Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Wow

Thats a HUGE amount of references for a mid-importance site Retro Agnostic (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because the page has had a huge amount of issues. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Several were not legit, and didn't even mention the site at all. I've removed those, as well as a few that fail WP:RS completely, some copyvio YouTube links, and one that was some private YouTube video. Someone may want to check the non-online ones to be sure they actually mention ED as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcRbsuwe4uw here's a new upload of the youtube video that was made private. you should be able to restore the citation now. also the two Brian Gray Toronto/Ontario paper references were removed with no sufficient justification. --Truthseeq (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

also the sentence in the stub about Bantown and Livejournal was cited with a washington post blog entry that directly linked to ED within the body of the article. someone, i believe, missed the link in some sort of oversight, and removed the source, and then the statement was removed for not having a citation to back it up. it should also be restored. --Truthseeq (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't AFD

I would strongly recommend not AFDing this page for at least a month as it would prove unduly divisive and disruptive, especially after such a strong consensus to recreate it. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreement, concurrence, and they did it anyway. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The AFD is truly sad and showcases WP at it's worst. Broooooooce (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it the tone of the debate there, or the fact that there is an AfD at all? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more articles to link to this

I'm sure we could start, somehow, by including links in the articles 4chan, Anonymous (group) and/or Project Chanology to here. But how should we do it without original research?--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't need more to link here. If relevant articles exist they will be linked as outside connections are documented. MBisanz ^talk 09:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already tried but they keep getting reverted.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because there isn't consensus to link from those articles here. Just because its technically possible to link doesn't mean we must. MBisanz ^talk 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the places people have been trying to add links are completely inappropriate, too - like List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge‎; ED is not an encyclopedia by any serious definition of the word. krimpet✽ 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And looking at the account adding the links, I'm getting the feeling of a SPA-TROLL at work. MBisanz ^talk 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

B Class?

Erm, who rated this article as B class? Doesn't seem up to scratch, im my opinion. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem up to scratch to be a B class article. Lacks insufficient information, and is too short, to really be a B class article. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 11:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I rated it B as it had to go through the most rigourous review in Wikipedia history.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but struggles do not a B-Class article make. Downgraded to start, which may be too generous as well. Howa0082 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks more like a stub to me. Very good as stubs go but the amount of actual content is still very limited. Hut 8.5 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Using ED as a WP:SPS about itself

The article now reads, "The websites slogan is "In lulz we trust", a pun of In God We Trust.", and cites the ED main page. Personally I think this should be removed. We could write all we like about what ED says about itself, but due to the fact that it's a wiki, and a somewhat unstable one at that, I don't think we should use ED as a self-published source, because if we did so we could make the article a lot larger, but the quality would be vastly reduced.--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Slogans are on nearly all wikis, and nothing is wrong with self-published sources as long as they are encyclopedic and relevant.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but wikis aren't reliable sources anyway, specifically because anyone can edit them - in theory, the slogan could change. If a site-owner or operator is quoted in a secondary source as confirming that slogan, then we can use that source, but - ignoring the link issue - the site itself can change and should not be considered a reliable source. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the point of this website is that it often attempts humour by this use of patent falsehoods, exaggeration and sarcasm - and it extends this even to self-references. I don't think you can use it as a reliable source for anything, including itself. CIreland (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have commented out the slogan, in the absence of a reliable source to back it. No objection to re-adding it if such a source exists. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-added it with source.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

Please change the template to include revenue and the url of the site. Editprotected {{Infobox Website |name = Encyclopedia Dramatica |logo = [[Image:Ed_logo.png|100px|Official site logo]] |screenshot = [[Image:Ed mainpage.png|280px]] |caption = The main page of as of May 14, 2008. |url = http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page |commercial = Yes |type = [[Satire|Satirical]] [[wiki]] |language = English |registration = Optional |owner = |author = |launch date = |current status = Active |revenue = Ad driven |slogan = In lulz we trust. |alexa = }}

The URL is blacklisted. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to be protected at the moment. And doesn't the blacklist now have the capability of granting special exceptions to allow links to blacklisted sites from particular articles? (It would stir up a huge hornet's nest to allow it in this case, but consistency with other website articles would seem to argue for it. We even link to Stormfront (website) on its article, after all.) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's the Spam-whitelist, but it doesn't seem to be possible to allow a URL to exist in just one article, sadly. --Conti|✉ 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as references

My addition of another blog to the list of two other major blogs that used ED as a reference was undone on the grounds that blogs can't be used as references (even for themselves?), but isn't that true of the other two as well? (Or maybe the Gothamist network qualifies as a "news site" rather than a "blog", but in that case it probably shouldn't be referred to as a blog in this article.) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are blogs. There are some exceptions, but our verifiability policy is rather strict on blogs. If unsure, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you be taking out the reference to AlterNet? (Personally, I have no problem with using a blog as a reference for the specific fact that ED was referenced in that blog, but I recognize that standards are being applied ultra-strictly in this article due to its controversial nature.) *Dan T.* (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] - Steve, per WP:SPS, some blogs can be used as references when appropriate. No comment on this specific case, but please get your policy right. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Erk, my bad. :S Feel free to undo my edit. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that a blog is a website in a specific format. Most blogs are not reliable sources. But being in a blog format does not preclude a site from being reliable for a given claim. Just as most websites are not reliable sources does not mean no website can be used as a reliable source. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox images

Two things:

1. Is the screenshot really necessary? We need to have as little fair-use content as possible. On the negative side, it's a bit offensive and the index page itself, I feel is not discussed critically enough.
2. Is the logo actually fair-use? There may be a case for {{PD-textlogo}} because it's just text in a serif font, and there's nothing special about the logo.

Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There can't be two fair-use images in an article this short. I suggest we get rid of the screenshot which is pretty useless anyway. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And it's gone. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is legit and in keeping with the standards for articles on websites. Wikipedia, Citizendium, Uncyclopedia, etc etc. Z00r (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but look at the lengths of those 3 articles. They're much longer than this article, and, as raised, in an article this short, 2 images seem to be unnecessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gone again. Please see WP:NFCC#3a. I'm merely enforcing policy. I'll take this to IfD if needed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

link to ed

Currently the arbitration will clarify on whether or not the url can be added to the article. I was made aware after my edit via irc, so until that clarification is made, we should probably not re add the link. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Arbitration motion, in hidden comment. It's blatantly obvious, so anyone adding a URL link, well would be rather blatantly ignoring it, or not reading it. Perhaps ArbCom will overturn that decision, however I find it unlikely. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a content/editorial decision by the Arbitration Committee? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

From the Arbitration Case.

“ 3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ”

And, additionally,

“ 1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ”

. I think that makes it rather clear, at least until they overturn their decision on these remedies. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know if this was anticipated when the remedy was made. It could be an inadvertent content decision.... they are however empowered to do so advertantly, I believe they will clarify shortly and the link will be permitted. They use common sense on these things. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Around here, what's common seems rarely sensible, and what's sensible not very common. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, if they will allow a link. We will soon find out, I am sure. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was upheld with an ED article in mind; see [2]. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That "clarification" is far from definitive. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

An ungodly mess is more like it, with arbitrators going many different contradictory directions that led many of them to vote against the proposal being considered then, leaving everybody to guess whether this ended up meaning that links were flatly banned, were to be treated in accordance with policy like all other content, or to be considered again at such time the ED article appears (which some hoped would be when hell froze over, but apparently it's reached the freezing point now). *Dan T.* (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But still, seven arbitrators out of nine opposed an exception to RFAR/MONGO r. 1 e. 1. for the article. The ban on links to ED applies to this article until AC rule otherwise. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. There's no reason not to wait for the clarification currently being requested. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrator comments included "If it is recreated then linking should follow the regular standards and it is always better avoiding exceptions." and "Manifestly, this is making policy" [which ArbCom isn't supposed to do]. At least those comments seemed to indicate that they were voting against a special exception because it was unnecessary; links were to be decided by normal editorial standards, not ArbCom fiat. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, except that they did, in fact, specifically ban all links to this site by fiat, so I'd like an explicit indication that this is an issue for the community to decide at least, before putting it here. There's no emergency here. We can wait for the clarification requested. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is silly. Isn't our regular standard to link to websites about which we write? I'd add it myself if I didn't think it'd be removed. WODUP 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its on the blacklist, Arbcom says no links to it, so we should try to evade with a disabled link. MBisanz ^talk 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the committee explicitly (or perhaps implicitly? - it's not clear) said a link could be included in this article[3] in its Marcy 2008 request for clarification[4]. Though I can't understand the outcome 100% it looks like a standard external link should be okay. Wikidemo (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Those votes were 1 arb supporting a link and 7 opposing, with 1 abstention. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not really clear to me that they were opposing a link in this situation so much as they were opposed to declaring that there should or should not be a link. Which is odd, since they already declared that there shouldn't be one, previously. Regardless, this is why we should wait for further clarification. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The 7 opposes seemed to be all over the map about what their opposition actually meant, ranging from your position that it supported a link ban, through others saying that it meant that ArbCom shouldn't be making policy and normal editorial decisions should apply, as well as still other opinions to the effect that any decision was premature before the ED article existed. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I really think it's best to wait until ArbCom clarifies their position on the link to ED. It's unclear what their decision is, thats why there are Requests for Clarification. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the arbcom clarification is hard to figure out. Plus, most of them seemed to be reaching the question whether citation links to source material in this article would be okay, not a routine external link to the main page. In voting on and rejecting the proposal some members seemed to assume there was a default that linking was okay for this article and that the proposal was for a restriction on those links; others seemed to assume the default was that no linking was permitted due to their earlier decision and the proposal was an exception to permit links in limited cases. Not sure if we ought to demand a further clarification from them or just do it. Is anyone actually objecting to the link in principle, or are those who are removing it simply doing it to honor the apparent outcome of the Arbcom decision?Wikidemo (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is a dispute resolution body, not a dictator of policy. It can be safely ignored on this issue. Martinp23 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What I wish about the original MONGO ArbCom decision is that it be dead, buried, then dug up, chopped into little pieces, and flushed down the toilet. Unfortunately, this sane and reasonable outcome doesn't seem about to happen, so a clarification in favor of following normal link policy would be a reasonable second choice. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't really ignore it because other users won't ingore it and will edit war to remove it, citing the rulings as support and why they're exempt from 3RR. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair I'd readily block anyone who did that. Martinp23 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is a dispute resolution body, but they can impose any solution which will be considered binding. Don't confuse their refusal to enter into content/policy disputes with a restriction on them entering content/policy disputes - nothing in the arbitration policy precludes them from passing such rulings. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Their own precedent does though. Martinp23 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth is this discussion still ongoing? Of course it should be linked to, it's common sense, it isn't being linked to for the purpose of harrasment, it's an article about encyclopedia dramatica, people will want the URL, and we do i on all other articles about websites. This is what WP:IAR is all about. I can see absolutly no way anyone could justify removing the link, arbcom is irrelevant here, if any of you thought for yourselves for a moment you'd agree.--Phoenix-wiki 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The original ArbCom decision seems to have caused a lot more disputes than it has ever resolved. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added it because it's the encyclopedic thing to do. I hope it stays (actually, I hope it's removed from th eblacklist and converted into a working link). WODUP 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I tried adding the link and it's been blacklisted, so blocked by spam filter. Can't be added I'm afraid, unless an admin wants to.--Phoenix-wiki 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Great WODUP, that's great, leave it like that people, it's encyclopediodic.--Phoenix-wiki 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And I Sceptre removed again, lets wait for arbcom to say something on the matter. MBisanz ^talk 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured this would have happened much earlier in the day - the article is now fully protected. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I tried to link, but was stopped by the filter. I tried... WODUP 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the advantage in doing something just because ArbCom once said something. Does removing the URL improve the article? Does adding it improve the article? Does keeping the URL do some kind of harm? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is No Deadline, so delaying the insertion of a URL that is patently obvious from the article's context and any one of the multiple references provided is not of pressing concern. Clarification or no, there's no urgency. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with everyone here. Adding the URL clearly helps the article but in a minor way, the way any WP:EL would - that's why we have a field for it in the infobox. But no urgency. It's funny that we're getting all dramatica ourselves here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to ED? No problem. For example Czech Wikipedia links to ED without any problem and nobody vandalize that external link. --Dezidor (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just popped in to remind everyone that community has a guideline on this, see WP:BADLINKS. Just put the url in plain text instead of a hotlink seems to be its advice. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize that that guideline says that it is sometimes a reasonable compromise, but I don't think WP:NPOV is something we should ever intentionally subvert. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen, guys, I think it would be to the article's advantage not to be fully protected right now. Can we get an agreement not to reinsert the external link for now so that we can reduce the protection level? -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. WP:EL is policy. WP:BADSITES is a guideline. Both were determined by the community, and community trumps ArbCom so.. Martinp23 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BADSITES isn't a guideline. Ooops. I was thinking about WP:LINKLOVE Martinp23 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering this page is now semi-protected due to IP vandalism, I'd prefer not to expose the article to sleeper socks. MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually fully protected. I think semi-protection would be prefereable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"This page", as said by MBisanz, = the talk page here. Martinp23 22:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Advance warning

Just a quick warning that there is likely to be an influx of trolling after this comment was made on Uncyclopedia. I know the two wikis don't exactly hit it off, but it may still attract the idiots. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:42, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

some guy deleted about half the sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.93.132 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They were links to unreliable sources such as blogs and sites which didn't even mention ED. Enforcing Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism. Hut 8.5 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)