Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Template:Multidel

Encyclopedia Dramatica.. Anti-semetic and homophobic?

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

• If you can source it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering that is a satire/offensive-humor wiki, I rather doubt you can find a reliable third-party source that genuinely believes the above are true. If you can, however, it probably should be noted.The Myotis (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• No point in even trying to source it. The encyclopedia itself isn't homophobic or anti-semetic, only the users who edit it are. Gollod (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

At one point the "YewTube" thing was "JewTube". The users are very racist and anti semetic indeed. I still can't believe this site got a wiki entry. Stroking their already enlarged ego's.

Add to list of online encyclodpedias

Category:Online encyclopedias add at the bottom --Xenutu (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. ED is a parody (or mockery, or whatever you want to call it), not an actual encyclopedia. Hmm, then again, Uncyclopedia is in that category, too. --Conti|✉ 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The tone is satirical. The breadth of coverage makes it more like an encyclopedia. I would look there first for anything to do w/ anon. Protonk (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Added. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Present tense

I suggested present tense for most verbs in this article because ED is still operating. I don't know what the MOS has to say, exactly, on things like past references that might happen again, "Encyclopædia Dramatica is sometimes cited as a reference on Internet culture by print media publications The Observer[13] and the New Statesman,[14] as well as weblogs such as AlterNet,[15] Language Log,[16] and the Gothamist network." And similar sentences may be better in the past tense, I don't know. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This page does not have a neutral POV. It is slanted against Encyclopedia Dramatica. Whether you like ED or not, you need to keep a neutral POV. The starting paragraph is especially anti-ED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan1159 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all sourced, I see no false statements. Got any third party sources to praise ED? Add it in. Lots42 (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it either. All in all I think the article covers ED pretty well given our options for source material. Protonk (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Count me in as the third "I don't see it either." The page is all reliably sourced. J Readings (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. All negative statements are sourced, and I see nothing that's not neutral. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC

Wait a second... Let's say I created a website and said wikipedia is politically incorrect and can be edited by five year old kids that don't know what they're talking about, can I source that website and put it on the wikipedia article about wikipedia? I also don't like ED, I just don't like that when wikipedia gets made fun of by a website it has to say that the website is politically incorrect and has pornographic images on it. Also, this article cannot be edited anymore. Ooh, and one more thing- can I write an article and cite ED as my source? I'm just trying to be reasonable here. If this article was slanted toward ED, it would be edited. How about a completely neutral article?

lolwut? ED is politically incorrect and it does have pornographic images on it. Again, how is this article not neutral with regard to the presentation of verifiable fact? Protonk (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan1159. I posted some helpful links on your user talk page. In all seriousness, many of your questions will be answered if you just read those pages. Essentially, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so in order for us to write content, we need to demonstrate that we received the material from reliable sources to comply with no original research, verification, and neutral point of view. You really should read the WP:RS page, in particular. J Readings (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with J Readings. Your site probably wouldn't, for lack of a better word, fit with Wiki standards. But a review from the technology magazine 'Wired' would definitely fit. And there's lots of ways and reasons why an article may be protected from editing. Perhaps your account is simply too new. Lots42 (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "lolwut? ED is politically incorrect and it does have pornographic images on it. Again, how is this article not neutral with regard to the presentation of verifiable fact? Protonk (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) " This is a VERY unneutral POV, and basically outlines how the article comes across. Think of this as a test. Put simply, ED hates Wikipedia, and everything and everyone related to it. Because of this, it makes it difficult to write and maintain a neutral article. Kudo's to whoever can do it. Oh, personally, I love ED. Not for encyclopedic content, but it's really, really funny. POV aside, I think everyone needs to remember that even though the sources are biased, you need to try to return the article to an unbiased POV, which it ISNT know. Gollod (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• As an ED editor, I see nothing wrong with pointing out that the site has pornographic images on it. It does. I add some of them. 70.138.167.143 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is completely impossible to have a neutral point of view about this web site, not even in a Wikipedia article. The sooner you all understand that, the better off we'll all be. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:53 13 September, 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There are plenty of editors perfectly nuetral on the topic. Lots42 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wired, Trolling, and the New York Times Magazine

In his or her latest edit, I notice that Giggy removed a clause from the article on the definition of trolling because the e-zine Wired did not specifically use that term. OK, fair enough.

What about a compromise -- we add back the clause, put it in the same place, slightly reworded of course, and this time include the direct mentioning of Schwartz' New York Times Magazine article, which definitely does use the word "troll" and "trolling" in connection with the Encyclopedia Dramatica? Schwartz goes to some length in both his definition and examples used. In addition to the Wired citation at the end of the sentence, of course we add a further citation to Schwartz' article.

Does that sound reasonable to everyone? J Readings (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"His". :-)

I've no objection at all to this proposal. I probably should have done so myself, but wasn't really thinking. I just didn't recall seeing mention of trolling in the Wired article (I read a fair few of these articles in detail when researching for 4chan (soon to be at FAC)), and Ctrl+F found nothing. Feel free to make the change. Cheers. —Giggy 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Assuming no one else has any objections, we can add that back. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Contentious language

I still think the website is notably critical of social networking rather than any one style of user, but these changes are blatantly POV:

• Encyclopædia Dramatica is sometimes cited as a reference on Internet culture by print media publications The Observer and the New Statesman, as well as blogs such as AlterNet, Language Log, and the Gothamist network.

Why was the qualifier "prominent" removed, considering this is the main gauge of the website's presence on the Internet?

prominent was removed because while these websites are the prominent among those that cite ED, they aren't exactly rocking the socks of internet traffic relative to other sites. In the case of the disputed sentence, prominent modified the websites, not their mention of ED, so it wasn't appropriate. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well... Language Log is very prominent, right? Ottre (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly prominent among blogs about language. But not prominent among blogs. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point. Cyberculture revolves around organisations of learning... you know, memetics?! It is very prominent among blogs as regards the subject's focus. Ottre (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But the sentence doesn't assert that language log is prominent among blogs discussing memes. It just asserts that it is prominent. That claim isn't made by a cited source (AFAIK, I may be wrong there) and it isn't strictly necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• The website has served as a collaborative area for Anonymous to develop new words and memes.

It's common sense that the website serves as a gathering point to learn the application of new words and memes, based on the principles of free representation in the *chan communities, with speakers there presiding. If the article is to remain concise, there is no more correct term available to describe this phenomenom. Ottre (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jason Fortuny

Plz update the link to this article kthnxbye

done. Protonk (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember what you are talking about

Try to remember that this is also a wiki, open to be edited by anyone with any agenda. There ARE bots around for anti-OMGMYENTIREPAGEJUSTGOTDELETED-style vandalism, but they are less for what wikipedia uses them for. As you go around and debate certain things on what ED is and isn't, remember it's content is driven for and by it's users. It's almost like looking at wikipedia, and saying that EVERYONE who uses it are scholars, university or college graduates and generally totally correct in their knowledge on a given subject. Obviously, some are, but not all. Gollod (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What?? This article exists now??

Hey, I remember a while ago that this page was never to be brought back to life. Something about Ed classifys as spam or something? Can somebody just give me a summary of why the article is back? I saw something about keep a link dead or something...? Very curious. I always saw a ED article on wikipedia a huge controversy that was never going to end!

Thank you in advance.

75.72.213.199 (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Read the beige box above showing the deletion discussions. Basically, some sources popped up and overcame the hate toward the subject eventually. the thing in Wired and the NYT pretty much sealed the deal. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)