Jump to content

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

encyclopediadramatica.se at wikinews

please add this to the ever growing list of sources that refer to encyclopediadramatica.se in the present tense:

that list now includes, among others,:

67.174.52.134 (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Present tense is not an issue at the moment. Besides, as I stated above, Encyclopedia Dramatica is the name ED.se chose for itself, so it's impossible to differentiate between what meaning the media has for the name unless they specifically explain it. Also, Wikinews is not a reliable source. SilverserenC 06:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm seriously lolling IRL. Why are you even still arguing with people about this?

Correction — Jun 18, 2012 the Critics United page on Encyclopedia Dramatica was created on June 6, after the purge.

— Wikinews
Which version of Encyclopedia Dramatica was around on June 6th, 2012? I'll give you a hint. It's domain suffix starts with s and ends with e. The article details events from August 2012 to September 2012. Yeah so it is not Totally Impossible to differentiate at which point in ED history they are talking about. I'm going to give you a tip as I see this kind of editing a lot; We know you are posting out of pure, excruciating anal devastation, so it could be in your own best interest to think for a few more seconds before you press the "Save Page" button next time. Reading the article probably couldn't hurt as well. Best of luck to you bro. --Zaiger (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh Internet

At this point in time, Oh Internet is definitely notable enough for a page of its own. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources out there that cover ohinternet as a separate entity, then by all means. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried to add a link to encyclopediadramatica.se in this article's infobox, but then I was presented with a spam filter notice. Will encyclopediadramatica.se ever be "whitelisted" for this article, or will it remain blocked forever? Jarble (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The block is bencyclopediadramatica\.(ch|se)\b # listing here until decision is made on meta at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. If memory serves, it was OK to link to the main page of encyclopediadramatica.com in this article only. Other pages and articles were blocked to prevent spamming and trolling.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears that links to encyclopediadramatica.se are still not whitelisted for this article - I made another attempt to add a link to encyclopediadramatica.se in the infobox, and I was presented with the same spam filter notice. Jarble (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The encyclopediadramatica.com domain was also blacklisted and not whitelisted for the article in the past. This was decided, I can guess from looking at past discussions, because ED is considered a spam and attack site, which we don't link to at all. But it's not like the URL isn't represented in the article, it's spelled out directly there, just not explicitly linked. Readers are free to copy and paste the URL name if they so desire. SilverserenC 00:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a relic of the BADSITES wars of years past; see this essay. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If a kind anon may offer a suggestion; use one of the many links that redirect to ED. Try linking to dildomail.com, one such redirect page. It sounds to me like whitelisting a link is a long drawn-out process and is a remnant of some long-gone policy... so this may be a nice workaround... although to me, Wikipedia has never screamed "efficient." 50.59.14.6 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Redirect link removed. Purposefully using a redirect or an url shortener to get around a block is courting disaster. Follow the policy and request a blacklist removal if that is your desire, and see how it progresses. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I admit, I haven't kept up with the WP:BADSITES / WP:LINKLOVE battles, but I distinctly remember my side, the pro-link side, won. Has the war continued on without me? -- Kendrick7talk 00:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, ED is still blacklisted, with the exception of the about page that is used as a reference. More importantly, however, your edits removed the link to the original ED homepage, as well as information about it. That is important information that should be kept either way. In addition, you declared the about page of ED as the official homepage, which is simply incorrect. --Conti|✉ 00:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I neither know, nor care, about the ongoing political machinations that prevent a proper link to the site being whitelisted for this page. Nevertheless, I believe a working link to the site of some provenance should be in the sidebar. -- Kendrick7talk 02:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You're free not to care about the blacklisting, but that's not going to undo it. If you want a working link to ED's homepage, convince the community to take the site off the blacklist. Working around the blacklist is not the way to go. --Conti|✉ 17:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Eh, again, my side won. If it's not possible to whitelist the correct link for this article, that's your problem. -- Kendrick7talk 02:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The use of web proxies or redirects is against the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia:External_links#Redirection_sites. For ED, this is being done to circumvent the block described in the section above. The proper course of action would be to argue that the block should be lifted, not to circumvent the block.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:LINKLOVE is quite clear on the matter, and this link isn't being used for the purposes of spam. Per WP:BURO there's no reason not to present this article correctly per the relevant policy. -- Kendrick7talk 02:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Basically, this is an attempt to link to the site even though it is on the blacklist. The problem in the past has been personal attacks and privacy violations, not spam. Some of the pages also contain shock site material which would normally be blocked per WP:EL. The problem is not so much a link to the main page, but allowing a link to any page on the site, which could contain anything. This is why the block still stands.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Refusing to link to this site on an article about this site violates the WP:LINKLOVE guideline, which, if you crawl back through the discussion, was created with this article rather specifically in mind-- Kendrick7talk 12:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. Attempting to import various feuds from ED to this article is one of the reasons why WP:LINKLOVE was created. Personally, I would not object to a link to the main page of ED as long as there was a promise not to do this, or to show grossly NSFW material, or to use browser crashing scripts.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Would people please discuss this issue instead of edit warring about it? The ED about page has been whitelisted only to be used as a reference, see here. It's been a while, though, and it's definitely possible that the consensus on the issue has changed. Regardless, we do need a consensus to change and whitelist ED's homepage, if we want to. We achieve consensus by talking about this, not by linking unrelated whitelisted pages or URL redirects. --Conti|✉ 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The web address field is just that; a field for the current web address. Since for extenuating circumstances we can't link to the main ED page, the about sub-page was white-listed as a compromise, IIRC. Your version is partially incorrect on one aspect (the current site is not a mirror), and too wordy (whatever former URL may have been used can be noted in the body of the article) on the other. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Just have a look at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist: "About page only, used in a reference". The page was white-listed so it could be used as a reference, not so it could be used as an external link to the homepage. Otherwise, we might as well whitelist the ED homepage (which I personally have no opinion on) instead of linking to a random sub-page of ED.
As for the other point, it is very important to point out that the current ED did start out as a mirror. We've had that discussion before, and the general consensus was to use both URLs as a homepage, the original one and the current one. Again, consensus can change, but it doesn't change by edit warring. --Conti|✉ 19:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
That is not incorrect at all, as my reading of RFC: whitelisting the "About" page does not indicate that the about page whitelist was limited to footnote usage, only that that was what it was being used for at the time. Whitelisting is done on a per-article basis, not a per-location-in-article basis. As for the other "point", it isn't a point at all, it is a vestige of Silver Seren's and other's past whinges in trying to preserve the "defunct" status of Encyclopedia Dramatica. That is unequivocally no longer the case, doubly so as the "Oh Internet!" site is no for all intents and purposes an abandoned website. We don't list a series of past and present URLs in an infobox, anymore than Firefox would have to list their once-necessary getfirefox.com URL, as at its inception, someone else owned and used firefox.com til they were bought out. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The situation is not comparable to Firefox changing its URL from getfirefox.com to something else, and you know it. The history of the site is far more complex than that. --Conti|✉ 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
And that "complexity" can be discussed in the body of the article, not in an infobox's website line. Take note that at Template:Infobox website#Parameters, the parameter explanation is simply "The most used URL of the website", not "the current one and also the former one". Tarc (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not correct that the link was "whitelisted only to be used as a reference". What I said was "It has been used as a reference for months with no problems". The whitelisting restriction was "for use on this article only" (emphasis on the original). The RfC is spread over here, here and here, and it never says anything about using the link only as a reference.

Conti, you are misunderstanding the whitelisting. This is causing drama where there should be none. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Makes me wonder why that link was never used as an external link, then, if, apparently, it was perfectly fine to use it as an external link for all these years. --Conti|✉ 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It's because the infobox already had an external link to ED's main page example of March 2011. Both the main page and the About page were whitelisted at that point. In April 2011 Sherrod redirected .com to Oh, Internet!, and people started inserting and .ch, and later .se. I think that the .com link was inactivated because it no longer brought people to the original page, and it must have been removed from the whitelist as useless.
Nobody thought of using the about page in the infobox back in 2009. Why do so when we already had the main page link?
Now only the About page is whitelisted. And I am not going to ask for a whitelisting of the main page, when we can simply link the About page, and point people to a page with info (hum, and have an elegant way of avoiding a link to their main page). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

From a regular on the blacklists/whitelist/spam/external-link-abuse front:

When a notable site gets blacklisted because of massive abuse (which includes spam), also linking on the wikipage (which likely exists, because the site is notable) is disabled. For such purposes, generally (though not always, vide infra) whitelisting is a possibility. The following scenario's exist:

  1. The landing page is known, e.g. the 'index.htm' or 'main_page' or something - that can be whitelisted with ease. But if this landing page contains 'inappropriate' information (explicit, copyright violations, etc. etc.), it is better to find a more innocent page (this is also true when there is sometimes inappropriate info on the mainpage). The people active on the whitelist generally suggest to use something like an 'about'-page
  2. The landing page is unknown, it is just 'example.org'. That is difficult, if not impossible to whitelist (it is technically possible, but it would just be abused just as it was before). In those cases, as in point 1, we suggest to find an innocent page on the site to link to (generally: the about page ..).
  3. The site only exists of a landing page and that is all (shock sites, rick-roll, NSFW, etc.). Generally these are the cases that are not whitelisted whatsoever. The site itself was abused (one could think of a shock-site, which was continuously added to replace the official link of high-school by its students 'for fun' - the only other way would be to write an editfilter, which would hit only seldom but still be a drain on resources, or maybe to invoke XLinkBot in one of its harshest ways, which has then also an effect on the page where the link should be).

Note, that the main-page of a site must be unsuitable for further linking (e.g. if 'example.org/index.php' is the official page, but 'example.org/index.php?page=somesubpage' works, then careless whitelisting of the index.php would just open the floodgates again.

For such whitelist requests - the official link of a notable site - the general suggestion of the whitelist-team will be to whitelist the about-page, though they will take the 'index.htm'/'main_page' into account if that is reasonably possible.

The use of redirect sites for that purpose will not work. I, and others, blacklist redirect sites preemptively globally, and others are blacklisted on-sight (we have automatic detection in place which catches many of these cases as well). Abusive use of a redirect site (which was not why it was used here on ED) can even result in an immediate block without warning - one obviously knows that official site is blocked, so avoiding that is practically always in bad faith, considering that the official site did not get blacklisted for fun. Redirect sites are, with only very rare, specialised exceptions, NOT (NEVER) to be used.

The point of the official link on a subject's page is to identify the subject through a representative page. Basically, it is just a service for the reader, it is a WP:IAR already built into WP:EL/WP:NOTYELLOW, but there is nowhere a we-absolutely-without-exception-must-link-to-the-official-main-page-on-their-site-for-a-subject (there are, as explained above, cases where we have to WP:IAR on the WP:IAR built into WP:EL/WP:NOTYELLOW ..). That does not have to be the real mainpage, but that same is, and often better anyway, given by the about page of a site (we are writing an encyclopedia, not an internet directory).

Here, there is the about-page whitelisted, which is very suitable for this. I am not too familiar with ED, is it so that the mainpage sometimes contains information that .. we better not link to directly? If that is the case, I would just stay with the about page. If not, then please ask for a whitelisting on the mainpage itself, and use that one from then (and for now, use the about, which is perfectly representative anyway). If there is a wish to also whitelist the old official links, then please go forward in whitelisting those as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The "about" page is a weird compromise. A requirement for lifting the block on the main page of ED would be an understanding that it would not be used for lulz, ie no personal attacks, shock images etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The main page does often contain shock content and illegal stuff. I think linking to the about page is probably a fair compromise. --Ashenai (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
@ianmacm (talk · contribs) .. the way I see it, for many sites it is either nothing, or a neutral, informative page that can be whitelisted and linked. About-pages are generally neutral, don't contain 'bad' things (shock-images, explicit material, etc.), and they still provide the service to the reader that they can reach the site, see things for themselves and get first-hand information about a site (.. product, service, whatever). It is what is generally done in stead of plain refusing to whitelist anything. Do note that it is not always the 'fault' of the (owners of the) site that it got blacklisted (for rickrolling, porn-sites and similar it is often the non-spam (or Joe-jobbing) uncontrollable abuse. For notable redirect sites a similar problem exists - generally it is abuse of the site, not 'by' the site). I would consider it a bit unfair that we can't link anything on a site, when a, in itself respectable and notable, site got blacklisted outside without them being at 'fault'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In this case it was very much their fault, however. ED is a troll site, and if I remember correctly, the last time their homepage got removed from the blacklist, they put up some Wikipedian's article as their "article of the day", including pictures and outing information. I'm still not quite sure I agree with the general idea of linking to the about page, as I do not really see a difference to linking straight to the main page (which may or may not contain content we don't want to link to at any given day). --Conti|✉ 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a fair compromise. Even the argument that there is "content we don't want to link" to strongly evokes WP:NOTCENSORED, which is a rather bedrock principle of our project. If Wikipedia isn't censored, why should the content we link to need to be? But, hey, I'm willing to make a small exception here! -- Kendrick7talk 00:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED does not mean what you seem to think. It relates to including encyclopedic information in articles. The only reason to link to ED is so a reader does not have to click twice—a silly reason. ED is a troll and shock site, and it is blacklisted for a good reason, and there is no reason other than ILIKEIT to include a link to a page that is certain to change and to include trolling and shock content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Stormfront is a notorious forum for white supremacists, skinheads, racists, and antismites, yet [http://stormfront.org stormfront] is linked there. Why is that? Tarc (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Working links for notable websites on their own articles are encyclopedic information, Johnuniq, per WP:LINKLOVE. -- Kendrick7talk 02:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Kendrick7, not having a working link to the article does not mean that it is censored. There are cases which are just simply not possible. Also, it is a service to the editor, there is nowhere a must in those cases, yes, they are encyclopedic information on their own articles, but. There can be reasons not to add encyclopedic information, and no-one will argue that you are wrong not to add encyclopedic information. Common sense must prevail.
Tarc, stormfront.org was not abused (as far as I know or can obviously see, to a level that warrants blacklisting). As with linking to outing information, I am not sure if it is against Wikipedia policy to link to supremacists, skinheads, racists and antisemitism (WP:ELNEVER only excludes redirects and linking directly to copyright violations (sites that carry material in violation of copyright can be linked to as long as the page linked to does not carry a copyright violation itself). For that, I don't think that there would be policy grounds not to actually allow whitelisting of the specific mainpage of EncyclopediaDramatica .. though I could argue for all of these, to err on the save side, and use the about page, maybe also for stormfront .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
there is nowhere a guideline or policy on Wikipedia that says that something MUST be included because it is encyclopedic information
Gee, I am shocked to learn that is actually true, given that WP:ENC has been, within the past year or so, downgraded to a mere WP:Essay. If Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, what in the heck are we doing here, exactly? -- Kendrick7talk 04:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for ranting. I've tried to sort it out. It's ironic when you don't watch pages fundamental to the project because you assume everyone else is watching them, but of course, everyone else isn't watching based on the same logic.... -- Kendrick7talk 04:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Kendrick7, certain information can not be included, even if it is very encyclopedic. It is of course our goal to include as much as possible, but sometimes we run into limits. A link to a website is of course encyclopedic, but if that site contains malware, we do not link to protect the reader. We provide encyclopedic information, and it is our goal to be as complete as possible, but there is not a 'must'. Sometimes things are not included because it would give us legal problems (hey, it would be great to have a high-resolution picture of notable pieces of art, but they are non-free, providing a high resolution image of it would violate copyright, I could even go as extreme as saying that showing example images of child pornography would be encyclopedic information ..), sometimes the area is more grey (is linking to an external webpage (which is outing an editor) without a purpose of outing a form of outing? Or should we just stay on the save side and provide a proper workaround). IMHO, WP:IAR works both ways - sometimes one has to IAR on improving because of damage one could inflict. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

http://replay.web.archive.org/20100102004121/http://encyclopediadramatica*dot*com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About was removed rather than have Cyberbot II going round in circles tagging it. The alternative is to request for it to be whitelisted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Down Again

ED is down once again, due to issues unknown. Should this be mentioned or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Great Leon (talk • contribs) 22:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No. --Ashenai (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Down two hours so far ... - Alison ❤ 00:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It's back, panic's over (for now).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Date is September 17th, 2013. The website won't even appear on the search results. Guess it's gone forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.204.104 (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It is down due to technical difficulties since September 13, 2013. It will be back up soon. --63432anonymous (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It is now back up on September 18th, 2013. --63432anonymous (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It is now at encylopediadramatica.es and the .se link does not work as there is no redirect. This leads to an error in the lead section, as this is the third domain used by the reborn ED.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Any source explaining why they changed ".se" to ".es"? (meanwhile, we can add a short note on the lead and on the infobox) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it down right now? has a comment saying "encyclopediadramatica.se is down. The domain has been suspended by the registrar." The site *may* have been thrown off the .se domain for some reason, but without further comment from the ED folk, it is hard to say.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
unfortunately, the "ED folk" have been systematically banned from wikipedia for flimsy reasons. It is interesting that ohinternet.com has been down for several days without anyone noticing. 173.87.170.54 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OhInternet Redirect

Either the redirect from Ohinternet to ED needs to be removed, or this article needs to be revised to show OhI as the "successor" to ED and that its no longer up.AfwoPuffz (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The service status at isitdownrightnow shows that it has been down for more than a week. Whether this is a final goodbye from the site is harder to say, but the article may need to be updated if does not come back fairly soon.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
in the second section up, ip 173.87.170.54 stated it was down since october 16. EDiots have presumed OhI would not return since about 2 days after it went down, but worthy of note is that Sherrod's knowyourmemes.com domain now points to whatport80.com instead of ohinternet. 172.56.17.194 (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Although it is hard to prove that ohinternet.com is gone forever, this is now a reasonable assumption. The article should mention this, otherwise it is incomplete. The problem is sourcing. Apart from the ED folk, nobody seems to care that ohinternet.com is gone.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh Internet seems to be gone

Oh Internet has been down since September of 2013. I assume that after five months of downtime the site will not be coming back, however the site's absence has not been reported on by any publications, nor have the owners of the site released any information regarding this. Is it appropriate to add this information into the site's section without any source? felt_friend 11:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As stated in the section above, it now seems unlikely that Oh Internet will return, but there is no sourcing saying this. Even so, the article should now consider saying that OI is offline and has been for several months.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a short line to the end of the section about this, feel free to change and/or remove. felt_friend 17:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

screenshots

i was wondering why the screencap for the living site is collapsed, while the OhInternet screenshot is fully expanded, and whether this should be changed. 2001:4C28:194:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:8DBC (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It is normal for screenshots in the infobox to be collapsed, they would be too big otherwise..--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://web.archive.org/web/20110409171828/http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page
    Triggered by \bencyclopediadramatica\.[a-z]+?\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 23:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Links to encyclopediadramatica.es are still blacklisted on this page

Why is it necessary to prevent this page from linking to the main site? Jarble (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been dicussed previously, eg in Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 24. The block is the result of past problems with offensive material and off-site harrassment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FAQ?

Can someone please add a FAQ question as to why Wikipedia consensus refers to ED as a defunct site when it is alive and active at encyclopediadramatica.es? -bleak_fire_ (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The "is" or "was" description of the site needs a consensus. I'm not entirely happy with "was", because encyclopediadramatica.es is an accurate mirror of the old encyclopediadramatica.com. Most of the sourcing in the article refers to the "official" version which was created by Sherrod DeGrippo and ran between 2004 and 2011. The version at .es was created after DeGrippo lost interest and the idea was picked up by other people. There is very little sourcing about the "unofficial" version, but the site still exists. Oh Internet is now offline, and has been since late 2013. Ironically, this is not mentioned in the article due to a lack of reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If ED "was", then ED.es is not a mirror but a fork. And given there being only one fork in existence, it is safe to say that it's the same thing. There was always only one site regardless of TLD. AC/DC was still AC/DC when Bon Scott died, right? -bleak_fire_ (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is more akin to Angus and Malcolm Young announcing that AC/DC has been disbanded, and Brian Johnson later announcing that he'll create a new band with the same name but entirely different members. The analogy aside, there have been multiple forks of ED after it went down. I'm not sure if they're still active or not, but ED.es simply seems to be the largest. In addition, with its multiple domain name changes and regular stretches of being offline, ED.es isn't the most stable site out there. The situation is not as simple as most try to make it out to be. --Conti|✉ 09:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
ED today is similar to a pop group which is still going with some of the original members. The .es site did have a month-long outage recently, but the old ed.com was also prone to doing this. A look around at the .es mirror/fork (whichever you prefer) shows that it has accurately retained the ed.com material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think that was consensus; just something reported I ran across and which seemed evident at the time during the outage. Although, I'm currently getting an SSL error following the sidebar link from Wikipedia for some reason, the page does seem to exist otherwise.... -- Kendrick7talk 23:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

online/offline

Wikipedia isn't the place for site status updates. Even if you did your homework beyond assuming "hey it's down for me so it must be down," when you update based on your own experience, that's original research and recentism, neither of which are fitting for Wikipedia. If you have a reliable secondary source that talks about its status in a definitive way, go for it. --— Rhododendrites talk |  21:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently down in May 2014. According to their Twitter feed, it is something to do with the load balancing. They are also asking for funds.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Re this edit: The infobox points out that the site is currently offline, and it has been since late April, making this one of the longer outages. There is not much as ever in secondary reliable sources, and nor is it clear if and when the site will be back up again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/ED_Updates/status/478056860935663616--Craigboy (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

POV check

This article is full of contentious statements and covers events that don't have a wide consensus, because of these BLP issues the article should be reviewed for NPOV and reliable sources.Dramaticafanatica (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please give some specifics.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The official site doesnt need two sources about gay porn murder!! Cryptome page is a daniel brandt repost, what about Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources? There's a long quote at top of page about ae is wikipedias evil twin! This is bad bias!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramaticafanatica (talk • contribs) 12:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem with bias is that it can be in the eye of the beholder. The "evil twin" quote comes from ninemsn, which is a reliable news source. Comments from other users welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfair characterization from ninemsn which is entertainment not news! You didnt respond to other bias either like the gay porn murder citations for the official site addres! or the unreliable sources from brandt who IS biased about an issue that no real news covered because isnt even notable!Dramaticafanatica (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • a quick look at the history reveals recent vandalism from low contrib disposable accounts. one of them recently uploaded the current screencap of the front page, which looks like the user zoomed way out before taking the screencap, so the screencap is mostly blank blue space. also, is this sort of file allowed on commons? i thought they don't host fair use items there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 172.56.38.18 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The ROFLcon videos cites no longer exist.

The ROFLcon videos cited in citation #55, #56, and #57 no longer exist. They should either be replaced by different videos with the same content, or see if the videos have been copied anywhere else. 104.193.236.43 (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. These videos were on YouTube but are now producing "This video is unavailable. Sorry about that." It is unclear why this has happened; it isn't the message given when a video has been removed for a TOS violation, so maybe they were deleted by the uploader. I've watched these videos in the past and they consist of Sherrod DeGrippo speaking in a hall with an audience. There are some ROFLcon videos on Vimeo [1] but not the DeGrippo ones. So we have a problem, Houston. Can anyone find the videos mentioned elsewhere on the web?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Sherrod appears in this final panel of the ROFLCon Summit, entitled "Internet Underground" [2]DeXXus (talk)
OK thanks, I haven't had time to look through these videos, I just found the links on Vimeo. This one is 54 minutes long so the citation would need to give the timing of what she says in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Evers who is he in relation to Encyclopedia Dramatica?

"Joseph Evers" redirects here but there is no mention of his name anywhere in the Wiki article. Who is he and shouldn't there be at least a mention of who he is if his name redirects here? 208.44.84.138 (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There are numerous discussions of Joseph Evers in the talk page archive. He is a man of mystery, so mysterious that he probably never existed other than as a trolling prank by the folks at ED. At one stage, this image of Theo de Raadt was said to be Mr Evers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. 208.44.84.138 (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Satire clarification

According to public belief, ED is supposed to be a satire of "how people on the Internet exaggerate everything when they write about certain things" and whatnot, but I'm pretty sure that to anyone who takes a look on their website is more than likely to not find what they thought they would find. Which leads to the question: how can people know what ED allegedly satirizes? Because more than many people like me can't think of it as satire when it sounds serious in what it does. Satire is supposed to point out someone's stupidity, not copy their stupidity. Otherwise people will think you're the one who's being stupid. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me you don't fully understand whom ED's satire targets. 217.91.160.59 (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

March 2017 - site is down

Re this edit: the site is down at the moment, as confirmed by ED's Twitter account. In the past, events like this have had people running around like headless chickens shouting "ED is dead!" This time, it looks like a problem with the domain, which may take a while to sort out. In the absence of reliable sourcing, the article should avoid WP:OR about what has happened and how long it will take to fix.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it isn't possible for Wikipedia to give a link to ED because of the rule \bencyclopediadramatica\.[a-z]+?\b at the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. This blocks anything like encyclopediadramatica.xx. The new .rs domain is Serbia, by the way. According to the Twitter feed, the site was offline for around three days.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Some fag is suing ED write that into the article bitch TheGuideMastah (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this is referring to the lawsuit by Jonathan “Johnny” Monsarrat.[3] Not much media coverage as yet, but it would be worth adding if someone in the "serious, mainstream media" deemed it to be important.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Refrain from using offensive words, we know ED has Troll problems.Kurt Rencel (Zirukurt01)✉ 00:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
Its over. Encyclopedia Dramatica is dead. Most of the contributors have grown up and are well into their 30's now and have ended their sophomoric juvenile antics, the ones that haven't almost universally suffer from some type of mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse and or sexual dysfunction. The remaining active members of the Internet Relay Chat consist of admitted active drug addicts, transsexuals and unabashed white supremacists that are present only because ED IRC is the only network that will tolerate them, at least two HIV positive promiscuous homosexual prostitutes,an alcoholic drug addicted admin that is in and out of rehab and struggles daily to get milk for his breakfast cereal, the network engineer is mentally unstable and has been implicated in child pornography stings and is most likely a federal confidential informant Encyclopedia Dramatica Admin Jihad Was Arrested In A Child Porn Sting. All this combined with the pending lolsuit, a lack of any viable income, the malicious adverts that cause pop ups and install malware on the computers of visitors to the site and a lack of interest in the cliquish ethnocentric narcissistic articles that comprise the bulk of content on the site signal the inevitable demise of Encyclopedia Dramatica is very close to fruition.

Rest in Piss ED, You Were An Hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:63:C3E6:4400:54DF:841B:16FD:AC37 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Tsk tsk tsk... LULZtime is over.... Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 22:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There are potential WP:BLP violations in this rant, but the real problem is that it doesn't contain anything that can be used to improve the article. If ED did go out of business (obviously WP:CRYSTAL at the moment) the mainstream media would report on it. For the past few years, ED has picked up very little mainstream media coverage, so it's difficult to say anything about the Monsarrat lawsuit or any other woes the site may be having.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to add a section for this, there has been subsequent coverage since this was brought up. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Site moving to .online

Hello fello Wikipedians,

I am an ED insider, if you want to verify this, please contact me at rock@encyclopediadramatica.se. The site is moving to .online due to a situation, the Twitter account will be updated with the new link as soon as the DNS for one of the old (but better known) domains propagates. If you have any questions or want verification, please feel free to email me or DM the Twitter account. Conradrock (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As ever, the problem is sourcing needed to avoid original research. At the time of writing, the site's Twitter page gives encyclopediadramatica.rs as the URL. Until this changes, the .rs should stay.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, Once you're ready to change the Twitter URL we'd be happy to change the URL however because of WP:Original Research we can't do it beforehand (If it was reported in news sources then we could). –Davey2010Talk 13:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The Twitter page is now saying .online. Maybe they've read this page:) Anyway, it is now OK to change the URL.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The site is now saying on its Twitter feed that .online is the new address, and we should go with that. It's unclear what the "situation" is that led to the change, but the Twitter feed is as close to a reliable source as we can get. In any case, the link has a nowiki tag because the page won't save without it, as ED is on the spam blacklist, \bencyclopediadramatica\.[a-z]+?\b to be precise.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe they did! :), Exactly we're not gonna get any better than Twitter so I obviously agree with changing. –Davey2010Talk 13:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Somewhat amazingly, the Twitter feed has gone back to .rs at the time of writing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

New lawsuit in late 2018.

Melinda Leigh Scott v. Andrew Carlson, Joshua Moon, Sherod DeGrippo in the Western District of Virginia was dismissed by a judge for failure to state a claim. Doubtful it will get any media attention but may be worth including. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.196.200 (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You got me on this one as I couldn't find any sources referring to this. It may be something related to cyberstalking but without sources it is hard to mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
It's mentioned here: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/2018-12-12-melinda-leigh-scott-v-andrew-carlson-joshua-moon-sherod-degrippo.50975 along with the court documents from PACER (2:18CV47) I've confirmed the case exists in the federal system, but again, that would be original research which is generally not allowed. If it's allowed I don't know how to add it in the most respectable way possible. 75.162.196.200 (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw this yesterday in a web search, and although it mentions Sherrod DeGrippo as a defendant, it also points out correctly that she has not run Encyclopediadramatica for years; she seems to have lost interest in doing the site in 2011. It's all a bit obscure and the sourcing isn't ideal. It's mostly about a dispute with kiwifarms.net.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Call it what it is?

The lede currently states:

Encyclopedia Dramatica (often abbreviated ED[4] and æ) is a parody-themed wiki website launched on December 10, 2004, that uses MediaWiki software[5] to lampoon encyclopedia topics and current events, especially those related or relevant to contemporary Internet culture.

No it's not, it's an alt-right, neofascist, incel driven, misogynistic hate farm. As per WP:SPADE why is not labelled as such?

What on earth does "parody-themed" even mean? Where is the parody in both justifying and then mocking the Holocaust?

This site is a platform for right-wing polemic and hate speech.

Ten years ago, its focus might have been "parody-themed", however, open any article on this site today and it's patently obvious the authors of these pages are neo Nazis.

Is the logic of this page to take the POV that any website which possibly hosts a few "funny" pages gets a pass from being labelled "alt-right" because, with a few neutral pages, it can be argued there are "very fine people on both sides" writing this site?

Almost all content on this site is pro-authoritarian, anti-free speech (ironic considering it needs free speech to spout hate), anti-intellectual, anti-abortion, and pro climate change denial.

This is not WP:OPINION this is WP:SPADE. The POV on this page is like saying Hitler was an artist and not a Nazi because he once painted pictures. This website might have been "parody-themed" once but it is certainly not now, and continuing to claim that it is, just smacks of someone pushing their agenda as it's an unjustifiable WP:POV. 81.141.34.49 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD already makes clear that the site contains material likely to be found sexist, racist and offensive. This comes from what reliable secondary sources have said about the site.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 outage

The site has been down for several days, but it is hard to say why without reliable sourcing. Here is a screenshot of the current state of play on the site. This suggests looking at the official Twitter account, and this tweeted on 24 August "As you might have noticed. We're down again. Hold on until we sort our shit with our frontend providers..." This looks like some hosting problem again, but it may be too early to say that the site is gone forever.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Given what happened with 8Chan earlier this month this can’t be a coincidence. 96.244.93.97 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
We know from reliable news coverage that Cloudflare pulled the plug on 8chan.[4] It may be that a similar plug has been pulled on ED, but there is no confirmation of this. The reason why I reverted this edit is because the official ED Twitter account does not explain why the site is offline, it just says that the site is offline.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

And back up again

Re this edit: it is correct that the site is back up again with the .se domain. However, this is not yet mentioned on the official Twitter feed. There is some info here which may explain what the problem was.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of this page in the alt-right categories

Just like The Daily Stormer (its news counterpart), ED is riddled with tons of neofascism, holocaust denialism, antisemitism, racism, and many more that they share in common. Plus, TDS even sponsored ED[1]. Right now, the article only talks about it being a meme or satire page, but they are one of those platforms that disguise honest hatred as "parody", and, it is one of the alt-right platforms besides TDS that motivated William Atchinson's school shooting. I could not cite anything besides the Twitter post, because ED is on the spam blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SagaGX (talk • contribs)

While after long-term and considered research I believe some of ED's attacks on Wikipedia to be based on wrong-think, and personal vendetta that may not be correct. It seems wrong to characterise parody as if it were genuinely hate speech. This only so far as my research has got at the moment, so am open to criticism. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

ED doesn't target specific groups but rather tries to offend as many people as possible in general. There's no discrimination involved and therefore I don't think it's fair to equate them to people who are actually prejudiced. 24.140.6.186 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Encyclopedia Dramatica". Twitter. Retrieved 31 July 2018.

Is it okay to link the website in the side bar? New3400 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The edit will not save if you do this. ED is on the spam blacklist at \bencyclopediadramatica\.[a-z]+?\b. In plain language, this prevents encyclopediadramatica dot anything from saving.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@New3400: The general approach here on en.wikipedia is to whitelist and link to a neutral landing page like an about page. That works for most website, but ED found it necessary to also extend their abuse through their about-page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, who knows what naughtiness and WP:LINKLOVE problems might occur if a direct link was allowed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020 outage

Re this edit: The site is down at the moment. Here is a screenshot of the error message. This indicates that the problem is with ED's server rather than Cloudflare's hosting. It's too early to say how long this problem will last, or to pronounce the last rites. The site was offline for around six weeks in August-October 2019 before returning.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The website's owner is in jail. It might stay down unless someone creates a mirror. 69.154.132.23 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
According to ED's facebook account the sysop is currently in jail facing felony forgery charges and has been unable to pay for the servers. They're also the only ones with access so this could be the end.[5] 68.134.239.246 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. ED has survived various ups and downs in the past, but this one looks particularly challenging. The site would need a completely fresh start on the hosting, which is not impossible but would be difficult. The Facebook post isn't a reliable source but it looks as though there are big problems.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Re this edit: As I've said, a Facebook post/comment doesn't really constitute a reliable source on Wikipedia. It may well be that the site has run into big problems and has gone offline permanently, but there is a small chance that it might return. Even the ED diehards think that the site is now defunct, but the future is a long time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
There are some interesting tweets here but again they don't count as a reliable source. It's also worth noting that the official ED Twitter account https://twitter.com/eddotse now says "Account suspended" - not sure when or why this happened. The theme of the tweets and the Facebook comments is a single point of failure, in other words, does ED have enough admins and backups of the site to come back from this? Maybe it's too early to say, and my hope is that a reliable source somewhere will comment on this. It would be a pity if ED died and no-one in the mainstream media attended the funeral.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
That thread says that no one wants to take the helm due to the potential of social repercussions. Also I doubt the media would “attend the funeral” because of the way the site died. 8Chan got the coverage it did because it got deplatformed in response to two mass shootings that were connected to the site. 8Chan died with a bang while ED slowly fizzled out. 68.134.239.246 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Re this edit: One of the reasons for the revert is that people have pronounced the last rites on The Pirate Bay many times after raids, trials, domain and hosting problems etc; but it is still going, while many other torrent sites have fallen by the wayside. I agree that it doesn't look good for ED at the moment, but there is a small possibility that it might return if someone has a working backup. Also, we are stuck with the problem that tweets, Facebook posts etc are not a reliable source because anyone can say anything they like in them and they are not subject to fact-checking.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC):
Can someone add that the owner of the .se domain got arrested? --CBTover (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Not really, if the only source is a tweet or Facebook post. Sorry folks, I don't make the rules. ED has always been secretive about who its key personnel are, and we don't even know the name of the site admin who has apparently been arrested and imprisoned while facing a federal charge of some sort. *Maybe* this will surface in the mainstream media at some stage, as it did with Weev.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020 - encyclopediadramatica.wiki

Re this edit: It's interesting, but the site isn't up and running at the .wiki address at the moment. This is consistent with the claim that other people have backups of the site, but the article should perhaps not give .wiki as the official address until it is up and running.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

E.D. down again

Shouldn't we mention the site is down since the owner of the sites have been arrested as far as I know?UpWithJimmy (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

See the section above. I would love to be able to say something firm about why ED is down, but if it can only be sourced to a tweet or Facebook post it isn't much use. The WP:LEAD and the infobox point out that ED is down in January 2020, but there needs to be better sourcing. I'm not suggesting that the ED folks are lying/hoaxing about the site admin being in prison after being arrested, but tweets and Facebook posts are not suitable sources per WP:SPS.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Tried their website under ".wiki", and it looks that one's gone also. To make matters more unfavorable, some shady character created an article about a YouTube gamer to expose its personal information and attack its privacy. It seems that this madness with ED is just about over today. Slasher405 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just accessed the .wiki site, it is up at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be obvious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.130.95 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  • no because there are 2 active versions up, so I linked both. I do wonder if we should actually be listing these forks prior to their being cited by sources though. I think part of the problem is that many sources which do list these sites don't actually go to the trouble of giving their extensions (perhaps to avoid sending traffic) which can create confusion as it's less specific which fork they might be referring to. WakandaQT (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

New Management

I came to this page to make clear that I am the current owner of Encyclopedia Dramatica LLC which is now registered in Nevada. I appreciate the efforts to keep this page updated and if anyone here needs to reach out or contact me I can be emailed via aediot@encyclopediadramatica.wiki with questions, updates or otherwise needed.

Thank you again to everyone involved with this page. - æ admin 08:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aediot (talk • contribs)

According to the Twitter account, encyclopediadamatica.wiki is due to make its debut in 24 hours time, but as of today it is still showing a placeholder page. Watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Just came back to say that this page has been vandalized by an off-shoot group looking to change the domain listed here to .online when .wiki is still the active domain.

I'd request that this be changed back and the page be either locked or watched for future vandalization.

Thank you. - æ admin 10:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aediot (talk • contribs)

I've been a bit confused over this too. The current version of this article says https://encyclopediadramatica.online in the infobox and there is a site up and running at this address, while https://encyclopediadramatica.xyz redirects to .online. Meanwhile, https://encyclopediadramatica.wiki says "Seems we ran into another snag. We have a few very well trained professionals developers working to resolve whatever the wiki is throwing a tantrum about, for updates on specifics you can check our Twitter. Current ETA: Roughly a week maybe less." So we are faced with the possibility of two rival sites both claiming to be the original and genuine version of the site. I'm not quite sure what to do for the best if this happens.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 23:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth I still own the LLC, and the current lawsuit ED is facing is towards my end because I'm recognized as the established wiki. We also have ourselves listed for the .wiki at https://www.reddit.com/r/encyclopediadramatica/ which all the mods there confirm on my end in addition to KnowYourMeme here: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sites/encyclopedia-dramatica

This second wiki came up because some of my moderators got hissy after I found one of them lying then tried to put up a version of the wiki without any of the user accounts (because they crawled it from wayback machine).

I plan to have the .wiki back up in some days but I have it down for maintenance, initially it was a database error but I'm having it rebuilt on the docker backend level because it's due for some fixing.

If you need any legal or otherwise ownership proof I can provide whatever you need, just lemme know.

Thanks in advance. - æ admin 01:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aediot (talk • contribs)

  • Can we have reference for the domain change to .wiki in the "Succession of domains" section? Also, has someone reported in the news about the new corporate ownership? Gotitbro (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's simplest if we just list both. I don't think XYZ is actively pointing anywhere, and do we have any sources establishing notability of XYZ or ONLINE as we do for WIKI extension? WakandaQT (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
At the time of writing, the .wiki version says "Encyclopedia Dramatica is currently being restored by automated scripts. Content and images will return shortly", ie the .wiki version is still not back up yet. If it does return, there will be a problem with how to define the link if there are two rival versions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Running into a small issue where the wiki backup I own is actually so massive (since it's the complete one) that mediawiki is overloading the server trying to import it. I'll get this fixed relatively soon. The .online listed meanwhile only has content from 2015 or so and none of the images natively in the server. Unsure on why it's being listed next to mine. If a third version were to come up owned by someone else entirely different would it be listed here as well? Confused on the logic. I'm happy to provide whatever documents or otherwise is needed here to get this sorted. Don't really see a point in handling all the lawsuits while some completely unrecognized version gets to ride off my hard work considering they aren't even LLC'd. - æ admin 15:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aediot (talk • contribs)

February 2021

Re this edit: I have tried to avoid taking sides in this dispute, but the reality is that the .online version of the site is online and showing some content, while the .wiki version isn't. Even the .online version admits that a lot of the images and articles have gone missing due to the bumpy road with the site's hosting and management, but it is online (just about). It's hard to recommend the .wiki version if it isn't showing anything beyond a "we'll be back at some stage" message.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


The .wiki is online with all the original content + 3x the content the .online had at this point now with the statistics page being linked on the front page showing the numbers. In addition to which https://encyclopediadramatica[dot]online/ no longer resolves or works. Images are still being restored however mediawiki is importing them as fast as it's able. They seem to have set up at another domain now but it doesn't even have the full site title in its name. - æ admin 19:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aediot (talk • contribs)

Here is a screenshot of the current state of play at dot wiki. We're promised that "EDiting to re-open shortly" but there is no actual content at the moment. However, dot online seems to be completely down at the moment, so right now neither site is up and running. Watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Could one of the admins keep Jacob Stelmach from editing the page? Da Wyyzrd 13:03 16 Febuary 2021

WP:COI applies here, so anyone involved with the admin side of ED should avoid editing here, particularly if it involves going back and forth on the domain.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the .online domain.

It has been moved to simply dramatica.online, we have managed to restore the pictures as it was simply an internal problem. The issue with the rivalry between each ED versions is that his ED is "Encyclopedia Dramatica LLC"'s ED. There is something to be known about Encyclopedia Dramatica is that Conrad Rockenhaus previously trademarked ED to prevent Zaiger from making money off of it.

EDIT: as for the .wiki domain, you should note that their recent changes are quite empty :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TabbyGarf (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Gladly Dramatica.online Admin, TabbyGarf.

TabbyGarf (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. As is the case with the administrator of the .wiki version, the state of the competing sites isn't in the equation, other than if either is a dead link. For now, we should keep both accounted for, without censoring either over the on-site inner-workings. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 22:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have partially overturned the Arbcom decision to totally ban links to ED. Now, I can safely start this discussion. If there is a URL to the main page in the infobox, it should either be a live link or removed entirely. A non-link URL only exists to incovenience the readers. The site contains a lot of horrible content, but Wikipedia is not censored. As it is quite easy to find the site URL, I recommend changing the URL to a live link. Please note I am not affiliated with ED in anyway. Thoughts? Steve M (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It's difficult because there are now two rival versions. Also, the .wiki version is still showing a "we'll be back soon" message, while the .online version is unreliable and up and down like a yo-yo. It is down at the moment, so at the time of writing there is no version available. Things need time to settle down, but both sites need to up their game.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, the two versions of ED being dysfunctional shouldn't come into play, as it's not our concern if they're in ship shape; we just shouldn't have dead links. @Steve M: I'd be fine with either including the links or deleting them both, so long as we're not having a repeat of the discussions above, where we're getting involved with the dispute between the sites' administrators, over who has the better website. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 00:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ianmacm and @DarthBotto, what if we include them both? The current URLs are encyclopediadramatica.wiki and encyclopediadramatica.online? (I am the OP) aeschylus (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The infobox currently gives both. This is probably the right decision, as it avoids the argument over which is the "best" or "right" link out of the two. There is a nowiki tag as the links to the pages will not save without this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

.wiki version offline, August 2021

Re this edit: it's true that the .wiki version is offline at the moment. The site says "Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading. (Cannot access the database)" However, I would be reluctant to say that .wiki is gone forever due the famously up and down hosting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_24&oldid=1258098403"