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 72.161.25.201 (talk) at 22:49, 2 August 2008 (→Current Status: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:49, 2 August 2008 by 72.161.25.201 (talk) (→Current Status: new section)(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
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, 25Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following 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
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Multidel

Archiving icon
Archives
  • /Archive 1 - mostly about unprotection and the link

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Move to Encyclopædia Dramatica

The site claims on their main page and throughout the site that the correct name is Encyclopædia Dramatica, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I usually refer to it as Encyclopaedia Dramatica because that is closest, but it is not actually accurate.

I propose that we move the name of the article to Encyclopædia Dramatica, with redirects from Encyclopedia Dramatica and Encyclopaedia Dramatica. I further propose that we have a disambig page from ED, as that is its most common abbreviation. - I note that that is already there.

What say you? Dyinghappy (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. From what I can see, ED refers to itself as Encyclopedia Dramatica. The logo says æ, yes, but lots of companies use stylised logos, you know? Its main page says "Welcome to Encyclopedia Dramatica", their about page uses Encyclopedia, their disclaimer page uses Encyclopedia, their article on themselves uses Encyclopedia, even their URL uses Encyclopedia. I understand that using æ in a URL would be problematic, but ae could have been a substitute, you know? In summary: Throughout the site it uses Encyclopedia to refer to itself, as far as I can see. Dreaded Walrus 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be æ if more people knew how to type it on their keyboards. The name of the site uses æ. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
But then even Britannica.com, the web site of Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., uses <title>Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia</title>. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
what's that got to do with what ED do?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.13.127 (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


ED says the spelling used in the URL was entirely due to the fact that URLs cant have these kind of special characters in them.:: unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.1.115 (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Question marks

"The intended style for Encyclopedia Dramatica is to figuratively place topics in a humorous and opinionated way."

1. Is this sentence necessary? What does it add that's not covered in the previous sentences?
2. "Humorous" and "opinionated", according to whom? These are POV adjectives. Which reliable third-party source did the editor get it from? It's unclear.
3. "to figuratively place topics" is a split infinitive. It's best to avoid it.
4. For style, overall, maybe we can consider re-writing it by deleting the wordiness and avoiding the split infinitive -- provided that the sentence can be sourced.

What do others think? J Readings (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding another sentence with several question marks:

"The website has served as a "virtual" Thing for Anonymous to visit and learn new words, or memes, from."

1. The sentence ends with the preposition "from." Stylistically, we should avoid ending sentences with a preposition.
2. Do we really need to say "virtual Thing"?? "Thing" itself seems to be an archaic piece of jargon divorced from current mainstream usage in the English language. At least, that's what the linked text indicates. Second, the cited source does not make any mention of a "virtual Thing".
3. Couldn't we simply cite what the third-party reliable source actually says here -- "favorite haunt"? What would be wrong with that?
4. Is there any way we can cut down on the conjunctive "and" in this article? Whoever originally helped write the first article (I wasn't part of that editing), did a good job of keeping the sentences simple and clear. Speaking only for myself, it would be great if we could maintain that structural clarity.

Last sentence with question marks:

"Evidence suggests that Anonymous now uses Encyclopædia Dramatica as a planning hub for the majority of its strategic management operations."

1. Evidence suggests...? That smacks of original research and original synthesis, no?
2. The citation for this sentence is an improperly sourced TV program that cannot be verified per WP:V. We need an exact date so one of us can go to the library, etc., in order to verify that the source directly supports the claims made in the sentence. Right now, it doesn't work.
3. It could be the sentence is fine with a little polishing, but the source is inappropriate, in which case we should remove the citation to the talk page (or just completely from the article) and replace the citation with the previous one.
4. If that's the issue, this sentence and its preceding would then seem redundant. Do we really need both in that instance? If so, why?

Thanks for reading, J Readings (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures Therein

I think more focus needs to be put on the fact that ED hosts graphically shocking pictures...but I don't know how to do this without hitting the Original Research barrier. Lots42 (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • We already have an article on Goatse. Also, I don't think we're allowed to link directly to shock pages anyway. I don't think there's a neutral way to say that they host shock images on ED. (Oh, and please watch the name-calling, anonymous user.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, okay? Maybe I'm missing the point. I don't care to watch the 'operation channel' so it still weirds me out when I flip the channel and see actual flesh cutting. Lots42 (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

'a much less funny online encyclopaedia'

--does not refer to Misplaced Pages, but 'Uncyclopedia.' If you've ever been to the latter, you'd know that Misplaced Pages is a lot lulzier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christf**k (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

it does, the quote directly links to EDs Misplaced Pages page in the ED:About page--Kip Kip 20:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New York Times article about internet trolling mentions ED and its users in detail

How can we work this into the article? There's a wealth of information there about Encyclopedia Dramatica.--Hope of the Future (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the users who was editing for me on certain wikipedos said many edpedo administrators have different accounts, playing good and bad cops, total anarchy! Many are porn maniacs! Lots of good stuff but overdoing on sick things!
I agree there are gross pictures on ED but there is no need to accuse wikipedia members of being pedophiles. Lots42 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at ED, and some people involved with the Grawp/Hagger stuff refer to Wikipedians as "Wikipedos" just as general slang, without any serious implication that they are pedophiles - that would be absurd without evidence.--Hope of the Future (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, ED seems to have been down for most of today. I'm not sure why, another DDOS attack like the ones that have hit the chans recently?--Hope of the Future (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Naw, people are reading the web copy of the Sunday NYT magazine and checking out this "internets" thing. My guess is that it only takes a small percentage of the NY Times reader base to bring their servers down. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Current Status

Due to lack of money and the host of Encyclopedia Dramatica null routing it, the current status is inactive. 72.161.25.201 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. "Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction". 2006. Global Television Network. {{cite episode}}: Missing or empty |series= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Categories: