Jump to content

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.28.228.11 (talk) at 05:28, 26 April 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Multidel


New ED is up

It seems that ED's diehard fans won't be deterred by the original shutting down. A new one is up. It activated somewhere around April 15th, and it already has literally over 9000 articles including many of the original site's articles. URL: http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Main_Page

Should we update the page with this information? Roderderp (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. Do we need reliable sources to point to this "new ED" or is it okay to just give the URL? 71.231.76.242 (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I admire your efforts, I don't believe that we can. See Geocities#External_links. We don't include links to forks or archives. Per WP:INHERITED, notability isn't inherited. The fork must achieve some notability of its own first. The fork isn't affiliated with the original website. The good news is that ED had around 9,060 articles before it closed, and encyclopediadramatica.ch has around 9,360 articles (guessing they recovered articles deleted earlier), so it's basically complete. Unfortunately, the fork also neglects to properly give attribution to the original authors through a history page (eg. [1]), so it violates the copyrights of its authors as a result. Unlike Wikipedia, ED's content wasn't released under a free license, so its content shouldn't be forked in this matter. I'm speaking of the author of over fifty authors, and the fork failed to provide attribution to me, and I didn't permit it to reuse my work. If the fork fails to fulfill its obligations to the original authors, then it may not last. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that ED.com was not willing to provide any kind of archive of the old ED, so it had to be reconstructed manually from various caches, archives, and public repositories - and it was impossible to reconstruct the history pages. I am pretty sure that when the information is provided, there is no issue in listing the previous authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.53.254 (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original authors? Who do you think is making the new ED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.33.151 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. And not most of the authors you failed to give proper attribution to. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:Copyright (cache):

All material on Encyclopedia Dramatica is copyright.

All original content on EncyclopediaDramatica is licensed to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Unoriginal content remains the property of its owner. You may not copy, modify or redistribute the material found herein for any reason, at any time in accordance with law. All content created by users and sysops is licensed for infinite use to Encyclopedia Dramatica, in electronic and all other media. This license cannot be revoked for any reason. All users and sysops who have created a user account agree to this license.

Additionally, all users of Encyclopedia Dramatica agree to allow Encyclopedia Dramatica and its agents to enforce this license through the issuing of legal documents, initiation of legal suit and publication of legal notices.

Do not upload or create content for which you have not received permission to redistribute. Each user is responsible for his/her own actions on the site.

The designated agent for this site can be reached at support @ enyclopediadramatica.com

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the hidden or secret copyright page, something some people who left or were kicked out well before you were around bitched about at times (and we now see how right they were). The one that was readily accessible and shown to users was a non-exclusive license and completely different (don't upload other people's stuff, you have a right of use but so does ED), pretty sure you could find a copy of that too if you wanted to (it's the only one most people were ever shown, the one you quote required tracking down). My rights are firmly on the side of the forkers, I'd guess the same would go for most, don't give a damn if uname is not attached. This is not a forum, but you are after all an admin on Ohi.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have sysop or administrative rights on ohinternet.com. I didn't even do much work there. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm on that, didn't check but have seen the list, for sure don't want to add to their site hits!Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few questions: Since it were licensed, that means ED could only act in the name of ED authors many of whose rights were infringed upon by the take down and subsequent use of the notoriety that they generated to lead to a domain squatter called ohinternet. Therefore, the admins could not take action against them because it would be up to the authors to call on ED admins for their help which isn't going to happen. By licensing they still must obtain authority from authors. Another question is: What does unoriginal mean? Is that even defined legally? At the most, the new ED might have to remove some articles but the whole site itself hardly. Oh and the word is copyrighted, not copyright.
--AntiVigilante (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Unoriginal" referred to content created outside ED. This would mostly be artwork, photos, and screenshots. ED can't claim ownership to that content. Unoriginal content can be used by the fork if they abide by the terms of fair use. I can't provide a satisfactory answer to your first question. ED isn't obliged to host content submitted to it infinitely. That's why ED sysops could delete crap articles, and the encyclopediadramatica.ch fork deletes that sort of content in a similar fashion. Due to the fork's lack of page history and past revisions, it fails to credit that "notoriety" to anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that "unoriginal" refers to every content created within ED, ever. :-) --Conti|✉ 12:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow doubt very much that ED will care about copyright. They never have, and this new server is based in China, don't think that's gonna go your way. Also, the term "archive" is inaccurate. The new site is not an archive, but rather a full - or partial at the least - reconstruction of Encyclopedia Dramatica, so in essence, it IS Encyclopedia Dramatica. 72.131.33.151 (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if the original source doesn't honor the copyright, Wikipedia itself will honor the copyright. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is Switzerland, not China (.ch) --80.5.222.104 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The server location doesn't need to match the domain name. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Switzerland is .CH. People's Republic of China is .CN.
Also, a WHOIS traces the server to 69.65.55.21, which is in Arlington Heights, Illinois
The owner of the domain name, according to the WHOIS, is "Slootweg Sven" of Dordrecht, Netherlands
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far as I can tell, ED's old admins all moved to 'o hi internet' or something. It seems the content there is from the previous 'whatport80'. I'm unsure who is behind ed.ch of late. Basically, the new one has the signs of being run by someone other than the ones who ran the original. DB (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is too early to describe any of the mirror sites as an exact recreation of the old ED. I had a look around and the recreations were patchy at best. There also WP:EL issues if copyright violation is involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

legal definitions of what is what (i.e that's not the original owners of ED's site, therefore it's not ED) are entirely arbitrary and irrelevant. this is an article about the phenomenon of encyclopaedia dramatica, and that is not a phenomenon of the past as is being suggested, because it continues at another location on the web. the pages found at that new web address are encyclopedia dramatica, in the same way the apple is an apple, unquestionably so and by definition. of the people who would oppose this line of thinking, the only alternative would be to suggest that it instead requires its own article (when it satisfies notability, which it inevitably will when the mainstream news feature the story); I don't think anybody would support that, so why the contradiction with arguing the first?

nobody here's professed principles truly match up with their goals, and all realising that, i'd suggest injecting in a bit more intellectual honesty instead (otherwise known as cut the bullshit yo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.81.60 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like a snapshot of an apple, and although the tree that created the apple withstood six years of insect infestations and storms, the photographer fails to give credit to the tree. Per WP:INHERITED, there can't be an article on the fork, since it can only live off the notability of the original. Foswiki is only a redirect for this reason. Once the media gives the fork some attention or a mention, we'll create a section on this article about it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well that's my point, but rather than a section (obviously a section on the closing will be required) just continue as normal. the new place is ED, the old place is ED, regardless of the web address. point being, no past section stuff; it shouldn't now be "encyclopedia dramatica was some funny and offensive shit written in the style of a wiki blah blah blah" 'cause it's still alive and kicking, ergo "encyclopedia dramatica (still) is some...". you move house, but you're still the same person yeah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.81.60 (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2011

Let's wait and see. For now, the new ED is a fork of the old ED, which is offline. If it becomes notable on its own right, we can write about it. If it doesn't, we can't. It's that simple. --Conti|✉ 17:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't saying to write a part about the new ED. We're saying that ED is not in a past tense, because the new one, old one- they're both the same. We're saying that it needs to be made clear that ED is not gone like this article seems to think. Then again, it seems all many Wikipedia users are interested in is having happyslaps over 'copyright.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.33.151 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ED is gone. At least the ED that the article is talking about. This article isn't about a phenomenon, as you say, but about a very specific website that is, quite clearly, not online anymore. If the new website will take over the functions of the old site remains to be seen. --Conti|✉ 22:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should tell these guys that their URL will rapidly end up in Wikipedia's global URL blacklist if they keep doing that. The ed.com one was there for almost 5 years and was never removed. It's still there now, in fact. Jes' sayin', for those who are listening ..... - Alison ❤ 19:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they already have noticed. --Conti|✉ 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new Encyclopedia Dramatica has accumulated almost 400,000 views, compared to OhInternet's 65,000 (since they both use the same method of gathering this statistic I don't think there is any chance of bias in that comparison). Does that not qualify Encyclopediadramatica.ch for at least a mention on this article? It seems to me that ignoring it violates NPOV in a fairly serious way. --131.111.184.8 (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not according to the stats I'm looking at. Also, you don't have reliable sources or notability. 198.82.113.231 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the "scoreboard" at http://anonnews.org/greatwar/ (which gets live statistics tables from the various relevant wikis) there is certainly a much larger viewcount for ED.ch than for OhInternet. 81.71.53.254 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Told You So!

You people just wouldn't let me state that the website was offline, and you didn't believe me when I said that it was offline. HA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikon8er (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • So? Without providing evidence, it would be original research, which doesn't belong here. It's safely added now that we have hard proof. >BabbysFirstTroll.jpg. X-Fi6 (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday January 23, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.138.210 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article also contains the following error: "[T]hey've put up a post soliciting money from users." If you look at the Gawker article, you'll see that a similar statement has been struck out. The media didn't realize January 23 was "annual ED is dead" day (the blog post was from 2010, not 2011). Since The Village Voice article didn't correct their mistake, the readers we would be directing there would become confused and misled. The Gawker article is more appropriate since they corrected that mistake. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was aware of the Village Voice article date when I posted the article. However the source conflict (between Gawker and Village Voice) probably goes in favor of Gawker. It may be a good idea for me to contact Village Voice and ask them to correct the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The http://gawker.com/#!5741193/the-drama-with-encyclopedia-dramatica page has "with a brand new blog post soliciting donations." struck out as that was one year old. No other information was struck out. However http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/01/encyclopedia_dr.php links to the post without stating that it is one year old. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous and ED

Apparently, according to 4chan, anonymous DDOSed Oh Internet, the website that replaced ED. The webpage is actually offline as of april 17 2011 which lends some realness.01001010101010010101001 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's weird since I had entered the Oh Internet! site with no problem a couple of hours before. Perhaps they're archiving ED and bringing it back for view source only reasons? It's a bit sad to see ED go like this. 92.251.69.117 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This would be why Wikipedia has database downloads. It's probably not appropriate to mention this in the article until it appears in a good verifiable source. The first reference link needs fixing to point to an archive rather than the joke site, and the Alexa rank continues to drop further.Nevard (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word is spreading about this new .ch address, I've seen it on several sites. --Bobak (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that none of those pass WP:RS. And it's not Encyclopedia Dramatica, it's a fork of it. The article is not about any forks. LiteralKa (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fork is clearly very notable. It deserves at least a sentence of mention. X-Fi6 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not notable until it passes WP:N, which it doesn't. LiteralKa (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NNC. Protonk (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ED retaliation

I recognize there aren't many sources for this yet, but there has been some retaliation from Anonymous, notably to girlvinyl/Sherrod DeGrippo's OhInternet profile and LiveJournal profile, as well as the OhInternet main page. Maybe something to consider adding later.Onomatopoeiaieopotamono (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's simple vandalism. Happens on Wikipedia every day. --Conti|✉ 19:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you look at the pages, they were all done using Sherrod's account.Onomatopoeiaieopotamono (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone interested, ED has been relaunched by Anonymous. I would make the edit myself, but don't know how.

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Main_Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.254.200 (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added .ch Jolly Ω Janner 18:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"ED"

As per the Manual of Style, this is necessary. (It's called ED later in the article. This is perfectly acceptable seeing as how it's a common abbreviation. If you want an idea of how widespread the usage of the abbreviation is, just look at this talk page! LiteralKa (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they don't want to be associated with Erectile Dysfunction!! - Another n00b (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. They are often abbreviated to ED, including within the article itself. It violates the MOS not to mention this. LiteralKa (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong in using ED. Encyclopedia Dramatica is a long word. Jolly Ω Janner 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was personal attack till I reread his username. Borderline troll account.... I lose alot of faith since they created List of people who did not start World War II The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't the only editor, which is why I brought it up here. LiteralKa (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you mean the hatnote at the top? Protonk (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The abbreviation immediately after the bolded "Encyclopedia Dramatica". LiteralKa (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the chain of edits starting here. Yeah I think the abbreviation is appropriate in the lede. Sorry I couldn't tell what you were talking about earlier. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My username is NOT trolling, it is supposed to be humorous. - Another n00b (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not. LiteralKa (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you give a shit because....  ?? - Another n00b (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take it someplace else. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection

There are two reasons why links to encyclopediadramatica.ch should not be added:

It's too bad the page had to be protected. Mixed in among the repeated linkspamming were a bunch of good edits by anons. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no block on linking to the ed.ch page "Offended". (NSFW). This page in its ED days was on the Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist, and blocked from being accessed via Wikipedia as well.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. 198.82.113.231 (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)r[reply]

The fact that the fork is now more popular than the Ohinternet site that replaced the original argues for notability. As for the reliable source requirement I believe it will come in time. Until it does we should acknowledge the fact that many people who have come here as part of the recent surge of traffic to this article are interested in the shut down and want to know where they can find the information previously available on ED. I do not believe the reasons for not providing this information are compelling.173.117.216.183 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to facilitate the site hits of a forked website related to ED. Oh Internet is actually getting reliable sources talking about it, which is why it is discussed in the article. None of the sources are talking about the .ch site (mainly because no one cares about it besides ED users anyways), thus we are not going to discuss it in this article or link to it (regardless of the fact that we don't link to forked websites as it is). SilverserenC 18:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our purpose here is not to promote a fork nor to hinder it's promotion but to provide the most useful and reliable encyclopedia possible. The furtherance of that goal compels us to provide as much useful information as possible. The ED users you dismiss are the force that made Encyclopedia Dramatica notable to begin with. Now that they have transferred their collective energies to this new fork it will take on the life of the old project. The statistics shows this process has already taken on considerable momentum. In time the media will catch up with this trend. The question is how long of a gap in coverage do we want until that happens? I have been unable to find the policy against linking to forks could you provide a link?173.117.216.183 (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is already linked above, we don't link to forked websites unless they achieve their own notability. This almost never happens, so, in general, we don't link to forked websites. The new websites have to form their own notability, since they do not inherit the notability of their related, original website. So, until the media does catch up to the move, we cannot have a link here to .ch. Of course, if the website gets into copyright legal trouble for transferring the copyrighted work of ED without attribution, that might help speed up the media discussing it. SilverserenC 18:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out on the ANI thread, the issue of linking to forked websites is a bit cloudy. We don't have a solid grasp of what our article points to in a semantic sense. Our best bet is that the article points to the object in the world as described by our sources. In this case this is ED as it was prior to the shift. Not the "new" incarnation nor the fork. To pick two related examples which are different along different dimension, look at WoWWiki and Engadget. Both websites faced dramatic change, WoWWiki after the admins and some users left Wikia and Engadget after the editorial staff left AOL. Neither exists today in the precise form that they existed when the bulk of sources used in the article were written, but neither offers a ready-made new object which the article can reference. This is not as simple as saying "the new website is not notable" or "the people adding links to the fork are naughty"--both statements can be true but neither resolves the underlying semantic problem. Ideally the new site and the fork will attract some attention from reliable sources and we can document the shift by simply updating the article with new sources. But that won't solve the problem of how to characterize the "old" ED in the absence of a clear transition. Protonk (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a section about Wowpedia in the WoWWiki article. This one seems to be similar. BTW, even the Foswiki article has a mention of the split (though without the template and section as with Wowpedia) - yet so far, this one doesn't even mention any forks... --85.141.142.180 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been previously mentioned above notability does not really apply to an article contents but rather the existence of the article itself. Even if your interpretation of this policy was correct it would still result in a less useful article and would thus be questionable under IAR. I would also like to mention that the materiel that made Encyclopedia Dramatica notable to begin with is now available on the fork and not the original site. Therefore the notability has been somewhat transferred to the new fork. 173.117.216.183 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get a reliable source to say that the ED fork is the new ED, and then come back here to argue your case. --Conti|✉ 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, notability is not inherited by a separate website just because it copies the content to it. Secondly, we can't link to copyrighted content as it is. And .ch is clearly and willfully violating the copyright rules of ED. SilverserenC 19:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A gap of a few days until that happens wouldn't be terrible but would in my view be unnecessary. The established media hardly covers websites like this at all, as a Google news search will reveal. Requiring a report in traditional media will therefore impede our ability to create a useful article unnecessarily. The requirement to cite a reliable source is usually imposed so that erroneous information will not be included in Wikipedia articles; this is not the case here as the facts are not in dispute. The article already includes links to two archives if you like you can think of the fork as an achieve only faster, easier to use, and with search functions intact. The reliable source policy should not be used capriciously when unnecessary. How for instance would you justify the archives under the reliable source policy in such a way as not to include the fork? I can find no policy that would require Wikipedia to police the intellectual property of the sites we link to, could you provide a link? 173.117.216.183 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELNEVER #1. --Conti|✉ 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it weren't for the fact that Encyclopedia Dramatica's contents were published under an equivalent of the GFDL license that would indeed apply. Would you continue to use that argument to refuse mention of the site if it was written about by CNN. Applied as a weapon that policy could be used to remove most links on Wikipedia. 173.117.216.183 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The archives are on the Wayback Machine, which is essentially the same as a Google cache of ED and not a transfer of the content to a completely different website. And it's not policing the intellectual property, it is the fact that in linking to copyrighted information, we are willfully supporting the copyrightedness of it and are then involved with it. This could lead to Wikipedia also getting in trouble along with the copyrighted website. The policy that you're looking for is WP:LINKVIO. SilverserenC 19:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not supporting the "copyrightedness[SIC]"; as a legal notion under US law a concept such as you imply doesn't even exist. Is the policy supposed to presuppose guilt on the part of the linked to website. The copying is almost certainly legal under the open license ED used. In cases of ambiguity it is the role of Wikipedia's Office to interpret legal matters, it is our job as editors to create the best possible article.173.117.216.183 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ED was most certainly not under an open license. See this section, where another user has written the copyright policy in green. ED specifically stated that all of its material was copyrighted to itself. Thus, any copying of this content to another website without attribution is a willful violation of that copyright. It is close to the copyright policy that Wikipedia currently holds, which states you can copy and use the information however you wish, but you must attribute it to the proper source. .ch has not done this and is thus in violation of the copyright that ED holds, even if the site itself is now defunct. DeGrippo has ever right in the world to sue the creator of .ch for violation of his copyright. SilverserenC 19:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another user disputed this assertion in a message posted below it. I don't know the true facts involved here, however Ohinternet has not thus far claimed copyright over this materiel. I do know that editors are not required to presuppose guilt under any current Wikipedia policy. I'd also like to note that even if this applies, in practice this policy is often ignored so that a complete article can be written. I am curious as to whether your view on this will remain unchanged once a reliable source has been established.173.117.216.183 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reliable sources on .ch will be enough of a reason to invoke IAR and include information and a link to it. However, currently without references, we do not have enough of a reason to link to a site that is a copyright violation. SilverserenC 20:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's where it will have to stand unless a consensus emerges to include it. However I have two predictions. First, a reliable source will emerge, but it will take a while as neither of these sites receive much attention from the media. By the time that happens and the media catches up with reality the fork will have been Encyclopedia Dramatica in membership and spirit for some time. Second, until this change is made you will need to keep this article locked and deal with editors trying to slip this information into Wikipedia in other places. It will be interesting to see how this situation evolves over the next few months.173.117.216.183 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The works were never copyrighted to the original Encyclopedia Dramatica, they were merely licensed. In fact, you could argue that the same issue with copyrighted content applied to the original Encyclopedia Dramatica, as nearly all of the content was non-original content that was not licensed to, nor owned by the editor who added it into articles. In no way does Encyclopedia Dramatica hold the copyright to the content on there, except for the content that was specifically added by the sites owner, and the content whose ownership was explicitly transfered to Encyclopedia Dramatica. 81.71.53.254 (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying the instruction pages would be copyrighted, such as the copyright page itself on ED? The page that .ch also stole and is now pretending that the copyright belongs to it? SilverserenC 21:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

typo

{{editprotected}}

hello: in this section, DeGrippo's name is misspelled DeGrippio. Badmachine (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

odd section placement

the section about the relaunch is strangely placed in the middle of the article. shouldnt this be at the end? Badmachine (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put it there, so the screenshot would fit. Jolly Ω Janner 03:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article's advancement into documenting current events stunted by trolls.

Can someone cleanup the talk page, then convince those few that arguing with kids about the use and general credibility of forks on Wikipedia (these forks in particular being hosted in Europe) to stop?

Acknowledge the fact that all real Anonymous members ONLY protest Scientology, anyway.

So just stop, everyone. InformalSockpuddet (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comment about Anonymous. And I totally agree with you (though I would posit that Anonymous is more about freedom of information and such, so any related activities, such as the Anonymous activities in relation to Wikileaks, should also be considered proper for Anonymous members). The group of people that have been attacking Oh Internet should not be considered a part of Anonymous at all. SilverserenC 19:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous is a loose construct formed when anonymous individuals band together to focus on SOMETHING while claiming to be part of anonymous. I, for example, am apart of Anonymous. Why? Because I'm posting anonymously, and I'm saying I'm apart of it. It's as simple as that. It's not an actual organization, it's a collective of anonymous people getting together and doing something as a group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.21.103 (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over the article and some related refs very briefly, I see a key omission: no one is saying that there is evidence that Oh Internet is run by the people who ran the original ED site. It has its own name and it's own content after all, and is just the target of a redirect from ED.

Just as a wild guess, based on the talk about funds at the new site, I would think that maybe ED redirected its main site to Oh Internet in exchange for some kind of per-hit advertising revenue, creating a mirror at ED.ch so that die-hards could keep editing. I may be wrong, but if so, please upgrade the article to provide relevant data to disprove that. Wnt (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here, where it has a comment from Sherrod about changing the site to Oh Internet. The believed purpose of doing so by fans (though Sherrod denies it) is that Sherrod is hoping to get the new site purchased by some other company, just like how Know Your Meme was recently purchased by the Cheezburger Networks. Believe me, if Sherrod had made the fork herself, she would have attributed it properly or stated somewhere that she was doing so. Furthermore, her fans wouldn't be as angry at her and wouldn't be DDOSing Oh Internet. SilverserenC 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ED.ch seems to have come about because some members of ED wanted to keep the old site going. It looks like ed.ch is unofficial, because the site is full of redlinks where the images used to be, and they are searching around trying to fill them in. They do not have access to a complete archive of the site, although the text seems reasonably complete. All the signs point to ed.ch being an unofficial fork rather than an official mirror.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to put this other than "ED.ch is the official overthrowing and takeover of all that is Encyclopedia Dramatica in terms of content that has otherwise been thrown out by the original owner of the original site." She threw it away, we took it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.21.103 (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the fact that it is unofficial and is a copyright violation, since Sherrod still owns the copyright for all the information that was on ED, even if she shut it down. .ch is also, for now, non-notable, as there are no reliable sources that are commenting on it. They are, however, commenting on Oh Internet, which is why we discuss it in this article. SilverserenC 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it is Joseph Evers who owns the copyright, not Sherrod. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's Sherrod; we got a cease and detest warning from her lawyer a few days ago - an appeal to "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act". Anyhow, the old ToS doesn't give her Copyright over the articles or images the authors retain the, it works much in the same way as GNUFDL in regards to Jimmy Wales and wikipedia, he doesn't own your information. It's been 3 days and she's hasn't responded. If anything there's just the usual illegal content and the question of our title: Encyclopedia Dramatica, she still owns it.
N.B. we have bots adding the images as we speak, the major templates and redirects were added over the course of the last two days. We'll be more than a "mirror fork" in at least a month.
94.170.94.249 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to the discussion. 198.82.18.218 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Justification?

http://gawker.com/#!5792738 mentions that a number of unofficial mirrors have been posted, as well as that an entire archive could be downloaded. If we were to find an RS that specifically mentions ed.ch as an unofficial mirror would this be ample justification for inclusion? Noformation (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, but it can't be just an off-hand mention in a single sentence. That would be a trivial mention that isn't enough to really include it on here. SilverserenC 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I imagine it will be a few weeks before Gawker jumps on that but I think Adrien Chen will at some point. In the mean time what would you think about adding that there are clones up without mentioning any sites in specific? The point being, not to drive traffic, but to start hinting that this was a controversial move on behalf of ED and that there is a protestant response? Noformation (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that there are unofficial mirrors is okay, but I would advise that you don't put the latter stuff unless a reliable source says exactly that, since making any conclusions about why unofficial mirrors exist outside of what a reliable source says would be original research. SilverserenC 01:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "Some former members of the ED community have taken it upon themselves to launch unofficial mirrors in protest and an entire of the archive of the site was released on Reddit" I know it's not perfect but I think it sums up what has been covered thus far in regards to ED clones and it can be sourced to that Gawker article. Can you think of better phrasing? Noformation (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be inaccurate to say that the archives were released on Reddit. The archives were linked to and publicized on Reddit; Reddit doesn't host the archives. The source (Gawker) doesn't say that the forks were set up "in protest". The article implies anger ("has not gone over well") rather than protest. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people are unhappy. I've seen people posting a nude photo of Sherrod, real ones too not shopped, on places. Of course I doubt news sites will mention it and I'm surprised even one news article http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/04/18/6489864-notorious-nsfw-website-cleans-up-its-act even mentioned the site changed itself at all. Normally this internet crap gets no news articles. Oh well ED shut down and nothing of value was lost. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on mention of ed.ch in this article

I see the notion "notability" is being banded about. This is not relevant. Here's Wikipedia:Notability:

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article.

For inclusion of ed.ch in this article, therefore, notability is irrelevant. The relevant policy is actually Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically, we need a reliable source that verifies a connection from ed.ch to ed.com or ohinternet.com. It may seem obvious to us that it's a mirror, but saying so without a reliable source counts as original research.

The folks running ohinternet count as reliable primary sources for this purpose, and per WP:Primary, we may repeat what they say with attribution, or of course repeat what reliable secondary sources say, provided we don't add any interpretation. For instance, if the sources mention ed.ch in passing, then we may do the same thing, that is, add a simple link. If they say more about it, then we can quote or paraphrase them. —Ashley Y 08:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a reliable source that has even mentioned .ch yet though, beyond just saying that there are "unofficial mirrors". SilverserenC 08:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELNEVER and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO also apply. 198.82.17.35 (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was back in 2006, and as Samuel Goldwyn supposedly said, "We have all passed a lot of water since then". Before this current editing dispute ends up at ArbCom, it might be worth looking for a compromise. The article should note that there are unofficial mirrors set up by former ED members (this is uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged). Direct links to ed.ch are more of a problem, partly because of the copyright issue, and partly because some of the material is porn or shock site related and would fail WP:EL, which is what led to the 2006 blacklisting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. LUL? MONGO is now their Featured Article. (title=Main_Page&oldid=53796) Wnt (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I don't think MONGO applies to anything that passes Verifiability, especially given "Amended Decision: Motion 1", which would surely apply to ed.ch. ELNEVER might apply, however, depending on the copyrights involved. —Ashley Y 17:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recently asked our main copyright expert, Moonriddengirl, about the copyvio status of an image of the front page of .ch that was pointed out above. Her response can also apply to the text of .ch in general. Essentially, in her summary, ED stated on its copyright page that "you hereby grant ED a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to", which means that it retains full copyright to any information that was added to it (so long as it wasn't already copyrighted info being added to it). Unlike Wikipedia, any information you added to ED belonged to them and not to the user that added it. Thus, any copying of information from ED to anywhere else without permission is a blatant violation of ED's copyright rules. Therefore, it seems quite clear that a link to .ch falls under WP:ELNEVER for blatant copyright violation. SilverserenC 22:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Granting a license doesn't deprive the user of copyright - though it doesn't make it free-licensed to the world, either. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it still shows that the information is a clear copyvio, which falls under ELNEVER. Which means, if the fork is ever discussed in reliable sources, we will be able to discuss the fork in the article, but we can never actually directly link to the site itself. SilverserenC 23:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading the new ED site,[2] and it claims to be abiding by DMCA and copyright - meaning that it is not a copyright violation, or at least, there's no evidence that it is and it's not our problem to try to guess whether it is. After all, they got the database from somewhere - maybe it was licensed. Wnt (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That page clearly shows that the owners of .ch are willfully violating copyright and not just of ED, but also information about a person, including threats against Sherrod's life. This is all seeming like ELNEVER material. I don't see any evidence of these claims, what are you referring to? And we have no reason to believe that where they got it from is licensed without proof that it was. The only evidence we have right now is that it is a copyvio of ED. Without any actual evidence to the contrary and not just plain words, we have to go on that it is a copyvio. SilverserenC 23:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And they got the database from Google Cache, we already knew that. That's why it was missing so many images originally, since Google Cache doesn't hold very many images, so they had to manually reinsert them. SilverserenC 23:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a minute. How come it's not a copyright violation for Google Cache to serve up the pages, but it's a violation for ED.ch to do it? Is Google Cache an ELNEVER too? Wnt (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Search engine caches have been repeatedly upheld as fair use. 198.82.17.146 (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that each of the ED contributors posted changes with the expectation that they would be visible and modifiable, and that each user's edit is now (on ED.ch) being posted for the purpose of commentary and discussion (after all, you can change it - who reads ED just as a passive observer?) — how can ED.ch not be fair use? Google is a commercial company, ED.ch is noncommercial for some die hard fans. Fair use should apply more to it. I don't think it's reasonable for Wikipedia to impose its own copyright kangaroo court to something when the site operator is quite clearly convinced he is doing something legal, and could be shut down by a court order in a New York minute if a U.S. court thinks otherwise. Wnt (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See "User:Meepsheep/The_Bieber_Facebook_Project" on ed.ch. These people don't give a damn about anything legal. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not aware of any actual law that prohibits people from posting names and e-mail addresses. Certainly every company on the internet maintains such databases, and sells them frequently. I don't think that the difference between Lords and serfs is codified into law, though I would be unsurprised if a prosecution occurs anyway. Furthermore, do you know if the site is aware of this person? Maybe ED is just understaffed. You wouldn't say all Wikipedia is illegal if one person posted something like this. Wnt (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COPPA. 198.82.17.146 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That affects U.S. websites, but does it affect someone who is receiving e-mails, who may not even be in the U.S.?
Hmmm, on the other hand, I just tried their link "where to go if you want your address removed", and Avast called it a Trojan horse. If that stays up it may qualify the site, though again, someone might put such a link on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The posted link is to nimp.org, and is par for the course for ed.ch (google "nimp.org"). 198.82.113.231 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In total, it looks like the .ch fork is a pure trolling site, even more so than ED was, and willfully violates copyright laws, along with multiple other major laws (like COPPA) without care. I'm sure they could be sued under several different violations. Because of this, they break multiple Wikipedia policies about linking to such sites and thus, while we may eventually have coverage of the .ch fork itself, we will never be able to link to the site itself for the above reasons. SilverserenC 02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, ed.ch should probably go on the spam blacklist. This is currently being discussed here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it ed.ch does not appear to have permission to host the content. If the copyright holder were to indicate that they did not object to ed.ch hosting their content, I think that would resolve the copyright issue. In the mean time it looks like we can't link to it. —Ashley Y 10:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am...very doubtful that Sherrod will ever give permission for such, especially not after they DDOS'ed her new site. SilverserenC 10:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You see that site? Sherrod ought to be thankful for the DDOSing; it's the only traffic that site is ever going to get... Wnt (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that .ch at least deserves to be in the article. It has already proven itself notable enough with constant legal issues. --Qeeet (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find a reliable source that refers to it, then I think we can mention it without linking to it. I haven't seen one, though. —Ashley Y 19:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External link - archive

[] should be added to external links because it's a perfect archive. More helpful and related than all other external links. External link mirror doesn't have to be notable. 80.244.146.40 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussions. There is currently no consensus to include this link. It is also not a perfect archive, as many of the images and templates have gone missing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the fact that there are unofficial forks

Can we establish any consensus on adding the fact that there are unofficial forks without identifying them? This much at least was mentioned in the Gawker article. The fact that such forks exist is not in dispute and if we don't identify any forks specifically, at this point, we will avoid many of the potential problems mentioned above.99.203.21.223 (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, but it needs to be worded differently than the example given up above. Reddit should have nothing to do with it and it should be worded neutrally, not favoring one side or the other. Probably only a sentence or two. I think just stating that members of ED have gone on to make unofficial forks and mirrors of ED content is really all we can do from the ED article. SilverserenC 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think as the situation presently stands that would be the best solution. Maybe something along the lines of, "After Encyclopedia Dramatica was relaunched as Ohinternet several forks were created, by users discontented by the change, using archived content." What do you think? 99.203.21.223 (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's alright, though i'd prefer to wait until some other users have responded here. I don't want to make a change just based on the two of us. SilverserenC 04:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good but if no one disagrees in the next 24 hours or so can we add it?99.203.21.223 (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, the article should say that there are unofficial forks. However, no links should be given to the .ch site.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the .ch site is down at the moment, according to http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/. No panics on this just yet, but worth watching.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must be back up as I am having no trouble accessing it.99.203.21.223 (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Was' to 'Is'

Unless someone objects with good reason I'm going to change all the references that ED 'was' to ED 'is'.

It's still around. The entire website is backed up to a new site

www.ch

This has automatically preserved the content on the old ED site - 40,000 pages. It's had 1.5m hits since creation a few weeks back and is already on the front page for google searches on this topic.

Amists (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above threads. Due to copyright and content issues, this should not be done.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. But this; the content was automatically generated from caches of the old site. The content is the same. You had an entire page up about this site. But a new site, with the same content, and now there are 'content issues'. Why. You also link to a lot of sites that infringe copyright or encourage mass infringemnt of copyright. See Pirate Bay page. Why is this different? Amists (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing. From the above

"specifically, we need a reliable source that verifies a connection from ed.ch to ed.com or ohinternet.com. It may seem obvious to us that it's a mirror, but saying so without a reliable source counts as original research."

How about I 'verify the connection from .com to .ch' by showing the script that generated 40,000 identical pages? Or what just ref an external site that says it's an exact mirror. A very small number of wikipedia users are taking the opportunity here to turn ED from a 'is' to a 'was' despite the fact that the entire website is still up, and recieves hundreds of thousands of hits weekly Amists (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKLOVE are clear issues with the .ch site at the moment. Anyway, the article is fully protected until this is cleared up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia Dramatica mentioned in this site no longer exists. If all the records companies went bankrupt tomorrow, would Bram Cohen and TPB suddenly become record executives? I think not. Also, I haven't seen any reliable sources that specifically mention ed.ch as an exact mirror (since that's not true), only mentions of some external clone site. 198.82.113.231 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, even without the copyright issue, .ch is under no obligation to be an exact mirror. It needs to establish its own notability and cannot be mentioned as "Son of ED" simply because that is how the people there see it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is Encyclopedia Dramatica a computer system, a body of work, or a community? We know that an owner turned off a computer, yes; but if the community continues working on the same data, isn't that a continuation? I don't think one person should be given credit for defining Encyclopedia Dramatica when he's not the one who wrote it. However, if he starts playing games with the trademark (if he has one), then you can define it as a legal trademark. Though I'm not sure an article about a trademark is notable - we should call the community by some other name then, and make that the title of the article. Wnt (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article talks about the site that formerly existed at encyclopediadramatica.com, not the content. To continue my above analogy, if I started a giant torrent of music files, that torrent wouldn't inherit notability from the fact that the music is notable. It would gave to gain notability by its own sake. 198.82.113.231 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your opinion of what ED is is irrelevant. This article is about ED as a website. That website has been shut down, thus it no longer exists. Forks of content does not give other websites the validity of being this site, especially not when they are plagiarizing the name Encyclopedia Dramatica. SilverserenC 21:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see ED as a website. I see it more as a publication. If an author puts up a book at one site, then moves it to another, it's the same book. The ED has thousands of authors, but the same still applies. Wnt (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But ED is not a book, but a website. If other websites or even Wikipedia users made copies of Wikipedia articles, indeed all of them, as some sites have actually done, that does not make them Wikipedia. Even if Wikipedia was shut down, that does not make these other sites suddenly become Wikipedia. This website is Wikipedia and if it shut down, then no matter what happens to the content, it would be registered as inactive. SilverserenC 06:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're verging into philosophical issues that seriously need to be recognized. "Website" can mean two things: a physical location to find a set of data; or a method of organization of content into hypertext format. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a trademark, which would prevent a new unauthorized website under the name; but if the new website for any reason were named Wikipedia (even if it were only a quirk of an odd national law) then that site, containing the old material and user base, would be Wikipedia. And if not? Then it's Wikipedia under a new title - we have enough articles on films released under more than one title; it should not be an unfamiliar idea. Remember, after all, that what you're using to define the location is actually just a DNS record. The DNS server system pointed encyclopediadramatica.com to 208.99.87.133 until April 14, then to 208.100.46.116 afterward. At which point it was redirecting to "Oh, Internet". Entirely different content, entirely different computer, entirely different users, no continuing thread of authorship except for one person - is the essence of "Encyclopedia Dramatica" contained entirely in this DNS name having .com at the end and not .ch? I think that's absurd. It is contained in the organic body of work built up over seven years. I feel no other conclusion can possibly be drawn. Wnt (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about trademark is precisely the point. The name Encyclopedia Dramatica is copyrighted and, thus, any other site using that name is violating that copyright and, thus, is not ED. Our resident copyright expert, Moonriddengirl, has already explained that ED's copyright explicitly stated that it owns everything put into it. .ch is a clear violation of this and, regardless of community, cannot be called ED. If they form a new name and that name becomes notable, then they can have their own article. But the .ch fork is completely irrelevant to anything that has to do with ED and violates both WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKLOVE. So, either way, it doesn't matter. SilverserenC 06:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, surely you know that you can't copyright a word. Either it's a trademark and will end up in court, or it's not and that is the end of that. And there's no way for Sherrod to register it now that the site isn't using the name anymore. Wnt (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ELNEVER, LINKLOVE, and Remedy 1 are prohibitions on links, not content, though mentioning ed.ch at all is impossible due to WP:RS. 198.82.113.231 (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't 'one' author. Almost all of the sysops stayed on with OhI. Getting back to what I've said above, The Pirate Bay isn't a record company or a movie studio. As to the exact specifics of the copyvioishness of ed.ch, depending on how you read the ed.com copyright page (and which version of it you use), ed.ch either violates the author copyright or Sherrod's (technically, Edrama LLC's) copyright. Either way, the site is infringing. 198.82.113.231 (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, if Google Cache can and does archive the whole site under "Fair Use", then a noncommerical mirror site run by fans should definitely be able to do so. Wnt (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Except the situations are far different. Fair use has been upheld for search engines in Field v. Google, but very little of the reasoning applies here. 198.82.113.231 (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was Sherrod under pressure?

According to the article, ED censored articles that Australia had banned in February. I remember Australia was nosing around trying to prosecute Sherrod as of last December.[3] While this decision has been presented as voluntary, I've noticed that for some reason I don't understand, the majority of sites forced to institute censorship over the past 20 years make a point of claiming it is purely a voluntary choice. Is there anything floating around to document a less-than-voluntary choice to shut the site down? Wnt (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that prior to the shutdown in April 2011, old ED had removed some of the more contentious articles in February 2011 (Nigger, Jew, Aboriginal, Offended). The reason given for this, and the shutdown, was that shock for shock's sake was "old". As a US citizen, Sherrod DeGrippo has little to worry about from the Australian government, unless she visits the country. It is hard to say whether we have been given the full reasons for the April 2011 shutdown and switch to Oh Internet. Was the site losing money heavily because it was not attracting enough advertisers? Possibly, as ED was always pleading poverty. Without more sourcing, this would be speculating. By the way, Joseph Evers is now officially outed as a non-existent person.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's back up?

Well, I've noticed people of the ED community sharing this site [CH fork]. And, it seem as if the Site is back up. Just one a different URL. But, the EDits aren't the same for some of the articles, plus, the "Histories" doesn't site all of the previous contributor. Only one. So, that's definitely something to look into. ~User:Mohamedkaba 1:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

We know. 198.82.113.231 (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. We're just not allowed to link directly to it. SilverserenC 07:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The loss of page history is due to the method of restoration- when Sherrod threw her toys out of the cot the database was deleted. So articles are being restored from web caches. Nevard (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sherrod DeHippo's goons keep deleting info about the new ED.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica&oldid=425959898"