Ukraine._Law_on_Copyright_and_Related_Rights might beg to differ about that statement. :) --Conti|✉ 07:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Ukraine part may be trolling, like the fictional Joseph Evers. The server IP address is 173.245.61.32 on Cloudflare in San Francisco, and it would make sense to have the servers there as well, where First Amendment protection applies. The part saying that ed.ch is registered in the Netherlands seems to be a reference to RIPE NCC. Nominet UK covers only the .uk top-level domain. As the Bolton News article points out, the UK authorities have no direct control over ed.ch.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sven Slootweg, who lives in the Netherlands, registered the domain name. This was noted previously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The current WHOIS holder is Ryan Cleary, who is a UK citizen, and he owns the site name via EDrama Limited. Mr Cleary has been in the news on other issues, but the Bolton News article does not mention this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The media doesn't seem to care about Ryan's connection to .ch for some reason. I always find the lack of attention to that detail to be odd. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

@Silver_seren: Isn't that sort of information trivial? How many Wikipedia articles take note of where a domain name was registered from and where servers are located? Should the Ukraine claim be included even though it didn't fool anyone, caused confusion, or produced some sort of effect? Perhaps if the Ukraine claim, server location, and where the domain name was registered from were to have some consequences (ie. created a notable effect), that sort of information may be include in the article in order to describe the cause for those consequences. The article currently doesn't mention anything about Dreamhost hosting the original ED, and Template:Infobox website doesn't even have fields for that sort of information. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the time where it is hosted would either be mentioned in the infobox or in the first line. But, since we're dealing with sub sections without infoboxes, we'd have to include it in the text. And, considering that Ryan Cleary is discussed in the section and that the hosting of ED.ch is so convoluted with different places and people, it seems like it would be something important enough to clarify in a sentence in the section. Silverseren^C 00:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

http://menmedia.co.uk/rossendalefreepress/news/s/1462515_mum-of-sophie-lancaster-demands-ban-of-sick-hate-website – There's also an article in the Rossendale Free Press. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

After going ten pages into a Google search on "Sophie Lancaster", the ed.ch page had still not turned up. This is what set off the row over "Aboriginal" in 2010. In theory, the UK government could block access to this page, but at the time of writing it is still up for UK residents. After Virgin Killer, the UK government may realise that blocking a page is the best publicity that it can have. Interestingly, the Daily Mail (which is a national newspaper) mentions the Facebook posts here, but does not mention the ed.ch article. This story needs a breakout from local newspapers to establish its notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The site still turns up if you search for it directly (just add "dramatica"), so Google's certainly not censoring anything (or made to censor). It seems more likely to me that the ED.ch page simply has a very low page rank. --Conti|✉ 15:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If any page was removed from a Google search, it would turn up at Chilling Effects. Although this has picked up some media coverage, it is not notable enough for the article at the moment, because the UK government seems to have realised that not causing a Streisand effect is the most important part of the situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Aren't the calls for ED's closure / criticism of ED from UK politician Jake Berry and activist Sylvia Lancaster significant and notable? We also have to keep in mind that this is just a website; we can't expect a great deal of coverage. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? The Aborigine story got lots of coverage. I'd say we should only include it when there's actual action being taken, instead of politicians demanding something (That's what they tend to do). --Conti|✉ 22:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As Conti says, it is not in the same league as the controversy over Virgin Killer or Aboriginal at the moment. However, I would not oppose a brief mention in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sherrod at ROFLCon Summit

[8], [9], [10], [11] – Sherrod DeGrippo talks about ED at the ROFLCom Summit. Unlike Epic Win for Anonymous, these videos do mention Wikipedia's role in ED's founding. She also speaks about why she decided to close ED. ED's relationship with LiveJournal, LJdrama, 4chan, and advertisers are also discussed. I haven't watched everything yet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering they seem to be hosted on an official channel, those should fall on the good side of WP:YOUTUBE. Nice catch. Silverseren^C 05:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Around an hour of video here, some highlights:

• [12] Sherrod DeGrippo is asked why the old ed.com was closed down. She replies: "We were unable to stop the degradation of the content. It just kept getting longer and longer and dumber and dumber and less coherent over time."
• [13] DeGrippo is asked why, when tens of thousands of hours of work was put into the old ed.com, she did not release it as an archive. She replies that doing so would have made her personally responsible for any DMCA or privacy violations that it contained.

Something of a first to see Sherrod discussing the site on video.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

@Silver_seren: [14], [15], [16] – The YouTube videos embedded on roflconsummit.com are from the same account (ROFLCONsummit) that uploaded the videos I've linked to earlier, so I believe that they're from an official account. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Top page contributor

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Encyclopedia_Dramatica – I just realized that I'm currently the top contributor to this article. Considering my role within ED, is anyone here uncomfortable with the amount of revisions I've made in the article? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your editing seems to be fine. if there's any issues, someone will point it out. Silverseren^C 17:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No problems from me - Alison ^❤ 02:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't have realized from your contributions to this article that you're banned from Oh Internet. Nevard (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How is encyclopaediadramatica.ch a different site?

The same content that was at encyclopaediadramatica.com has been moved to .ch. It's obviously the same site, with the same userbase, same logo, same damned name. The source I cited said as much. I'm reverting it, do not put it back unless you have a good rationale for why .ch is a different site, in defiance of the source cited. Quantum Burrito (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

...and with an entirely different staff and URL. The situation is not as easy as you make it out to be. Technically speaking, ED.ch remains a fork, not a relaunch or a rename of the original site, so treating it as such is problematic. On the other hand, ED.ch does seem to establish itself as the new ED, and I see no ideal way to deal with this situation. Wait and see, I guess. --Conti|✉ 22:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

could it be stated that ed.ch is a wiki based on the .com site as it existed in the google cache as of that date? -badmachine 02:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objections to that. --Conti|✉ 09:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Any site can brand itself as being another site and copy that other site's content. But if it has an entirely different group of people in charge of it, then it is not the same site. The ED URL redirects to Oh Internet now. If we were going to follow the normal process, then we would actually make this article be Oh Internet, since that is what ED is right now. But we discussed and reached a consensus that Oh Internet and ED.ch are different sites from the original ED and should be treated separately, but related, which is why they each have a section in this article. Silverseren^C 22:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So if wikipedia.org started redirecting to encyclopediadramatica.ch, by the normal process you'd "make the Wikipedia article be encyclopedia drammatica"? Robomc (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Quantum, certain people here hold grudges against ed.ch because they are the subject of disparaging articles hosted there. There is no sound policy or guideline-based reason to revert the change you made, only a tired variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tarc (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I stated the same thing before H64 ever made an article on me. I can't speak for Conti, but my position has not changed because of the article made on me (since the article was created in response to my position anyway). Silverseren^C 04:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The site as created and owned by Sherrod DeGrippo no longer exists. What happened was that ED went off in two different directions, Oh Internet and ed.ch. The infobox is correct in saying that the original ed.com no longer exists, and consistency with the sourcing requires the article to recognize this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that the title of the article isn't "encyclopediadramatica.com", it's "Encyclopedia Dramatica". You can argue about site ownership and the semantics of what makes one site the same as or different from another site all day, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a website named "Encylopedia Dramatica" that is active and has the same content and user base as the old one. If we want the article to be exclusively about encyclopediadramatica.com, then we should change the title of the article to reflect that. Otherwise, the article should acknowledge that, regardless of whether or not it is technically the same entity as the original site by that name, there is an active, current site called Encyclopedia Dramatica. The current version of the article does not make that sufficiently clear. zorblek (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The article very clearly, specifically states, both in the infobox and in the lede, that it is specifically about a website, the former website called Encyclopedia Dramatica that is now defunct. It also mentions the two websites that sprouted from its demise in their own sections. There is nothing to clarify. Just because one of the later websites chose the same name doesn't mean we have to change anything. ED.ch is already discussed in the article. Silverseren^C 03:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The content is copied directly from ed.com. There is no difference, other than the obvious wiki editing. Therefore, the infobox should be fixed to say so.--Adm.Hammerhead (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some content was illegally copied, yes, but that doesn't change that it is a different site. We've had this discussion before. Just because you copy things from another site doesn't mean that you are the other site. All of the Wikipedia mirrors that copy content from here aren't Wikipedia, they are different sites. Silverseren^C 01:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian ED

I I just leave it here http://dramatica.org.ua/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.72.14 (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with this article? Silverseren^C 04:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a great deal, although it is interesting that there is a Ukrainian language clone of the site. Here is their page for "Drama" (SFW), but contrary to expectations, there is no article about "3Guys1Hammer" (Dnepropetrovsk maniacs) even though it happened in Ukraine.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

-lol that's actually really funnyNex Carnifex (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ukwiki seems to have a history of people inserting links to "dramatica.org.ua" and "uchan.org.ua/w/":

Date, time	Article	Revision	Link(s) inserted	Link(s) removed
2010-07-31, 09:11	Encyclopedia Dramatica	[17]	drаmatica.org.ua
2010-07-31, 14:19	MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist	[18]	drаmatica.org.ua
2010-08-03, 14:02	Encyclopedia Dramatica	[19]		dramatica.org.ua
2010-09-14, 04:22	Encyclopedia Dramatica	[20]	dram atica.org.ua
2010-11-27, 17:52	Encyclopedia Dramatica	[21]		dram atica.org.ua
2011-03-11, 08:55	Вікі	[22]	drаmatica.org.ua
2011-07-31, 18:30	Вікі	[23]	ukrmemoria.com/Драматика	drаmatica.org.ua
2011-08-15, 14:57	Учан (вебсайт)	[24]	dram atica.org.ua/Учан	ukrmemoria.com/Учан
2011-09-14, 17:59	Вікі	[25]	uchan.org.ua/w	ukrmemoria.com/Драматика
2011-10-01, 10:45	Encyclopedia Dramatica	[26]	uchan.org.ua/w
2011-10-18, 22:53	Вікія	[27]	uchan.org.ua/w
2011-11-27, 12:47	Учан (вебсайт)	[28]	uchan.org.ua/w/Учан	dram atica.org.ua/Учан

dramatica.org.ua is unaffiliated with encyclopediadramatica.com and encyclopediadramatica.ch (dramatica.org.ua predates encyclopediadramatica.ch). Unlike encyclopediadramatica.ch, damatica.org.au isn't a fork. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Latest addition

Since a request was made to discuss the issue of this edit..

1. It's simply not noteworthy. ED trolls people all the time, and some of those respond in kind. Tadaa. No need for a specific example, unless it's particularly notable. Which leads me to..
2. No reliable sources. The source itself says "This submission is currently being researched & evaluated!", so that alone is reason enough not to use it. As a community driven site, knowyourmeme.com should (as awesome as it is) not be used in Wikipedia as a source in general.
3. WP:BLP. If that guy wants to be left alone, it's not our job to point a finger at him.

So, there you go, User:Mythic Writerlord. Discuss. --Conti|✉ 16:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

People featured on the site

There are many people featured on ED, often against their will. Some have been singled out, harrassed and openly ridiculed. Is it not a good idea to name one or two of these cases (if they can be properly sourced) to highlight this controversy. It could possibly be regarded as libel in some cases. I keep mentioning one case but another editor seems helbend on removing it and unwilling to discuss this further. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This comes back to the issue of reliable sourcing. It would need some sourcing to establish the notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

KnowYourMeme is not a reliable source for the information. It is a user-created website, much like a wiki. The only thing reliable from the site is, occasionally, the official staff videos on memes. Silverseren^C 21:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to repeat or extend the harassment from ED to ED's Wikipedia article will only end in tears. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

ROFLcon sponsor

http://roflcon.org/2012/02/03/encyclopedia-dramatica-sponsors-roflcon-iii/ – EncyclopediaDramatica.ch is now an official sponsor of ROFLcon. It's even in the "Official Sponsors" sidebar. Is this worth mentioning in the article? Perhaps it's time to include an external link to encyclopediadramatica.ch. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

ROFLCon has its own Wikipedia article, but a sponsorship deal looks somewhat tangential. The article Encyclopedia Dramatica is still working on the premise that the EncyclopediaDramatica.com created by Sherrod DeGrippo in 2004 is the "original and genuine, accept no substitutes" version, which is looking increasingly old fashioned. The reasons why DeGrippo ditched the site in April 2011 are explained in the article using her own words, but the Encyclopediadramatica.ch site is still seen as an unofficial fork. As discussed many times before, this comes down to the sourcing, because the .ch mirror has picked up much less coverage than the .com version. It is the most accurate recreation of the ed.com site, although it is an unofficial mirror/ripoff of the old ED content.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If ED.ch gets enough coverage, then it'll be spun out into its own article, which will fix that. This article is about just ED and is not overly focused on Oh Internet or ED.ch. So they'll both end up being separate articles if the coverage ever arises. Unfortunately, coverage needs to come from separate sources, so a bunch of articles on The Daily Dot just counts as one source in regards to notability.

So, as i've said before, I don't think Oh Internet or ED.ch should get external links in this article, because they are not the focus. Besides, the ED.ch section already has the URL spelled out in plain text.

As for ROFLCon, that obviously something that should go in the ROFLCon article in a list of sponsors, but i'm kinda on the fence about mentioning it here. I'm not opposed to it, nor am I in support of it (entirely due to the primary source usage). Silverseren^C 17:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Internet Section

I have rewritten the beginning of the section so that it no longer goes against WP:NPOV. Currently it reads like it's by DeGrippo herself, rather than merely informing us of her feelings and opinions. Rather than being a justification for the deletion of ED, it should read as though this is /her/ justification for the deletion; it should be stating a relevant opinion, not being an argument. Lord British (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have also quoted things she actually said and replaced words like "eventually" with real times. Otherwise the article reads like a story, which might be how many ED articles are laid out, but is obviously not appropriate for Wikipedia. Lord British (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclopedia_Dramatica&diff=477591007&oldid=477585095 – Sherrod never used the word "disillusioned", and readers would've seen those as being scare quotes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Whoops, that one slipped through. However, it still comes across as POV - I think it needs rephrasing. Lord British (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That section should be removed; it's about non-notable people doing non-notable things that have nothing to do with the reason the while site is mentioned here: its content. This is not a drama wiki. Anyone suggest a good non-notability template for a section? --Sigmundur (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have added in weasel-word and POV templates in the first two sentences because they're misleading. They come across as sympathetic to DeGrippo rather than merely stating the facts. They should be replaced with quotes by her, and it should be made clear that this is HER point of view, not a fact. As I said before, I also dislike how this reads like a story. I would not be surprised if they were written by her or one of her lackeys. Lord British (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Michaeldsuarez, above, wrote that information and he's a member of ED.ch, so I really doubt there's any sort of "sympathy" writing going on here. Silverseren^C 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? You're basically saying that we should not mention why the website this article is about was closed. That's.. odd. Of course that's highly relevant to this article and should be mentioned. --Conti|✉ 17:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm not getting into an edit-war, but I will insist that that part of the article needs to be rewritten. Can anyone contribute and give ideas please? Lord British (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I still don't understand what your problem is with the section in the first place, to be honest. What's wrong with saying that the creator of the wiki started to dislike it and therefore closed it? That's just what happened, after all. --Conti|✉ 12:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Well using words such as "disillusioned", as well as things like "had hoped" and "eventually" makes the whole thing read like a POV story. I mean, it's not terrible, but it could be markedly improved by replacing paraphrases of her opinion with actual quotes so that the reader can take them as they are, rather than one person's interpretation. This seems like it's the fault of the source more than anything else, so I'll look around for a reliable alternative. On a sensitive topic such as this it's pretty difficult to not find opinion pieces, though. Lord British (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't agree that these words give an impression of violating NPOV, since they accurately describe what happened. Then again, using quotes or more neutral language certainly can't hurt, either. --Conti|✉ 18:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

DeGrippo eventually became disillusioned with Encyclopædia Dramatica.

Is it just me, or does that line on the article compromises Wikipedia's neutral point of view? --Karjam (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, as her views on the subject were expressed at ROFLcon in October 2011.[29].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Might want to put it in quotes though, if that's specifically what she said. Silverseren^C 19:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah wording it that way implies that there was indeed some negative aspect of ED that caused Sherrod to shut it down, but that's only if you take her word for it. Nex Carnifex (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO SHUT THIS PAGE DOWN IMMEDIATELY. ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA ARE WELL KNOWN CYBER-BULLIES WHO STALK WOEMN AND CHILDREN WHEN THEY DO NOT GET THEIR WAY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouse10001 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2012

They are currently being investigated by the FBI's Cyber-Bullying Team for attacks against men, women and minors.

Anonymouse10001 (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Source?--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Victim of ED

If you have a complaint about an activity of ED itself, then feel free to contact their administrators. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The ED . ch page has attacked women and children who are not televised celebrities. I am one of them. Their users have been stalking me for almost a year now, posting personal information they got via hacking, posing as me on social media accounts, and they even went so far as to post the home address of a relative as mine, claiming it as my home address. They even lied about me, claiming I gave them the information, calling me a "whore" and a "psycho bitch". They posted photos of my family that they ripped from my personal account, and said I need to die because I am Jewish and multicultural. They speak openly on their talk page about me, threatening to hack me, and I've received death threats from their members. One person even tried blackmailing me, by begging me for nude photos of myself. Is there room on this page for victims of the trolling to speak up, or at least a segment where their cyber stalking ways can be addressed publicly? I feel this article as is, is more about glorifying their OhInternet past than it is about showing what the current owners are really all about. FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC) None of this could be mentioned unless it was covered in reliable secondary sources (newspapers etc).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC) So even links from their site would not be of any use then? FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Brandts article

Daniel brants page on ED was deleted? Yeah... you might want to check if that´s really true. AHEM, encyclopediadramatica (dot) ch/Daniel_Brandt --Zanitys (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted, but it was recreated a little over a month later:

• http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Daniel_Brandt
• http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=235844

I've changed "deletion" to "temporary removal" in order to avoid further confusion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a source that shows that ED's Daniel Brandt article is presently available. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A few edits

The Brandt being restored that was debated in this edit can be see plainly on the article in question's history. It functions exactly like a wiki page. Also, the most recent edit, saying Ryan himself hosted LulzSec IRC is heavily biased, and would imply that he himself had a server. I would suggest a reversion until a source is found. It seems pretty obvious to me that User:Silver seren is trying to hidner this article, and has a pretty obvious conflict of interests. His article's not only been featured before, it's featured now. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this as easy as possible http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&action=history is Brandt's article being obviously restored, and http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:Article_of_the_Nao/February_27,_2012 is the featured article. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentence should probably be changed to say that he hosted a LulzSec IRC, since the reference doesn't support the statement of several chatrooms, but it does support the one.

And, as i've explained to others before, I was involved in editing this article long before this and had no real contact with ED prior to that. The article on me on ED.ch was created as a result of me being involved in this article, not before. I didn't have a conflict of interest before and I don't believe I have one now, as I really don't care about the article on me.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others before, we're not going to allow users who edit this article to be chased out via "conflict of interest" just by the creation of an ED.ch article on them. Otherwise, ED.ch members will do that to everyone involved on this article and the talk page and it would essentially be gaming the system. Silverseren^C 04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think you're not going to be "chased out" due to a conflict of interest, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy first as it by far trumps your personal opinion. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting "The sentence should probably be changed to say that he hosted a LulzSec IRC, since the reference doesn't support the statement of several chatrooms, but it does support the one." First of all, the reference doesn't mention the word "host" anywhere on the page, and only states he was arrested for the cause. The sentence states that he did in fact host them. Pick one. That's why your NPOV is clearly clouded by your conflict of interest. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the COI policy and, again, all of my actions on this article have been toward NPOV.

As for the reference, it has a tweet from Lulzsec, which states that they "house one of our many legitimate chatrooms on his IRC server". Isn't that hosting it? Silverseren^C 05:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you should post that as a source, however it's worth noting that tweets are not valid sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources) Moreover for me to host a site, I would require a server. It's more than likely the case that Ryan paid for an external company to host it, and without clarification you shouldn't make such brash assumptions. You seem to be letting your personal interested in labeling a man who attacked you as a criminal without proper wiki-reliable sources. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The coverage in the CNN source of it is a reliable source. Which is already being used as a source for the statement. Unless you have a source that says otherwise, I see no reason to change it. And I don't know what your last sentence is talking about. I never interacted with Cleary at all, ever. Silverseren^C 07:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, that as stated other was does NOT state that he was ever even so much as convicted, or that he hosted it. Read it again. In fact it says specifically "The suspect remains in custody but has not yet been charged." 64.123.99.139 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ryan+cleary%22+%22hosted%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 – Several news source used the word "hosted". What would you suggest as an alternative? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't even notice the featured status until just now. Were you the one that put that together? :P Silverseren^C 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish I was good enough to pull something like that off. If I were confident in my wiki-ing I would probably contribute to the article here instead of back seat driving. Moreover, from what I understand contributing to a less than honorable site like that while showing my IP all over the internet probably wouldn't be a good idea. Also @Michaeldsuarez I would say allegedly hosted would be very appropriate until a source that says he was in fact convicted, and even then to change it from a site he directly hosted to a site he helped host since that's what our current sources say. I personally own a website and I don't host it. Homestead.com does. I own it, sure, but not host it. Yes I am legally responsible for the content, but once again, I don't host it. Wikipedia hosts Wikipedia. Google hosts Google. Small sites tend to not host themselves. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Would changing it to "Cleary allowed LulzSec to operate a chatroom on his IRC server" be alright with you? Maybe the word "network" could be used instead of "server". I don't agree with inserting the word "allegedly". Cleary did maintain the chatroom, and Cleary doesn't deny managing it; it's an indisputable fact. The court and jury aren't here to decided to figuring out whether or not Cleary operated a LulzSec channel; they already know that he did. The court and jury are here to decide whether or not operating a LulzSec channel makes Cleary guilty of the crimes the state charged him with. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What would be alright with me is if the bloody sources matched the content of the page. The source that's listed as a source says he was arrested for it. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, both the BBC source and the CNN source state OpSony as the primary reason for Cleary's arrest. I'll change it to mention OpSony instead. Actually, now that I think of it, it probably isn't necessary to mention LulzSec and its chatroom at all. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Outdated - Requires Re-write

Encyclopedia Dramatica has now fallen under new management and is once again live. The pages would appear to have been recovered through site caching services. Please make this known in the article, or (althought this would be unwise) unlock the article. 80.42.175.166 (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is already a section in the article about ED.ch, this is already covered. Silverseren^C 04:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is only semi-locked though :I That said, taking off that would cause the whole article to go to hell, really. ED.ch has a section in the article, and so long as the original domain redirects to OhI, then ED is considered as down and gone. /twocents HerroLink 03:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No WP editors you are wrong...ED is a meme not a distinct thing. It is true to say the founding site is now defunct but the new site, ED.ch is up and running and when that fails no doubt there will be many more EDs that will continue to digitally archive the dark side of the human condition. The ludicrous logic, demonstrated by the one-dimensional thinkers who bother to "protect" this page, is akin to asserting that once the original (sic first) railroad became defunct any or all subsequent copies of the same idea/principle (i.e. meme) should also be referred to in the past tense, thus ignoring the scale of the ownership = Anonymous. SweatyCat or whoever she was started it, but she lost control and therefore shut herself out. ED did not close when the original site shut. As my point above notes.

ED is a concept not a thing, it's a repository, like the trope Room 101 where all taboos are spared no pisstaking. It is bigger than it's original site and will probably keep on growing ad infinitum as long as there are denizens out there in cyberspace who believe in its anarchic concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.225.126 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and find a reliable source that says ED is a meme/concept and not a website, then. :) --Conti|✉ 00:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure every single reliable source we have defines ED as a website, because that's what it is. It's not something ephemeral like a concept, it's a specific website, which this article specifically covers as a website. Silverseren^C 00:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha ED is so right about you lot. How on earth did we ever leave the stone age when logic like this is demonstrated:

every single reliable source we have defines ED as a website

That was because it needs a website to exist, derrrrr. But when the first website closed another one started, and then another, and another et al. Now it is ED.ch, this is because it is an idea. A principle. If it were just a single thing, to use knuckledragger logic, then when the original ED finished the whole concept dies too. It went poof, vanished into the digital ether. But it did not because ED is Anonymous, the front end portal for the insatiable and mawkish need for human disturbia on the Internet. Just because the website changed its address does not mean the meme within Anonymous has changed. In fact by attempting to kill it, the meme has become even stronger judging by ED.ch. Hahhaha then the other Cunti said:

Go ahead and find a reliable source that says ED is a meme/concept and not a website, then

Rather than rebut the point, that ED is an idea and therefore not dependant on any original site. The Rules lawyer creates a Red herring rather than accept the preposition "ED is an internet phenomenon". ED is an idea for taking the piss out of all internet sites/memes/stories, such as the likes of Wikipedia. As long as people believe in ED, it will be. As noted above, when the first railroad closed we should refer to all other railroads in the past tense because only the first ever railroad was the original mass transit system, er the rest are just copies, right? Get back to me when your IQs hit three figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.148.11 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 December 2011

We will. In the meantime, get back to us when reliable sources surface that support your assertions. :) You're free to dislike and disagree with the rules around here as much as you please, but if you want to contribute, you have to play by them. --Conti|✉ 19:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that they have the same content. However, those news sources have generally referred to ED.ch as a(n unofficial) fork. Look at the categories of the article, they all refer to a website, not a concept. It's an article about ED.com, not the concept of ED. --♣thayora♣ 03:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

^What Thayo noted. If at some point ED.ch and/or OhI need their own space for an article, then I'm pretty sure someone will create said article; however, this article is about the original ED, thus everything is fine as is ~_~ HerroLink 01:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ED was and still is user-generated-content contributed by a specific user base (generally of the /b/ variety). If ED were any other wiki, this would not even be up for debate. Let's pretend that ED was not a controversial wiki for the moment. Pretend it was a wiki for beer and wine connoisseurs. Then pretend that for whatever reason, the icanhascheezburger folks came up with a ripoff of it using their own style in a watered-down way. Pretend that the beer and wine wiki sold out to a third party and became a ripoff of the icanhascheezburger ripoff and was called Oh Alcohol or whatever. Finally, pretend that the user base who made the beer and wine wiki what it was revived it from a cache and have not only maintained it for several months since, they've made it even larger than it ever was. Would anybody in this comments section even be having this debate? Are the editors only in disagreement and selectively enforcing rules to carry out a biased agenda? That couldn't possibly happen here, could it? Prior to ED.com's sellout to a third party it began to censor certain articles other third parties didn't like. Now, it isn't a stretch to assume that those same offended parties may (or may not, this is purely speculation) have a vested interest in making sure this fork is distanced from the original as a method of trying to 'kill it' so to speak. Maybe they even contribute donations here in order to influence editor opinion. This is how it works in Washington after all, big lobbies paying big box to ensure agendas are steered a specific way. I hope I don't need a citation for that, at least not here in the comments section. I'm pretty sure you understand the point.

The only reason this is up for debate in the first place is because ED was controversial and people are still trying to kill it. The article makes it sound as though ED.ch is dead which is absolutely not the case, it is very much out of date... deliberately. Well the article may very well be within the scope of Wikipedia's rules, like every other controversial article those rules are enforced on a basis of double standards. This isn't rude, this is the truth. You don't need a reliable source to figure that out. Just look at the history of the I/P articles if you don't believe it. The above "People featured on the site" section's comment from Delicious carbuncle says "Attempts to repeat or extend the harassment from ED to ED's Wikipedia article will only end in tears." If ED is dead, how can they harass the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.223.95 (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The site still exists. new URL is http(colon)(slash)(Slash)encyclopediadramatica(dot)ch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.157.196 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This site just changed URLs and ownership. This has happened to many websites in the past. It is still the same site. It has the same content, and the same layout. Of course, this site is known for making fun of Wikipedia moderators, so these mods would rather that the site was dead. Due to this conflict of interest, they have locked the article and refused to allow any new edits. And it is unlikely they will EVER allow another edit to this page. HereticBleach (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to say what material change has occurred to "encyclopedia dramatica" which would cause us to discuss it in the past tense. The poster above is absolutely correct about one thing that matters: url != website. Imagine you visit this page because you are completely ignorant about what ED.com is/was. As far as you are concerned, ED.ch is exactly the same site, and it would seem peculiar that a wikipedia article doesn't make this clear. Nobody anywhere is confused about what a person means when he/she says "encyclopedia dramatica." None of the search engines are confused about this and neither are the people searching who end up at exactly the site they are looking for-- ED.ch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.225.144 (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

'ED.ch' is ED, just with a different domain thing, it is called ED not ED.ch since that's what it is.Nex Carnifex (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, but the distinction is immaterial. That's where the debate above got off track. ED is in fact a website, and it currently resides at the .ch domain. Not only is there still a site called "encyclopedia dramatica," but it is *exactly the same entity it has always been*. Of course, it would be preposterous if anyone here actually needed this pointed out to them. I know it's all political; I just challenge anyone to make it sound like it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.225.144 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose we change this article's title to "The Wiki girlvinyl Started" and then this implicit dichotomy between ED.ch and OhI would make sense. I'm honestly surprised you get away with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.225.144 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)