Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Encyclopedia Dramatica.. Anti-semitic and homophobic?

Should this be noted? LithiumOrder (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering that is a satire/offensive-humor wiki, I rather doubt you can find a reliable third-party source that genuinely believes the above are true. If you can, however, it probably should be noted.The Myotis (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No point in even trying to source it. The encyclopedia itself isn't homophobic or anti-semetic, only the users who edit it are. Gollod (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Not all. 152.7.192.244 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

At one point the "YewTube" thing was "JewTube". The users are very racist and anti semetic indeed. I still can't believe this site got a wiki entry. Stroking their already enlarged ego's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.196.191 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought notability, not whether a website has a majority of users who are "anti semetic" or racist, was the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Alexc3 (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you haven't read it properly. Or you're Sceptre. Go outside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.248.225 (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The only response I can really have to all of this is.. BAWWWWW MOAR. If you haven't noticed, making fun of Jews and gays makes up a majority of American humor. Stating that ED has inappropriate humor is more than enough to represent this.  Esper  rant  02:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check the site you will also find abuse against almost all races, sexualities, and religions. There is even an entry about "You" which is directly abusive to the reader. To single out two groups who receive abuse from this site is pointless, if we are to mention those we should add the other groups who it may offend and it would miss the point of the 'humour' attempted. Simply point out that it is misanthropic and aimed at offending all peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.27.157 (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The website is supposed to be offensive. No one actually believes their own content. 150.176.82.2 (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who honestly believes ED's users are anti-semitic and homophobic should rethink their viewpoint. The entire thing is HUMOUR. It does not have anything to do with actually being offensive, racist, or homophobic. It's the same thing as calling someone a "fag" or a "jew" as an insult (i.e. "You're such a fag!") - that doesn't actually make the user homophobic or anti-semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.71.246 (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's just satire. -Raziel (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point in this. Most likely most is satire, maybe there's some seriosness. Wikis may contain offensive content, but since they're not static, reporting what is on them at any given moment is not the most informative. It really only reflects the biase of editors. If you're going to try to make something seem relevant, it would have to be edits made by moderators, people who the site owners have given power. Everyone else signs up and does whatever they want without them knowing. Tyciol (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Collapsing. Wikipedia is not a forum --Enric Naval (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to draw up any bad vibes here, but I viewed ED, and I didn't laugh. Most of my friends that I showed it to didn't laugh. I don't get it, none of it is remotely funny, and it's almost offensive to call it satire.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.40.115 (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

you should have looked at the article on fellatio. badmachine (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a forum to discuss ways to improve the article, people. Thanks. Lots42 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was my post collapsed, I was simply stating my view on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.40.115 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment was offtopic. The topic of this talk page is not Encyclopedia Dramatica, it is how to improve the article about Encyclopedia Dramatica. Hope that helps, Kusma (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the guy who said "The users are very racist and anti semetic indeed. I still can't believe this site got a wiki entry. Stroking their already enlarged ego's". I can't believe we're giving wiki entries to racist anti-Semites. I've found another article on anti-Semites that needs deleting as well here 81.103.170.142 (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

why Jewtube was changed to Yewtube

Oh. Anyways I think the reason it used to say "Jew Tube" and now it doesn't is because someone most of told some Jewish organizations or something. I don't know why else they would remove it, it seems normal on that site. Should this be noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.40.115 (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica member enjoying newborn baby
Don't forget LithiumOrder, Encyclopedia Dramatica members also eat newborn babies. Inclusionist (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the above comment, I am a registered ED user, and I have never eaten a baby. 68.221.97.154 (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Lol, I am an EDiot aswell and the reason they changed the title from "Jewtube" to "Yewtube" was because there is actually a real Jewtube run by Jews, for Jews...seriously, check it out. Thats why the title was changed. Lol. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 01:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

template

I saw a pattern of people asking the same question: "why and how this article was recreated?", and so I created this template for the talk page: Removed because the template has been changed to a redirect. ~九尾の氷狐~ (Sumimasen! Dochira samaka?) 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks. travb (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a wonderful box. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a great box, thank you. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
This should really be moved to Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/FAQ and linked using {{FAQ}} from the headers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. --TruthfulCynic 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope no one minds, I updated the template heavily and made it into a template that can be reused in any recreated page's talk page header. An entire FAQ section for one question seemed ridiculous, so I replaced the FAQ template at the header of this talk page. The template is located at Template:Undeleted ~九尾の氷狐~ (Sumimasen! Dochira samaka?) 02:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Concerns addressed on the template talk page travb (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Move?

This is not a formal request and i am a bit afraid to ask this insignificant thing seeing how controversial this article seems to be but it seems like the proper name is Encyclopædia Dramatica so shouldn't it be moved to this? Simply south not SS, sorry 13:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is its proper name, then of course. Majorly talk 13:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • It looks like the only use of Encyclopædia is in the logo. On the main page and the article about itself is spelt Encyclopedia. Bill (talk|contribs) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

why does ED have an article anyway? 

  - Because it exists

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitamaru (talk • contribs) 00:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No it has an article because reliable sources have covered it. It would have been deleted again by now if exisitance was the only it had going for it. --70.24.180.37 (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Woot

I am so relieved that this article has returned. I gotta say its deletion the first time around was completely unfounded, as was banning the site's mention. It is good to see that we are able to post an article of something many of us don't like. And, to the authors credit, it's pretty neutral. Bravo. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The owner

Isn't girlvinyl, it's Joseph Evers. Girlvinyl is the site's founder. Vileplume drugs (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Source please? ps (to all): by what definition is anyone the "owner" of the site? The person who owns the domain, or the one who pays the hosting bills, or what? -- Fullstop (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
ED's Template:EDGov has 'Joseph Evers' as owner. A 'linkedin' entry for 'Joseph Evers' (written in typical ED grandstanding prose) claims him to be "CEO at Dramatica, Inc". All unreliable of course, but an indication where the 'Joseph Evers' idea comes from. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Joseph Evers owns Dramatica Inc, Also known as EDrama LLC, run a WHOIS and you will clearly see that. He is a very real person I can assure you, he has been to my home. The article about him is a tad exaggerated, though not nearly as much as you would think. He owns the domain and the servers. --Zaiger420 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It's funny how you guys never seem to get bored of this. :) --Conti|✉ 23:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

History for the old Encyclopædia Dramatica article

Can an admin restore the old hiatory for the Encyclopædia Dramatica and Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica articles for historical purposes? I'm talking aboutn the history from 2005-2006. Can someone make it available? 4.152.24.151 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone's gone ahead and  Done that - Alison ❤ 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention in LA weekly

Not really about ED, but more of using ED as a source of defining "lulz". A mention in LA weekly is a big deal either way though.--Zaiger talkplx 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I just added it - Alison ❤ 06:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead?

Is ED e-dead? It seems to be.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.202.80 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer this here only because I don't want someone editing this article saying that ED is closed. No, ED just moved to a new server and upgraded to the latest version of Mediawiki software. There are still a lot of bugs to work out, which is why there has been so much downtime in the last couple of days. I can assure you though, ED is expanding, not dying. --Zaiger talkplx 10:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

One might ask, if this is good, though.

Violence, gore, vicious, overly rude pictures/gifs

ED doesn't only have obscene "sentences" and such. The racism, black humor, sexuality, and internet-related trolling sure is a lot of ED, but there are also very disturbing pictures or videos of people or animals dying or dead, committing suicide and such. Wouldn't it be appropriate to add a sentence to warn/inform about that? Sure Wikipedia has to be neutral, but let's not glamourize it or ignore important things. The article on Rotten.com for example: "It is devoted to morbid curiosities, primarily pictures of violent acts, deformities, autopsy or forensic photographs, depictions of perverse sex acts, and historical curios that are disturbing or misanthropic in nature." To be more specific, there is an entire page called Offended in ED which is almost or exactly the same and could be described exactly with that sentence. Only a note like "it contains extreme shock value images and gifs" would do, but it's not that precise either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.76.27 (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It already states the site in question uses "copious use of obscene or shocking writings, drawings, photographs", I think that is straightforward enough. The Myotis (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Well not really. Obscene doesn't mean shocking... How would you describe a painter catching fire because of flammable paint and jump 10 story high while looking like a fireball? or the Gif of a motorcyclist getting cut in half by a truck? Obscene means abhorrent to morality or virtue or Disgusting to the senses. Those gifts are not only "disgusting to the senses" or "against morality", they are shocking and viciously rude. Plus, they are gifs, not photos, not drawings, not writings, they are repeatable little videos.
So don't navigate over there then. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear unsigned dude; I believe the warning says 'obscene OR shocking'. Covers it nicely in my opinion. Lots42 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can we include archives from 2005 and 2006 on the archive list? Egebwc (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Were they deleted as sub-pages or are they just part of the history? Protonk (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
They exist in the now-restored history from 2005 and 2006. Conent from those revisions should be archived. Egebwc (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Go nuts then. :) You might do well to make an {{Archive box}} and reorder things from there. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This article

Doesn't seem like it was written by someone neutral towards ED. Whoever wrote it seems to have a severe case of butthurt regarding ED. 67.149.27.246 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is locked, in case you haven't noticed. Vileplume drugs (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It's only semi-protected --Zaiger420 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems a bit of a stretch to say "Many articles are written in a satirical manner to upset those who take the content seriously", since the majority are completely devoid of the main ingredient of satire (irony) and rely instead on the lesser (exaggeration, ridicule). There are many articles which are simply factual accounts punctuated with inane insults. Perhaps reclassify the site as "sardonic" instead of satirical, lest those who take the content HERE seriously get upset. Unicynical (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Hi guys. You can expand this article by using some of the sources at http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:ED_in_the_News.--187.5.122.183 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I'll look through there to see if there is anything we don't have already. Protonk (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Virus/malware

Itll be a pain in the ass to find again but there was a thread on administrators noticeboard a few weeks ago telling everyone not to go to ed without noscript and adblockers because of viruses being installed AlioTheFool (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

AN is not a reliable source. –xeno (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
But people rarely write real articles about that site so I have to rely on blogs and forums and AN. I guess I cant put it in then. Its true though. I know it from personal experience which is also WP:OR AlioTheFool (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the dumb site has viruses. Fortunatly, I had a virus blocker, which, blocked a "trojan horse" virus from getting into the computer. --JustInn014 (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

ED user here, never gotten a virus from it. Just saying.142.33.122.30 (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No problems here either and I've spent a flu-riddled 5 days doing nothing but reading ED. Itsnoteasy07 (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I often view ED and I haven't gotten a virus, unless I haven't found it yet =0 – Jerryteps 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a profitable thread for this forum. Naturally, some people will lack viruses from visiting the site. Lots42 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can barely view ED as my antivirus software keeps telling me that it has blocked a virus or something; or my Google toolbar searching random things I didn't even type in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.43.57 (talk • contribs)

I have removed the links to ED from the article, since the site is infested with malware. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Undone. We've had this discussion before. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed.We had a RFC that starts at archive 8, continues at archive 9 and ends at half of archive 10 --Enric_Naval (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole virus thing doesn't fly. It's funny, the kind of things that pop up when people do not like something. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I love ED (as you can tell by my edits in the past, trying to get the article unbanned), but the website DOES have malware. It doesn't load every time, it is loaded with some of the advertisements or on some specific pages. Either way, I don't really think we should remove links to ED. It should be the user's fault if they don't have the proper protection. Stexe (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason it was setting off antivirus software was because of the shitty ad network. ED is on a new network (look ma, no porn!) and currently working on making an independent ad server. That problem is fixed. --Zaiger420 (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

They have some irritating advertising, which may be mistaken by some as a virus. There's many sites with this sort of advertising. Furthermore there's no motivation for them to virus their own users. It's a random slander that hasn't really been investigated as much as relayed. 67.160.11.244 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to THIS article on ED's Encyclopedia Dramatica discussion page which IS malicious and quite hard to eradicate. So someone there has that motivation Unicynical (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Update. There isn't any malware on there. (not whn I checked yesterday, anyways) Keep the link away from the main article, though. Anyone who wants to see the site can lookit up, at their own risk. --JustInn014 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, OR, Thanks,  Aaron  ►  04:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, and irrelevant information (just like the rest of this discussion, since no one seems to have any reliable sources): The "malware" alerts do indeed stem from the banner ads, as you can see for yourself when you attempt to access ED using Google Chrome. Or at least, it used to.  Aaron  ►  04:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

URL

Currently the URL linked to on this page is hxxp://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page and I tried to change it to hxxp://www.encyclopediadramatica.com by removing the /Main_Page but I got a blacklisted error. Why is this? Is it blacklisted to avoid people using that wiki as a source or something? How do we skirt this when using it properly like at the bottom of this article? Tyciol (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The main page link was whitelisted at Wikipedia:Whitelist so it could be used on this article. See the Request for Comment discussion at Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_5 and some prior discussion at Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_1#link_to_ed --Enric Naval (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Members of Anonymous?

I have to say I'm a little more than confused about what it entails to be a "member" of Anonymous. The Fox New Story[1] on Anonymous is nothing more than sensationalism to the extreme. Anonymous is not a formal organization. People might associate themselves as "members", but there is no process for joining and anyone can say they're a "member" of Anonymous. I think the article should be changed to reflect this to say "people who identify as 'members' of Anonymous". Drumpler (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You can be a "member" of a church without doing anything to join other than showing up to church related events. It is the same with Anonymous. If you show up to a raid or a protest you are a member.  Anonymous  Talk  21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Membership" isn't so much a state of being as it is a state of mind. Really, anybody sharing the mindset and partaking in the activities of the thousands of trolls that compose Anonymous can be considered an Anon. It's not like some super-secret club you join.AlmightyHamSandwich (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How wrong this article is.

This article states that Encyclopædia Dramatica characterizes itself as ""[d]one in the spirit of Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary".[1] The New York Times has characterized the wiki as "an online compendium of troll humor and troll lore" [3] that it labeled a "troll archive".[3] C't, a European magazine for IT-professionals, referred to it as a "troll paradise",[4] implying that it is cf.a platform from which to intentionally provoke a negative emotional response.cf. Encyclopædia Dramatica defines trolling in terms of doing things "for the lulz" (for laughs),[5] a phrase that it qualifies as "a catchall explanation for any trolling you do"."

This is wrong. In fact Encyclopædia Dramatica has an article on itself. This article states:

"Encyclopedia Dramatica is a central catalog for organized reference pages about drama, memes, e-pals and other interesting happenings on the internets. ED is also the final arbiter of truth and human destiny, and can be used to settle any dispute, anywhere, evar."

ED is not about trolling, nor does it like trolls. 

This is a statement by David Gonterman from ED:

"That isn't Wikipedia, but the Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's that infamous site that's been made by a**holes who got kicked out of editing at Wikipedia so they made their own Wiki where standards of good taste, common decency, and the avoidance of NSFW pictures do not exist. They made pages for about a gazillion people whom they deem unfit to live, including myself."


—David Gonterman, on Encyclopedia Dramatica[1]

Mquilty (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Origins of ED

Should we have a section on the page giving an insight into Encyclopedia Dramatica's creation? We have some for other online encyclopedias (like Uncyclopedia), so I'm thinking we should also start one here. Also this article does need to be expanded a bit, I'll help out as best I can with doing this. Nite Owl II (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Do we know anything about the origin? Protonk (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The only sources about ED's origins would be ED itself, which is a notoriously unreliable source anyway. But yeah apparently it was set up in late 2004 in order to take subjects about internet culture that Wikipedia wouldn't accept. And really it has been thoroughly successful since then.--Extreme points (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It grew out of an older website, LJ drama. They're actually fairly reliable about documenting their own history. Specifically, they tried taking events documented at LJ drama and turning them into Wikipedia articles. That ran afoul of our notability guidelines, so they started their own wiki, where they could decide what was included. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we would need some reliable sources to document this. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, god forbid we include a fact all editors agree is true without getting approval from the grown-ups —Wiki Wikardo 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, internet gossip and drama can be equated to journalistic or scientific review and cannot be published without credible sources. Iriscal 12:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Way to game, Shii and J.smith. I bet this argument is used freely on pages you happen to agree with. Sad.173.24.227.245 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL what? Shii (tock) 23:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_14&oldid=1092051896"