Misplaced Pages

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 01:27, 13 October 2012 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 60d) to Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 23.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:27, 13 October 2012 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 60d) to Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 23.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternet culture Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconComedy Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Encyclopedia Dramatica. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Encyclopedia Dramatica at the Reference desk.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Why was this article recreated? This article was deleted in July 2006. Later, major media began to write about Encyclopedia Dramatica. After a deletion review, this article was recreated in May 2008.

Template:Multidel

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

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

Rfc: Is Encyclopedia Dramatica dead?

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

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

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

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

Encyclopedia Dramatica = Cleveland Browns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay?

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

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

encyclopediadramatica.se at wikinews

please add this to the ever growing list of sources that refer to encyclopediadramatica.se in the present tense:

that list now includes, among others,:

67.174.52.134 (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Present tense is not an issue at the moment. Besides, as I stated above, Encyclopedia Dramatica is the name ED.se chose for itself, so it's impossible to differentiate between what meaning the media has for the name unless they specifically explain it. Also, Wikinews is not a reliable source. Silverseren 06:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm seriously lolling IRL. Why are you even still arguing with people about this?

Correction — Jun 18, 2012 the Critics United page on Encyclopedia Dramatica was created on June 6, after the purge.

— Wikinews
Which version of Encyclopedia Dramatica was around on June 6th, 2012? I'll give you a hint. It's domain suffix starts with s and ends with e. The article details events from August 2012 to September 2012. Yeah so it is not Totally Impossible to differentiate at which point in ED history they are talking about. I'm going to give you a tip as I see this kind of editing a lot; We know you are posting out of pure, excruciating anal devastation, so it could be in your own best interest to think for a few more seconds before you press the "Save Page" button next time. Reading the article probably couldn't hurt as well. Best of luck to you bro. --Zaiger (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Categories: