Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 18

Outdated articles should be noted in wikipedia article
As we all know, ED is littered with outdated articles, which should be said on the wikipedia article about it. For example, the article on the Happy Tree Friends forum talks about how people acted almost five years ago as if it was a recent event, even stating that some people persist in the activities, despite the fact that they may have left, stopped, or were lost when the site went down 3 years ago. Anyway, that should be noted. It should also be noted tat only the creator of the page can edit, so mistakes cannot be fixed.24.191.57.248 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could find a secondary source to support your claims, then sure, we'll add it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. Sorry for the late reply. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also it is untrue that only an original poster may edit an article. It being a wiki and all, but gg for trying.. Snaisybelle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC).

Down for you and not just me?
As of this post, ED appears to be down with every page throwing "The service is not available. Please try again later."; is it down for you and and not just me; also how does one prove that it was down at this time in the article by linking to the website? 59.167.251.45 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's down for me too. What's going on? 72.129.8.172 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is non-article related unless there is a prolonged outage. It could just be a temporary glitch, and http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ shows that the site appears to be down at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Due to its reputation, ED is often the target of DDoS attacks. The site went down like this plenty of times in the past. This event isn't noteworthy. Ed is back up again anyway. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Free speech?
The people behind ED call their website uncensored and free speech, they allow everybody to publish all trackable personal data of victims to defame them, but they don't disclose the address of their own domain holder when I checked with a whois search... can someone investigate more into this contradiction in order to add this information here? 85.4.75.45 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Half a good point here. ED is registered to "A Happy DreamHost Customer, 417 Associated Rd #324, Brea, CA 92821, US +1.2139471032".. It is standard practice for web sites to be registered through a holding company, and it is required by ICANN that web sites have a valid contact address. ED has done nothing wrong here. However, as you point out, one of ED's favourite flame tactics is to publish the full home address, phone number, e-mail address etc of people it dislikes. This goes against Internet etiquette, and is one of the reasons why the site is controversial. Like many aspects of ED, this would need reliable sourcing to go in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ED does not claim to be some open area of free speech. You should see their article deletion log.  Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Contrary to popular belief, ED cares about quality. If you have something to say, you better say it well (and humorously). Otherwise the article you write could face potential deletion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I like the website because it is the only collaborative publishing platform on the internet that allows completely free speech." --Conti|✉ 06:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A look at Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 10 shows that linking to external harassment was a major concern in 2008. Eventually a compromise was reached: the Wikipedia article links to the main page of ED, but links to articles are blocked by the spam blacklist. This holds good today, because ED still allows posting of personal details in a way likely to lead to stalking and harrassment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that free speech and lack of respect for privacy are different issues completely, and one cannot be used to lay into the other. As far as I am aware, the general consensus across many sites is that if you plaster your personal information all over the internet then you have little recourse when it is plastered somewhere you do not like. It is then logical that whoever holds the domain would choose not to release that information as a common sense measure. I think that the idea that ED simply wishes to "publish all trackable personal data of victims to defame them" is a misunderstanding at best and a blatant lie at worst, and the point it (poorly) attempts to make is not worthy of mention in the article. Snaisybelle (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While a discussion of this kind would be interesting in a different context, I think it would be best if we kept talk page specific to the issue of what should/shouldn't be included in the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Contrary to popular belief, ED doesn't use hacking skillz to get docs. Actually, we use Google.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lousit (talk • contribs) 03:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Lusit. Also, in reference to the above, my understanding is that ED is officially against dropping dox. That isn't to say that they won't link to dox or that dox aren't floating around, but a cursory glance at the policy pages will probably yield what you are looking for.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'no dox' policy has long been abolished, fyi. --GlobalUnderscore (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kinda sorta - A l is o n  ❤ 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

the introduction should be rewritten
The last time I checked, the article also focuses on the admins of Wikipedia. I hardly call that encyclopedic or relating to current events. Perhaps the introduction should be rewritten. Some people even write about other things that have nothing to do with encyclopedic topics or current events. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify this? The current version of the article does not mention the admins of Wikipedia.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On ED they have articles about Wikipedia admins. It has no encyclopedic value nor does it relate to current events. The current introduction just says that ED is for satirizing current events and encyclopedic topics and trolling about those. I definitely see articles on there that relates to current events and topics that are part of a real encyclopedia. All they do is criticize what they don't like about the topic. ED is a troll site that allows any article to be created just as long as there is "lulz" on the Internet. Nothing in the notability guidelines of ED says it has to be encyclopedic or current events. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Some Wikipedians including Jimbo Wales and User:Rodhullandemu have received the rare privilege of having an ED article about them. ED has a bias towards Internet culture, so it is not competing directly with Britannica or Wikipedia. The current wording in the lead seems to make this clear.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I get the gist of what 198 is trying to convey. The second sentence of the article is "[...] it satirizes both encyclopedic topics and current events, especially those related to or relevant to internet culture.", however, the scope of articles on ED is not just "current events and encyclopedic topics"; its broader than that. They also document Internet Memes, have biographies about otherwise unknown people (who are neither in the news nor are notable for encyclopedias-even I have a page there), in-jokes and almost anything that offers a lulz-point-of-view. I hope this significant point could be included in the article, there is no need for a complete rewrite of the introduction though, imo. --Apocalypse Survivor (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AE-tan
Please add the ae-tan image. Its not just decoration but the official ED mascot. --GlobalUnderscore (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_16. I would not object to having one of the images, but both would be too much.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just added back. Oops! I'd added the original ones and sorted out the licensing with Fapman - A l is o n  ❤ 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Does ED have any policy about which of these is the "official" version? They both look quite different.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ED actually has many versions of AE-tan, most which have been done by the highly talented Fapman (Mungbean). There's no 'official' version, per se, tho' those two are the original and most popular ones - A l is o n  ❤ 08:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I decreased the size of the images in order to address the complaints about there being two images. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article now has a third version, so I created a gallery to prevent crowding of the text.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Update on the "interview with an Encyclopedia Dramatica moderator"
The ninemsn link now says: "UPDATE 21/07/10: In true Encyclopedia Dramatica style, we were trolled. It turns out the person we interviewed was in fact Andrew Auernheimer, a 24-year-old from Arkansas who was behind the recent exposure of a security flaw in Apple's iPad. He revealed this in a recent email to us:

"In pursuit of truth, deceit is honesty. I'm not even a moderator at Encyclopedia Dramatica. Some cat named Infinite on IRC said "this reporter wants to talk to someone at ED", and I stood up to do it. That, I believe, is what being a troll is about. Saying what needs to be said at the right time."

We've decided to leave this interview online because although Auernheimer is not a moderator, he has strong links to the website and brings an interesting point of view to the issue of internet censorship."

This tends to confirm the view that an attempt to get an on the record quote from someone at ED should be regarded with caution. See also .-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, gee, we can't trust people from ED about what they say to the media? What a shocker. If only Mr. Evers would hear about this. --Conti|✉ 16:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, weev (Andrew Auernheimer) has his own article here as well.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Title
Isn't the name of the wiki "Encyclopædia Dramatica" and not "Encyclopedia"?. I think it should be moved there. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * There are some inconsistencies from the site itself. The web address is www.encyclopediadramatica.com, while the main page has Encyclopedia Dramatica in the central banner and "encyclopædia dramatica" in the top left hand corner. The "æ" symbol is one of the site's logos, but the official spelling is more of a puzzle.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The formation of ED predates IDNA, there was no way for the URL to represent æ. It is supposed to use the æ when possible. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * For relevance, Encyclopedia Britannica is currently a redirect to Encyclopædia Britannica. It was spelled with æ here too until January 30, 2009.  At least two previous discussions exist:
 * Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_12
 * Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_15 (and Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_15 further down)
 *  — Soap  —  17:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The spelling convention of Britannica has little relevance here. Like Wikileaks/WikiLeaks, Dramatica has appeared with both spellings on its own website. It is probably best not to rake this up again and to leave the article as it is.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The about page (Blacklisted, and I can't find where it went after the whitelist discussion had been deferred or any record of said deference) has a section on why they use the æ. In this instance, I would say that the about page is completely logical as a citation, as their policy on themselves is the relevant one in this instance. If you would rather not visit the wiki, here's the relevant text-

"The proper spelling of Encyclopædia Dramatica includes the little æ; however, those characters are not allowed to be registered in domain names, so we used the mundane spelling. Feel free to use alt+145, alt+0230, or alt+z (option+' on OS X) if you'd like to experience it. As æ is confusing and mysterious like ED itself, it became the mascot for the site."

Take that as you will. I don't mean to push the subject, or whatnot. Mysticwarloc (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sean Carasov (OldDirtyBtard) dead
http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2010/11/01/my-friend-an-hero-the-captain-sean-carasov-is-dead/

Can this be added.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As ever with Dramatica, the problem is sourcing. This appears to be from a blog source, which does not make it very notable or reliable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many sources to prove his suicide/death on October 30. This good enough for you?--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This also looks like a fansite or WP:SPS. I am not saying that the news of Sean Carasov's death is wrong, but there needs to be some sourcing to establish his death and why it is notable for ED. This is inherently difficult with ED, because so many of its key figures work in the shadows. Sean Carasov was known for his online campaign against the Church of Scientology as part of Anonymous. This could be mentioned in the article with proper sourcing, but unfortunately most of the sourcing on Carasov and Anonymous again seems to come from the blogs. Sometimes you just can't win, because the mainstream media is the benchmark of notability on Wikipedia, and they rarely cover groups like ED, 4Chan or Anonymous.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the Beasties' official site now mentions it - A l is o n  ❤ 09:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned  as well, so the Scientologists seem to have noticed. Plenty of mentions of ED on this page, but nothing suitable for the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it still up?
If the site is so offencive to everyone on the entire planet why keep it up, that site is a perfect example of abuse of freedom of speech. (Crypto457 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC))


 * Because there isn't an approval committee that decides what sites should/shouldn't be published on the internet. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * lol, because it's the internet. Plus in the States, First Amendment, etc., etc., you get it.  Herro    Link   16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The site is hosted on server computers in the US and has First Amendment protection there. Other countries (eg Australia) may hate the site, but they cannot ban it, although it is on the list of sites blacklisted by the Australian government that was leaked in March 2009. Being offensive is not necessarily the same thing as being illegal, and the people who run ED know this very well. The row over the ED article Aboriginal (mentioned in the article) was a rare example of ED being forced to justify itself in public. The fact that ED is on the leaked Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist is not in the article, and perhaps it should be.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You obviously either do not understand the concept of free speech, or hold contempt for it. You cannot "abuse" free speech; you either have the right to speak your mind or you don't, there is no middle ground. I do not know what location in the world you hail from, but in America free speech is a fundamental right enjoyed by Americans and is a right that is guaranteed by our constitution. It is considered a personal freedom and is the barrier against tyranny and oppression. To deny the right to speak our mind is to oppress us. Surely, you're not suggesting oppression and censorship, are you? It's a real simple issue: If you do not like a site, there is no one forcing you to view it. I am not speaking on behalf of ED, but I will admit that I do peruse the site occasionally. There is a fundamental difference between ED and Wikipedia, in that I actually enjoy browsing that site and I generally abhor this one. People like you, Crypto, are the reason why. It's not I enjoy the clusterfuck of carnage that is the norm on that site, it's that this site is a humorless, bureaucratic mess full of pompous, elitist assholes such as yourself. Think about it: If not for the freedom of speech you so despise, even this site wouldn't have half the content it has. I think I've said all that need be said on my end. Peace. 72.152.152.79 (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I can full heartedly say that æ is a disgrace to any wiki, by delibrately putting offensive satire on horrible tragedies such as the Kosovo war, Iraq war, WWII, and the holocaust, it is still in my right as an American to say that they have the first ammendment on their side. However, it does seem that they are on the count to not allowing free speech as easily as they say, and the wonderful thing is, if you disagree with them, and you live in the US, you are welcome to petition, or speak freely against them. You also have the obligation of not viewing the the site at all. AloDuranium (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Uncyclopedia: Holocaust
 * Shut the fuck up, hypocrites. 72.152.152.79 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oy vhey humans these days no wonder the internet will be filtered and censored soon it'll be like the 1950s all over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypto457 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Operation Payback" from ED
The reason for removing this is a sourcing issue. So far, the only coverage has been in the blogs, and usually refers back to the Gawker article. It is correct that the article "Operation Payback" has been removed from ED, and now redirects to the main page. However, the reason given in the Gawker article "And now we hear the Feds are shutting down some online discussion of Operation Payback attacks" is not really reliable or specific enough. This could go in the article with better sourcing, but the blogosphere is rarely the best form of sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That really isn't fair to internet scribblers. Gawker advertising network, on the other hand.. Nevard (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How's the sourcing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback#Censorship for that same statement? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It uses the same sourcing, and the Tech Herald article refers back to the Gawker article that started it all. It says "Among the sites where content is coming down is Encyclopedia Dramatica, which we're told received one of the orders,” the Gawker report said, noting that the information came from a source close to the situation." The "we're told" phrase is a classic journalistic technique for distancing yourself from the verifiability of a statement, similar to WP:WEASEL. This really needs some better sourcing. It is clear that the ED article has been removed, though.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion of changes
I would add in the article afrer the word "satirical" a "bullying" and "harmfull" terms.

Explanation:

Thanks to the wrotten untrue and bullying articles, they had brainwashed with their campains the overprotective parents and thru them their had set people against cub furies, loli and shota (products of people's artistic fantasy). By comparing the harmless art and roleplaing to "pedophilia" and "zoophilia" and using the help of the "brainwashed" people, they forced the law to change and bannish it from Internet, in the same limiting freedom of art expression. Mcgiwer (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think cub furry porn, lolicon and shotacon are 'harmless art', yes? O_o And you're blaming ED for tipping off parents to this stuff, yes?? -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This would need reliable sourcing, always a problem with ED. Bullying? Well, the site can be very rude and it relishes publishing the home addresses and phone numbers of people who are deemed to have upset the site. Harmful? The site looks at Internet memes related to pedophilia, but although some of the material on ED is tasteless, it is careful not to go over the line and be illegal (at least in the USA, where it is hosted).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No no no no no. POV! Why? Because, ED is an extreme example of SATIRE (fact). Additionally, I would argue it's the closest thing out there to a troll wiki. So, seeing as it is satire, the articles are, by design, rude, highly offensive, and (if you approach the site with half a brain) extremely humorous. I'm sorry you have a problem with the way they make fun of furries, but if you were to even come close to understanding satire and ED itself you would know that any flak you (I imagine you're a furry or a loli/shota fan, or at least someone who supports them) have recieved from people under ED's banner are doing it because it is their idea of a good time (trolling), and any compilation of internet culture serves as a prime resource for finding targets. I am a Wikipedia user and an ED user (oxymoron? Not at all!), and I don't hold any prejudice against furries or people into that kinky hentai stuff that I didn't already hold before discovering ED (the thought of it has always made me a little sick, sorry to say. But hey, whatever floats ya boat, just keep it away from me). Also, might I add one more point. If you read the ED page on homosexuals, it is, naturally, incredibly offensive to the LGBT community/. However, they were founded by people who were discontent with the treatment of their friend, an openly gay individual. Same situation with regards to minorities and indeed anyone and everyone who can be offended. ED constantly attacks the reader his/herself. It doesn't mean that the people who write these things mean them IRL. ProudlyAnon (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)