Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

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.^[1] 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)

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)

lol, I wonder when Mr. Newton will realize that noone cares about his blog anymore. --- Vörös  yes?  18:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

That's fine. We're just not allowed to link directly to it. Silverseren^C 07:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.228.11 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is a link to the .ch Encyclopedia Dramatica not allowed? DMNecris^Talk_{Contributions} 19:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necris (talk • contribs)

This is somewhat extensively discussed above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Receiving some problems

Right now I went to the mirror site only to get a 403. WTF gives? 66.108.211.43 (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

hacked by chinese this morning. They're in the process of restoring the wiki from a backup created last night. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I kinda doubt the Chinese were involved, but if so, go Chinese. At least their hacking industry is good for something. Silverseren^C 07:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, rubbish, the only reason the Chinese would want to do it is to troll the weabou factor, but if they were after that, they can easily find more fertile fields.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Feeds Spam

Oh hi internet is not Encyclopedia Dramatica, the article in its current form is a kind of spam, excessive quotes and coverage from a marginal source are only there to serve up the new site as spam for people who view this article.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

To rename the article as OhInternet and leave out the ED content aside now that the admins from OhI stated that they are NOT ED.66.108.211.43 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. ED is more notable than Oh Internet, and Oh Internet is only notable because of its connection to the original ED. Although Oh Internet != ED, the end of the original ED and the creation of Oh Internet are intertwined. This is an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica with some references to Oh Internet, not vice versa. I don't believe that Oh Internet will become notable outside the context that it was created by some of the people behind ED. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also disagree. Ogrish.com redirected to LiveLeak.com in 2006, but both are separate articles. Oh Internet has yet to establish itself as notable enough for its own article per WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It would seem the only thing the Swiss URL site needs to get a link (at least to the front page) is a mention in a commercial blog. How are the links to the redirection sites justified, when they aren't directly related to the topic?Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The .ch site has WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKLOVE issues as previously discussed. Even without these issues, it is under no obligation to be an exact recreation of the old ED. Oh Internet is not the "New ED" either, as it is markedly different in its content, style and tone. However, it makes sense to mention Oh Internet because this is where the official old ED now redirects.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The original Encyclopedia Dramatica was blacklisted from external links too both before and after this article was created. Being blacklisted does not mean it cannot be mentioned here. It is just an issue with finding sources. Ninja337 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems a little ridiculous that we don't link to the revived Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site that people actually go to by choice, and yet do link to a site which rides off the E.D. domain name. Is there really value in linking to a site which people can't wait to leave? Nevard (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

webecologyproject.org and archive.org

I added a line about these two site's archival efforts with themselves as references. Although this may be considered adding primary sources to the article, I contend that they're still reliable sources.

Alex Leavitt authored the webecologyproject.org post:

I believe that Leavitt has the credentials needed to be considered a reliable source.

According to metadata, Jason Scott authored the archive.org post and created the archive. His opinion is notable, obviously.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Its largely irrelevant, We need secondary sourcing to establish notability for these archives inclusion. Jason Scott's Self published opinion on the importance of ED, the reputation of ED, or some other commentary would be relevant. Jason Scott's Archive of ED is not automatically notable because he put it together. Leavitt's notability for commentary on ED is shakier ground but could be relevant for commentary but its the same his archive is not notable either. We just spent a week or two arguing over .Ch Fork these are no different. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, ED is still up and running and many users go there still. --69.135.192.27 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. [2]), 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)

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)

The .ch page isn't a "fork", it's a continuation of an old project. I think it's more like the situation with Wireshark. The Ethereal trademark was taken by a company that didn't really want to use it any further but didn't want to part with it either. The devs said "fine", thought up a new name, and kept writing code like nothing had happened. Same program, same users, same distributors, same literature - and it's hard to argue that notability wasn't "inherited" in that case. But still, I think this situation needs some careful monitoring. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the link to encyclopediadramatica.ch should be included, as it has I think all, or almost all, of the articles of the original. It also maintains the style of the ed.com, which would allow people to get a feel for the old site even never having been there. It's very relevant to the topic, and there really isn't any good reason not to include it. Additionally, the OhInternet mods have stifled any reference to the new domain on their site, which I assume is to keep from having to compete with it. It is a distinct possibility that that is what Michaeldsuarez is here to do. Also, many people are saying that this article is specifically about encyclopediadramatica.com. I disagree. The article is called Encyclopedia Dramatica, and ed.ch is undoubtedly Encyclopedia Dramatica. And refusing to even mention them because they violated a copyright is ridiculous. Also, as a side note, what they have to say may be of interest to some of you.71.192.45.99 (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the first time someone accused me of covertly controlling Wikimedia content. I was only invited to Oh Internet as a content writer; I was never a moderator or a designer. I was never ordered to control content on this page. I act alone in these discussions. My opinion of .ch has also changed since the start of this discussion. I'm actually a .ch sysop now. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

I'm pretty sure that "unoriginal" refers to every content created within ED, ever. :-) --Conti|✉ 12:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

It is Switzerland, not China (.ch) --80.5.222.104 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The server location doesn't need to match the domain name. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • The new one is certainly operated by a third party. Because ED content is copyrighted, that means the CH site is a copyvio. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

You're right, actually. Okay, here it is: I want people to know that ED is still around. However, I do think it's sort of messed up that Wikipedia's NPOV policy has resulted in them knowingly providing false information. ED is NOT gone, and everyone in this talk page knows that. Also, some people were asking for reliable sources stating its existence, despite the fact that it clearly exists, because you can go there. Not sure if this counts, but here it is. That's right, even Know Your Meme at least MENTIONS it. 71.192.45.99 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

This article about Encyclopaedia Dramatica is incomplete if it doesn't at least make mention of the new encyclopediadramatica.ch URL that is continuing on. Regardless of people's opinion of it, it exists, that's a fact, thus surely it should be mentioned here - even if in the context of being controversial? Politics should not enter into this. Manachi (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Existence does not equal notability. We only included information about Oh Internet! because it was being discussed in reliable sources. If it hadn't been, then we wouldn't even be mentioning that in this article. Unless you can find a reliable source that specifically discusses .ch, then we can't add any info about it into the article. Silverseren^C 00:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself this, "Was the old ED notable?" Ofcourse it was, ED has its own wikipedia page. Now ask yourself, "is ED.ch the original ED?" Yes it is. If one compares googles chache of the original ED and ED.ch, you would find that the content of both are the exact same. Yes ED.ch is incomplete, but it is very close to being complete and therfore should be mentioned on the page. At least make a section that lists some ED archives. Wouldnt that be fair? A simple list of archives to the Original? 65.69.204.131 (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this; the argument that the new ED is a "fork" and therefore non-notable is hair-splitting. Furthermore, there has been at least one mention of the new ED in a reliable source: [This article about Anonymous in The Guardian], published May 11 (nearly a month after ED redirected to ohinternet) refers to Encyclopedia Dramatica in the present tense. They don't mention the site's URL or discuss the switch, but they clearly consider ED to be a going concern. The new ED is just as notable as the original, for the same reasons. Very few people would make a distinction between the two, and I don't think Wikipedia should, either. zorblek (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me!?

I put a source at the end of my edit that was a link to ED's homepage! Clearly you didn't click on it, ED is back! That's the page that comes up when I type ED into Google!Nex Carnifex (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively on the talk page, and is mentioned in the article. The .ch version of the site is an unofficial fork created by disgruntled members of the old ED community. The consensus is not to link to this site, because it has WP:ELNEVER (copyright violation) and WP:LINKLOVE (harassment and publishing private information) issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

These claims that some 'linklove' guideline is being violated don't seem to make that much sense to me. How does linking to revived Encyclopedia Dramatica site differ from the long-standing precedent for linking to the backstabbed site? Nevard (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If this article was about the .ch fork, then there might be reason enough to link to it, but ,this article is about Encyclopedia Dramatica, which has been closed. The official continuation of it is Oh Internet, which has been discussed in reliable sources. That's why there is a paragraph in this article discussing that. If Oh Internet becomes even more covered in reliable sources, then it will probably eventually get its own article. The .ch fork is an unofficial site that violates things mentioned above and also is not discussed in reliable sources, so we cannot mention it here at all. Furthermore, it also has the issues mentioned above. Silverseren^C 01:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The WP:LINKLOVE and WP:ELNEVER arguments (both terrible examples of Wikipedia jargon) can only be a way of gaming the system, as Nevard says, the old site got around both objections to a link a long time ago, so how can they apply to a fork when they didn't apply to the old version regardless of content that fit both descriptions? People here who knew much about the old site also know about the dual copyright-notice system, trying to claim exclusivity over content posted in violation of other people's copyright or freely posted by editors under a less restrictive license by citing a hidden copyright page is cheap.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

the fact that wikipedia is trying like hell to deny that ED is NOT dead just shows you have fucked up wikipedia obviously is. 184.4.120.30 (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

True, ED isn't dead, it's called Oh Internet now. Silverseren^C 01:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

-I know, it's ridiculous, its like they probably realize they're wrong now but just are too stubborn to admit they were wrong, there's no other reason they'd be pulling at the straws like this. ED has come back, type Encyclopedia Dramatica into google and click the first hit, Encyclopedia Dramatica. Same name, same content, shame website. Jesus, Wikipedia is supposed to be a place for documenting history, this is clearly part of ED's history! If there are rules blocking the adding of real, relevant history to Wikipedia, those rules are corrupt, like Wikipedia is looking to be.Nex Carnifex (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The .ch fork is a copyright violation of the real, closed ED. We don't link to copyright violations. It's really as simple as that. And, even if it wasn't a copyright violation, it is still just a fork that is not the actual site. Thus, it would need to be discussed in reliable sources for there to be even a minimal amount of reason to link to it and there are no reliable sources discussing the .ch fork. Therefore, we cannot link to it and we have no real reason to link to it anyways. We're already linking to the real continuation of the site (Oh Internet) anyways. Silverseren^C 02:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Parts may arguably be (the contributions made by Oh Hi and ED LLC people, if they object to their hosting on the .ch site). Since most of those people were never very productive and relied on a lot of copyright violations when they did post things people liked, the argument doesn't work. License people posted under was non-exclusive, management hiding another license on the site doesn't negate the other.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh Internet isn't a continuation; it's a separate site. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. What I meant was that, if anything was going to be considered a continuation of ED, it would be Oh Internet and not a fork of ED itself. However, regardless, both are separate sites and each must have reliable sources discussing them in order for them to be mentioned in this article. Oh Internet has such sources, .ch thus far does not. Silverseren^C 02:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And yet, reliable sources note that encyclopediadramatica.ch is an active continuation of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Saying sources don't exist when you don't even have to look beyond the article for them is a little absurd. Nevard (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if these sources exist, can you link me to them then? If they are reliable sources discussing the .ch fork, then we should probably discuss what to put into this article. Thus far, I haven't seen any sources discussing the fork. Silverseren^C 03:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources out there that say that ed.ch is the successor of ed.com, then that's what we're going to write. If they don't, we won't. It's that simple. --Conti|✉ 07:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Though we'd probably have to phrase it as "Some publications, such as blank and blank, consider encyclopediadramatica.ch to be a spiritual successor to Encyclopedia Dramatica." Since we already have sources saying that Oh Internet is the successor. Anyways, this is all if such sources exist as it is. I just did another search and I didn't find anything relating to the .ch fork. Silverseren^C 07:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh hi is pure link spam as page hijacking. Strange that there don't seem to be any reliable sources on the .ch site, if someone can track one down the front page at least should get a link (as the .com had for the last few years).Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that if Wikipedia went down but was revived on another url like Wikipedia.com, but news only covered its shutdown, then the Wikipedia article wouldn't read Wikipedia is currently down, since that would be incorrect.Nex Carnifex (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLUE, perhaps we should mention encyclopediadramatica.ch. @Silver_seren: If including an external link in the article is inappropriate due to any copyright concerns, then we could mention encyclopediadramatica.ch and its domain name without providing an external link to it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that as long as the domain name is listed, if I went to the Wikipedia page for information about the shutdown of ED, I wouldn't want such information to be withheld from me. And that doesn't break the rules.Nex Carnifex (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning NexCarnifex's analogy, wikipedia.com already redirects to wikipedia.org. Now, if Wikipedia were down, but someone else who happened to have installed mediawiki and had previously downloaded the Wikipedia database dumps (which anyone can do) brought up an out-of-date fork on wikipedia.ch (or some other privately owned domain), with no blessing or involvement from the Wikimedia Foundation, then yes indeed we would still describe Wikipedia as "currently down" - even if the out-of-date fork had correct article histories for attribution (which ed.ch does not).

Given the apparent dearth of reliable sources discussing the ed.ch fork, and given the copyright issues and WP:LINKLOVE issues as already discussed, the case for adding the domain name seems very weak. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Former ED sysop here, ED is dead now, this ed.ch website is just a fake. We had a great run but its time to let go.--F_JUNK_DUMP 01:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Separate sites

Let me put this in simpler terms, for now not worrying about copyright concerns or any of that. The .ch fork and Oh Internet are de facto separate sites from ED itself. Thus, this article will forever have to remain saying that ED is gone. Now, if articles were made on these two separate sites, then of course those articles would say they are active. However, in order to have articles or even any information about them in this article, we would need to have reliable sources discussing them. We do have reliable sources discussing Oh Internet, which is why it gets discussion in this article. But, there has yet to be any reliable source discussing the .ch fork. Thus, regardless of other issues, without reliable sources discussing a subject, we cannot include it. Oh, and by the way, WP:BLUE is overruled by WP:V, in that we have people challenging the information, so it then needs to be sourced. Silverseren^C 20:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, you have that the other way around, in regards to WP:BLUE. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 11:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

ED.ch is basically an archive unaffiliated with OhInternet. --♣thayora♣ 03:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

New domain, in case anyone wondered!

The site www.gigenet.com now runs ED. =) 86.184.85.100 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not ED--ED is at encyclopediadramatica.ch! Equivamp (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not ED - ED is at ohinternet.com! Silverseren^C 02:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not ED, that's OH Internet. ED is at encyclopediadramatica.ch ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 11:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe ED just is on a different domain, it was never called EncyclopediaDramatica.com, it was called Encyclopedia Dramatica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NexCarnifex (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

I don't think there's a reliable source that has even mentioned .ch yet though, beyond just saying that there are "unofficial mirrors". Silverseren^C 08:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO also apply. 198.82.17.35 (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

LOL. LUL? MONGO is now their Featured Article. (title=Main_Page&oldid=53796) Wnt (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 22:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 23:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just reading the new ED site,^[3] 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)

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. Silverseren^C 23:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

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. Silverseren^C 23:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Search engine caches have been repeatedly upheld as fair use. 198.82.17.146 (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Fair use isn't determined by what seems nice, it's determined by 17 USC 107. 198.82.17.173 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

COPPA. 198.82.17.146 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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. Silverseren^C 02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Personally I think that they're acting more "trollish" as a way to kind of spite the ohinternet people. It will probably settle back down to the way the old ED was sooner or later. 64.30.108.183 (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

I am...very doubtful that Sherrod will ever give permission for such, especially not after they DDOS'ed her new site. Silverseren^C 10:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Please do not spread false information. Users of ED.ch were explicitly discouraged to DDoS OhInternet. The DDoS attacks on OhInternet were executed by unrelated users of the /b/ board on 4chan. 81.71.53.254 (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm not going to read this entire debate, but I think it's become pretty obvious at this point that ed.ch has taken over the function that the old ED used to serve. Also, from Alexa page rankings you can see that it is at least as popular of a site as ohinternet is, so I'd think it would be at least as notable.

Besides, I was under the impression that the notability criteria was for the creation of new articles. Not for every single fact and reference inside of an article. 64.30.108.183 (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As has been repeated in discussions below this (the one with WHOIS in the title for one), Alexa page rankings and popularity have absolutely nothing to do with notability or really anything to do with two separate sites.

And, you're right, WP:N deals with new articles, which is why it directs people to WP:V, which applies to content within articles. And, per WP:V, there needs to be a reliable source discussing .ch and its connection to ED. Please go and join the two sections on the very bottom of this page to discuss this. Silverseren^C 04:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me like there's a lot of "he said/she said" going on in the conflict between the Oh Internet folks and the ED.ch folks (and to be clear, I mean the conflict happening directly between those people, not the debate here on Wikipedia), and both sides are close enough to the matter to be "primary sources" as per WP:Primary. Many people in the debate at this article seem to be privileging comments made by Sherrod and other Oh Internet admins over those made by current and former ED admins, and I think that's a mistake. A project like ED is a group endeavor, and while Sherrod owns the original URL, that doesn't automatically make her the sole person who can speak with any authority about the future (or lack thereof) of the project. The article should reflect the viewpoints of other people involved in the conflict, too.

On a side note, death threats and blatant copyright violation are both longstanding traditions of ED (both old and new). They may be reprehensible, but they're not grounds to treat the new domain any differently than the old one. ED has always been fraught with problems. zorblek (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I understand the copyright and harassment reasons for not linking to ED.ch, but they also ought to have applied to ED.com. And I don't want the debate over that to get confused with the debate over whether or not the article should treat ED.ch as the current canonical domain. zorblek (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What's with this WHOIS nonsense?

This page says absolutely nothing about the subject of this article, Encyclopedia Dramatica.com. It doesn't even make a connection between the two, so any assumption of a connection being made is pure WP:SYNTH. Regardless, this has been discussed multiple times before and, as stated before, unless a reliable source can be found discussing the .ch fork in relation to ED, then no information about the .ch fork can be included in this article. We hold Oh Internet to the same standard and it passes those standards because it has reliable sources discussing it in the context of ED. Silverseren^C 12:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, per WP:BLUE. If you checked the Alexa rankings on both the .com and the .ch, you will have noticed this as well. This insistence on sources for a satirical wiki, not to mention allegations of copyright infringement, can be considered WikilawyeringShawnIsHere: Now in colors 12:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLUE doesn't apply here at all, because, per WP:V, any statement that is challenged with a rationale must be referenced, overriding BLUE. Second, I just checked the Alexa ranking and ED is way, way higher than the .ch fork, by about 40,000. Not to mention the fact that there are no Link-ins whatsoever for the .ch fork, so there is absolutely nothing to get from that data. The WHOIS data for the .ch fork says absolutely nothing about ED, so it has no relation to it. And your accusations of Wikilawyering are obviously disputed by a number of users in above discussions, not to mention that multiple users versed in copyright have stated that it is indeed infringement. Silverseren^C 12:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If you bothered to look at the charts, you'll notice that traffic to the .com is plummeting, while corresponding traffic to the .ch is increasing exponentially. Furthermore, I stand by by my accusation and add another: gaming the systemShawnIsHere: Now in colors 12:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course traffic to ED is down. It should be down to 0 actually, since the site doesn't exist anymore, so there is no way to get traffic. Your argument based on traffic, anyways, also says absolutely nothing about a connection between ED and .ch. A separate website getting traffic has no relation to ED. Thanks for the accusations, but they're still not going to go anywhere. Silverseren^C 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've checked Alexa, and the CH fork now has about half the traffic the original ED had before the shutdown and is gaining steadily. Many of the people who raised copyright objections are, according to their own comments in other places, affiliated with Ohinternet. So such complaints are in reality legal threats, Wikipedia has a policy in regards to legal threats issued on talk pages and it isn't compliance. You know the CH fork is not an entirely separate entity from the original site and trying to claim otherwise is disingenuous. The CH fork has overtaken Ohinternet on Google, in traffic, and in the activity of its editors; you are fighting a rising tide.184.235.144.185 (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Find a reliable, third-party source that says that ed.ch is the new ed.com, then we can add that to the article. If you don't have it, don't. It. Is. That. Simple. --Conti|✉ 14:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

yawn, Its not Wikilawyering. you are honestly getting rather hostile here which is unneeded The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

wasted ergs w/o sight of a cite confirming that .ch site's copyrightsDeXXus (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"closed" vs "renamed"

In the second paragraph of the lead, all RS say that the website was "renamed", "evolved", "migrated", "cleaned up", "reborn", etc. No RS says that ED was "closed". All RS say that it's the same website as ED.

Can we please follow the RS when writing the article, instead of writing whatever we feel personally that is correct? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Your change sounds a lot better. I just wish everyone followed that philosophy in terms of RS's. Wikipedia would be a much more complete, neutral place. :/ Silverseren^C 08:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

YAY!!! A new opportunity to promote Ohinternet! 184.235.144.185 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Silver seren. Well, at least the revert forced me to write a better text. Now the article says that the design was all overhauled.

@184.235.144.185. Go get some RS to talk about the .ch website. A journalist in a technology magazine or something. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the level of traffic and number of edits of the CH fork compared to Ohinternet it will only be a matter of time before there is a good source. But since not many people care about either of these sites only a few brief articles have been written in the immediate aftermath of the change. The limited journalistic record is thus a poor reflection of reality, a few editors, some connected to Ohinternet, may ensure that Wikipedia is also a poor reflection of reality. The press will eventually catch up, it is hard to justify waiting for them without a heavy dose of sophistry.173.128.61.132 (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a feature, not a bug. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources report and claim. That's what encyclopedias do. --Conti|✉ 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually that's true, but it isn't holy rite. When it results in an article that is further from the truth rather than closer it's a bug. 173.128.61.132 (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, we do have reliable sources; Alexa, recent changes logs (to gauge activity), Google ranking, social network activity, and so on. These are primary sources which under the guidelines we are allowed to use within reason. Using them does not rise to the level of original research, it is simple observation. Why should we allow an interpretation of the rules which blinds us to reality? 173.128.61.132 (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, Verifiability, not truth. Second off, the problem with your primary sources is that they made no connection between the two. Neither Alexa, WHOIS, or Google ranking links anything between the two. Traffic to a website is not indicative of any connection between them or you could make the argument about any two disparate sites and their amount of traffic. Any connection you try to foster without a reliable source specifically stating a connection is synthesis. Silverseren^C 19:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How could any disinterested observer honestly doubt the connection between the two sites? The vast majority of the content is the same, the users are mostly the same, and the guiding philosophy is identical. Synthesis does not mean playing blind, deaf, and dumb, so one website can use Wikipedia to promote itself while mention of the other is suppressed. 173.128.61.132 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeating an analogy i've used above, if someone makes a copy dump of Wikipedia onto their own website and some users of Wikipedia transfer over there, that doesn't make that site Wikipedia. Even if Wikipedia itself shut down, that doesn't make that other site Wikipedia and it doesn't make it a "continuation" of it. Furthermore, if instead of shutting down, Wikipedia changed into some other sort of Wiki format and redirected the URL to it, with the same leadership, then that would be the proper continuation of it. So no, there is no connection between the two that is logical, the logical connection is that Oh Internet is the continuation of it and this logic has been reflected in reliable sources. If people really thought the .ch fork was a continuation, then one of the multiple sources commenting about the ED change would have mentioned the .ch fork, but they didn't. The most that happened is that they said multiple mirror sites were created and some of the members went to those. Silverseren^C 22:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What reliable sources? You mean one of the three or four brief accounts written almost immediately after the shutdown, before the CH fork was even really active? If something like this had happened with Wikipedia there would be hundreds of articles about the new site. Since there is much less interest in this subject there are far fewer sources so it must be treated differently. In this case that means using primary sources. 173.128.61.132 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works. We do use primary sources, but only sparingly, and not for information like this. (Regardless of the fact that none of the primary sources make a connection between the two as it is, since amount of traffic or rankings is not a connection) If there are no secondary sources discussing it, then it is just non-notable and it is not put into the article. Silverseren^C 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How can you tell me that isn't how it works, while you simultaneously grossly misuse the guideline on notability. The guideline clearly and repeatedly says it applies to the existence of articles not their content. Is it a coincidence that when you search for Encyclopedia Dramatica on Google you come to the CH fork before Ohinternet? People aren't coming to this article trying to promote a bunch of different forks, there is one website that the content and community that was Encyclopedia Dramatica mostly relocated to. Misapplied policy and lack of media coverage should not blind us to that fact. 173.128.61.132 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. As WP:N says, in terms of content, we should be going to WP:V, where we again run up against the needing a reliable source that directly describes the information. You don't have a reliable source describing distinctly the connection between ED and the .ch fork, all you have are rankings on various ranking sites, which isn't a source at all. This is an encyclopedia, if there is a lack of coverage on a topic, then it is not included. It is as simple as that. So long as you don't have a reliable source directly describing the .ch fork, you aren't going to win this argument. Silverseren^C 00:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the content and participants on the new site it seems like the connection of the CH fork to the original would be evident to any disinterested observer. If that isn't sufficient we already have academic papers that cite the CH fork. The original Encyclopedia Dramatica attracted a bit of contention as to whether it should receive an article so perhaps it is inevitable that the new Encyclopedia Dramatica will have to fight for its place. I hope this debate doesn't take the time and effort the last debate did. 173.128.61.132 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thnak you for finally providing some sort of source. I've started a RSN discussion here to get an outside opinion on whether it is reliable for that information. If so, then we can probably have a sentence line in the article. Silverseren^C 02:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the RSN discussion. I hope the fight to include the new Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't going to end up being as long and painful as the debate to start the original article on Encyclopedia Dramatica was. Oh well... maybe it will become a tradition. 173.128.61.132 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... why even post this redirecting links here to other site... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.213.142 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We've already explained above in other sections that, even if reliable sources discuss the .ch fork, that only means that we'll be discussing it here, but we can never actually link to it from this article for multiple reasons, the main one being that the .ch fork is a copyright violation. Silverseren^C 19:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Because we have reliable sources talking about the redirect. --Conti|✉ 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, they were talking about Oh Internet, never mind then. Silverseren^C 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Former ED sysop here, ED is dead now so it is closed and not renamed, Ohinternet is a new and different site. This ed.ch website is just a fake run by a script kiddie in the UK who doesnt know how to run a website on MediaWiki and doesnt care about putting illegal stuff on the site, even though it uses the .ch it is still hosted in the USA. Some of the laws that fake site has broken is the COPPA act and hosting identity theft information.--F_JUNK_DUMP 02:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There was some private info posted on the site, but as far as I know it has all been removed. 173.128.61.132 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't COPPA refer to websites' practices in collecting information? ED doesn't ask kids who they are and where they live. Wnt (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh Internet vs New ED

Oh Internet is the named predessesor to ED by ED's creators, however the new ED is far more popular and is growing much faster. Both are notable to ED's history and should be mentioned in the article IMO.Nex Carnifex (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean "predessesor" and not successor? No wonder you aren't getting anywhere much in the debate.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, what do you consider "the new ED"? I'm assuming .ch. Equivamp (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• There is no new ED, ED is closed this "new" ED is just a fake made by people that got mad and butthurt, get over it.--F_JUNK_DUMP 16:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, the new ED is fake? What does that even mean? Will the new ED still be "fake" when it has the same traffic as the old ED? It is already more than half way there. Will it be a fake if it doesn't have the same content as the old ED? Most of the content has been transferred over. Why get over it, when we can get on building this new(?) site? A lot of Ohinternet users come here seeming to think that if they hurt the CH fork they will save Ohinternet. But really, Ohinternet will fail on its own merits. It is a second class copy of knowyourmeme.com, the userbase and community that took years for ED to build have been well and truly squandered. Ohinternet will probably not be able to reverse their downward trajectory and I understand how frustrating that is, but trying to drag the CH fork down with you will accomplish nothing. 107.25.238.136 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that "a lot of Ohinternet users come here"? Come to think of it, what makes you think that there even are "a lot of Ohinternet users"? Personally, I've never even been to the site, and I imagine very few others commenting here have any connection with it either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, no point going into details or acrimony, but the IP contributor is right, Oh Internet people have more than their share of "guidance" and comments on this page, but then Demiurge1000, why do you comment when you clearly don't have a clue? If you do have a clue, then why make a false statement?Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well in this case I am replying to F_JUNK_DUMP who identifies himself as a admin at Ohinternet on his userpage. You are right about the sites general unpopularity though.107.25.238.136 (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't see the catch with Oh Internet, ED was the internets main hub for everything over the top and no rules content, thats why it was so popular, not because it had stuff about internet memes.Nex Carnifex (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• We've already discussed this time and again. Both Oh Internet and the .Ch fork are their own websites and, as such, must have their own separate notability to be mentioned in this article. In order for that, they need to be covered in reliable sources, per WP:V. Oh Internet has clearly surpassed this, being discussed in multiple places, which is why they get a section. The .Ch fork, thus far, has not. Without reliable sources, it doesn't matter what you try to argue, we're not going to put anything into the article. Silverseren^C 20:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't realize you owned this article. The RSN discussion you've initiated is conflicted on whether the academic paper counts as a reliable source. You can't keep misapplying policies like notability to keep content you don't want in an article suppressed indefinitely. 107.25.238.136 (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Working papers are not WP:RS as they are unfinished products that have not been reviewed. It does not even mention .ch fork at all except as citation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. I'm sorry if I'm not being civil, but with so many self admitted Ohinternet users like F_JUNK_DUMP here to promote their site one has to wonder who else is promoting Ohinternet more discreetly. Establishing somethings existence doesn't require much of a source especially when there are so many primary sources that vouch to its existence and the connection. Nobody is arguing about the reality of the situation, or any of the facts, the debate is centered on if any of the half dozen sources that mention this issue constitute proper documentation of it. At the moment a group of editors, some at least connected to Ohinternet, have managed to turn this article into an advertisement of one site and suppressed the mention of another. 107.25.238.136 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

None of us are listening to F_Junk_Dump either (or I hope not, at least), we're just going by the normal policies for which every article must subscribe to. It all falls down to sourcing. And with such a contentious area as this has become, we 100% need a good source to back up any statements made. Silverseren^C 22:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing needs to "have notability" to be mentioned in an article. If ED.ch becomes notable in its own right, that is the standard (in theory) for it to have its own article and to survive the inevitable AFD about it. The standard that applies is much, much weaker: we need only to have a single WP:reliable source that says that ED.ch is the successor to ED.com. Unfortunately I keep coming up empty every time I look. But if someone can point to one, then this debate is over, as far as I'm concerned. Wnt (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian Article

User:Zorblek recently created a section on my talk page about this revert that I made not too long ago. He states that because of this article in The Guardian, we should think of the .ch fork as the current version of ED. I'm creating this section to discuss that.

Let me note that the text in the article that discusses ED is as follow, "To first accumulate knowledge about Anonymous's rules, a user must spend a considerable amount of time online – eg, on websites such as 4chan or Encyclopedia Dramatica – to become familiar with its language and understand its culture.". I would say that the author of this article is ignorant of the fact that ED is inaccessible and that this offhand comment about example websites doesn't really mean anything about the .ch fork. We can interpret it to mean whatever we want, but if it doesn't specifically state as such, then it doesn't matter. Please discuss. Silverseren^C 00:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"the new ED has already been mentioned in the Guardian" - well, I'm sure that's a good faith statement. Presumably, Zorblek felt that's what the Guardian was saying. But in reality, reading the Guardian article, it doesn't say anything about there being "a new ED" (or any wording that could even vaguely be related to that). No point in trying to interpret what the Guardian writer knew or did not know, or intended to say - to put it quite simply, the Guardian article does not discuss the .ch site at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So we use this source that talks about the ED general... to interpret what ever we want from it? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of the concept of "reliable sources" is that we trust them because they go to the trouble of doing research and making sure that what they publish is accurate. Professional news sites publish corrections even when very minor details in their stories turn out to be incorrect. The Guardian article was published nearly a month after the ED switch, giving them plenty of time to research, fact-check, and correct the article, if they felt that was necessary.

And what of my other points? To me, the Guardian article is a secondary issue. This argument really seems to boil down to whether or not the article is about a particular website or whether it is about the project that used that website. Sherrod DeGrippo decided that she didn't like the site anymore and replaced it with Oh Internet. Other ED editors disagreed and created the new site to host the project. To my mind, the article should be about the project (for the same reasons that we don't start a new article every time Wikileaks has to change their hosting or URL). While the site was under DeGrippo's control, it seems to me that the project no longer is. It lives on at a new URL, but with the same content and purpose (and the Guardian article reflects this which is why I cited it). The article should definitely discuss the change in addresses and the controversy over Oh Internet, but it should also reflect the fact that, even though it lives on different servers registered to a different person, the project continues. zorblek (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well argued, but it leaves the block against even making a link to the front page of the new site exactly where it was (not that I'd delete one if it were there). Someone has to specifically mention the URL before it has a chance of a link. Also might be apropos to recall that the main party behind old ED finally getting this lasting link on Wikipedia (user known as BAT on ED) was permanently banned by the dominant parts of the old ED crowd just about the same time as his campaign finally achieved lasting success (making the article stay on Wikipedia).Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with not directly linking to ED. If I understand the relevant policies correctly, there probably shouldn't have been a link to the old URL, either. Copyright infringement and defamatory speech were just as rampant there as they are at the new URL. But I think that the article should recognize that the ED project still exists at the .ch domain and that it didn't just die with the redirect to Oh Internet. And I think we ought to be able to mention the URL (since it is an important part of the project's history) even if we can't actually link to it. zorblek (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lots of copyright violations also - especially if you're counting all our "Fair Use", which applies just as much if not more to use for satirical purposes. Do you prohibit linking to Wikipedia? Anyway, the plaintext encyclopediadramatica.ch is enough for identification, without adding the deep pseudo-religious legal significance of "http://" to the mix. But unfortunately, when I read the Guardian article, I wasn't persuaded the author unambiguously referenced the new site. Wnt (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is OhInternet a recreation of Encyclopedia Dramatica?

To tangent from the above topics…

Oh Internet is not Encyopedia Dramatica as the article supposes. 'Encyclopedia Dramatica' is defined as the domain name 'www.encyclopediadramatica.com' and the intellectual property concerned with ED copyright. OhInternet, however is a different project entirely; notable differences: a new XML coding system, logo and form of satire. To use terms in the article: the site was not 'overhauled' but rather 'replaced'.

To use Silverseren's analogy, if Wikipedia did rename itself, kept most of its higher administration and stopped using Wikimedia software would it still be Wikipedia? The answer is "No". The Wikipedia name and intellectual property becomes inactive, lost. If one were to charge a Wikipedia fork site with copyright violations they would have to give evidence of their ownership of Wikipedia copyright and not that of the new 'OhKnowledge.com', the hypothetical Wikipedia replacement. (Sherrod, however does have evidence, so don't take this as a justification for the .ch). Once a site loses connection with the old name or any registered associated material it ceases to be the same entity. Oh Internet has no parallels to the old site at all. The position that the new site is ED just 'cleaned' should be removed from the article immediately.

Encyclopedia Dramatica, as defined, is dead. OhInternet is a whole new project – a de facto successor, but not 'ED'. The redirect was an attempt to maintain website hits but as many 3rd party websites will show, it didn't quite work out. The vast majority of the volunteer editors did leave. Site activity, growth and edit numbers are much higher at encyopediadramaticia.ch than at OhInternet. OhInternet’s declining popularity should first stabilize before any 'notability' assessment goes underway.

Understandably the nature of ED.ch is illegal so I don't care for it immediate coverage. I like to think the site will cool down over time.

94.170.94.249 (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Why repeat and misinterpret other people's comments if you are trying to join a discussion? This page could do without your comments.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

1) It's not a comment it's an imperative.

2) It's not based or related to any other comment so it cannot be based on misinterpreted logic.

3) If I were to join a discussion I'd reply as I am doing now. The new section denotes that I'm starting a new discussion on the subject article.

Topics could do without counterproductive replies from you.

94.170.94.249 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New site could do with fewer brain-challenged idiots in general.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, tangent is not a verb.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

'tangenate' then.

94.170.94.249 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with the wording of the lead, as "rename" doesn't really describe what happens, as you say. I'm not sure what other word to use, though. "Redirect" doesn't quite fit, either, as that would imply that the content stayed the same. --Conti|✉ 12:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect is what people went with on this page, you are right that rename doesn't fit, so what else could it be?Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm, how did that get back in? Not really even worth checking usernames.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The on the third paragraph of the page says: "The site was renamed to Oh Internet.", a statement that is not only wrong but implies the url was changed before the content revamp.

94.170.94.249 (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, change it back, site wasn't renamed as you know, there was an attempt at destruction, URL was redirected: people on this page agree on all of that already (even the ones from Oh Hi), so if they are trying to put it back again, reject it again. It's just a sales gimmick.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree; Oh Internet is not ED, and the article's wording should reflect that. "Redirected" is much better than "renamed". zorblek (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong argument under WP:ELNEVER not to link to Ohinternet. There are conflicting claims as to the license of the old ED, and the legal situation has not been established. If we are going to assume that the original content belongs to the creator for the purposes of excluding one site, we must apply the rules consistently to others. Several users have already complained about the unlawful use of their intellectual property. Unless someone can justify their presence I think all links to Ohinternet should be removed in accordance with ELNEVER until the intellectual property situation is resolved. 72.62.206.160 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've asked a friend to forward an unblock request to a OhInternet sysop. I hope to partake in the thread I've started and negotiate a fair resolution. The thread is located here, and it has evolved (one-sidedly) since the screenshot you've linked to was taken. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's great, and I'm sure you'll do your best to solve this problem. But until it is resolved... 72.62.206.160 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but my request has been rejected. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There are much stronger reasons than copyright-reasons that lead us not to link to ED.ch. Hmm, and wasn't there already a discussion on this talk page about whether ohinternet was allowed to copy content from ed.com? I think so, but I'm not entirely sure right now. --Conti|✉ 19:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, it's actually quite simple. According to ED's copyright page, all original content added to it belongs to ED and the owner, Degrippo is the owner. Thus, when she went and made Oh Internet, the intellectual copyright still belonged to her and she's allowed to use it however she wants. This includes commercially and copying things over to a new site she owns. She owns all of the original content on ED, de facto. Silverseren^C 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not their property anymore. The moment that they saved original content onto ED, it became the property of ED and its administration. The ED administration is allowed to do whatever it wants with this property, including sell it commercially. Silverseren^C 21:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be true if there weren't two separate and contradictory copyright agreements posted on the site. I am not well enough versed in intellectual property law to assert a definitive judgment on this matter, but I believe in such cases the content is usually assumed to belong to the creator. Why are we giving one site the benefit of the doubt while denying it to another? 72.62.206.160 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember that debate and I don't remember anything that was a genuine copyright transfer. Can you even do a copyright transfer without submitting an actual signature - not a username, but your actual legal name? The claim was that the edits were released to "Encyclopedia Dramatica". But what is Encyclopedia Dramatica? As I said before, I think that ED is a body of work, and thus anyone hosting it retains the right to use the edits. Wnt (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mention Spinoffs?

I think the article should mention just how many spin-offs were created as a reaction to the site's demise. I'm not just talking about the .ch fork--there's also a wikia spin-off, and others. Equivamp (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to see the .ch domain recognized in the article as the continuation of the project, but even if it isn't, the various attempts to resurrect ED should at least be mentioned. zorblek (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Handling_trivia. The article already mentions that forks exists, and I don't believe that most (ie. non-.ch) forks are worth mentioning by name. Lurkmoarpedia redirects to WhyWeProtect.com, encyclopediaerratica.com is a hive for spam, and wasn't the Wikia one deleted? Out of curiosity, is there a non-.ch fork I'm not aware of? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. People kept talking about them so I assumed they existed, but I haven't seen any. I agree that the various more minor spin-offs probably aren't worth enumerating, but I'd like the mention of them to remain. zorblek (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

None of other sites have anywhere near the traffic or activity of ED.ch or Ohinternet. I don't think anyone here is arguing about anything other than ED.ch and Ohinterent.72.62.206.160 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Alright... *sighs* All of you need to understand something here. It doesn't matter how much traffic a site gets, it doesn't really even matter how the content inside the site is organized, all that matters is that it is discussed in reliable sources. Thus, if one of the sites besides .ch was discussed in a reliable source, then we'd be putting that into the article and not .ch. Again, it's all about the sources. Silverseren^C 21:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, then maybe there should be an ED.ch article, eh, Silver? (I feel an urge to call you seren for some reason. O.o) Equivamp (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If it had enough reliable sources discussing it, sure. The issue is that there isn't any (yet) that discuss it. The only source presented up above just uses it in the Works cited page, which isn't discussion of the site itself. Silverseren^C 22:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, this either needs to become Oh Internet, or be edited as I suggested. Consensus seems to be against you on this ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 00:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Having a bunch of people from ED make accounts and comment on this page does not a consensus make. Notice that practically all of the regular editors that have commented here have the same opinion as me. You have yet to show any source that discusses your proposed fact that Oh Internet or the .ch fork are currently ED. All you have is your opinion, which is not what encyclopedia articles are written on. I don't get why it's so hard to understand that this article is about the website ED, not the community or the phenomenon or any other word you want to use, but the website itself. Silverseren^C 01:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In some cases a personal opinion would be good enough. For example, when a newspaper article is no longer available from the publisher but is cached by the nonprofit organization it describes, we wouldn't think twice about referencing the article "available at XXX". A few times I might even have lazily added a third-party link as the URL and otherwise submitted the reference without mention that the URL wasn't the original. Of course, ED is different because the first most visible page you encounter, the Main Page, is different every day, and thus different in ED.ch from any preceding version. And the articles are subject to continuing revision. And some are added. And a lot of the pictures are still missing or substandard. So I think this is a claim for a reliable source to decide, but it's not really that far removed from what we'd do routinely. Wnt (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And here we get to the crux of the matter: Silver seren is of the opinion that the article is (and should be) about a specific website, hosted at encyclopediadramatica.com. I am of the opinion that the article is (and should be) about Encylopedia Dramatica, a project that was once hosted encyclopediadramatica.com and has now migrated (amid much controversy) to encyclopediadramatica.ch. Compare with the Wikipedia article. It discusses Wikipedia not just as a website, but as a project. Wikipedia is not just a domain name and a bunch of content on a server, it's also a project made up of many people. ED may have less formal organization, but I think the same principle applies. This is why I think WP:BLUE applies here. If the article is about the project, then stating that the content of the project has moved from one domain to another is not the kind of thing that needs a great deal of verification, and waiting for it when it's a topic that is rarely covered by mainstream media seems silly to me. People coming to this article want information about ED, and the fact that it is thriving at a new address (with or without the approval of its previous administrators) is relevant information that should be included in the article.

Furthermore, Silver seren, there is plenty of opposition to the status quo of the article coming from editors who are not just "people from ED". I may not be as prolific a contributor as you, but I've been a registered user of Wikipedia since 2005. I'm not making this argument because I have some axe to grind about ED or Oh Internet or whatever, but because I want to make Wikipedia a better, more complete source of information. I don't see how excluding relevant, obvious information makes Wikipedia better.

Lastly, what about those "people from ED"? Don't they get a voice in this debate, too? Isn't Wikipedia "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit?" Wikipedia policy requires neutrality of its articles, not its contributors. If they have an argument to make, that argument should be judged on its merits. zorblek (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

But that's just the thing. This article, if you look at the lede, does not use the words project. It describes ED as a wiki, because there wasn't a project beyond the site itself. There hasn't ever been. While it's all well and good that ED may have expanded with this .ch site, but that doesn't change the fact that it needs a source that describes it in such a manner. The same thing applies to the Wikipedia article and it has sources to back up its assertions. WP:BLUE, as i've stated before, only applies to information that isn't challenged. Once some piece of information is challenged, then it needs to be sourced, per WP:V. That's how it works. I and other users on this page have challenged your assertion, so now you must provide a reliable source that backs up and states the information that you want to add to the article. Without a reliable source for this information, especially for something as controversial as this has become, the article cannot be changed to describe anything as a project or anything else you want to add.

As i've repeated over and over again, if you want to add information about .ch to the article, then you need to provide a reliable source that actually discusses it specifically. No inferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver seren (talk • contribs) 06:18, 29 May 2011

Well, according to Wikipedia, a wiki is a website, and a website is a collection of web pages, and web pages are documents or information resources. Note therefore that sources calling ED a wiki are not saying that it is defined as the ED.com domain name and wherever that redirects. That would be an inference. Wnt (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I am a little mystified by the claim that ED wasn't a project. How could it not be? The article may not use that term, but pretty much any wiki (at least one used by multiple people) is a project. It may not have had a formal organization in the same way that say, Wikipedia does, but that doesn't mean it's not a project. The article didn't need to make a distinction between the project and the site because there wasn't one. Now there is. It seems pretty simple to me. zorblek (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep making me repeat myself? You saying that there is now a distinction means nothing. Find a reliable source that says there is such a distinction. Until we have a reliable source discussing the .ch website, we can't even mention that it exists. That's what verifiability means. Silverseren^C 21:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe you're confusing verifiability with notability. You don't need a secondary source to assert that a thing exists when it clearly does. Obviously, there's plenty of controversy around ED.ch, but does anyone dispute that it exists? Also, I think you're missing my point about the site/project distinction. What I'm saying is that pretty much any wiki is by definition also a kind of project. You don't need a citation for that for the same reason that you wouldn't need a citation to assert that a Honda Civic is a machine, even though the Honda Civic article never uses that word. zorblek (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Seren dissembles, the "why do you make me repeat myself" line is really the tactic, Oh Hi wants to keep the argument going in circles, no resolution, no link for continuing or forked ED. For those on the other side, question is why are there no mentions of the forks, I agree with the post above: all of them should get a mention, even the ones that aren't going any more, simply as epheremal yet major Internet phenomena. Unfortunately, nobody clearly eligible for WP "notability" seems to have written about them, more a comment on the "commentariat" than anything else.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you were reading about a website, wouldn't you want to be told the truth about whether it is still up somewhere or not? The truth is, ED is still up and being edited somewhere, that somewhere being encyclopediadramatica.ch, and it's important information to include about the website. Nex Carnifex (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)