Jump to content

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Sexist

I think one should consider warning about the fact that pretty much any article that can be found on the site is overly sexist, portraying women, well, unilaterally negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhoaxt (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Besides, our lead section already has a (properly sourced) quotation calling ED "flamingly racist and misogynist"; what more do you want?—David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
What about [[A Womyn's Guide to Males]] on ED? Sexist? Maybe. Misogynistic? Not really ... - Alison ❤ 02:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Criticism of ED is often cherry picking. The site does not aim to offend women, blacks, Jews or Aborigines, it aims to offend everyone and would be sorely disappointed if it did not.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

NYT citations

Re this edit There is a problem with New York Times citations, because the system has been changed to require a login. The part about DeGrippo and the trolls is in the NYT article, but may require a WP:PAYWALL.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Registration is free. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I managed to read the article in full without paying after registration. This has led to issues with citations from the NYT in other articles, but as long as they remain free, they should be suitable for use as citations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no requirement that our sources be cost-free, only that they be reliable and that they actually say what they're being used to source. Free or not, the NYT is reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Some people will complain if a citation requires a payment. Personally I think it is less than ideal, and free citations should be used as far as possible. In the UK, access to The Times now requires a payment of at least £1, so it is best to avoid this and stick to the free newspapers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it really isn't. The NYT is the paper of record for the united states and probably close to the best short form journalism we can find. We should strive to cite the best sources wherever possible. Wikipedia has thousands of articles where the major sources are books or gated journal articles and none of those are anything approaching free (or £1). But they are the best source for the subject. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no payment required for the NYT article mentioned above, which is fine. Usually, a major UK news story will have coverage in free sources as well as The Times. Fortunately, existing citations fron the UK Times archive are still free, it is the new articles that require a payment. What I was getting at here is that Wikipedia articles should stick to free citations where possible, not avoid paid citations altogether.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh absolutely. but that is predicated on the assumption that a free source will be of comparably quality, which is only sometimes the case. For popular subjects of general interest, only aso much reporting can be done and a free source (or a source with no paywall) will be just as good as a paywalled source. but for narrow subjects or subjects with a lot of technical details, there is a lot of quality differentiation. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

ED Is Down

Well, since the the official Facebook ED account and the official ED Twitter account both say "RIP", and the website is down, I think that Twitter and Facebook are reliable enough... I'm monitoring the IRC (#wiki irc.encyclopediadramatica.com) now for any admin statement. Cubedman990 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly interesting, but it would take a prolonged outage and coverage in more mainstream sources to confirm this. Let's hold fire for the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The official facebook/twitter pages could be used as sources, but I'd suggest waiting for now. They could just be trolling, they could've been hacked.. who knows. Let's wait and see. --Conti|✉ 20:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The subdomains (forums, blog) are still up and running, the wiki is down and, possibly, deleted. The admins are still awaiting DeGrippo to actually confirm such action. --♣thayora♣ 20:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a troll to make some haters get exuberant, including some who follow this WP article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Yep, they're back online, and they've just been trolling. Business as usual, how bland. --Conti|✉ 22:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Not that it will matter, but ED does this every so often to troll or get shock value donations. Unless the episode is prolonged then we don't need to update the article. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.113.60.56, 3 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} THERE IS NO JOSEPH EVERS. IT's AN ALIAS. SEE <removed link to private information harvester>.

76.113.60.56 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Blogger isn't a reliable source. The author is anonymous, so we can't tell whether he or she is a reliable source. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, when it comes to the actual content of the blog, it makes a pretty good case, doesn't it? --Conti|✉ 00:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but this article is one of strictest on the wiki about reliable sources for some reason and an attack site blog isn't a reliable source. I mean like visiting the site will find their ad network has malware and that's obvious to all but need a reliable source for that whereas the Mr. Jevers deal is pure speculation still. I want to believe he is real. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This has been one of the regular arguments in the talk page archive, and there is little to say here that has not already been said. Joseph Evers is probably not a real person given the thin nature of the evidence, but there is a lack of reliable sourcing to prove this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Y'know guys, we don't have to repeat what reliable sources say when we know for a fact that they're wrong. --Conti|✉ 10:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The link with the information was rightly redacted because of WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY violations (home addresses, phone numbers etc). On the issue of reliability, assuming that the information about the registration of Edrama LLC is accurate, it contains little that is not known already. The most likely owners of ED are Sherrod DeGrippo and/or her partner AT, with Joseph Evers as their fictional creation. It is a pity that the article cannot be more specific about how ED is run, but we are up against the dual problems of lack of mainstream media interest and the decision of some key ED figures to live in the shadows.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You're right, of course. The point is that we know that Evers is a fictitious entity, yet our article claims that he's real. If we want to write "Evers is not a real person" in the article, we'd need reliable sourcing for that. But simply not mentioning him does not need such sources, some common sense is all it takes. --Conti|✉ 10:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
We had a long discussion of this issue after the ACMA/Aboriginal controversy earlier in the year, and I would be quite happy to see Joseph Evers' name removed from the article. However, some editors may put it back again, and I am not the kind for edit warring.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Me neither. But at least I'm not alone on this, it looks like. :) --Conti|✉ 11:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
One of the notable things to emerge from the Blogger information is that the profile picture of "Joseph Evers" used in various online profiles is actally Theo de Raadt, the founder of OpenBSD. Mr de Raadt might not be best pleased to find that his image had been used in this way, and it confirms that anything said by ED is in no way a reliable source. Incidentally, the YouTube video "Joseph Evers Tribute" which showed Theo de Raadt in a starring role as the heroic Joseph Evers now produces the message This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Andrew Auernheimer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice find. A few months ago (I think) the image was removed from the ED article on Evers, by weev no less, if I remember correctly. All the previous revisions of the article have since been deleted, so I can't look it up. The linkedin profile of Evers does not use the picture anymore, either. Anyhow, are there still any voices out there that claim that Evers is a real person? Unless there are, I think we can safely remove the name Evers from the article. --Conti|✉ 17:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I've asked weev about this at User talk:Weev. It's unlikely that he ever owned the copyright on the image of de Raadt, so his DMCA takedown notice on the YouTube video is a bit rich, when the YouTube TOS says ""Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or advertisements without permission, unless they consist entirely of content that you created yourself". "In the light of this information, is there anyone who would object to removing the name of Joseph Evers from the article, or at least pointing out that his existence is about as likely as Santa Claus? The joke has worn thin.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Despite a rash of removals, Theo de Raadt still appears as Joseph Evers on his TwitPic profile. Since there has been clear bad faith in posting online information about Mr Evers, the reference to him in the infobox now looks untenable. Ninemsn took ED at its word, but subsequently had to admit that the "ED moderator" was actually Andrew Auernheimer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Weev can answer his talk page. I heard he was in jail. I don't know what his status is. If Mr. Jevers is a pseudonym of AJT or Weev, it doesn't mean he's not real. Tila Tequila is a pseudonym...and aside from her boobs, she is completely real. It comes down to faith and I believe Mr. Jevers is real. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Evers from the infobox per this discussion. Everything published about Evers by ED is fake, and it's not clear who he's supposed to be a pseudonym of, if at all. Most likely, the alter ego is used by the people behind ED whenever it's useful (whenever it maximizes the lulz, that is). --Conti|✉ 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have met Joseph Evers on more than one occasion. first time at lulzcon and once more with Sean Carosov in Los Angeles where we went out for drinks. He is a very real person and anything saying otherwise is pure speculation and totally untrue. He asked for his images to be removed from the wiki by the way, I have the email asking this on the mailing list in my Gmail account. Just because someone uses another person's name does not mean that that person no longer exists. Nobody in this discussion has any kind of inside knowledge about ED, this is all speculation because of some troll blog. Blogger is not a reliable source sorry, and neither is weev violating youtube's TOS. --Zaiger (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
And I don't appreciate being told to go away nor do I appreciate being called a troll. Consensus does not mean 2 people agreed on something. There are clear sources and I know he is a real person because I HAVE MET HIM. I'm sorry but you are wrong, deal with it. --Zaiger (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
At least be consistent with your silly arguments. :) You have met him personally, yet you claim those were his images on the wiki, even though it's been proven by now that they weren't, then you go on about using another person's name. Soo.. basically, Ever's picture is not real, his name is not his own, his biography is fake (obviously), buut.. he's real! Totally! Believe me, I'm from ED! Yeah, right. --Conti|✉ 08:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The image on the wiki was him, what are you talking about? The biography was embellished yeah, but I have a bio on ED which is embellished, does this mean I'm not a real person? And yeah, I said just because someone else might have used Joe's name doesn't mean he isn't real, I don't see how that is confusing to you but it seems pretty clear. --Zaiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC).
Oh you mean the picture from his Facebook that was posted on that Blog? So what? People aren't allowed to use pictures of other people on Facebook? --Zaiger (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
What picture were you talking about, then? --Conti|✉ 08:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The one that was on the wiki, the original one. That one was really him, but he asked for it to be removed. That is when he put the fake picture on his Facebook. I don't know why, he just put in an email to the mailing list asking that someone remove his images from the wiki. --Zaiger (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
ED's article on Evers had Theo de Raadt's picture for many years before it was removed and replaced by some other random person (which was subsequently removed, too). I'm quite certain that there was no other picture before Theo de Raadt's (the first revisions of the ED article never identified him as the "owner of ED", that came later). --Conti|✉ 08:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
That isn't the picture I'm talking about. I am talking about the one with him sitting on his steps. --Zaiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC).
It's quite a pity that we can't check the history of the ED article on Evers to see if there really ever was such a picture, eh? --Conti|✉ 08:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
What does that matter? He asked for it to be removed. If I provided you a screencap would that change your mind? Probably not. --Zaiger (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal information, ED and the blogs

FWIW, Tom Newton operates a blog which is critical of people who do not like Scientology (address not given here). This includes strong attacks on the people at ED. Recently, ED has published what it claims is Tom Newton's real name, home address and phone number, along with the alleged personal information of several of his family members for good measure. Some people may not have taken kindly to this, and repeated the performance by publishing the personal details of key people at ED. None of this alters the likelihood of Joseph Evers being a non-existent person, but it does lead to some problems for Wikipedia if people are going to try to post the material here. Please don't do it per WP:OUTING, save it for the blogs where it belongs.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If we keep Mr. Jevers off the article, we are doing what the blog wants. Lots of WP:RS says Mr. Jevers is real and removing him is basically going off stuff that fails WP:RS and also a subtle form of WP:OUTING. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Lots of WP:RS? There were two stories on ninemsn, both of which took ED's word that Joseph Evers is the site's owner. All of the other coverage was syndication of these two stories. Joseph Evers might be worth mentioning if the people at ED could decide who is his alter ego, but since he has been used as an alias by several people at the site, he is not really worth mentioning.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If I used your name would that mean that you aren't a real person? Just because someone uses another person's name as an alias does not mean that the person who's identity is being borrowed does not exist. --Zaiger (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica → Encyclopædia Dramatica — Correct spelling. walk victor falk talk 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Object the common name is the current name, it is also the URL name, which does not spell it "encyclopaedia" or "encyclopædia" (with current encoding standards, URLs can be encoded with æ ) 184.144.161.207 (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
æ was not a valid character in a domain name when ED was founded. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
"ae" was valid at the time, and was not used. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a correct name at ED, and it is æ. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Redirects exist. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Yes, please, move. The æ spelling is the proper name (there is no denying this, look at the logo). WP:COMMONNAME is ignored in the case of archaic characters and diacritics when subjects prefer it or for accuracy. Most obviously in the case of Encyclopædia Brittanica. We have diacritics and other non-english characters in hundreds of articles despite their not being typable on common English keyboards (and thus not "common" in sources). This move also preserves the original location of the article. This article was deleted, re-written, and history merged multiple times. I wrote the first version that survived AfD, and I placed it at the æ spelling because that was the correct spelling. [1] this was a cut and paste move out of compliance with our legal requirements for preserving authorship - I wrote the majority of that text with the æ spelling, and at the article title with the æ spelling which should have been retained. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Oppose per User:IanMacM and WP:COMMONNAME (see virtually all media coverage of this site). And note that presently the name is, in fact, rendered in browser title bar as "Encyclopedia Dramatica" at the website's main page itself. Adlerschloß (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
so does Brittanica (not use æ in the title bar). These are issues of convenience. not names. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Comment According to http://encyclopedadrmatica.com/Encyclopæia_Dramatica:

    What's with the æ ? 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. Feel free to use alt+145, alt+0230, or alt+z (option+' on OS X) if you'd like to experience it. As æ is confusing and mysterious like ED itself, it became the mascot for the site. æ is also a normal character in the Danish, French, and Norwegian alphabets.

    walk victor falk talk 14:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uncyclopedia

This was discussed before at Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_12#Add_to_list_of_online_encyclodpedias. Uncyclopedia is not a clone of ED, but it is in a similar genre and is worth a "see also" mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Like the Phoenix!

It rises anew! []

All ye may rejoice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.165.126 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes to ED

Someone should update the introductory section here, as Encyclopedia Dramatica is now censored (material deemed racist has been removed) and many of its admins have spoken out against trolling. Much of the information on the site in the introductory section here is outdated and now incorrect. Note, interestingly, that the censorship began immediately after the site's restoration from the previous shut-down which had been covered by several media sources -- it appears very likely that the shutdown (blamed on a "technical error" despite the fact that there seemed to be public indications of a retirement of the site through the "RIP" posts) and the censorship have some connection with one another, although this isn't really a useful place to speculate on what that connection might be. I can mention that most people in the community associated with ED express the belief that motivation for more ad revenues is the cause for censorship, as the site in its more explicit form had much difficulty finding sponsors, although there is no official word yet confirming this and I wonder if it's actually the case, or if some dispute with a legal or corporate authority regarding content might in fact have been the trigger. I can find no third-party sources presently which discuss the new censorship as of yet. Adlerschloß (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I still see articles on weeabos, azns, wiggers, and the article on aboriginals that caused such a hoo-ha last year. So what exactly has been removed? Tarc (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tarc, The Black Messiah (Barrack Obama's article) has some stuff crosses that kinda of shocking for 21st century. Haved lived in the deep south (of the US) most of my life it takes alot to "shock" me. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, are you sure you are still seeing the Aboriginal article? Try reloading, it may be a cached version -- it appears to have been removed completely. Also the articles on Hispanics and Jews have been removed, along with many articles that contained "the n-word" in their titles. Some articles which are just as offensive have not yet been removed, however, and it appears the censorship is occurring gradually and unevenly rather than all at once. Much discussion on forums related to ED and on ED itself has concerned the censorship, with much confusion regarding the cause (some even suggest "reverse-trolling" is involved, although who knows). Adlerschloß (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Guys, the Aboriginal article has now been deleted, along with a large number of redirects. Same with mentions of nigger, etc. Pretty-much all these have now been removed. Just about everyone agrees that these were just overused, done-to-death, etc. and everyone was just inured to them. They're gone now and, as they say, nothing of value was lost - Alison ❤ 02:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC) (retired ED sysop)
If just about everyone agrees with that, than why is the reaction among ED users to the recent censorship overwhelmingly negative? Revved Up like a Douche (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it? I see that the mods are largely in agreement and that ED users are split over the issue depending on where you look to get your opinion (IRC, TJC, /b/, etc) - Alison ❤ 07:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm mostly basing what I said on TJC and EDF comments. Censored ED isn't ED, and you know well that the censorship of ED has gone far beyond removing those words in question. Brain slushie (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe. I suspect there's a lot going on behind the scenes, but what do I know ¯\(º o)/¯ Just take a look at how active DMCAbot has been recently. I'll say this, tho'; all the mods I know on there are dedicated to the best interests of ED. Sometimes it's not easy to do what needs to be done & people like Rushberry aren't doing this out of wanton censorship, IMO. Anyways - 'nuff said from me - Alison ❤ 07:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If you have any influence, could you ask someone over there to also remove the Azn and Retard articles by chance? Also, concerning below message, perhaps someone involved should publicize the changes, so that we can update the article here at "TOW"... Adlerschloß (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears this is moving into WP:FORUM territory. Lacking a Reliable Secondary Source We cant add anything to the article. There are enough Tech Blogs that Write about this kinda of stuff that We need not sit here and speculate. about such things. Is there a cleansing going on at ED? Probably, but until a source states so us sitting here talking about it serves no purpose to improving the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hm, pages are gone. This is a sad day that will live in infamy. Tarc (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Media coverage or not, it is notable that pages including Jew, Nigger, Aborigine and even the infamous Offended have been removed. Jew now has a picture saying "Happy Hanukkah". Has ED gone soft on us? Definitely notable enough for the article if it persists, will anyone in the mainstream media spot this and report it?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's wait until the media pick this up, there's not too much we can do without them. Maybe we're being trolled again, or something (although it would be a rather odd way of trolling). Also note that there already is a work-safe version of ED called WhatPort80, so it wouldn't be their first attempt to get an ad-friendly website up. --Conti|✉ 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
In case of ED is very difficult to say whether that ADL and NAACP friendly version is real and pernament change or another game that they play with media, their funs and critics. --Dezidor (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone should mention that there's a rumor that the Jew article on ED was created by Wikipedia User:172. Note the irony that the webmasters of both Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and Encyclopedia Dramatica, GirlVinyl, publicly espouse far-right libertarian economic views. Jimmy Wales is an acolyte of the sociopathic Ayn Rand; it's not clear who Sherrod DeGrippo's intellectual influences are, or if she even has any. 172 was a leftist economist who was unceremoniously banned from editing Wikipedia on the basis of extremely flimsy and inconclusive evidence, indicating a probable political "witch-hunt" at play. And if rumors are true, then it appears his contributions on ED have also been unceremoniously deleted as well, despite his work having constituted a featured article on the site in September of 2009, and these contributions having constituted one of the most infamous (and popular) articles which ever appeared on a site dedicated to shock humor. Despite the racist language involved (which, I imagine, must have been par for course on ED at that time to even have any contributions maintained for long periods of time), the Jew article seemed more a "subtle" historical criticism of finance capitalism (and violent religious fundamentalism of any form) than really any sort of actual assertion of Jewish racial inferiority... Understanding the administrators involved in these varying incidents, I wonder if it was in fact actually certain political critiques espoused, rather than "bigoted" language, that resulted in the completely unforeseen deletion of this material. (The entire edit history of the Jew article has been deleted along with the article's content.) Note that an extremely obscene article critical of Islam still exists on ED, which goes so far as to call Muhammad a pedophile — why would extreme bigotry against Muslims still be occurring on ED at the same moment that "anti-semitism" is deleted forever? Obviously there is some political motivation behind these events. At that point when we can find third party sources documenting some of these events to a greater extent, relevant information should be added to this article. Dialogue of Menexenus (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we should wait for third party sources or some kind of official statement. --Dezidor (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The "Jew" article was pretty much the only one on ED that had any intellectual content whatsoever. (The article started off with a bang, contrasting Moses' slaughter of the calf-worshippers with alleged Jewish liberalism.) ED has officially jumped the fork. TPaineTX (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, guys, ED does this all the time, it's Black History Month and all the articles they've removed involve black people and jews. Connect the dots. 159.115.178.73 (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well nevermind, it seems that they removed the articles to attract more advertising. According to one of the sysops, ED almost went down for good in 2011, and out of desperation, they've removed the more well known offensive articles to attract more advertising. 99 percent of their racist and extremely offensive material is still up, and they've tried to be coy about it, but the truth is nowadays they face DMCA's and server issues due to lack of advertising and funding, so this is to be expected. It's an age old story on the internet. After all, this is why Maddox never put ads on his site.72.129.7.152 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a pity that the article does not currently mention that articles like Nigger and Aboriginal have been removed. Assuming that this is permanent, it should be mentioned, as a reader of the article will hear about the Australian Human Rights Commission racism row in 2010 without knowing that the article has since been removed (on 1 February 2011). There may have been behind the scenes discussions at ED about how to attract more advertisers, but this is original research without sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I would source it, but Wikipedia blocks any links to EncyclopediaDramatica, so it can't be done. Anyway, the removal of the Aboriginal page is now mentioned in the article. The Steve Hodder-Watt article is still up and even mentions the Aboriginal article being removed, alluding to people archiving it, but I haven't been able to find it. 72.129.7.152 (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail article

Tormented by trolling: The vile web craze that taunted family of bullied Natasha even after her suicide is in the UK newspaper the Daily Mail today. It is worth noting for the following: "The craze is celebrated on a website calling itself the Encyclopedia Dramatica, which lists various trolls and their exploits. Set up in 2004 by American Joseph Evans, much of its content is racist, misogynist and sexually explicit, and the site prides itself on being controversial and uncensored." For Mr Evers, a mention in the "serious" media with his name wrong. And no mention of Sherrod DeGrippo or AJT.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Even ED does not claim that Evers "set up" ED, as far as I know. This doesn't give me much confidence in the rest of the Mail's article. --Conti|✉ 20:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Edited out POV to balance the article from a NPOV

I was bold, and made a many changes, most where to reconcile the cites with what the news articles said, yet some may have been nitpicking on m part. If one finds any of my edits superfluous, I request that instead of a complete revert, one takes the time to judge each edit on its merits according to logic and WP policy.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Moi

We are supposed to summarize what the sources say, you have extracted long quotes from them. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, the quotes are too long. They are intended to give a flavour, the full article in the external links gives the details.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You fuckin’ retard! You are so centered in your own world, that you actually think there would be a “neutral” POV. Neutral, relative TO WHAT?? POVs are by definition of physics relative. All you did, was censor not-you POVs in favor of the POV that is neutral TO YOUR POV. Which you call the “NPOV” in traditional Wikipedia admin ego trip manner. But is still as biased as it can be. Just in *your* directions. So you don’t notice it. Egocentric dickhead. You fail at life, and at comprehending the physics of reality in general! — 94.220.241.149 (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

ED's down AGAIN

Just see for yourself. And please mention their jumping the shark politically correct changes they made, renaming the nigger article and deleting the spic one. People who read the ED article here will think it's still the same, uncensored, not giving a fuck site that gave the internet major lulz.66.108.211.43 (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  • ED goes down all the time. Turning the infobox into a de facto status tracker isn't really helpful. As for the content changes, they have been discussed on the talk page before and the limitation is that this article will only reflect what reliable sources have to say about ED. If and when someone digs around to find out why ED was bowdlerized then we'll update the article. Until then we don't have much to go on aside from saying "ED is significantly less lulzy because 66.108.211.43 and protonk say so". Protonk (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

ED appears to be gone permanently

It's been replaced by "Oh internet", where the site now redirects. From "What Ohi is not" "OHi is not Encyclopedia Dramatica ED got far, far off course and ended up being ruined as a result. Oh Internet! isn't here to act as a parody of Wikipedia or a satirical website, we are here to provide information on memes, personalities, and websites that Wikipedia and traditional news outlets don't cover. If a subject doesn't have some close relationship with the internet, it should not (and will not) have an article here. " (http://ohinternet.com/Oh_Internet:OHi_Is_Not) This sounds pretty final, and unless someone thinks that ED will actually come back, it'd be best if we change everything to past tense. 207.159.180.169 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There'll be sources soon. Be patient. All will be explained. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Who cares about the explanations? Why is the page protected? No intense attacks, the links should be deleted, since all they do now is draw eyes to an unrelated site. Cheap as ...Borgmcklorg (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems there has been a reincarnation, or a move of the site to here.. http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Main_Page. Resuscitate this article? Lazerking9 (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


Article with quote(s) from Encyclopedia Dramatica founder and current OhInternet primary contributor Sherrod DeGrippo concerning the change. http://www.geekosystem.com/encyclopedia-dramatica-ohinternet/ 24.118.41.130 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There's now a Gawker article as well: http://gawker.com/#!5792738/what-happened-to-encyclopedia-dramatica. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please add outdated tag

ED as we know it no longer exists. RIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polmas (talk • contribs) 07:20, 15 April 2011

Well, we shall see. As ever, WP:V applies, surely the mainstream media will pen an obituary if this is indeed the case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
And nothing of value was lost. Robofish (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

the mainstream media dont care for ED unless they are messing up horribly and documenting un-PC things, the only link that will come will be on either Ohinternet or Something awful, farewell sweet prince —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.150.51 (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking down OhInternet

I have no idea how to do this, so I hope this works. Some ED fans banned together and we took down ohinternet. please put this on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.170.24 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

please provide a reliable source. Badmachine (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
What do you cattle call a "reliable source"? Ah, I know: One that sells your kind of Kool-Aid. Please provide which kind of Kool-Aid that is. — 94.220.241.149 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhh... It was on this post, but they removed some comments: http://www.facebook.com/OhInternet/posts/154303367966355 Some one reported the site, but it seems to be back up. Please help us get ED back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonh4t (talk • contribs) 11:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL

LOL at the part about criticizing communities that self-censor in order to gain positive commentary. 166.248.64.51 (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_19&oldid=1082469471"