Jump to content

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Wikipedia: I was talking about being a parody
Howa0082 (talk | contribs)
941 edits
Line 117: Line 117:


:::There are some similarities that are explained by both sites using the same software, but others can only be explained by ED trying to be a parody of WP. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 02:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:::There are some similarities that are explained by both sites using the same software, but others can only be explained by ED trying to be a parody of WP. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 02:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

::::You misunderstand. I was not implying that you were saying anything. Just intimating that the hard fact of numbers would be better than the About Us page, which is not widely trusted here because it runs off MediaWiki software, as you say. Anyway, I would argue that ED is more satire than parody. It just uses MediaWiki, that's all. Copying the look-and-feel of WP is more due to laziness than any desire to mock Wikipedia or whatever. [[User:Howa0082|Howa0082]] ([[User talk:Howa0082|talk]]) 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


== Move to Encyclopædia Dramatica ==
== Move to Encyclopædia Dramatica ==

Revision as of 14:09, 10 July 2008

Template:Multidel

need new reference for relationship with Project Chanology

When doing this change I realized that the sources didn't relate directly Project Chanology with ED, so I had to remove its wikilink. This means that ED's article currently makes no reference to Project Chanology. Please find an adequate place to re-insert a wikilink to Project Chanology --Enric Naval (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, I remember people complaining at the AFDs about using those sources, and, anyways, they don't define a direct link from ED to chanology. For example, the University Register only says that ED has a page that taks about Chanology. Bostonist says that Anonymous members come from internet message boards such as 4chan and ED, but it doesn't mention Project Chanology anywhere. The citypaper link apears to be down. I didn't check topix.net throughly, but the sources there appear to have the same problems that the three you gave. Adding "chanology" to the topix.net search words returned only 5 links [4], and one of them appears to have the info about Anonymous getting it's information from ED "the so-called “Project Chanology” website, an open source of information and direction for those within Anonymous, [tactics and methods of attack] (...) [ED] also has a similar page devoted to “Project Chanology”." [5], but it's a post on a personal blog, even if it has a name that looks like some sort of newspaper, I'm not sure about using that source :( .... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict

Ok, I know I'm opening a huuuuuuuge can of worms here. But remember, we are supposed to assume good faith here. Anyways, shouldn't there be a section on the long running controversy surrounding the very creation of this page? The relationship between Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia, and, by extension, the broader participatory internet culture often called "Web 2.0" is illustrated by this conflict. Wikipedia, as one of the most visible manifestations of web 2.0 serves as a lightning rod or touchstone wherein many of the conflicts related to web 2.0 are played out.

Furthermore, the archives of the various RFD's demonstrate many of the accusations leveled against the culture of wikipedia, such as double standards regarding site policy and cronyism among site admins. This conflict marks a significant, if not important, moment in the ongoing growth and development of wikipedia both as an authoritative collection of knowledge, and as a community. I do not think this should be included to make wikipedia "look bad." Rather I think it shows a moment where the community recognized that personal biases were unduly influencing some articles and subsequently took steps to overcome these deficiencies. Additionally, the conflict has heavily influenced perceptions of wikipedia within the Encyclopedia Dramatica community. In sum, the conflict surrounding the creation of this article is important for a proper understanding of Encyclopedia Dramatica and (to a lesser extent) wikipedia. The cataloging of such information is the central goal of Wikipedia.

As I said, I know this is touchy which is why I have decided to bring it up in the discussion page rather than editing the article itself. What does everyone think? Velvet Llama (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having edited the Essjay Controversy allows me to repeat what I learned there. Short answer: unless an independent, third-party reliable source has written about it (internal Wikipedia citations are largely unacceptable), we shouldn't be (and can't be) writing about it either. To do so, would constitute original research. Please remember: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It's really that simple. J Readings (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just because it exists doesn't mean it needs an article

Encyclopedia Dramatica stems from 4chan's /b/ image board, which I personally don't think should have an article. This site is still fairly obscure and I am quite certain that no one is interested in it that doesn't already know what it is and therefore it does not serve the purpose of providing information, which is the purpose of any good wikipedia article. I personally think this is a waste of space and that Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't worthy of an article simply because of the nature of the content found on that website. I hope someone who doesn't care about lulz being killed as long as nazism isn't revived (and yes that is an exaggeration) hears me out. I also hope that other users can be mature enough to not delete this comment in spite of the fact that it may clash with their personal views. radrigosan 10:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, ED has some very rude and vicious content, as well as plenty of X-rated material. I don't see how this page does "not serve the purpose of providing information" — it's a well sourced, neutral article detailing the major aspects of the site. ED does have content that is pretty much guaranteed to stir some s***, but the site does meet the criteria of having received coverage in third party sources, so it is a notable website (even if you think it's "obscure"; obscurity is relative), and deserves a page on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the top of the page, one of the boxes contains past deletion discussions. To avoid repeating the same arguments, I suggest reading at least the last two discussions: the Deletion Review that allowed re-creation of the article here and the Articles for Deletion discussion that closed with "keep" here --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encyclopedia Dramatica does not stem from 4chan and you are woefully incorrect for thinking so. The sources prove its notability, and the rest of your statement is merely a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument or a bias against things that dare to be politically incorrect. Dance With The Devil (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised we got anything done in the last discussions. Anyway, due to the altogether too frequent and disorganised discussions in past, the next calm, collected deletion review and deletion discussion is scheduled to happen around May 15, 2018. Please save your arguments until then; any discussion before that date is simply wayyy too premature. =) Seriously, though, didn't we just go through this... about billion times? What does yet another (previously too often heard) argument accomplish? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

I changed the front section because quite frankly Encyclopaedia Dramatica (it is meant to be ae, not e) has precious little Wikipedia-related content, and that is certainly not the main purpose of it.

Historically, Encyclopaedia Dramatica started up as a spin-off to LJ Drama, which was related to discussion of Live Journal. Before expanding to its own wiki, LJ Drama had expanded to include discussion of Blogger as well as furries and 4chan. When Encycloapedia Dramatica began, these were their main topics. They have now expanded further to include Habbo Hotel and Wikipedia. Indeed, there are no rules as to what can be discussed there. It is in fact a discussion of *everything*.

The page that ED has about itself says:

"Encyclopedia Dramatica is a central catalog for organized reference pages about drama, memes, e-pals and other interesting happenings on the internets. ED is also the final arbiter of truth and human destiny, and can be used to settle any dispute, anywhere, evar."

I was reverted for removing the part about Wikipedia being the focus because, according to the reverter, "that's not what the reference says". Actually, that *IS* exactly what the reference says. It says quite clearly that Wikipedia is not the focus of their pages.

Some people confuse Encyclopaedia Dramatica with Wikipedia Review and Wikitruth because ED is often quoted on Wikipedia Review and Wikitruth, and they cross reference each other. But ED mentions Wikipedia in passing. I believe that they have around 1.5 million articles, of which less than 1,000 have anything at all to do with Wikipedia. Compare that with Wikipedia Review's 100,000 posts, of which about 90,000 relate to Wikipedia.

The 1,000 or so that ED does have on Wikipedia do tend to get a lot of publicity in various Wikipedia mailing lists; however that doesn't mean that ED focusses on Wikipedia at all.

I hope that the correction that I made can remain.

Note that in the rest of the article it also says that Wikipedia is not the focus, so it is extremely odd that that is in the opening statement, especially when the reference says otherwise. Dyinghappy (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should stick to what reliable third-party sources say about ED. I notice that anyone can edit the "About" page for ED (and have done so), thus it's not really a reliable source for our purposes. If we continually cite ED's About Us page, that will invite instability as people will constantly be making bold changes to the ED "About" page then crossing over to change the Wikipedia page. That's not good either. J Readings (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it has said that since its very beginning, and has not changed on that focal point, I would say it was reliable. It is also mentioned all through the wiki. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Along with further comments from other editors here, we can always bring the question before the Reliable Source noticeboard. I would be interested to read what they have to say on the matter of ED's "About Us" page reliability. J Readings (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I bet that the people that have pages on ED talking about them have a lot to say about ED's reliability.
— J_Readings — continues after insertion below What are you implying, Enric?
I'm implying that there are several pages on ED that talk about WP editors, and that those WP editors are not happy at all about the distorsions of reality that those pages make in the benefit of making a good joke, and that those WP editors are going to put the shout on the sky if someone says that ED is reliable because ED is saying a lot of crap about them. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, the description was changed, but the referenced source was still pointing to the about us page, where the "ED is a parody of wikipedia" bit comes from. As I say on my edit summary, for self-descriptions of companies we usually resort to either the About US page, to press releases from the company or to declarations from its CEO. In this case we don't have press releases or CEO declarations, and we have the extra possibility of sourcing from ED's article on itself. Notice that the lead on ED's article is basically parroting what the about us page says (Dying was getting his info from there, not from the main page like he said on the edit sumary, the main page would be at www.encyclopediadramatica.com and the info was from www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ED is a wiki, not a corporation. We should bear that in mind. The whole concept of "facts" and "reliability" on ED (even about itself which keeps being edited, I notice) is a sort of vague, amorphous concept, wouldn't you agree? It's one thing if the owner or editorial board or some legal entity with a reputation for fact-checking defined and ultimately maintained the site's legal structure. But that's not the case here. As it is, the "About Us" page continues to be edited and re-edited and changed and will likely always be in flux. Is it any wonder why we generally avoid citing Wikis on Wikipedia? It's common sense, actually. We should stick to reliable third-party sources in their descriptions of ED (that was the whole point of the AfD in the first place). But I'm waiting to see what the consensus will be on this subject over at the noticeboard and here on the talk page. J Readings (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to quote the entire page that is on "About Us":

"Done in the spirit of Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary, Encyclopedia Dramatica's purpose is to provide a central catalog for the e-public to view parody and satire of drama, memes, e-pals and other interesting happenings on the internets. The goal is to provide comprehensive, reference-style parody, to poke fun at everyone and everything on the internet.

While the articles themselves are mostly satirical jabs at Internet users (both individually and in groups) and phenomena, bear in mind that the Encyclopedia Dramatica itself is a parody of a much less funny online encyclopedia. As such, ED articles tend to make fun of the supposed objectivity and accuracy, elitism, and stupid edit wars of such sites. In other words, expect blatant, biased lies, and expect boring truths to get deleted quickly.

ED's third purpose is to catalogue Internets phenomena. In this role, it's actually a fairly good reference for dramatic events and things like memes and netspeak, provided you bear in mind the first two purposes and take what you learn with a Girlmecha-sized grain of salt. "

Given that this is what it actually says in the quote, it is pretty clear that their aim is NOT specifically aimed at Wikipedia, which is the point of this whole dispute. It is misleading to suggest that their primary aim is Wikipedia, when it does not even mention Wikipedia by name in this article. Yes, the way that they do things is meant to be a parody of the way that Wikipedia does things, but that is where it ends. They are writing about people, memes, MySpace and so forth, hardly at all about Wikipedia. It is incredibly misleading, to the extent of leading to false representation of the truth to suggest that they are purely devoted to Wikipedia. They are not, never have been, and never will be. Look for Uncyclopedia for that. Dyinghappy (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just suggest going by the amount of articles on the site. As someone pointed out in the Deletion Review, the Wikipedia content is by far outweighed by anything else. It's one of the smaller content groups at ED, well after deviantArt, LJ drama and Furries, which do make up a lot of articles on their own, nevermind together. Like has been said, the about us page can be edited at whim to say whatever someone wants. To recat everything on the site to reflect some deception would be a tremendous effort, one which would get: 1. reverted quickly and 2. your ass b&. Howa0082 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah, wait a minute. I never said that ED has a focus on wikipedia, I said that it's a parody of wikipedia, as in making a parody of wikipedia's articles and procedures. That's a different thing, and it has nothing to do with the amount of articles talking about wikipedia. It does have to do with ED copying how wikipedia works, including stuff like "Arbchat", the ED version of Arbcom, see http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Skuee/Arbchat_log, the existance of admins and bureaucrats, the "Article of the now" which correlates to "Today's Featured article", "Picture of the now" to "Today's featured picture", the same type of navigational templates at the bottom of the pages, some similar rules for admins (similar, but perverted to fit ED's focus) like protecting pages only when necessary, being nice to new users, etc, see http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ED:SYSOP, etc.
There are some similarities that are explained by both sites using the same software, but others can only be explained by ED trying to be a parody of WP. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I was not implying that you were saying anything. Just intimating that the hard fact of numbers would be better than the About Us page, which is not widely trusted here because it runs off MediaWiki software, as you say. Anyway, I would argue that ED is more satire than parody. It just uses MediaWiki, that's all. Copying the look-and-feel of WP is more due to laziness than any desire to mock Wikipedia or whatever. Howa0082 (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Encyclopædia Dramatica

The site claims on their main page and throughout the site that the correct name is Encyclopædia Dramatica, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I usually refer to it as Encyclopaedia Dramatica because that is closest, but it is not actually accurate.

I propose that we move the name of the article to Encyclopædia Dramatica, with redirects from Encyclopedia Dramatica and Encyclopaedia Dramatica. I further propose that we have a disambig page from ED, as that is its most common abbreviation. - I note that that is already there.

What say you? Dyinghappy (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. From what I can see, ED refers to itself as Encyclopedia Dramatica. The logo says æ, yes, but lots of companies use stylised logos, you know? Its main page says "Welcome to Encyclopedia Dramatica", their about page uses Encyclopedia, their disclaimer page uses Encyclopedia, their article on themselves uses Encyclopedia, even their URL uses Encyclopedia. I understand that using æ in a URL would be problematic, but ae could have been a substitute, you know? In summary: Throughout the site it uses Encyclopedia to refer to itself, as far as I can see. Dreaded Walrus t c 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica&oldid=224803104"