Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Why is it still up?

Please use this page to discuss changes to the article. Please don't make general discussions about the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Consider posting this sort of questions in Wikipedia's reference desk. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If the site is so offencive to everyone on the entire planet why keep it up, that site is a perfect example of abuse of freedom of speech. (Crypto457 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)) Because there isn't an approval committee that decides what sites should/shouldn't be published on the internet. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC) lol, because it's the internet. Plus in the States, First Amendment, etc., etc., you get it. HerroLink 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) The site is hosted on server computers in the US and has First Amendment protection there. Other countries (eg Australia) may hate the site, but they cannot ban it, although it is on the list of sites blacklisted by the Australian government that was leaked in March 2009. Being offensive is not necessarily the same thing as being illegal, and the people who run ED know this very well. The row over the ED article Aboriginal (mentioned in the article) was a rare example of ED being forced to justify itself in public. The fact that ED is on the leaked Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist is not in the article, and perhaps it should be.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC) You obviously either do not understand the concept of free speech, or hold contempt for it. You cannot "abuse" free speech; you either have the right to speak your mind or you don't, there is no middle ground. I do not know what location in the world you hail from, but in America free speech is a fundamental right enjoyed by Americans and is a right that is guaranteed by our constitution. It is considered a personal freedom and is the barrier against tyranny and oppression. To deny the right to speak our mind is to oppress us. Surely, you're not suggesting oppression and censorship, are you? It's a real simple issue: If you do not like a site, there is no one forcing you to view it. I am not speaking on behalf of ED, but I will admit that I do peruse the site occasionally. There is a fundamental difference between ED and Wikipedia, in that I actually enjoy browsing that site and I generally abhor this one. People like you, Crypto, are the reason why. It's not I enjoy the clusterfuck of carnage that is the norm on that site, it's that this site is a humorless, bureaucratic mess full of pompous, elitist assholes such as yourself. Think about it: If not for the freedom of speech you so despise, even this site wouldn't have half the content it has. I think I've said all that need be said on my end. Peace. 72.152.152.79 (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Although I can full heartedly say that æ is a disgrace to any wiki, by delibrately putting offensive satire on horrible tragedies such as the Kosovo war, Iraq war, WWII, and the holocaust, it is still in my right as an American to say that they have the first ammendment on their side. However, it does seem that they are on the count to not allowing free speech as easily as they say, and the wonderful thing is, if you disagree with them, and you live in the US, you are welcome to petition, or speak freely against them. You also have the obligation of not viewing the the site at all. AloDuranium (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Uncyclopedia: Holocaust Shut the fuck up, hypocrites. 72.152.152.79 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Oy vhey humans these days no wonder the internet will be filtered and censored soon it'll be like the 1950s all over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypto457 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.113.60.56, 3 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} THERE IS NO JOSEPH EVERS. IT's AN ALIAS. SEE <removed link to private information harvester>.

76.113.60.56 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Blogger isn't a reliable source. The author is anonymous, so we can't tell whether he or she is a reliable source. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, when it comes to the actual content of the blog, it makes a pretty good case, doesn't it? --Conti|✉ 00:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is one of strictest on the wiki about reliable sources for some reason and an attack site blog isn't a reliable source. I mean like visiting the site will find their ad network has malware and that's obvious to all but need a reliable source for that whereas the Mr. Jevers deal is pure speculation still. I want to believe he is real. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been one of the regular arguments in the talk page archive, and there is little to say here that has not already been said. Joseph Evers is probably not a real person given the thin nature of the evidence, but there is a lack of reliable sourcing to prove this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Y'know guys, we don't have to repeat what reliable sources say when we know for a fact that they're wrong. --Conti|✉ 10:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The link with the information was rightly redacted because of WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY violations (home addresses, phone numbers etc). On the issue of reliability, assuming that the information about the registration of Edrama LLC is accurate, it contains little that is not known already. The most likely owners of ED are Sherrod DeGrippo and/or her partner AT, with Joseph Evers as their fictional creation. It is a pity that the article cannot be more specific about how ED is run, but we are up against the dual problems of lack of mainstream media interest and the decision of some key ED figures to live in the shadows.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course. The point is that we know that Evers is a fictitious entity, yet our article claims that he's real. If we want to write "Evers is not a real person" in the article, we'd need reliable sourcing for that. But simply not mentioning him does not need such sources, some common sense is all it takes. --Conti|✉ 10:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

We had a long discussion of this issue after the ACMA/Aboriginal controversy earlier in the year, and I would be quite happy to see Joseph Evers' name removed from the article. However, some editors may put it back again, and I am not the kind for edit warring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Me neither. But at least I'm not alone on this, it looks like. :) --Conti|✉ 11:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the notable things to emerge from the Blogger information is that the profile picture of "Joseph Evers" used in various online profiles is actally Theo de Raadt, the founder of OpenBSD. Mr de Raadt might not be best pleased to find that his image had been used in this way, and it confirms that anything said by ED is in no way a reliable source. Incidentally, the YouTube video "Joseph Evers Tribute" which showed Theo de Raadt in a starring role as the heroic Joseph Evers now produces the message This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Andrew Auernheimer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice find. A few months ago (I think) the image was removed from the ED article on Evers, by weev no less, if I remember correctly. All the previous revisions of the article have since been deleted, so I can't look it up. The linkedin profile of Evers does not use the picture anymore, either. Anyhow, are there still any voices out there that claim that Evers is a real person? Unless there are, I think we can safely remove the name Evers from the article. --Conti|✉ 17:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've asked weev about this at User talk:Weev. It's unlikely that he ever owned the copyright on the image of de Raadt, so his DMCA takedown notice on the YouTube video is a bit rich, when the YouTube TOS says ""Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or advertisements without permission, unless they consist entirely of content that you created yourself". "In the light of this information, is there anyone who would object to removing the name of Joseph Evers from the article, or at least pointing out that his existence is about as likely as Santa Claus? The joke has worn thin.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite a rash of removals, Theo de Raadt still appears as Joseph Evers on his TwitPic profile. Since there has been clear bad faith in posting online information about Mr Evers, the reference to him in the infobox now looks untenable. Ninemsn took ED at its word, but subsequently had to admit that the "ED moderator" was actually Andrew Auernheimer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Weev can answer his talk page. I heard he was in jail. I don't know what his status is. If Mr. Jevers is a pseudonym of AJT or Weev, it doesn't mean he's not real. Tila Tequila is a pseudonym...and aside from her boobs, she is completely real. It comes down to faith and I believe Mr. Jevers is real. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Evers from the infobox per this discussion. Everything published about Evers by ED is fake, and it's not clear who he's supposed to be a pseudonym of, if at all. Most likely, the alter ego is used by the people behind ED whenever it's useful (whenever it maximizes the lulz, that is). --Conti|✉ 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have met Joseph Evers on more than one occasion. first time at lulzcon and once more with Sean Carosov in Los Angeles where we went out for drinks. He is a very real person and anything saying otherwise is pure speculation and totally untrue. He asked for his images to be removed from the wiki by the way, I have the email asking this on the mailing list in my Gmail account. Just because someone uses another person's name does not mean that that person no longer exists. Nobody in this discussion has any kind of inside knowledge about ED, this is all speculation because of some troll blog. Blogger is not a reliable source sorry, and neither is weev violating youtube's TOS. --Zaiger (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate being told to go away nor do I appreciate being called a troll. Consensus does not mean 2 people agreed on something. There are clear sources and I know he is a real person because I HAVE MET HIM. I'm sorry but you are wrong, deal with it. --Zaiger (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

At least be consistent with your silly arguments. :) You have met him personally, yet you claim those were his images on the wiki, even though it's been proven by now that they weren't, then you go on about using another person's name. Soo.. basically, Ever's picture is not real, his name is not his own, his biography is fake (obviously), buut.. he's real! Totally! Believe me, I'm from ED! Yeah, right. --Conti|✉ 08:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The image on the wiki was him, what are you talking about? The biography was embellished yeah, but I have a bio on ED which is embellished, does this mean I'm not a real person? And yeah, I said just because someone else might have used Joe's name doesn't mean he isn't real, I don't see how that is confusing to you but it seems pretty clear. --Zaiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

Oh you mean the picture from his Facebook that was posted on that Blog? So what? People aren't allowed to use pictures of other people on Facebook? --Zaiger (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What picture were you talking about, then? --Conti|✉ 08:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The one that was on the wiki, the original one. That one was really him, but he asked for it to be removed. That is when he put the fake picture on his Facebook. I don't know why, he just put in an email to the mailing list asking that someone remove his images from the wiki. --Zaiger (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ED's article on Evers had Theo de Raadt's picture for many years before it was removed and replaced by some other random person (which was subsequently removed, too). I'm quite certain that there was no other picture before Theo de Raadt's (the first revisions of the ED article never identified him as the "owner of ED", that came later). --Conti|✉ 08:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the picture I'm talking about. I am talking about the one with him sitting on his steps. --Zaiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

It's quite a pity that we can't check the history of the ED article on Evers to see if there really ever was such a picture, eh? --Conti|✉ 08:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What does that matter? He asked for it to be removed. If I provided you a screencap would that change your mind? Probably not. --Zaiger (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal information, ED and the blogs

FWIW, Tom Newton operates a blog which is critical of people who do not like Scientology (address not given here). This includes strong attacks on the people at ED. Recently, ED has published what it claims is Tom Newton's real name, home address and phone number, along with the alleged personal information of several of his family members for good measure. Some people may not have taken kindly to this, and repeated the performance by publishing the personal details of key people at ED. None of this alters the likelihood of Joseph Evers being a non-existent person, but it does lead to some problems for Wikipedia if people are going to try to post the material here. Please don't do it per WP:OUTING, save it for the blogs where it belongs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If we keep Mr. Jevers off the article, we are doing what the blog wants. Lots of WP:RS says Mr. Jevers is real and removing him is basically going off stuff that fails WP:RS and also a subtle form of WP:OUTING. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lots of WP:RS? There were two stories on ninemsn, both of which took ED's word that Joseph Evers is the site's owner. All of the other coverage was syndication of these two stories. Joseph Evers might be worth mentioning if the people at ED could decide who is his alter ego, but since he has been used as an alias by several people at the site, he is not really worth mentioning.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• If I used your name would that mean that you aren't a real person? Just because someone uses another person's name as an alias does not mean that the person who's identity is being borrowed does not exist. --Zaiger (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion of changes

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

Explanation:

Thanks to the wrotten untrue and bullying articles, they had brainwashed with their campains the overprotective parents and thru them their had set people against cub furies, loli and shota (products of people's artistic fantasy). By comparing the harmless art and roleplaing to "pedophilia" and "zoophilia" and using the help of the "brainwashed" people, they forced the law to change and bannish it from Internet, in the same limiting freedom of art expression. Mcgiwer (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• So you think cub furry porn, lolicon and shotacon are 'harmless art', yes? O_o And you're blaming ED for tipping off parents to this stuff, yes?? - Alison ^❤ 06:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Removal of "Operation Payback" from ED

The reason for removing this is a sourcing issue. So far, the only coverage has been in the blogs, and usually refers back to the Gawker article. It is correct that the article "Operation Payback" has been removed from ED, and now redirects to the main page. However, the reason given in the Gawker article "And now we hear the Feds are shutting down some online discussion of Operation Payback attacks" is not really reliable or specific enough. This could go in the article with better sourcing, but the blogosphere is rarely the best form of sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That really isn't fair to internet scribblers. Gawker advertising network, on the other hand.. Nevard (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

How's the sourcing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback#Censorship for that same statement? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Sexist

I think one should consider warning about the fact that pretty much any article that can be found on the site is overly sexist, portraying women, well, unilaterally negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhoaxt (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Besides, our lead section already has a (properly sourced) quotation calling ED "flamingly racist and misogynist"; what more do you want?—David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What about [[A Womyn's Guide to Males]] on ED? Sexist? Maybe. Misogynistic? Not really ... - Alison ^❤ 02:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of ED is often cherry picking. The site does not aim to offend women, blacks, Jews or Aborigines, it aims to offend everyone and would be sorely disappointed if it did not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

NYT citations

Re this edit There is a problem with New York Times citations, because the system has been changed to require a login. The part about DeGrippo and the trolls is in the NYT article, but may require a WP:PAYWALL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Registration is free. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I managed to read the article in full without paying after registration. This has led to issues with citations from the NYT in other articles, but as long as they remain free, they should be suitable for use as citations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that our sources be cost-free, only that they be reliable and that they actually say what they're being used to source. Free or not, the NYT is reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Some people will complain if a citation requires a payment. Personally I think it is less than ideal, and free citations should be used as far as possible. In the UK, access to The Times now requires a payment of at least £1, so it is best to avoid this and stick to the free newspapers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. The NYT is the paper of record for the united states and probably close to the best short form journalism we can find. We should strive to cite the best sources wherever possible. Wikipedia has thousands of articles where the major sources are books or gated journal articles and none of those are anything approaching free (or £1). But they are the best source for the subject. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no payment required for the NYT article mentioned above, which is fine. Usually, a major UK news story will have coverage in free sources as well as The Times. Fortunately, existing citations fron the UK Times archive are still free, it is the new articles that require a payment. What I was getting at here is that Wikipedia articles should stick to free citations where possible, not avoid paid citations altogether.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. but that is predicated on the assumption that a free source will be of comparably quality, which is only sometimes the case. For popular subjects of general interest, only aso much reporting can be done and a free source (or a source with no paywall) will be just as good as a paywalled source. but for narrow subjects or subjects with a lot of technical details, there is a lot of quality differentiation. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

ED Is Down

Well, since the the official Facebook ED account and the official ED Twitter account both say "RIP", and the website is down, I think that Twitter and Facebook are reliable enough... I'm monitoring the IRC (#wiki irc.encyclopediadramatica.com) now for any admin statement. Cubedman990 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly interesting, but it would take a prolonged outage and coverage in more mainstream sources to confirm this. Let's hold fire for the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The official facebook/twitter pages could be used as sources, but I'd suggest waiting for now. They could just be trolling, they could've been hacked.. who knows. Let's wait and see. --Conti|✉ 20:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The subdomains (forums, blog) are still up and running, the wiki is down and, possibly, deleted. The admins are still awaiting DeGrippo to actually confirm such action. --♣thayora♣ 20:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a troll to make some haters get exuberant, including some who follow this WP article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yep, they're back online, and they've just been trolling. Business as usual, how bland. --Conti|✉ 22:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not that it will matter, but ED does this every so often to troll or get shock value donations. Unless the episode is prolonged then we don't need to update the article. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to ED

Someone should update the introductory section here, as Encyclopedia Dramatica is now censored (material deemed racist has been removed) and many of its admins have spoken out against trolling. Much of the information on the site in the introductory section here is outdated and now incorrect. Note, interestingly, that the censorship began immediately after the site's restoration from the previous shut-down which had been covered by several media sources -- it appears very likely that the shutdown (blamed on a "technical error" despite the fact that there seemed to be public indications of a retirement of the site through the "RIP" posts) and the censorship have some connection with one another, although this isn't really a useful place to speculate on what that connection might be. I can mention that most people in the community associated with ED express the belief that motivation for more ad revenues is the cause for censorship, as the site in its more explicit form had much difficulty finding sponsors, although there is no official word yet confirming this and I wonder if it's actually the case, or if some dispute with a legal or corporate authority regarding content might in fact have been the trigger. I can find no third-party sources presently which discuss the new censorship as of yet. Adlerschloß (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I still see articles on weeabos, azns, wiggers, and the article on aboriginals that caused such a hoo-ha last year. So what exactly has been removed? Tarc (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)