Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Template:Multidel

My revert

Economics Guy, the reason I reverted the link to the main page is that they sometimes have deeply offensive material on it. For example, not long ago they featured an article that called a young teenage girl who had killed herself a slut, accompanied by her photograph; as I recall, she was thirteen or thereabouts. Putting aside all the other issues with the site, I see no reason we should link directly to that kind of material. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. I recently saw an article about a 3 year old girl who disappeared, and it was very sick, with lots of obscene stuff. Ashton1983 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I do agree in principle to that - I personally wouldn't want the page linking to, and I thought the MONGO case still banned the link. The arbitrators later clarified and said that linking to the article is acceptable if there's consensus to do so. It's unfortunate, but there was consensus a little way up the page to put in a text URL to the page - I'm not sure I saw consensus for a direct link though. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that it's been archived - the discussion is here. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we need the link? Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Ashton1983 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be a stupid question, but what are the disadvantages? --Conti|✉ 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So "stupid" nobody's willing to answer it, apparently. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would feel happier with a text URL, but I've seen no consensus for live links. I believe we have our priorities as a project, and as a group of human beings, somewhat confused if we're banning links to YouTube that might be copyvios, but allowing links that call dead children sluts and whores. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A text URL. You mean one that isn't clickable? If so, I agree. Ashton1983 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in principle, I know the link was whitelisted very specifically for the purpose of linking to the main page (and only the main page) of ED from this article (and only from this article). I had presumed that there was consensus for the link on that basis, and it has been discussed at length on this page. Edit The discussion was archived, and culminated in the whitelisting announced Here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be consensus for a live link i.e. a clickable one. I think people are willing to agree to a text-only URL as a compromise. That's the way we've often handled very controversial sites. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the archive, I think you'll find quite a few who agree. I also know that it was stable for a few days, so I think everyone figured it was a dead issue. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I had thought it was more or less done with, yeah. But this is a wiki, latecomers are inevitable. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin it's okay... judging from this there is still only a fragile if any consensus for a direct link. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's remove encyclopedic material from Wikipedia just this once, for the children. ⁽Дҭї₎ 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the link going away as a result of a debate. I have a problem with this solution. SlimVirgin has bothered to explain/discuss the revert - that makes the difference. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

...and it's been reverted again. Do we need to have another straw poll or !vote or fistfight to determine consensus on this issue? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a debate? ⁽Дҭї₎ 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

One person not agreeing does not equate to no consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that. You removed the link with the message "I think everyone's happy with that on the talk page", and I challenged that. I'm not sure there is even a consensus, but certainly not everyone is in 100% agreement with each other. ⁽Дҭї₎ 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you reverted because you weren't happy with it. Have you even bothered reading what people are putting here? Everyone seems happy with a dead link. The original consensus was for a dead link, there's clearly no consensus for a direct link at this stage, yet you go and revert? Something smells funny with that. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the archives? Or SlimVirgin and those who agreed with him? Consensus can change, and issues can be revisited. On a personal level, I do not feel strongly either way, but I do feel strongly about process. ⁽Дҭї₎ 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I support Slim's opening statement and agree that we should not link to the main page of ED. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Should put a live link with a warning that there is very mature, obscene content on the website. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tally so far

Per the essay yes, voting is a substitute for discussion the tally up through Dragon696 is as follows. - Wikidemo (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dead link - 3
• Dead link as compromise but prefer no link - 2
• Dead link as compromise, no leaning stated - 4
• Live link - 10

Eh, the people arguing for a dead link either seem to be arguing for censorship (protecting our readers from content they might find offensive) or just not including the link because they don't like the site. These are clearly contrary to policy regardless of how many people support it. --Rividian (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The updated tally (through AnotherSolipsist) seems to be 15 for a live link, 9 for a dead link (often as a compromise). Interesting how it's gone from a neck-in-neck race to more of a margin for a live link lately... perhaps it's a close-to-even divide among those with a heavy emotional investment in the issue (who tend to be the first to respond), but heavily for a live link among less-involved parties (who straggle in slowly over time). This latter group knows less about the specific issues in this case, but probably better represents the views of the Wikipedia community as a whole. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC:Dead link or live link?

The dispute is based around whether there should be a live link (e.g. google) or a dead link (e.g. www.google.com) targetted to the Encyclopedia Dramatica homepage. The concerns of a live link are based around the fact that Encyclopedia Dramatica has been involved in serious harassment of Wikipedians (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO) and Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment#In articles suggests using a dead link as a compromise to linking directly. The users who are in favour of a live link believe that Wikipedia should not be censored and that having a dead link diminishes the quality of the overall article to the reader. 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• By the way - please feel free to chop and change the above statement. I've tried to make it as neutral as possible, but if people feel it isn't, then please alter it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for including a live link

1. Apart from legal issues, the determination that a website indisputably of most relevance to an article is an unsuitable link target does not reflect a neutral point of view.
2. It is the stylistic norm for articles about websites to include a live link to the site in the infobox.
3. Live links are a convenience to the user, and supported by the guideline WP:EL.
4. Omitting a live link stands out as different and calls attention to the article.
5. Omitting the link does not accomplish anything - the user can visit the site if they want.
6. For the above reasons, we include live links to other organizations—such as the Ku Klux Klan—that disseminate content widely perceived as objectionable.
7. A deliberate decision to omit a live link appears petty and demonstrates favoritism towards Wikipedia by singling out its critics for special treatment.
8. Omitting the link solves a problem that does not exist - there is no obvious copyright violation, harassment, etc., on the page. It is based on speculation that there could be.

Reasons for including a dead link

1. Encyclopedia Dramatica contains pages with live links to sites that contain viruses and/or exploit web browsers.

   Any examples of this? Discombobulator (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, any action based on this needs to be based on actual things present now, not speculative assertions about what they might put somewhere, somehow, sometime. (But don't give live links to such browser exploits if the do exist!) *Dan T.* (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

   search ED for links to nimp, a popular browser crashing site. There's a link to one in this section. http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Fctc#JOIN_THE_FCTC_NOW.21 Dan Beale-Cocks 12:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Certainly that is a problem, but how does a dead link address that problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Encyclopedia Dramatica sponsors harassment and engages in the practice of publishing nonpublic private information of Wikipedians and others.^[1][2]

   Wikileaks publishes information that others want to keep private, and has even gotten in legal trouble for this. We still link there.

   Knowing this fact about Wikileaks, you haven't removed the link?--Hu12 (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   We don't censor our coverage of things on the basis that they are objectionable. Wikidemo (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yes we do Wikipedia:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Live Links to ED has been used as a method of harrassment attack and humiliation on wikipedians.^[3]

   Keeping from hurting the feelings of Wikipedians is not a valid reason to depart from the core policy of neutrality. Uncyclopedia has published an article with a Photoshopped picture showing the Pope in a shirt with an obscene slogan regarding alleged sexuality; that seems pretty harassing and humiliating, but I guess that's OK since the Pope isn't a Wikipedian. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   So linking to a site which may put "other" people in danger is fine, so long as it doesn't sponsors efforts, promote, or encourage the harassment of you?--Hu12 (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   From the character of discussion, it's quite clear that the problem is not at all harassing "others," but Wikipedians specifically. Picture it from a reader's perspective, if you will -- it looks as if the only people we care about are ourselves. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

4. "Featured articles", which are displayed on the main page, have been used as a method of attack on wikipedians.^[4][5]

   Irrelevant. We link to lots of sites that attack lots of people, places, and things; there's no reason we should give our own people any special immunity. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Heres a relevent, and good reason, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO--Hu12 (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   That arbitration case does not bear on this discussion. It concerned harassment by linking to attack pages. That is not what is under consideration here.Wikidemo (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   If any link ought to be banned it's the one to that silly MONGO decision that you keep trotting out... it's not ArbCom's finest hour, in my opinion. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, let's keep right on linking the amended, clearly irrelevant case. Is misapplying selectively quoted policy the best you can do? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

   As I read the amendment, the amendment allows the existence of this article. It does not allow this article to link to the domain. Add the link at your own risk, and don't complain if someone blocks you. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I would complain. Blocking is done to prevent ongoing disruption, not to take sides in an issue that's already been decided otherwise, and certainly not to take sides on an issue where there are two valid positions. Any administrator who would consider that should read the discussion first and discuss it in the appropriate place, and make sure they have some consensus. Wikidemo (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Links to ED fail Wikipedia's core content policies "Verifiability" and "Reliable sources".

   How so? —David Levy 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

   How can an external link possibly fail a policy relating to the sourcing of content? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Conversely, the same way claiming exclusion fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. How can an external link possibly fail a policy relating to the Neutrality of content? is this a "Verifiable Reliable Source" ? Does ED have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?^[6]--Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Completely irrelevant. The link isn't being used as a source for anything other than to show the existence of the site, for which it's a perfectly fine reliable source (except when its server is crashed!) *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   ED is not being used as a source and I would be opposed to it being so. This is about an external link, not a source. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yes it is a source, and subject to Wikipedia's core content policies "Verifiability" and "Reliable sources". Additionaly there is no policy in which requires, guarantees or mandates links for inclusion. --Hu12 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Uh, that's such a terrible misreading of policy I can only assume it's intentional. An external link is not a "source" unless it's being cited to support some specific statement; to that end, please name any statement being specifically sourced to this URL. Pretty please. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [7]).^[8]

   I acknowledge OTHERCRAPEXISTS and thus hope this issue will be raised on The Pirate Bay, amongst other articles. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Can you assure that ED has obtained the proper permissions and is Not carrying works in violation or copyright? Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement...... fairly self explanatory.--Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Has The Pirate Bay? Or YouTube? Or Google? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   The ruling does not cover this sort of link. Nothing to discuss here. Wikidemo (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Plenty relevent, Linking to copyrighted works--Hu12 (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   What's relevent about citing a lawsuit that doesn't apply to the situation at hand? There's no law against linking to the Encyclopedia Dramatica main page. If we had laws like that the Web would pretty much shut down. Wikidemo (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Fails External links policy and is prohibited by Restrictions on linking, additionaly fails WP:LINKSTOAVOID (#1, #2, #12)

   Note the blurb at the start of WP:LINKSTOAVOID; "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject" (I note the exception listed there and here). Restrictions on linking begs the question "should we link to YouTube" since linking to the ED Main Page will have a similar affect. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   See WP:COPYRIGHT(ie.Restrictions). and explicitly fails #1, #2, #12 --Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   And note the preamble of that whole set of clauses, "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article", which makes your whole line of argument irrelevant. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Unfortunatly, you've misinterperated the full statement/clause, Which reads "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking——one should avoid:".... (emphasisadded to and). Clearly and invalidates your statement. furthermore... "——one should avoid:" #1, #2, #12, Which it explicitly fails. Finaly, there is no guideline or policy in which external links are in anyway required, guaranteed or mandated by any specific Wikipedia policy to be included.--Hu12 (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   My reading of Restrictions on linking is that the ED link passes: it's been whitelisted for the purpose of linking from this article (so it clearly passes #2), and #1 seems aimed at links to specific copyright-violating content (e.g., specific videos on youtube) rather than general purpose links to sites that may or may not have copyvio somewhere within them (e.g. links to the main page of youtube). Your reading appears tendentious to me. Care to attempt to justify it a little better? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   The scope of material implied is obviously broader than just video's.--Hu12 (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Sure, but that's not relevant. That restriction is about linking specifically to copyrighted material. For example, linking to an illicit copy of Harry Potter and the Sorceror's stone in an article about that book. It's certainly not about linking to any site that may or may not have copyright infringements somewhere on it. Hell, Wikipedia fails that standard. We have a shitload of copyright violations here. We root them out, but at any given moment, there are certain to be a few egregious ones. Any Web 2.0 site will have copyright violations. That's not what that style guideline is about. -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works--Hu12 (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   As far as I know, ED claims Fair use for most/all of the copyrighted works they use. I don't know how valid that claim is, of course, but it should be mentioned here anyhow, I guess. Anyhow, if we'd be that strict with not linking to copyrighted works, we should also remove all links to Wikia. And Youtube. And Google. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, IMHO, means that we shouldn't link to a copy of a book, or to a torrent of a film or something. We still link to the Pirate Bay at The Pirate Bay, tho. --Conti|✉ 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Pirate Bay assists in the communication, don't think they actualy Host, the content. If they do host copyrighted content, then thats a whole nother issue that needs be taken to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Hu12 (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, well.. Youtube hosts actual, copyrighted material, then. And so do countless other sites we link to, and you know it. We don't link to Youtube videos that are copyvios, but we do link to youtube.com. --Conti|✉ 22:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Fails WP:BLP by practice of publishing nonpublic private information of Wikipedians^[9]

   WP:BLP is policy for creating articles in wikipedia, not linking to other websites. Since ED is not being used as a reference for any BLP article, this argument is invalid. --Kevman459 (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Again, you're quoting an arb case that has since been amended and is no longer relevant. If you can't make arguments without quoting outdated, irrelevant policy, maybe it's time to admit you don't have anything to stand on. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

   It was amended to clarify that an article on ED could be created. The relevants decisions about the links were not amended, see the permission to remove on sight links to ED and any material imported from it and permission to block for any appropiate period of time any editor that inserts links to ED (the last link is the reason because it's not wise to unilaterally add a live link) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read through the subsequent history on this talk page - there's no standing administrative / arbcom prohibition against adding a live link here, and the consensus reflected on the talk page is to include a link, likely a live one.Wikidemo (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the last section on the talk page, and I can see Kirill saying that he doesn't mind links being added, FT2 saying that they shouldn't be ever added, and James F. agreeing with FT2 and making a comment about agreeing with Kirill that I don't understand. The clarification made no amendment to the case. Seeing this, I suppose that if this RfC decides to add a live link on this article, it will probably be ok to add it, but I don't think at all that any sort of link to ED, live or dead, can be done anywhere on wikipedia outside this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this talk page. I believe we've (meaning the people on this page, through some consensus that was not without disagreement) collectively decided several days ago that there is no standing arbcom prohibition on a live link and that a live link to the main page should be included in the infobox. You could argue either way what Arbcom meant by the ruling, and whether it should apply here, and they would be reasonable arguments. But Arbcom rules by decree and not precedent, and it does not seem to be decreeing anything right now. If Arbcom disagrees they are certainly free to tell us otherwise, but absent action from Arbcom it's a moot issue (and kind of irrelevant) to try to reason through what Arbcom wants. Wikidemo (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't such a consensus, and the arbcom decision looks like standing to me, barring a new case or a new clarification making a new one. I'm just saying that if this RfC decides to use a live link then the arbs won't take action against it because it's a reasonable decision to use one live ED link on the article about ED. However, try to start ading live ED links over wikipedia and you will discover fastly if their decision stands or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the March 2008 amendment of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, "The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes." Since that time, the committee has tacitly or explicitly declined to authoritatively decide the specific matter of this link on this article, whether banning or allowing it. If the committee had any strong feeling, here, I have no doubt they would let us know. Absent such a prohibition, it rightly falls to the community to decide the issue. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Door #3

1. do what articles should be doing for every external link: Use that link as a source. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• What do arbcom rulings have to do with article space anyway? They have no jurisdiction over content. naerii - talk 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes they do, but they generally choose not to get involved with it. But that doesn't matter anyway because it just illustrates the problems Wikipedia has had with ED - I haven't linked it to claim we can't link because of the remedies of the case. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone provide a link to the RfC please?--Urban Rose 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The RfC actually happens here - the bot will list it shortly. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Its been listed since 21:57, 24 May 2008 UTC. (cf Urban Rose's last comment :) -- Fullstop (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dead link reasons #5 and 6 carry no weigh. Verifiability and reliable sources do not apply to external links, period. There's no contributory infringement liability from linking to the main page of a service that may happen to contain infringing material. If we're wrong that question will be settled by the Foundation's lawyer, not a discussion page - but we're not wrong. #1-4 are valid concerns, but they are not the case now so any use of a dead link based on them would be speculative and based on a situation that is not actually happening. #3 is misleading, though. The issue here is a live link to the main page in the article about ED, not a live link to attack pages, so the history people's abusive linking is not relevant. Wikidemo (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

live versus dead link

Okay, if the choice is a live link or a dead link, which do you prefer and why? This is not a vote, so don't let the question constrain you. Wikidemo (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer a dead link - There's two clear factions here; one side want a direct link, the other doesn't want a link at all. Having a dead link is a compromise between the two sides and hopefully at least everyone can feel like they've taken something out of the vast debate. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• I prefer a live link because there is no compelling reason to kill the link, it's all IDONTLIKEIT. ⁽Дҭї₎ 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Take a look at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment#In articles which shows that when linking to an attack site in articles, we should do so using a dead link. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't say that. It says that a dead link may be a "workable compromise." That's not a directive, it's a suggestion, clearly meant to be worked out on a case by case basis. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • and given that there's clearly a big divide, and emotions are high on this topic, it's an ideal candidate for a workable compromise. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • We should never compromise when the issue is NPOV. It's one of the core principles of Wikipedia. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• A dead link on condition that it stays that way. It's a comprimise and people need to stop removing the link completely as Jossi did without any attempt to discuss or explain. If this is how things are going to be the article will soon be fully protected again I'm sure. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• I prefer a live link for two reasons: (1) making the link dead doesn't have any effect on people's ability to find the site or Google's ability to index it, but rather serves only to annoy those of our readers who might want to follow the link from our site, and (2) it has the appearance of IDONTLIKEIT-based censorship. But I can live with a dead link if that's the consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not on people's ability to find it, but on the likelihood that they will get to it without particularly wanting to. Ashton1983 (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• I prefer a live link. If we're going to have a link, there's no reason to cripple it. All that does is make it less useful to the reader. Further, singling out this site to link differently than all of the other sites we link to on Wikipedia stinks of POV editing and NPOV just isn't something we should compromise on. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Per the not linking to harassment policy, I prefer the deadlink. Also, as Ryan points out, it is s compromise between both sides of the issue that does not harm the encyclopedia content or nature of the article.MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• I prefer a dead link. It's a compromise. It's not essential to be able to click on a link. (Paper encyclopaedias don't have links, but they still have information.) And there is some reason to discourage traffic to a site where dead children are referred to with offensive sexual jokes, even if we don't all agree that it's a strong reason. Ashton1983 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I went to the front page of the site and I saw no dead children. Are you sure that's representative of the site's material, or is that an outlier presented to cause moral outrage among Wikipedians? It's a wiki; anybody can edit it to add offensive material. One could even edit it to justify censorship on another website. ⁽Дҭї₎ 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• If we're going to use a live link (which I'd say we shouldn't, but the way consensus goes with this article, you never know), should it at least carry a "may contain offensive content" warning of some sort? As pointed out above, the front page has featured some pretty nasty stuff in the past. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, WP is not censored and we don't use spoilers, so if the link goes in, it goes in on its own without our commentary on its content. MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer a live link. Neutrality shouldn't be compromised for a moral panic. If there's a widespread practice of making links dead for "offensive" (to whom?) sites, can anybody give any other examples? *Dan T.* (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Live Link of course. Assuming it hasn't been blacklisted as official policy, there's no reason not to have a live link except for IDONTLIKEIT. We would need a very good reason not to include a live one since every other article about a website has one. --Kevman459 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Live link. I don't see the point of having the url but not linking it. There's no danger linking to the main page, nothing that could harm the user. In this context it's being used in an encyclopedic manner and it's not being used as an attack on anyone. If somebody did want to find some attacks on that site they'd have to search around a bit and probably know vaguely what they're looking for. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• I support a dead link as a compromise between the two positions. It means that people can easily get to it, but won't click on it casually or by accident only to find themselves reading something very offensive. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how trying to protect readers from "offensive" content isn't a violation of NPOV? Sounds to me like you're suggesting that we treat this link differently from others simply because you don't like the content. -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think a dead link is a good idea here - It seems a sensible compromise to me. Further; I seem to recall that it's technically possible to alter the appearance of a page dependent upon the page last visited. Wouldn't it be epic lulz to display specific content to visitors coming from wikipedia? - and isn't that something we should probably try and avoid? I think so. Dead link = good idea in my book! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It could be done, yes, and there's not much we can do about it. (We could pass links through a mirror, but they could just as easily add the mirror to their "hate list".) I don't think it's likely, but if it does happen I'd support switching to a dead link then (not preemptively). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• I prefer the live link option. I consider the "linking to harassment" argument tenuous since we're only linking to the home page. If in the John Doe article we link to an ED page that constitutes harassment toward John Doe, that's rather problematic since users will know who John Doe is and may have some existing or potential relationship with him; if we link to ED's homepage from the general ED page and the reader happens to glimpse a derogatory comment or two about Joe Bloggs, then promptly forgets the name and never encounters it again, that's not especially problematic. Linking to the ED home page is much like linking to Google.com, from which users can access all kinds of highly objectionable material with a couple clicks. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• A dead link is silly... it just makes readers do extra work for purely symbolic reasons. What's next, showing a picture of the link? Upside-down? The link is there... let's not hassle our readers just for kicks. --Rividian (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do it CAPTCHA style... in wavy, distorted text, with a link to an audio file of somebody reading it out loud for the sake of visually impaired users. No, seriously, this "straw poll" is unfortunately coming out very close to a 50-50 split, which doesn't look good for finding any sort of solid consensus. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'd say a text link, even linking to the homepage of ED can easily make way for "featured articles" to be viewed, such was the case in "MONGO", which led to the initial Arbcom ruling.--Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• I feel very strongly about including the link, but less strongly about how we do so. If compromise is the order of the day, hopefully we can all live with that. Given my druthers, I'd make it a live link, since that's what we do at pretty much every comparable article across the site -- even in other cases where linked sites have offensive, objectionable, or arguably illegal material. I don't see much practical difference between the two options, here, only a symbolic one; similar to what Rividian said, we shouldn't hassle or hamstring our readers without good cause and should trust them to make their own decisions. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Luna above. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Use a live link. We're not the internet police. I can think of a dozen other websites which have far more offensive material than this (ogrish.com springs immediately to mind) and we don't censor those links or make "text only" versions of them either. This does nothing than create an extra and unnecessary errand for the reader. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• live link. C'mon Slim, all the substantive details on your attack page have have been posted to RFArb by now anyway, so what's the point in fighting this now? The cat's out of the bag, no point in dragging this fight out. Just live with the parodies, like others, and move on. It's not like they are particularly nice to us furries, either, but I'm not going to loose much sleep over it. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Live. NPOV above all else. Even the appearance of censorship is negative, and this would certainly give that impression. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• No article should receive special treatment over all the others. Live link. Z00r (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Unforunately, a live link is the only option. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, visitors, or those who have hurt by the site's hurtful "articles". Our readers should be allowed easy access to the site to confirm that the claims made by the article about the site's abusive and trolling content are true. EJF (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Obviously a live link is the way to go. A dead one would be (a) pointless and (b) petty. Can we keep our personal grudges out of article space, please? Thanks. naerii - talk 12:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• WP:NPOV demands a live link. Personal moral judgements shouldn't affect our articles in any way. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

*Neutral. I don't believe that a dead link is the equivalent of censorship, but the only arguments I have heard in favor of a dead link are that the site is offensive or attacks Wikipedians, neither of which seem good arguments to me. I do actually have a different argument that could be used in favor of a dead link, however. The only time I think that a dead link should ever be used is if the link is to a site which could potentially cause harm a person's computer, (e.g. GNAA.com) and I've seen articles on ED with live links to sites which are browser exploits and contain viruses, so linking to ED could be seen as indirectly linking to sites which can damage a person's computer. But this seems a little bit overprotective at the same time, so I'm neutral on the issue.--Urban Rose 21:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Live link - Changing my vote. No good reasons have been given in favor of a dead link (the fact that the site attacks Wikipedians is not a good reason).--Urban Rose 21:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dead link please. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Live link to the bastards, we're bigger than them, let our all embracing magnanimity overwhelm their bitter nastiness. RMHED (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Live link Would it be possible to include a warning that the link leads to possibly inappropriate material? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  User:Tony Fox brought this up above, but the answer is no. See Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is a false dilemma, but dead link given that the site contains unquestionably illegal material. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  Judging legality should be up to legal counsel, not the community. Accusing a site of illegality without proof might itself be defamatory. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Live link with warning. Don't see why this has taken so much time. Whether or not we link it, people will find it if they want. But why not link it with a warning? ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been some talk of this. However, why give a warning for this site only, and not all the other sites that contain hate speech, pornographic material, shocking things, copyright violations, etc? The answer, I think, is that Wikipedia has rejected NSFW warnings, spoiler alerts and the like. That doesn't have to be the case but I think there's a strong consensus. Wikidemo (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Our articles are written from a neutral point of view; it isn't our place to deem content objectionable, and the article already contains an explanation of the website's nature. —David Levy 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Live link without warning, per my rebuttals above. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Undead Now we have the article, so live link or dead link won't change much, and a dead link would be incoherent. We have links to dozens of evil websites anyway, this one is just another one. I know, it's hard to make abstraction of the content, but this site should not be an exception, as it's against our principles. Also, it would have a strange effect on the reader, I think that it's preferable to treat this site like any other site in article space (and only there of course). Let's not give them the pleasure to be exceptional or that they can hinder our efforts towards encyclopedic values. It's ironical that the article has been resurrected following a DRV initiated by Grawp. Anyway, ED will be dead long before WP. Cenarium (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Dead link, plus procedural objection to RFC: the site practices systemic harassment of Wikipedia volunteers that creates a chilling effect where open consensus is impossible. Durova^Charge! 04:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  Your point seems to be that they're intimidating potential opponents of linking to them into silence by the implicit threat of their writing more nasty stuff about them? I see no obvious sign that anybody on that side of the issue has actually been intimidated; if anything, the anti-linking faction makes up for their slightly lesser numbers by being a lot more loud and vigorous in fighting for their side (I'm the rare exception who's loud and vigorous on the pro-linking side; there aren't many of me.) Are you claiming some large "silent majority" who would vote against linking to that site if they weren't too afraid of it? *Dan T.* (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedians are being featured on the front page of ED right now (currently its LaraLove). --Hu12 (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Live Link already - Why are we still flogging this dead horse? There is no reason to treat this site any differently from any other. Attempting to do so makes us look petty, plays into their hands and suggests that we are incapable of reacting rationally when attacked - all much more damaging to our image than linking to their little playpen. Exxolon (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• If this were WODUPEDIA, there'd be a live link, but a plain-text URL is an acceptable compromise. WODUP 07:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Dead Link per WP:PROBLEMLINKS --Kip Kip 17:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Live Link - we have discussed this before, and I am sure that the consensus was to have a live link to ED [it was even whitelisted for this express purpose]. Having a dead link will not stop people going there, if people have enough skill to find Wikipedia and then this article, surely they can type 'Encyclopedia Dramatica' into Google, et al. Wikipedia is not censored, and there shouldn't be exceptions for sites that some people don't like: we don't [in all other cases] refrain from having a link because a minority thinks 'OMG!!! Dey have rude stuff on their site!! Call da FBI!'. Sorry for being a bit stupid, but then I suppose I view the circular discussion going on here as a bit stupid! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:51, May 25, 2008 (UTC)
• Comment a dead link's incongruousness will produce way more traffic going to Encyclopedia Dramatica - I'm unsure why we'd want to promote traffic there by using a dead link. WilyD 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Live link, as a link to http://www.kkk.bz/ is appropriate in the article on the KKK and http://www.combat18.org/ appropriate in the article on Combat 18, so this much less offensive and unpleasant website should not be given special treatment just because it targets people we know personally. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Dead link due to harassment and abuse. Everyking (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think there is a point to which some editors are forgetting that Wikipedia is for others. We are not making this encyclopedia for ourselves, we are making it (if I may wax poetic) for humanity. And humanity, generally, will not care about the petty Wikidramas between us and ED. I believe we should use a Live link simply because the other 90% of people who use Wikipedia are just normal people who don't edit, don't know who any users are, and just don't give a crap about it. They'll follow the link, maybe they'll chuckle at some of the articles, and that's that. We few thousand registered editors are not the be-all and end-all of the userbase, and we should respect those people who come here for information. Not letting the link ride live is tantamount to the Pentagon blacking out swaths of a document and claiming said document is "unclassified." We are not a governmental body. We absolutely do not ever get to say this one thing is wrong because it offends some editors. We provide information, uncensored. No Sharpie markers swooping down on a bill of lading to remove the building number as an act of petty, childish defiance at mud slung. Howa0082 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Live link. Articles about still existant websites should have live links to the sites in question. That's common sense. In my view, it's the minimal requirement; We don't have to link to offensive/dangerous content, but I don't think there's any practical reason not to treat every site fairly and at least link to the main page. In general, I don't think we need any other kinds of warnings besides of the content that is already in the articles themselves. We have to, in a way, assume that the user makes an implicit decision when they follow an external link: "After reading this article, now full aware of what sort of site this is, I have chosen out of my own free will to follow this link." Or, "Having not read the article, I have chosen out of my free will to follow this link, expecting not much worse than any other website out there, and if it turns out to be worse, I accept it's my own fault for not reading the article and making a more informed decision." That covers just about everything. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Dead Link forever...we're not here to help them promote their attacks...it creates a chilling effect and those that aren't being attacked by articles on that website have no right to insist we link to that shithole.--MONGO 17:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  And how exactly does a dead link keep them from promoting themselves? --Badger Drink (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  You'll have to be, you know, convincing. Trotting out an inapplicable legal term certainly doesn't cut it. Frankly, the "chilling effect" is more evident looking at the AfD this just went through, where people openly admitted to using proxies to vote from fear of WP retribution for daring to support this article. Whether we link to ED or not, they are STILL THERE. You can stick your fingers in your ears and chant nonsense all you like, but this won't change. Howa0082 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  I hope you know that this drama that you've helped create has brought many people to Encyclopedia Dramatica, including myself. Not knowing of their existence, it was only brought to my attention when I heard about this whole charade. If the article was created, linked properly, and treated as other articles are, I would not have heard about this site. You're only promoting them further, I hope you realize that. Bigjake (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Live link. Claiming that a text link is somehow "better" is the same misguided rationale that leads certain people to believe that "f*ck" is somehow better than "fuck". It's a petty power trip, nothing more, nothing less. The WP:CENSOR argument has already been trotted out time and time again, but how about No Climbing the Reichstag Dressed as Spider-Man, which is what this petty demanding that this site be treated differently than any other site Wikipedia covers amounts to? Any given website has a possibility of being defaced and replaced with a redirect to nimp.org - so by the "argument" presented, any and every link should be changed to text. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Live link. For God's sake, this is the most ridiculous discussion I've seen on Wikipedia in a while. Because a few people don't agree with the content on the website (as I don't) does not give ANYONE the right to proclaim its validity on an open encyclopedia. Is this a true, open project or is it being run by a few cliquish groups who refuse to establish a proper article (which include links, as any article would if links were available,) simply based on the fact that something 'bad' was written about them or their fellow wikipedians? Seriously, disgusting and those who behave in this way should be ashamed that you're dragging what is once a good project straight through the mud, only to satisfy your selfish desires. Bigjake (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Live link, no special treatment. Kusma (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No link at all

• Fails every criterion on Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment (particularly note the link asessment table), the directly applicable guideline.. End of story. No link, live or dead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • End of story? Sorry you don't get to arbitarily end this discussion I'm afraid. Exxolon (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The applicable guideline has not previously been pointed out. The guideline says we may not link to it. Hence, policy overrules the wishes of a few promoters of the site. Per the table, it is highly unreliable, it is at best barely notable, it includes extreme privacy violations, it has a systematic campaign of harassments against Wikipedians, and this harasssment is deliberate. Hence we cannot include a link. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's a guideline, not a policy, and it also includes "If a website is in itself notable enough to have its own article, it should be linked from that article." *Dan T.* (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the guideline it should be a dead link. --Kip Kip 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see that in the guideline? Wikidemo (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just idiotic. There's no real reason not to include a live link, let alone remove the URL entirely. The only passable reason that I can think of not to include a live link is that some ED pages contain links to sites which contain viruses and crash browsers, and this reason is at best sketchy. Other than that, there's no legitimate reason not to include a URL and a live link, and the reasons to include both far outway those presented in favor of not including either one. If you're unhappy that the site attacks Wikipedians, get over it and stop advocating censorship for any reason, but especially a reason as idiotic as that.--Urban Rose 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Link assessment table

The following table may help in determining the suitability of any external link:

Criteria	Reliability	Notability	Violation of privacy	Frequency	Intention
Links to include	Highly reliable	Highly notable	Completely respectful of privacy	Isolated event	Good-faith critique
	↕	↕	↕	↕	↕
Links to exclude	Unreliable	Non-notable	Extreme privacy violation	Systematic campaign	Deliberate harassment
Relevant authorities	WP:RS and WP:SPS	WP:NOTABILITY and WP:EL	WP:BLP and WP:NPA	WP:HARASS and WP:CIVIL	WP:HARASS and WP:NPA

This is misleading. It's a copy of Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment#Link assessment table, and in the paragraph that's right below the table (and that's conveniently not included here) it says:

This table is not intended as a "point system", its aim is to act as a guide to your decision making in posting, or removing a link. In general, reliable sources should always be linked when needed for use as a source in an article. Websites maintained by notable people or groups should be linked in their article, per WP:EL, though linking to them from other articles may not be appropriate. If a website is in itself notable enough to have its own article, it should be linked from that article. (Emphasis mine)

--Conti|✉ 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just for shits and giggles, let's pretend this is a points system, and is policy, not a guideline. Is the link reliable? Well, for as long as EncyclopediaDramatica exists, it will remain a link to EncyclopediaDramatica, so I'd say it's incredibly reliable. Is it notable? Eh, notable enough for a Wikipedia article - certainly not the most notable website in the world, but it's well into the "yellow" zone, approaching "green" when one considers the scope of the article. It's not completely anal about respectful of privacy, but the "privacy violations" usually amount to a real-life name and possibly a picture, no social security numbers, mothers' maiden names, or anything of that sort. Definitely in the "yellow", possibly approaching the red, but not as privacy-violating as it's cooked up to be. Frequency's a tricky one. It's a Wiki, so no doubt there are editors trying to make a systemic campaign of... "bad stuff" or whatever. But it's not "EncyclopediaDramatica, the Wiki dedicated to exposing the truth about Wikipedia". Articles on Wikipedia and Wikipedians are merely a small subset of the broader scope of internet-related articles. Somewhere in the yellow. Finally, "intention" - and even attempting to describe "intent" with something of this nature is a fool's errand. The intent is not exactly as "noble" and "scientific" as, say, the intent here - but, likewise, the intent is not exactly to harass. to say that it is would be a gross oversimplification. So, even bending over backwards to give this chart the benefit of the doubt, it seems that ED still manages to average out in "green" territory. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "reliable" doesn't mean the link works, it means the site can be trusted for the information on it - and it absolutely cannot (not that it matters as we're not using it as a source, but there you go). --Random832 (contribs) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

LA Times source: legit?

So... what is the status of this supposed coverage: [10]? 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)

This is a silly argument

If the article exists, which it does, then it should have a live link to ED. It really is that simple. And this nonsense about ED and viral code? What? That doesn't even make sense. Why would ED want to infect their visitors with viruses... that's just silly. Like all websties, ED wants readers and contributors. The only thing remotely close is a few links to GNAA's Last Measure browser-crashing website scattered here and there, but those are few and far between, and are pretty easy to spot. They are usually marked as such. The whole "ED will give your computer a virus" rumor is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Caleb462 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, I've been to ED plenty of times myself and nothing has ever gone wrong, I think it is because of the fact that Wikipedia is "not the biggest fan" of ED for parodying it. Conspiracy? - Crazyconan (talk) 05:29, 2 June 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[11], 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: [12]

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)

"see also" strange adition

(Hint: those ED articles are NSFW and some of the images there are not for the weak of stomach). I added Furry fandom to the "See also" because I couldn't find any article called Furry haters or Furries, yiff in hell, which would have been more accurate additions (a category for furry hater websites?). Anyone having doubts on the appropiatedness of this adition should go to ED's website, go to the "Furry" and look at the links under "Typically Associated with furries", specially "Fursecution#The_origins_of_fursecution".

Unfortunately, I don't remember if ED or 4chan ever made organized protests in furry conventions. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was one of the chan boards at an Anthrocon, I believe. I'm not sure of the need for this - furry fandom isn't mentioned in the article anywhere, and the only real association between it and ED is that it's one of their attack targets. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I was sure that they were the ones doing it :( Oh, well, in that case, I'll remove it. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn again, the Wired article[13] talks about furries in relation to Goons, and not on relation to ED, so I can't use it to source any furry connection with ED --Enric Naval (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See also is not a link farm

I removed the See also section. I linked the "terms" of culture and slang to pipetext in the article. The "similar" web sites may be interesting, but that is what categories and navboxes are for. 4chan was already linked in the text. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I totally agree with your comment. I propose below ti make a navbox to link all the sites that are related to ED instead of spamming "see also" --Enric Naval (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

navbox proposal

Per above section, I would like to make a navbox that links together ED, 4chan and YTMND, see {{Scientology and the Internet}} for what they look like.

However, I can't get started until I don't have a clear excuse criteria to group those "multiple related articles". I have thought of some: parody websites, internet communities, attack sites, etc. but they all look either too weak or too generic. Maybe "Annonymous and the internet" would work. Suggestions? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a topic that needs to be covered, but how do you define what is a part of Anonymous and what is not?The Myotis (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do it. Z00r (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)