Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Neutral point of view?

DeGrippo eventually became disillusioned with Encyclopædia Dramatica.

Is it just me, or does that line on the article compromises Wikipedia's neutral point of view? --Karjam (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, as her views on the subject were expressed at ROFLcon in October 2011.[1].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Might want to put it in quotes though, if that's specifically what she said. Silverseren^C 19:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah wording it that way implies that there was indeed some negative aspect of ED that caused Sherrod to shut it down, but that's only if you take her word for it. Nex Carnifex (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO SHUT THIS PAGE DOWN IMMEDIATELY. ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA ARE WELL KNOWN CYBER-BULLIES WHO STALK WOEMN AND CHILDREN WHEN THEY DO NOT GET THEIR WAY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouse10001 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Who killed Encyclopedia Dramatica ??

This is a well researched article highlighting that the conclusions in this article and its adherence to the DeGrippo version of events is a major distortion of the truth and potentially POV-pushing.

http://www.techtangerine.com/2011/05/09/who-killed-encyclopaedia-dramatica/

Interestingly and I wouldn't be bothering with this at all, save for this very interesting fact is that the author has discovered that a cabal of mods from the ED site had already established user names at the new OH Internet site months before it was launched.

The article concludes, and IMO I agree, that "the demise of Encyclopaedia Dramatica was not the single-handed doing of Sherrod DeGrippo/girlvinyl. Secondly, profitability or financial constraints may have not been at issue." Therefore a conclusion that smacks in the face of propaganda/misinformation found in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.66.199 (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides the obvious (we don't use blogs as sources, usually), the article very longwindedly claims that a) financial problems were probably not the only reason for the shutdown of ED and b) it wasn't just DeGrippo shutting down ED, but DeGrippo a group of people close to her. Well.. Duh. :) --Conti|✉ 18:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy in regards to this. DeGrippo has stated before that her reason for closing down ED was because of the way the community had gone, which she disliked, because it was more about perpetuating stupid memes rather than why she made it in the first place (or something like that? I think she explains in the ROFLcon video. I haven't watched it.) And the fact that other admins and mods were involved wasn't a secret at all. They've all stated as much. Read the Oh Internet section of this article, it already says this. Silverseren^C 19:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

techtanerine.com is an blog without any editorial oversight. The author Hamad Subani (apparently the only author of that infrequently updated blog) obviously doesn't understand how the "Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License" works. He's basically saying that we can't make derivations of images that are painstakingly derivatives (of non-free images) themselves. techtanerine.com is also run by the same people who run cabaltimes.com. A person working on those sites could publish whatever the hell they want without any fact-checking. Their legal disclaimer also makes it clear that they aren't responsible for what happens after an article is published:

3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. shall not in anyway be held responsible for the damages you incurred through the use of this website. Under no circumstances shall 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd., website administrators, editors, contributors, or any of their respective partners, officers, directors, employees, agents, associates or representatives be liable for any damages, whether direct, indirect, special or consequential damages for lost revenues, lost profits, or otherwise, arising from or in connection with this website, the materials contained herein, or the Internet generally. We makes no, and expressly disclaims any, representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the Website, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. We make no, and expressly disclaim any, warranties, express or implied, regarding the correctness, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and reliability of the text, graphics, links to other sites and any other items accessed from or via this Website or the Internet, or any other material. or that the services will be uninterrupted, error-free or free of viruses or other harmful components. If the jurisdiction does not allow the liability limitations described earlier, this website shall only be liable for the amount you paid to access this website.

This lack of responsibility means that they don't have any incentive to be accurate. 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. basically say, "Here's a website for you guys. You can do whatever the fuck you want because it won't do any harm to us." 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. doesn't provide any editorial advice or oversight. techtanerine.com is a tabloid. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Who killed Encyclopedia Dramatica ??" this article hints that Daniel Brandt was at fault, which I'm sure is the answer most of those involved with ED would tell you if you were to ask directly. Itgetsworse (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Outdated - Requires Re-write

Encyclopedia Dramatica has now fallen under new management and is once again live. The pages would appear to have been recovered through site caching services. Please make this known in the article, or (althought this would be unwise) unlock the article. 80.42.175.166 (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is already a section in the article about ED.ch, this is already covered. Silverseren^C 04:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is only semi-locked though :I That said, taking off that would cause the whole article to go to hell, really. ED.ch has a section in the article, and so long as the original domain redirects to OhI, then ED is considered as down and gone. /twocents HerroLink 03:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No WP editors you are wrong...ED is a meme not a distinct thing. It is true to say the founding site is now defunct but the new site, ED.ch is up and running and when that fails no doubt there will be many more EDs that will continue to digitally archive the dark side of the human condition. The ludicrous logic, demonstrated by the one-dimensional thinkers who bother to "protect" this page, is akin to asserting that once the original (sic first) railroad became defunct any or all subsequent copies of the same idea/principle (i.e. meme) should also be referred to in the past tense, thus ignoring the scale of the ownership = Anonymous. SweatyCat or whoever she was started it, but she lost control and therefore shut herself out. ED did not close when the original site shut. As my point above notes.

ED is a concept not a thing, it's a repository, like the trope Room 101 where all taboos are spared no pisstaking. It is bigger than it's original site and will probably keep on growing ad infinitum as long as there are denizens out there in cyberspace who believe in its anarchic concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.225.126 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and find a reliable source that says ED is a meme/concept and not a website, then. :) --Conti|✉ 00:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure every single reliable source we have defines ED as a website, because that's what it is. It's not something ephemeral like a concept, it's a specific website, which this article specifically covers as a website. Silverseren^C 00:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha ED is so right about you lot. How on earth did we ever leave the stone age when logic like this is demonstrated:

every single reliable source we have defines ED as a website

That was because it needs a website to exist, derrrrr. But when the first website closed another one started, and then another, and another et al. Now it is ED.ch, this is because it is an idea. A principle. If it were just a single thing, to use knuckledragger logic, then when the original ED finished the whole concept dies too. It went poof, vanished into the digital ether. But it did not because ED is Anonymous, the front end portal for the insatiable and mawkish need for human disturbia on the Internet. Just because the website changed its address does not mean the meme within Anonymous has changed. In fact by attempting to kill it, the meme has become even stronger judging by ED.ch. Hahhaha then the other Cunti said:

Go ahead and find a reliable source that says ED is a meme/concept and not a website, then

Rather than rebut the point, that ED is an idea and therefore not dependant on any original site. The Rules lawyer creates a Red herring rather than accept the preposition "ED is an internet phenomenon". ED is an idea for taking the piss out of all internet sites/memes/stories, such as the likes of Wikipedia. As long as people believe in ED, it will be. As noted above, when the first railroad closed we should refer to all other railroads in the past tense because only the first ever railroad was the original mass transit system, er the rest are just copies, right? Get back to me when your IQs hit three figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.148.11 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 December 2011

We will. In the meantime, get back to us when reliable sources surface that support your assertions. :) You're free to dislike and disagree with the rules around here as much as you please, but if you want to contribute, you have to play by them. --Conti|✉ 19:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that they have the same content. However, those news sources have generally referred to ED.ch as a(n unofficial) fork. Look at the categories of the article, they all refer to a website, not a concept. It's an article about ED.com, not the concept of ED. --♣thayora♣ 03:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

^What Thayo noted. If at some point ED.ch and/or OhI need their own space for an article, then I'm pretty sure someone will create said article; however, this article is about the original ED, thus everything is fine as is ~_~ HerroLink 01:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ED was and still is user-generated-content contributed by a specific user base (generally of the /b/ variety). If ED were any other wiki, this would not even be up for debate. Let's pretend that ED was not a controversial wiki for the moment. Pretend it was a wiki for beer and wine connoisseurs. Then pretend that for whatever reason, the icanhascheezburger folks came up with a ripoff of it using their own style in a watered-down way. Pretend that the beer and wine wiki sold out to a third party and became a ripoff of the icanhascheezburger ripoff and was called Oh Alcohol or whatever. Finally, pretend that the user base who made the beer and wine wiki what it was revived it from a cache and have not only maintained it for several months since, they've made it even larger than it ever was. Would anybody in this comments section even be having this debate? Are the editors only in disagreement and selectively enforcing rules to carry out a biased agenda? That couldn't possibly happen here, could it? Prior to ED.com's sellout to a third party it began to censor certain articles other third parties didn't like. Now, it isn't a stretch to assume that those same offended parties may (or may not, this is purely speculation) have a vested interest in making sure this fork is distanced from the original as a method of trying to 'kill it' so to speak. Maybe they even contribute donations here in order to influence editor opinion. This is how it works in Washington after all, big lobbies paying big box to ensure agendas are steered a specific way. I hope I don't need a citation for that, at least not here in the comments section. I'm pretty sure you understand the point.

The only reason this is up for debate in the first place is because ED was controversial and people are still trying to kill it. The article makes it sound as though ED.ch is dead which is absolutely not the case, it is very much out of date... deliberately. Well the article may very well be within the scope of Wikipedia's rules, like every other controversial article those rules are enforced on a basis of double standards. This isn't rude, this is the truth. You don't need a reliable source to figure that out. Just look at the history of the I/P articles if you don't believe it. The above "People featured on the site" section's comment from Delicious carbuncle says "Attempts to repeat or extend the harassment from ED to ED's Wikipedia article will only end in tears." If ED is dead, how can they harass the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.223.95 (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The site still exists. new URL is http(colon)(slash)(Slash)encyclopediadramatica(dot)ch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.157.196 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This site just changed URLs and ownership. This has happened to many websites in the past. It is still the same site. It has the same content, and the same layout. Of course, this site is known for making fun of Wikipedia moderators, so these mods would rather that the site was dead. Due to this conflict of interest, they have locked the article and refused to allow any new edits. And it is unlikely they will EVER allow another edit to this page. HereticBleach (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to say what material change has occurred to "encyclopedia dramatica" which would cause us to discuss it in the past tense. The poster above is absolutely correct about one thing that matters: url != website. Imagine you visit this page because you are completely ignorant about what ED.com is/was. As far as you are concerned, ED.ch is exactly the same site, and it would seem peculiar that a wikipedia article doesn't make this clear. Nobody anywhere is confused about what a person means when he/she says "encyclopedia dramatica." None of the search engines are confused about this and neither are the people searching who end up at exactly the site they are looking for-- ED.ch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.225.144 (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

'ED.ch' is ED, just with a different domain thing, it is called ED not ED.ch since that's what it is.Nex Carnifex (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, but the distinction is immaterial. That's where the debate above got off track. ED is in fact a website, and it currently resides at the .ch domain. Not only is there still a site called "encyclopedia dramatica," but it is *exactly the same entity it has always been*. Of course, it would be preposterous if anyone here actually needed this pointed out to them. I know it's all political; I just challenge anyone to make it sound like it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.225.144 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose we change this article's title to "The Wiki girlvinyl Started" and then this implicit dichotomy between ED.ch and OhI would make sense. I'm honestly surprised you get away with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.225.144 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh Internet

I think Oh Internet is worthy of its own article. I can't say the same for ED.ch, however. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above user has proclaimed himself to be a "prolific troll" whose activities include sending in threats to ED admins/users in the name of Ohi (which I'm sure would not approve of his actions). Itgetsworse (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got the wrong Lurg. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC) UPDATE: User PopeyeSquirm was infinitely banned from Oh Internet this morning. So yeah, they didn't approve. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

ROFLcon sponsor

http://roflcon.org/2012/02/03/encyclopedia-dramatica-sponsors-roflcon-iii/ – EncyclopediaDramatica.ch is now an official sponsor of ROFLcon. It's even in the "Official Sponsors" sidebar. Is this worth mentioning in the article? Perhaps it's time to include an external link to encyclopediadramatica.ch. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

ROFLCon has its own Wikipedia article, but a sponsorship deal looks somewhat tangential. The article Encyclopedia Dramatica is still working on the premise that the EncyclopediaDramatica.com created by Sherrod DeGrippo in 2004 is the "original and genuine, accept no substitutes" version, which is looking increasingly old fashioned. The reasons why DeGrippo ditched the site in April 2011 are explained in the article using her own words, but the Encyclopediadramatica.ch site is still seen as an unofficial fork. As discussed many times before, this comes down to the sourcing, because the .ch mirror has picked up much less coverage than the .com version. It is the most accurate recreation of the ed.com site, although it is an unofficial mirror/ripoff of the old ED content.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If ED.ch gets enough coverage, then it'll be spun out into its own article, which will fix that. This article is about just ED and is not overly focused on Oh Internet or ED.ch. So they'll both end up being separate articles if the coverage ever arises. Unfortunately, coverage needs to come from separate sources, so a bunch of articles on The Daily Dot just counts as one source in regards to notability.

So, as i've said before, I don't think Oh Internet or ED.ch should get external links in this article, because they are not the focus. Besides, the ED.ch section already has the URL spelled out in plain text.

As for ROFLCon, that obviously something that should go in the ROFLCon article in a list of sponsors, but i'm kinda on the fence about mentioning it here. I'm not opposed to it, nor am I in support of it (entirely due to the primary source usage). Silverseren^C 17:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Internet Section

I have rewritten the beginning of the section so that it no longer goes against WP:NPOV. Currently it reads like it's by DeGrippo herself, rather than merely informing us of her feelings and opinions. Rather than being a justification for the deletion of ED, it should read as though this is /her/ justification for the deletion; it should be stating a relevant opinion, not being an argument. Lord British (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have also quoted things she actually said and replaced words like "eventually" with real times. Otherwise the article reads like a story, which might be how many ED articles are laid out, but is obviously not appropriate for Wikipedia. Lord British (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclopedia_Dramatica&diff=477591007&oldid=477585095 – Sherrod never used the word "disillusioned", and readers would've seen those as being scare quotes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Whoops, that one slipped through. However, it still comes across as POV - I think it needs rephrasing. Lord British (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That section should be removed; it's about non-notable people doing non-notable things that have nothing to do with the reason the while site is mentioned here: its content. This is not a drama wiki. Anyone suggest a good non-notability template for a section? --Sigmundur (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have added in weasel-word and POV templates in the first two sentences because they're misleading. They come across as sympathetic to DeGrippo rather than merely stating the facts. They should be replaced with quotes by her, and it should be made clear that this is HER point of view, not a fact. As I said before, I also dislike how this reads like a story. I would not be surprised if they were written by her or one of her lackeys. Lord British (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Michaeldsuarez, above, wrote that information and he's a member of ED.ch, so I really doubt there's any sort of "sympathy" writing going on here. Silverseren^C 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? You're basically saying that we should not mention why the website this article is about was closed. That's.. odd. Of course that's highly relevant to this article and should be mentioned. --Conti|✉ 17:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm not getting into an edit-war, but I will insist that that part of the article needs to be rewritten. Can anyone contribute and give ideas please? Lord British (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I still don't understand what your problem is with the section in the first place, to be honest. What's wrong with saying that the creator of the wiki started to dislike it and therefore closed it? That's just what happened, after all. --Conti|✉ 12:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Well using words such as "disillusioned", as well as things like "had hoped" and "eventually" makes the whole thing read like a POV story. I mean, it's not terrible, but it could be markedly improved by replacing paraphrases of her opinion with actual quotes so that the reader can take them as they are, rather than one person's interpretation. This seems like it's the fault of the source more than anything else, so I'll look around for a reliable alternative. On a sensitive topic such as this it's pretty difficult to not find opinion pieces, though. Lord British (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't agree that these words give an impression of violating NPOV, since they accurately describe what happened. Then again, using quotes or more neutral language certainly can't hurt, either. --Conti|✉ 18:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2012

They are currently being investigated by the FBI's Cyber-Bullying Team for attacks against men, women and minors.

Anonymouse10001 (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Source?--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Victim of ED

If you have a complaint about an activity of ED itself, then feel free to contact their administrators. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The ED . ch page has attacked women and children who are not televised celebrities. I am one of them. Their users have been stalking me for almost a year now, posting personal information they got via hacking, posing as me on social media accounts, and they even went so far as to post the home address of a relative as mine, claiming it as my home address. They even lied about me, claiming I gave them the information, calling me a "whore" and a "psycho bitch". They posted photos of my family that they ripped from my personal account, and said I need to die because I am Jewish and multicultural. They speak openly on their talk page about me, threatening to hack me, and I've received death threats from their members. One person even tried blackmailing me, by begging me for nude photos of myself. Is there room on this page for victims of the trolling to speak up, or at least a segment where their cyber stalking ways can be addressed publicly? I feel this article as is, is more about glorifying their OhInternet past than it is about showing what the current owners are really all about. FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC) None of this could be mentioned unless it was covered in reliable secondary sources (newspapers etc).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC) So even links from their site would not be of any use then? FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

possible new source

Idk if it's notable enough, or if there is even any usable information, but I was quoted in a printed newspaper which mentions ED. http://neighbourhood5.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/the-good-the-bad-and-the-anonymous. --Zaiger (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how this is a printed newspaper? It looks like a Wordpress blog to me. Silverseren^C 01:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this the newspaper in question? A student newspaper is most likely not a good source to use, unfortunately. --Conti|✉ 02:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Brandts article

Daniel brants page on ED was deleted? Yeah... you might want to check if that´s really true. AHEM, encyclopediadramatica (dot) ch/Daniel_Brandt --Zanitys (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted, but it was recreated a little over a month later:

• http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Daniel_Brandt
• http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=235844

I've changed "deletion" to "temporary removal" in order to avoid further confusion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a source that shows that ED's Daniel Brandt article is presently available. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A few edits

The Brandt being restored that was debated in this edit can be see plainly on the article in question's history. It functions exactly like a wiki page. Also, the most recent edit, saying Ryan himself hosted LulzSec IRC is heavily biased, and would imply that he himself had a server. I would suggest a reversion until a source is found. It seems pretty obvious to me that User:Silver seren is trying to hidner this article, and has a pretty obvious conflict of interests. His article's not only been featured before, it's featured now. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this as easy as possible http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&action=history is Brandt's article being obviously restored, and http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:Article_of_the_Nao/February_27,_2012 is the featured article. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentence should probably be changed to say that he hosted a LulzSec IRC, since the reference doesn't support the statement of several chatrooms, but it does support the one.

And, as i've explained to others before, I was involved in editing this article long before this and had no real contact with ED prior to that. The article on me on ED.ch was created as a result of me being involved in this article, not before. I didn't have a conflict of interest before and I don't believe I have one now, as I really don't care about the article on me.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others before, we're not going to allow users who edit this article to be chased out via "conflict of interest" just by the creation of an ED.ch article on them. Otherwise, ED.ch members will do that to everyone involved on this article and the talk page and it would essentially be gaming the system. Silverseren^C 04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think you're not going to be "chased out" due to a conflict of interest, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy first as it by far trumps your personal opinion. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting "The sentence should probably be changed to say that he hosted a LulzSec IRC, since the reference doesn't support the statement of several chatrooms, but it does support the one." First of all, the reference doesn't mention the word "host" anywhere on the page, and only states he was arrested for the cause. The sentence states that he did in fact host them. Pick one. That's why your NPOV is clearly clouded by your conflict of interest. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the COI policy and, again, all of my actions on this article have been toward NPOV.

As for the reference, it has a tweet from Lulzsec, which states that they "house one of our many legitimate chatrooms on his IRC server". Isn't that hosting it? Silverseren^C 05:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you should post that as a source, however it's worth noting that tweets are not valid sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources) Moreover for me to host a site, I would require a server. It's more than likely the case that Ryan paid for an external company to host it, and without clarification you shouldn't make such brash assumptions. You seem to be letting your personal interested in labeling a man who attacked you as a criminal without proper wiki-reliable sources. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The coverage in the CNN source of it is a reliable source. Which is already being used as a source for the statement. Unless you have a source that says otherwise, I see no reason to change it. And I don't know what your last sentence is talking about. I never interacted with Cleary at all, ever. Silverseren^C 07:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, that as stated other was does NOT state that he was ever even so much as convicted, or that he hosted it. Read it again. In fact it says specifically "The suspect remains in custody but has not yet been charged." 64.123.99.139 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ryan+cleary%22+%22hosted%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 – Several news source used the word "hosted". What would you suggest as an alternative? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't even notice the featured status until just now. Were you the one that put that together? :P Silverseren^C 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish I was good enough to pull something like that off. If I were confident in my wiki-ing I would probably contribute to the article here instead of back seat driving. Moreover, from what I understand contributing to a less than honorable site like that while showing my IP all over the internet probably wouldn't be a good idea. Also @Michaeldsuarez I would say allegedly hosted would be very appropriate until a source that says he was in fact convicted, and even then to change it from a site he directly hosted to a site he helped host since that's what our current sources say. I personally own a website and I don't host it. Homestead.com does. I own it, sure, but not host it. Yes I am legally responsible for the content, but once again, I don't host it. Wikipedia hosts Wikipedia. Google hosts Google. Small sites tend to not host themselves. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Would changing it to "Cleary allowed LulzSec to operate a chatroom on his IRC server" be alright with you? Maybe the word "network" could be used instead of "server". I don't agree with inserting the word "allegedly". Cleary did maintain the chatroom, and Cleary doesn't deny managing it; it's an indisputable fact. The court and jury aren't here to decided to figuring out whether or not Cleary operated a LulzSec channel; they already know that he did. The court and jury are here to decide whether or not operating a LulzSec channel makes Cleary guilty of the crimes the state charged him with. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What would be alright with me is if the bloody sources matched the content of the page. The source that's listed as a source says he was arrested for it. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, both the BBC source and the CNN source state OpSony as the primary reason for Cleary's arrest. I'll change it to mention OpSony instead. Actually, now that I think of it, it probably isn't necessary to mention LulzSec and its chatroom at all. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Friends of Ryan Cleary and EncyclopediaDramatica.ch

Daniel Brandt accuses "Friends of Ryan Cleary" and Encyclopedia Dramatica for the alleged DDoS attacks against his websites:

• http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:DanielBrandtFriendsOfRyanCleary.jpg (a screenshot of a private forum post by Brandt)
• http://www.betabeat.com/2012/02/15/scroogle-may-have-been-a-victim-of-hackers-not-google/ (mentions and links to the above screenshot)
• http://www.betabeat.com/2012/02/21/scroogle-privacy-first-search-engine-shuts-down-for-good/
• http://josephevers.blogspot.com/2012/02/scroogle-shuts-down-for-good.html (Brandt told The Daily Dot that he does research for this blog, so there isn't any reason to assume that the anonymous blogger is lying about the Email)
• http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36273&st=0&p=298828&mode=linear#entry298828 (a public forum post by Brandt)

Should this (or at least the information within the two Betabeat articles) be mentioned in the article? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Betabeat stuff is fine, but i'm kinda iffy on using the other stuff. Regardless of how "true" we think it is, I doubt they'd ever get counted as reliable. Even if one is a post from Brandt himself, you could easily argue that that isn't him or something like that, which is why we never consider forum posts to be reliable (there's a few exceptions, but they're really rare). Silverseren^C 17:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• To say "Brand said, 'x.'" All we would need is where he said it. To say it's fact maybe not, but it would be fine for a quote, no? 64.123.99.139 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little curious as to what any of that has to do with ED though. It seems more like wiki drama than the topic at hand. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel that this is notable drama. A news article concerning Scroogle's closure was tweeted around over 260 times, it received over 50 likes on Facebook, and both Scroogle and NameBase are deemed notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's notable drama, then it's best covered on drama sites. If it's also notable by Wikipedia standards, then possibly it should be covered here too. I really don't think you imagine that criteria like "over 50 likes on Facebook" decide that here...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my opinion wasn't really on whether it should be there or not, it was more an opinion on an opinion. Above it's debated whether .ch should be listed as the current ED. If not then why mention its current dealings? That would be indirectly related to something that's indirectly related. I'm not saying I'm for or against one way or the other, I'm just bringing the discrepancy to light. 64.123.99.139 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's already been decided that .ch is a different site. But it isn't notable enough yet, like Oh Internet, to have its own page. Therefore, as they are both continuation of the original ED, the information on them is housed here, including anything new, until they are deemed notable enough to be split out into their own article. Silverseren^C 22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Still a victim of ED

As before, we're not the ED Helpdesk. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see my earlier post was closed without much discussion. I have tried to contact the people running ED, and all I got was an email from someone telling me to hang myself, but take nude photos of myself first, and then they'd "think about it". I really feel that this cyber abuse should be addressed on the page, and not covered up. I'm not their only or even most popular target. They've gone after several women and children who are not celebrities. Death threats are not to be taken as "lulzy". FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC) We're not here to portray personal opinions about ED.ch or any of its users. The point of this page is to document the ED, Oh Internet, and ED.ch as they are reported in reliable sources and present them neutrally. If you are having an issue with death threats, then you should contact your local police station. If you're looking to get them shut down, i'd say try to contact someone in politics or in a similar position of power, perhaps internet-based power. SilverserenC 06:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Would there at least be a way to neutrally mention cases like mine, without sounding like this page is taking one side vs. another? Maybe without mentioning names/screen names, we could at least add a short note that many of the targets on the .ch page are not famous celebrities. FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Unless you can get your situation written up in a newspaper or news website, no. We have to follow what reliable sources say and not put in original research, which means anything that isn't reported in the news shouldn't be in the article. SilverserenC 06:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC) So the actual .ch page is not considered a reliable source, even though this page covers it? So even a screen cap of the page wouldn't be considered reliable, right? FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC) The issue with a screencap is that it could easily be tampered with or changed. And we would also be interpreting what is in the screencap, which is not what Wikipedia is for. We report what the news says, we don't make up our own interpretations of events. SilverserenC 07:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for clearing this up for me. FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry that we're not able to help. SilverserenC 07:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

.ch is now .se

We've lost our .ch domain, so we're now at encyclopediadramtica.se. May I please change all instances of ".ch" in the article to ".se"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Way too soon to start putting it on Wikipedia. I don't even think .ch deserves a mention. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, change it. We're not going through the same "we need a reliable source!" stuff that we had to endure at the Wikipedia Review article when the URL was temporarily M.I.A. but the site was still accessible via its IP address. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping it updated without a reliable source. We usually have official website links without sources anyways. Silverseren^C 22:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification, it's "encyclopediadramatica.se," not "encyclopediadramtica.se." And don't bother including it on Wikipedia if you don't have a reliable source. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)