Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Dead link

It would appear as though Stellmach's version of Encyclopedia Dramatica has been offline continuously for the past several weeks. I propose that we monitor this situation a while longer, (maybe until near the end of August), and if the situation doesn't change, we remove that version as being listed as a competing current one. Naturally, WP:CRYSTAL, which is why we wait. BOTTO _(T•C) 02:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica#.wiki_version_offline,_August_2021 above. With any site other than ED, going offline for weeks would be unusual. ED has done this in the past and still returned, but I agree that the .wiki version should be regarded as defunct if it hasn't returned by September.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I propose to mark as defunct immediately for the fact that it had gone offline and all the site's content disappeared when it was back online half a year later due to a database corruption. That exact situation occured again here. It can always be reverted if the site still does come back half another year later. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably defunct, but since ED has staged miraculous recoveries in the past, it has until the end of the month.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: I've now removed the designator for .wiki being a current domain for the website. BOTTO _(T•C) 00:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica trademark for .wiki

Hello,

Editing is now reopened on our site .wiki now that I have technical issues resolved.

In addition I have filed for the Encyclopedia Dramatica Trademark and it's official within databases.

See here for example: https://app.trademarkengine.com/trademark-detail/90606219

There were rumors of the last admin filing for the trademark before me however it apparently seems that because he's currently in prison they revoked it from him during the application process. - æ admin 03:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aediot (talk • contribs)

No I don't think so. Trademarks do not get "revoked" while in prison. Second, the Patent Office's search engine for trademarks are notoriously unreliable. Third, any trademark issued to you would be unenforceable as a matter of law, nobody owns ED. The site was created while you were still in grade school, putting January 2004 as your first use is a joke. Dramatica.online (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aediot, Dramatica.online, and Bears2077: None of what has been written here has any impact on the content of this page. The only way this may affect this page is if this claimed dispute were to result in one of the two instances of the page being shut down. Until then, we list both the live instances of Encyclopedia Dramatica. All of you are deeply engaged in a conflict of interest and need to stand down from contributing to this page. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 22:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: This page has a lot of bad info on it with few citations, and did not adequately represent the .online fork or even the correct domain nor "owners". I supplied citations from the forum, which shows the reasons for the fork and correct date (Nov 2020, not Dec). It's disappointing that these are labeled not valid sources. I see you fixed the content box with the correct domain. I can at least live with that. No other edits are necessary. Bears2077 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Don't you think it's a bad idea to rely on first-party sources for the .wiki version? The reason the .online sources were removed was because they were unreliable first-party ones, as well. So, with the exception of the business filing (that sounds like it is being contested), these two current versions seem to be on equally unreliable ground. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: I added quite a lot to the page, not just this. I read the existing sources (Stryker) and added more from them, as well as adding new sources (Mitchell). My primary interest in editing the page is the history I added, I just wanted to clean up the current state while here. If the consensus is that there aren't enough sources for either .wiki or .online, that's fine with me. I see that both admins are on this talk page trying to sway us, and I didn't read the talk page before making my edits so I wasn't thinking about that. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I've taken out the reference to the LLC registration and the Crunchbase citation, since neither of those are terribly reliable sources (with Crunchbase notoriously making many of its entries automatically with scraped data from who-knows-where). @Psiĥedelisto: I agree that there isn't really anything to suggest the .online site is "canonical", but I don't think there's anything to suggest that of the .wiki domain, either. An attempt to find coverage of this in news sources brought absolutely nothing, so I think we might have to just lack an authoritative opinion on this one (at least until one of the sites does something wild enough to get an story written about them somewhere). jp×g

Is the Chris-chan story crazy enough that we got cited as a source/linked to on Insider and Yahoo News? --TabbyGarf (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice. VF.Wyyzrd (T • C) 21:04 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What the hell happen to ED.rs

so confused about Encyclopedia Dramacrita.rs got shut down. can OG tell me what happens? Thegibuspyro (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

.rs went down in early 2020, which is when Jacob Stellmach brought online .wiki, with the support of the ED staff. For most of 2020, .wiki was the sole host of ED and Wayback can validate this. However, the website went offline frequently and was scarcely functional. So, most of the ED staff separated from .wiki and created .online. Stellmach opposed this and repeatedly insisted that we remove any mentions of .online, which we refused, as we recognized both as hosting the IP. We kept things that way until about a month-and-a-half after .wiki permanently went down. At the start of September, we removed listing .wiki as a current host, as it was clear the status quo wasn't - and hasn't - shifted. That being said, .wiki was at one point the exclusive host of ED, so it wouldn't be factual to remove mentions of it. BOTTO _(T•C) 01:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What the fuck? Damn this website can't catch a break Thegibuspyro (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing that ED is still going in 2021, although this article doesn't point out that much of the former content and images have gone missing due to the various changes of ownership and lack of proper backups.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did RS. go down?

Why did it? to make up space for .wiki? Thegibuspyro (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There are various stories about this that can't be repeated here. TL;DR there was a falling out among the people who do ED. During this period, a lot of ED material went missing due to a lack of proper backups.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

skull: Thegibuspyro (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Should add history of the RS/Wiki Era

Should We? Knowing that it lacks any notably and refs. I don't think forums even count as good ones.Thegibuspyro (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The mainstream media stopped reporting the goings on at ED years ago. This means that we are stuck with poor sourcing or no sourcing at all for the most recent game of musical chairs involving ownership and day to day running of the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah man :( What about The Zaiger Era Thegibuspyro (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Shock articles

Why is shock articles that include heavy gore, pornography and offensive content not mentioned? The site literally is full of weird stuff and one misclick can scar you for life. AllanWiki123 (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It comes down to sourcing. Pretty much every kind of offensive material can be found on ED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

How do they even manage to find offensive material. AllanWiki123 (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

On criminality and sourcing

Ping CharizardTheMan.

We do not make claims about criminal behavior here without providing a reliable source, because (we're an encyclopedia and) we're better than them. I'm not opposed to that paragraph being included. You just have to cite it.

Furthermore, you cannot declare something "criminal" without qualifiers just because one jurisdiction has outlawed it. Wikipedia is read by people in many countries. I, like many people, am in a place where outlawing websites isn't really a thing, and that sentence makes no sense from my perspective. If you do want to mention that, you also need a source for that claim, and you should say which jurisdiction you're talking about. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 05:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

That site doxxes people, has illegal imagery (CP), has criminals on the site doing crimes. And the site isn't funny. Stop supporting that criminal site and report it to the FBI. CharizardTheMan (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you're not actually reading what I'm writing.

I'm not disputing any of the things you're saying. I agree with all of them. I am only telling you that if you want to add this, it needs to have citations after it. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 05:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

But the site is banned in my area, and if I get caught of visiting it I would be fined money or going to jail. There's literally videos and posts online about the site that talk about it doxxing people. CharizardTheMan (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Then pick one that counts as a reliable source, and cite it. That is all I am asking you to do. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 05:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsJ-U8aM0xE this is a hour video that discusses it. CharizardTheMan (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"It's illegal" is too vague without citing a specific jurisdiction and court case. The YouTube video isn't a suitable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The site got banned in certain areas, and I don't want to go to the website and get caught visiting it. CharizardTheMan (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

We couldn't use links directly to Encyclopedia Dramatica as sources anyway - you need secondary sources - like newspaper articles, or books or journals from reputable publishers. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No external link

Where is the external link ? 216.247.72.142 (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If there is no need for one, I'd understand the reasons for this. I'm a newbie here. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a link to the .online version in the infobox, but it is not clickable due to WP:LINKLOVE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Nuetrality

Despite agreeing with lines such as "the site hosts racist material and shock content", I'm not sure if that compromises the neutrality of the article. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 14:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly "prejudice" would be a better word than "racist", because you can't be racist against "furries". And if the argument is that the mere existance of something that is racist means the site is racist, then that means pretty much every American politician is racist just because they've verifiably said something that could be easily argued to be racist. But of course no one in the right mind would consider a politician who was, say, verifiably against bussing at one point in their career (which could arguably seen as reflecting resistance to policies aimed at addressing racial segregation and promoting racial equality) as outright racist.

Basically, it's essential to recognize that shock-value racism like Encyclopedia Dramatica uses hurtful language not because the individuals genuinely believe in the racist statements, but because they seek to provoke strong reactions for entertainment value. Consequently, responding with strong emotions to such provocations can inadvertently play into their hands, and it doesn't deter the provocateurs from their primary goal of inciting reactions. Instead, it's more effective to withhold the emotional response and deny them the satisfaction they seek. This includes calling their content "racist", because even tho the language is, and perhaps was added by an actual racist editor, I feel like calling it as such simply lures in people who think "they should be stopped!", which provides a constant feed of unwitting victims who can be trolled "for the lulz".

In other words, I feel it's more appropriate to call it for what it is: shock content that uses the language used by racists solely to provoke unwitting readers into reacting emotionally which can then be exploited for "the lulz". Claiming the site itself is racist or "hosts racist material" is not very neutral as it is asserting that the site is something that it isn't.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that ED members actually made that claim as a sort of game of five-D chess to make the site seem more "evil" than it actually is, in order to provide that constant feed of unwitting victims to the site who are either ignorant of ED's goal of trolling "for the lulz" or think they can "raid" ED to "fix" it or something. — 66.60.148.2 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but I still think a little rewriting should be in the works. I also think it's bias by omission, as the content itself is meant for entertainment value, albeit being not very socially correct or sensitive. The only thing I think should be rewrote due to omission is that part. It IS, in fact, troll culture. They are trying to get a reaction. And the users DO partake in harassment. I just think the racism is a bit murky with intention, and should be put as such. I can't tell whether it's entirely for shock value or to spread racist ideals, but this is my case for a rewrite. Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 17:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"Encydra" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Encydra has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 15 § Encydra until a consensus is reached. —Alalch E. 22:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)