Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Name

The title of this page is Encyclopedia Dramatica, with just an e. But the website is referred to throughout the text as Encyclopædia Dramatica, with the ligature. Shouldn't the page be moved? Teh Rote (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was placed here because most users aren't going to know how to make æ on their keyboards. --Smashville^talk 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been moved back and forth. Personally I don't think it is worth much effort to get the name down, as sources are mixed on what the rest of the world calls ED. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the article uses æ and the site uses æ, shouldn't the page title use æ? Is there a MOS page on this? Teh Rote (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Or we could just redirect Encyclopædia Dramatica to this page. Also, the url is encyclopediadramatica, so, yeah... Throwaway85 (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica already redirects to it :) - Alison ^❤ 08:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it should be the other way around! This page should redirect to Encyclopædia Dramatica because that is the correct name. That is the name used everywhere on the site, except in the url because most people cant make a æ. HambSolo 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says that articles should be named according to its most commonly known form, even if that is not the official or "correct" name. Most people I know don't use the ligature. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See the sixth reference - "Encyclopædia Dramatica, the online compendium of Anonymous high jinks (encyclopediadramatica.com), defines “I Did It For The Lulz” (IDIFTL) as “a catchphrase that serves as a catchall explanation for any trolling you do or any Internet drama you cause.”" HambSolo 14:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One reference uses the ligature, but references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 use it without. Encyclopedia is clearly the common name. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure everyone is thoroughly aware, there has already been discussion of the use of æ is referencing ED. I came across this and recalled the ED page on the wiki itself, linked here. Nevermind, its blacklisted... If you visit Encyclopædia Dramatica, and then go to the Encyclopædia Dramatica article, it states

  "The proper spelling of Encyclopædia Dramatica includes the little æ; 
however, those characters are not allowed to be registered in domain names, so we used
the mundane spelling." 

It would seem that Encyclopedia Dramatica itself does use the æ and, in my opinion, should use it in this article. Nikandros (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of our sources don't use the ligature, so we shouldn't either. WP:COMMONNAME is clear on this. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor addendum

I'm not sure that anyone cares, TOW has been used as an acronym for "the other wiki" as stated in the article, but is more commonly and originally understood to mean "that other wiki," with the condescending undertones that go along with that wording. --Dlb ed (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unless there's some significance attached to the acronym, and an authoritative source as to what it stands for, including it doesn't add value to this article.  Skomorokh  20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm only noting it because it was listed in the article as an unsourced (and incorrect) ref. But I see that you've edited it to reflect that. --Dlb ed (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pity we don't have a RS for this. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is actually listed all over the site, including the Wikipedia article itself. I added it with the instead of that by mistake, but a dewikified ref to the Wikipedia article on ED should be good enough. There is no sense in accepting pages like ED:ABOUT and not others as references, That is just silly. We all know what it stands for, there is no need to get nit-picky about it. -- Zaiger _talkplx 04:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edit

As a regular user of Encyclopedia Dramatica, I know the "Das Trollparadies" article by c't. This article (I mean this Wikipedia article) claims that the c't article describes "Encyclopedia Dramatica" as the troll's paradise. This is not the case, it refers to 4chan. The c't article only mentions ED once. "Zwei von 4chan unabhängige Wikis dienen zur Instruktion der Neuzugänge: Wikichan und Encylopedia Dramatica[...]" In other words, ED just instructs the newly arrived, it's totally independent from 4chan. So, half of the first section should be deleted, because it's just plain wrong. MC Dirty (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. In the translation we cite, the only reference in the piece to the encyclopaedia is in this brief paragraph concerning 4chan's /b/ board: "As a matter of fact, /b/ does have rules of conduct; however, they are outsourced. Two independent wikis serve to instruct the newly arrived: Wikichan and Enyclopedia Dramatica - the latter self-ironically features a fused ae in its logo." This would seem to support your point, and I have altered our article accordingly.  Skomorokh  16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironically the latter also serves to mock and scare off the newly arrived. LOL IM VEGETA254 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ae

I think they actually care about the ae in their name. Why does the Title here use the simplified e? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.219.142 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you check the archives of this page, you'll see that this has been discussed several times before. One point is that the title of ED pages list the "simplified" version, as does the welcome ("Welcome to Encyclopedia Dramatica “In lulz we trust.”") and the About page. Wikipedia articles generally use the most common name for a topic as their title. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No criticism?

The website contains images of dead bodies and crime scenes. That's nothing wrong? Some images are okay like from accidents, but I dont think it's normal to post a picture of a naked woman trying to cut a dead body or animal torture. If anyone thinks such images are supported with the freedom of speech, they need to read the law again (international law or the law of your or any country). The freedom of expression does not allow such things, it clearly says no hate speech, no promotion of violence, no images that disturb the public, yet a child can go on that website and see images unimaginable in their minds. Did some stop thinking? Are many coldhearted and take it out on others because parents neglected them? Making websites with shock value already tells that these type of people are looking for attention they never got when they were growing up. First time I went on 4chan website, I saw a picture of a crying sexually abused child even if it says in the rules that such images are forbidden and it took a long time for picture to be taken down. At least 4chan article has criticism, but not ED. What is going on? I thought ED is only being funny until I came across to very offensive articles such as Nikki Catsouras. Her family doesn't need to see in google search that her daughter is described as a whore on a website running on MediaWiki. Are people creating these articles any better themselves? Many abuse drugs themselves and drive recklessly, anyone can see these type of people posting pictures and videos of themselves abusing drugs or reckless driving.

I already had issues with Wikipedia before. People were telling me not to change the content while I was correcting it or trying to add some related content. As a philanthropist I was glad to plan on donating for Wikipedia, but now it disappoints me, I won't be donating anything. There is more benefit to feed a malnourished person. Yes, knowledge is important, but Wiki is not the only source of it. Most of my knowledge comes from documentaries. And to see that my contribution was deleted and ED article has no criticism, I'm really wondering if Wikipedia is still a free encyclopedia, or a dictating encyclopedia. And I wouldn't be wondering if this post ends on ED or 4chan. Internet is full of cowards and sociopaths that need to seek help for their mental disorders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamphilanthropist (talk • contribs)

Hi there. Firstly, there are no connections between ED and Wikipedia other than that they use the same software, Mediawiki, which is freely licensed for anyone to use. Secondly, they are actually covered under freedom of speech (and parody, for ED) laws - that's basically a fact here. If it wasn't, they'd be shut down years ago. Thirdly, Wikipedia is not censored and I can assure you there are vast swathes of material on here (and on Commons) that you, I and many others would find unsuitable for children. Such is the way. I'm not too impressed by the Catsouras article, to be honest, neither on ED nor here, and even put it up for deletion, but what can ya do. In many ways, WP and ED are different sides of the same coin, but bear in mind here that they're unrelated to each other. Jes' sayin' ... - Allie ^❤ 07:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He just doesn't understand the lulz.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

shocksite, gore content

Why is this site described merely as "satirical"? I've just stumbled upon an article where I was exposed without any warning to GIF animation showing actual murder where person's face was crashed with several hits of a hammer. Then these teenagers started to knock a dying men's stomach with a scredriver and then his eye.. Tha text as well as editing was intended to make the situation funny. On the left there are porn ads. Later I discovered that there are much more articles of this kind on ED.

In conclusion this wikiarticle should include a CLEAR WARNING in its opening sentences of the "ED" content. Currently there's a vague mention of "shock value" but this just isn't enough78.131.137.50 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What would you propose we add as a warning? We don't review sites or recommend/warn against them. ED contains shock images, that's a given, but it's not a "shock site" since this is only one element. The majority of articles there are about memes and trolling, with a minority containing gore or extreme sexual content. So the lead paragraph deals with these in that order: memes>trolling>shock value. ED is a collaborative wiki, like Wikipedia, so the content is going to be to put it mildly; "eclectic". It's the whole internet condensed, with all the nastiness retained. Fribbler (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you seem to have run into 3guys1hammer, but that's really not Wikipedia's fault. Wikipedia does not tell readers what they should and should not read, and Wikipedia does not contain disclaimers or warnings. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about informing readers, not telling them what to do. The sentence "Many articles are illustrated with shock and gore images as well as GIF animations, displayed without warning." would sound objective to me. I also find it relevant because in many legislations exposing a person to such content without his/her agreement is a crime. BTW the current intro sounds promotional and I'm surprised to get 3 responses, so fast. 78.131.137.50 (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So don't visit the site. It's really that simple. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have visited the site if I was informed about its content. As simple as that.78.131.137.50 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This started off as a complaint about the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs, which is known as 3Guys1Hammer on ED. Don't go looking for this if you are easily offended. Generally speaking, it is not the job of Wikipedia to give disclaimers about the content of other sites. ED does not fit the general profile of a shock and gore site (some do, but I'm not giving the names here). Poor taste is the biggest problem on ED, and 3Guys1Hammer is a good example. See also WP:NODISCLAIMERS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1) I was looking for informations on the murder. Instead I got the scene dispalyed on my monitor with some "comic" editing to it.

2) "(...) it is not the job of Wikipedia to give disclaimers about the content of other sites(...)See also WP:NODISCLAIMERS" My idea is not to put any disclaimers and even if it was WP:NODISCLAIMERS says only about diclaimers on Wikipedia content not other sites' content.

3) I see You're Encyclopedia Dramatica enthusiast but try to be honest and objective. If You want to view massacred corpses, murder scenes, hardcore pornography and so on, feel free to do it. But why to force others? Why hide this information? Currently the article portrays ED as satirical wiki (description that fits Uncyclopedia better) Yes, there is a mention of shock value but when You click further Mohawk and breastfeeding are given as examples. That's why I think the phrasing should be more accurte. I don't see a reason why Wikipedia articles should give only selected facts. Including the truth in the article won't harm "ED" as there are milions of ppl who will click anyways78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone being forced to watch anything, to be honest. You visit it, you don't like it, you click away. ED is primarily a site covering memes and internet drama. We can't plaster big WARNING!!! messages on the article. Some people are offended by images of breastfeeding, too. Should we post big disclaimers on the La Leche League article, too? Where should this end? - Allie ^❤ 22:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Einstein once You know "you don't like it" it's already too late. How hard is this to understand? And I'm not postulating "plastering big warnings". I want the text to describe "ED" content more accurately so that ppl who want to see it, see it and ppl who don't, don't. This obviously can be done in neutral way, without using normative terms.78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this may have started when you typed 3Guys1Hammer into a search engine. Not surprisingly, the first result that this brings up in Google is the ED article of the same name. Google does not censor its coverage any more than Wikipedia does (see the huge row about Michelle Obama today.[1].) The Internet carries risks of this kind, but Wikipedia cannot be held responsible for warning about every poor taste thing on the Internet. For the record, I am not a fan of ED, and am annoyed that it trivialises the case of the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. The ED article on Wikipedia could point out more clearly that the site contains some highly disturbing material culled from the shock sites (eg the Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy), but Wikipedia is not the Internet Watch Foundation's twin brother.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You continue to ignore my basic point. Wikipedia is to inform. 78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)