Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

LA Times source: legit?

So... what is the status of this supposed coverage: [1]? I think it is fake since the date does not match with the right day of the week (23rd May was a Friday, not a thursday), and since I can't seem to find any reference to it at the LA times site. I'm not 100% sure, however. Z00r (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fake to me. The day/date, how the text looks compared to the paper's title, and how column 1 ends near the bottom of the image, but column 2 does not. Also, aren't newspaper titles usually printed in large print centered at the top only on the front page? The setup of the articles doesn't look like a front page, and I'm not sure if WP/ED is something that's significant enough to make it to the front page of the LA Times. WODUP 07:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I no longer have my copy from Thursday, but looking at today's instead: only the first page of the whole paper has the paper name in big lettering like that, and I think I and a few thousand other Wikipedia editors would have noticed a front-page story about Wikipedia. Also, the front page has the date centered and a copyright notice, page count, and edition marker on the left side under the line where the image has nothing. So, from seeing quite a few shops in my time, and looking at the pixels, I have to conclude: fake. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say it is the LA Times. Ty 07:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a shoop. I can tell from the pixels and having seen quite a few in my time. Also, the tone of the article is fawning towards ED, painting WP in an unsavory light for no real reason other than to provide sourcing for this page. Howa0082 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the font doesn't have any print artifacts you would expect from an actual hardcopy. The Los Angeles times also includes Bylines on articles, which this lacks. The notable exception would be editorials (in some papers, maybe not LA Times) which have a primary editorial that is assumed to be written by either the editor in chief or collectively by the editorial staff. If this were such an article (possible), then it would be useless as a ref anyway. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fake to me - there are creases in the paper that don't seem to have affected the letters printed on them at all. Exxolon (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's from a major newspaper, they need better writers and editors. The writing is garbage and entirely wrong in terms of newspaper article writing. Any editor that would allow a writer to emphasize a word with *asterisks* around it needs to be shot on sight. They also don't break up paragraphs with line breaks. The layout is wrong - there's no indication that there's another headline starting in the next column, and most broadsheets will divide their articles with a hairline when they're running stuff side by side like that. Utter fake. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolute fake, and not a good one either. It's clearly in a raster times font that is not anything like the right weight for the font as it actually appears on paper. I'm actually surprised anyone thought that it might be real. --Random832 (contribs) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

When featured article is an attack

So what to do when, as today, the featured article on the main page is a personal attack? That changes the arguments because a dead link dead is not just a cure for a "what if" problem (which is more like censorship), but a reaction to an actual present attack on a Wikipedian? The image of LL is a likely copyvio too (though not the kind Wikipedia is liable for) because ED has uploaded it without following the attribution requirements of the GNU licenses.

I think it's too silly and juvenile to take very seriously, but it is still wrong in so many ways...I can understand someone taking offense. I've modified the link to point to ED's "about" page, which I think can satisfy WP:EL because it is an official landing page too. I'm just offering this as a possible short-term solution, and won't edit war over this, but I hope we can leave it there until we decide, or at least until ED changes its featured article to something that is not a personal attack. Wikidemo (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that...spam filter won't allow it. I see User:TenPoundHammer was trying to do the exact same thing at the same time. Well, take that as a suggestion then, please.Wikidemo (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I removed it just because [brackets] were appearing around the [link] and it looked [ugly]. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted it out now, so the brackets are gone.--Kip Kip 19:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that a new Reality TV series, When Websites Attack? No, seriously... I'd agree that "silly and juvenile" about describes it, so it's probably best not to give them any more attention by getting into yet another battle over them. Ignore them (aside from treating their site exactly like any other site with an article) and maybe they'll eventually go away. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. There are probably are a lot of people who like me saw this talkpage thread and immediately said, Oh, really? Who are they attacking? And checked ED to see. Making an issue out of this stuff only gives them more traffic. Best just to ignore it. Ford MF (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The "featured article" issue is my only real concern. I can change the link to permanetly link to the about page ( http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About ), If those who are in favor of live linking agree to having that as the link. I think that is a suitable compromise and trade off for the main page. see related--Hu12 (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And what happens when ED starts adding objectionable content to that page?
Any special treatment sends the message that their attacks are succeeding, thereby encouraging further attacks. As Dan said, the best thing is to not engage them. We should just leave the standard link and ignore their shenanigans. —David Levy 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I like the About link idea, would probably give a better description of what they are than a mainpage link, same could go for uncyclopedia maybe. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point--Hu12 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the link is to lead to the website's front page. It's our article's purpose to be informative. —David Levy 08:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And today when I clicked on their featured article, the first link in it I clicked tried to hose my machine with some sort of viral code. Thank you Wikipedia for pointing me right at their main page :( MBisanz ^talk 08:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to call you a liar right here and now. There are no links to any such content in the current featured article. If such a link was present, it must have been removed as vandalism, because there is no such link now. Snarfies (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And it would have been better if you'd gone from the about page to the main page to the featured article?

We also link to the Ku Klux Klan, but we don't recommend that you follow their advice. —David Levy 08:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If your browser can infect your system with viral code without giving you any sort of warning asking if you're sure that's what you really want, you really need to get a better browser. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but it does raise a fair point - many of the links on the spam blacklist are there because they do precisely that (attempt to infect with viruses). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If linking to the site is resulting in the loading of virial exploit code, consensus or any argument for its inclusion is absolutly void immediatly, article or not. Any one care to confirm any exploit and virus data files?--Hu12 (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that linking to (or visiting) the main page of ED doesn't trigger some harmful exploit code. If it does, there probably shouldn't be a link, tho. --Conti|✉ 13:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if visiting the ED main page were to execute harmful code, the link would have to go. But the fact (assuming that it's true) that ED linked to harmful code from a page that was linked from the main page is grounds for nothing (beyond a possible statement in our article that the site links to harmful code). Otherwise, we couldn't link to Google. —David Levy 00:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no exploit code on ED. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Same problem I had with this website...made the idiotic MONGO article their mainpage deal one day...maybe we can ask Sherrod to take it down. Makes one wonder what mental problems one would have to have to be involved in such a place. Truly sad state of affairs when anyone would waste their time on such a website.--MONGO 17:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic and keep a NPOV while discussing the merits of a live versus dead link. --Kevman459 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

fwiw, fyi, etc, Sherrod is not Aussieintn. I don't know (or care) why you'd think so but talk pages aren't for rumor mongering. You probably want to calm down the rhetoric. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hum...too much knowledge is not really good in some areas.--MONGO 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

...see, it's not all attacks on Wikipedians. Today's featured article is a current event, the [[Dongcopter]]. ED covers some of these things so we don't have to. Wikidemo (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Founder/Owner tags in infobox

These keep being replaced from blank to misinformation. The latest included URLs as references that do not contain the information supposedly being referenced. I have removed it several times, and may have gone over 3RR. Per BLP: It is misinformation, it is not sourced, from personal knowledge it is just plain wrong, and it is about living people. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

the fact of Founder/Owner is not misinformation or poorly sourced. this is black and white issue, and clear cut. apparently you're either illiterate or bias in regards this article's notability. the site clearly states who owns, runs, created and works on the wiki site. Apelike (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree with SchmuckyTheCat. I looked at the "About" page on ED, too. The two people added to the infobox by Apelike are not mentioned at all on that ED page. Everybody here (hopefully) appreciates editors wanting to improve the page, but we need new information that is both verifiable and reliable. If you find anything, Apelike, please post it on the talk page. I'm sure lots of people would appreciate the effort. J Readings (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Searching for "Sherryl" on ED gives no results. Apelike, please, you need to provide a reliable source for these persons being the founder and the owner, since they aren't even mentioned on ED itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the Owner/Author parameters to be optional in the infobox so the article doesn't look ugly without them. --Random832 (contribs) 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

From non-reliable source: me. ED itself is incorporated. It is not a basement enterprise. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Normally, the content on an organization's own website is a reliable source of simple factual information about the organization. That's even true here, with some qualifications. ED is almost completely not serious, but a few pages (about, its self-entry, the disclaimers page) are edit locked and are in a more serious tone. The "about" page credits its creation to "girlvinyl", and the self-entry (the "Encyclopedia Dramatica" page on ED) repeats this. girlvinyl is rather clearly Sherrod Degrippo (see http://www.linkedin.com/in/sherrod) and that was the original name on the domain registration, although there is no obvious proof that is her real name. Girlvinyl seems to enjoy playing with her identity but is not making effort to hide it. The self-entry page, and other pages on and off ED claim that there is a "Joseph Evers", and sometimes that he owns the site. There is a LinkedIN entry that supports this[2], but Joseph Evers seems to be a pseudonym and alternate personna for someone else. This is 90% original research...which is usually okay for company ownership information, but best to be cautious here lest we allow misinformation to creep in. I've updated the fields as best I can given the above. Wikidemo (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. The owner is more likely Edrama LLC, and girlvinyl/Sherrod Degrippo lists herself the CEO of that. An interesting Wikipedia Review discussion thread on the subject, here. I'd put about 90% certainty on this, which isn't good enough to be in an article. Sooner or later a reliable source is going to do a more serious profile on them and either report its history, management and ownership, or at least report that the company is being playfully or strategically ambiguous about the same and we can report that - ED is quite an interesting operation and it's surprising it hasn't been covered yet. Wikidemo (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Both owner and founder have been added and sourced from ED pages. On the owner, I listed the date of fully protected versions of those ED pages (because a fully protected version is most probably a non-vandalized version) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tarantino's analysis on WR is more wrong than it is right, and either way it disagrees with any edit to the WP page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I have to say that I'm not entirely comfortable with using ED as a source, even for information about itself. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

heh, me neither. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do it on purpose. Ah, the postmodern condition. Wikidemo (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please don't replace the founder's nickname for the RL person name, unless you can find a reliable source showing that link, or you find a reliable source linking directly the person name to the founder role. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you can see "Joseph Evers" being used as a pseudonym for trolling: [3]

You can google "lolcommawhat" for another example. Shii (tock) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed for ED being a 'parody'

What's the source for Encyclopaedia Dramatica being a parody of Internet encyclopedias? I can't find this confirmed anywhere, the reference given to the New York Times seems only to say that it is a "snarky Wikipedia anti-fansite". I am sure that everyone agrees that an anti-fansite is not the same thing as a parody. For example, the site microsoftsucks.org is a Microsoft anti-fansite, however it is not a parody of microsoft.com. Say nesh (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When you search for "Encyclopedia Dramatica" on Google, the link to ED appears with the caption: "the articles in this parody of an encyclopedia explain things in a funny and not necessarily correct way."--Urban Rose 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be using Encyclopedia Dramatica itself as a source here. It certainly doesn't pass most usual tests on authority. We need a citation from a reliable source for this claim. I'll add a fact tag if noone has any objections. Say nesh (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Say nesh. Snarky basically means rude and sarcastic, or snide. The NYT article briefly describes ED as a "snarky Wikipedia anti-fansite". Other sources briefly describe ED as a "satirical website". Satire, of course, is defined "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc". Consulting dictionary.com for the definition of "parody", it reads "a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing". Based on these overlapping definitions, the current sentence is faithful to the source: snarky=satirical=parody. What I originally objected to was the idea that we could use NYT's citation to support a completely different definition of what ED was about ("internet culture and drama") and then continue citing the NYT for support. If anything, we should probably edit the sentence to read "parody of Wikipedia" rather than "parody of online encyclopedias" considering that the sources mentioned so far only identify Wikipedia (singular). J Readings (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we use attribution on the body of the article (not on the lead), using a wording that expresses something along the general lines of "ED defines itself as a parody of Wikipedia, and the media/NYT defines it as xxxxx" and then making an inline ref to ED's About page and NYT's article on the adequate places.

For the lead, it should be ok to leave a wording that does not exactly, totally and uber-accurately represents what the sources say. The lead is an introduction to the article and a summary, after all, so we don't need to enter all the details there as long as we later extend it a bit. (Unfortunately, I can't do it myself right now). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)