Unilateral gratuitous obligations

Template:Multidel

Encyclopedia Dramatica.. Anti-semetic and homophobic?

Should this be noted? LithiumOrder (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you can source it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering that is a satire/offensive-humor wiki, I rather doubt you can find a reliable third-party source that genuinely believes the above are true. If you can, however, it probably should be noted.The Myotis (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• No point in even trying to source it. The encyclopedia itself isn't homophobic or anti-semetic, only the users who edit it are. Gollod (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Not all. 152.7.192.244 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

At one point the "YewTube" thing was "JewTube". The users are very racist and anti semetic indeed. I still can't believe this site got a wiki entry. Stroking their already enlarged ego's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.196.191 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought notability, not whether a website has a majority of users who are "anti semetic" or racist, was the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 03:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you haven't read it properly. Or you're Sceptre. Go outside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.248.225 (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The only response I can really have to all of this is.. BAWWWWW MOAR. If you haven't noticed, making fun of Jews and gays makes up a majority of American humor. Stating that ED has inappropriate humor is more than enough to represent this.  Esper  ^rant  02:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check the site you will also find abuse against almost all races, sexualities, and religions. There is even an entry about "You" which is directly abusive to the reader. To single out two groups who receive abuse from this site is pointless, if we are to mention those we should add the other groups who it may offend and it would miss the point of the 'humour' attempted. Simply point out that it is misanthropic and aimed at offending all peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.27.157 (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This page does not have a neutral POV. It is slanted against Encyclopedia Dramatica. Whether you like ED or not, you need to keep a neutral POV. The starting paragraph is especially anti-ED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan1159 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all sourced, I see no false statements. Got any third party sources to praise ED? Add it in. Lots42 (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it either. All in all I think the article covers ED pretty well given our options for source material. Protonk (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Count me in as the third "I don't see it either." The page is all reliably sourced. J Readings (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. All negative statements are sourced, and I see nothing that's not neutral. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC

Wait a second... Let's say I created a website and said wikipedia is politically incorrect and can be edited by five year old kids that don't know what they're talking about, can I source that website and put it on the wikipedia article about wikipedia? I also don't like ED, I just don't like that when wikipedia gets made fun of by a website it has to say that the website is politically incorrect and has pornographic images on it. Also, this article cannot be edited anymore. Ooh, and one more thing- can I write an article and cite ED as my source? I'm just trying to be reasonable here. If this article was slanted toward ED, it would be edited. How about a completely neutral article?

lolwut? ED is politically incorrect and it does have pornographic images on it. Again, how is this article not neutral with regard to the presentation of verifiable fact? Protonk (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan1159. I posted some helpful links on your user talk page. In all seriousness, many of your questions will be answered if you just read those pages. Essentially, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so in order for us to write content, we need to demonstrate that we received the material from reliable sources to comply with no original research, verification, and neutral point of view. You really should read the WP:RS page, in particular. J Readings (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with J Readings. Your site probably wouldn't, for lack of a better word, fit with Wiki standards. But a review from the technology magazine 'Wired' would definitely fit. And there's lots of ways and reasons why an article may be protected from editing. Perhaps your account is simply too new. Lots42 (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "lolwut? ED is politically incorrect and it does have pornographic images on it. Again, how is this article not neutral with regard to the presentation of verifiable fact? Protonk (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) " This is a VERY unneutral POV, and basically outlines how the article comes across. Think of this as a test. Put simply, ED hates Wikipedia, and everything and everyone related to it. Because of this, it makes it difficult to write and maintain a neutral article. Kudo's to whoever can do it. Oh, personally, I love ED. Not for encyclopedic content, but it's really, really funny. POV aside, I think everyone needs to remember that even though the sources are biased, you need to try to return the article to an unbiased POV, which it ISNT know. Gollod (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• As an ED editor, I see nothing wrong with pointing out that the site has pornographic images on it. It does. I add some of them. 70.138.167.143 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is completely impossible to have a neutral point of view about this web site, not even in a Wikipedia article. The sooner you all understand that, the better off we'll all be. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:53 13 September, 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There are plenty of editors perfectly nuetral on the topic. Lots42 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While everything is properly sourced as far as the opening paragraph goes, I do notice that there's a slight hint of malice in the text. Not much I can do to counteract it, but I can see that people are trying to slam the wiki while coyly remaining within guidelines. Just putting it out there. Chronomaster (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Have we all honestly considered that most of the sources we draw from all sort of hold ED in contempt? I mean, I have always expected someone to come by here and complain about how well we are treating them, given the sourcing we work with. If anything, I think we overstate their impact on things outside of their little world. But w/e. :) Protonk (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Contentious language

Resolved

 – Restoring the second point per WP:COMMONSENSE. Ottre 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think the website is notably critical of social networking rather than any one style of user, but these changes are blatantly POV:

• Encyclopædia Dramatica is sometimes cited as a reference on Internet culture by print media publications The Observer and the New Statesman, as well as blogs such as AlterNet, Language Log, and the Gothamist network.

Why was the qualifier "prominent" removed, considering this is the main gauge of the website's presence on the Internet?

prominent was removed because while these websites are the prominent among those that cite ED, they aren't exactly rocking the socks of internet traffic relative to other sites. In the case of the disputed sentence, prominent modified the websites, not their mention of ED, so it wasn't appropriate. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well... Language Log is very prominent, right? Ottre (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly prominent among blogs about language. But not prominent among blogs. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point. Cyberculture revolves around organisations of learning... you know, memetics?! It is very prominent among blogs as regards the subject's focus. Ottre (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But the sentence doesn't assert that language log is prominent among blogs discussing memes. It just asserts that it is prominent. That claim isn't made by a cited source (AFAIK, I may be wrong there) and it isn't strictly necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair call. Ottre 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The website has served as a collaborative area for Anonymous to develop new words and memes.

It's common sense that the website serves as a gathering point to learn the application of new words and memes, based on the principles of free representation in the *chan communities, with speakers there presiding. If the article is to remain concise, there is no more correct term available to describe this phenomenom. Ottre (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that language implies that there is some kind of organized effort involved in the creation of memes. This invokes visions of Moot, Mr. Cockmonger, Millhouse, the advice dog and a plethora of cats in a boardroom meeting having votes about what the next meme will be. :) I think it's fair to say that most memes are the product of spontaneous generation... but I have no sources to vouch for that. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fuck you guys, the world hates you. Ottre 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember what you are talking about

Try to remember that this is also a wiki, open to be edited by anyone with any agenda. There ARE bots around for anti-OMGMYENTIREPAGEJUSTGOTDELETED-style vandalism, but they are less for what wikipedia uses them for. As you go around and debate certain things on what ED is and isn't, remember it's content is driven for and by it's users. It's almost like looking at wikipedia, and saying that EVERYONE who uses it are scholars, university or college graduates and generally totally correct in their knowledge on a given subject. Obviously, some are, but not all. Gollod (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What?? This article exists now??

Hey, I remember a while ago that this page was never to be brought back to life. Something about Ed classifys as spam or something? Can somebody just give me a summary of why the article is back? I saw something about keep a link dead or something...? Very curious. I always saw a ED article on wikipedia a huge controversy that was never going to end!

Thank you in advance.

75.72.213.199 (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Read the beige box above showing the deletion discussions. Basically, some sources popped up and overcame the hate toward the subject eventually. the thing in Wired and the NYT pretty much sealed the deal. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of surprising, considering how hard some users (including some administrators) were trying to keep it deleted back in late 2006 even though it was notable then as well. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 04:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a testament to the fairness of the WP community that we look past the fact that ED incites vandalism on WP "for epic lulz" and simply state that it has become a notable website that should be covered here, whatever its merits. Even more impressive is that the debate was carried to its current conclusion despite the fact that many administrators were against it. We are not a democracy, but we have procedures and we follow them. The system works!!! --Slashme (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think ED ever had enough notability untill quite recently. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What rubbish. The ED article was repeatedly removed in the past, as were all the records of discussions relating to its removal. It was even forbidden to mention the website's existence in any other wikipedia article, in fact you could not physically enter its url into a wikipedia page! This was nothing to do with any lack of notability, it was to do with the attitudes of certain administrators high up the Wikipedia pyramid of power. Meowy 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it's here now so everyone should be happy! Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, now that ED has become recognised by the establishment and the evil empire that is Wikipedia, everyone who formerly sort of liked it now hates it (and rightly so). Reading the numerous old media quotes within this entry trying to explain what ED is, makes me feel sick. Meowy 19:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call taking two years to get the article recreated when it was more than notable enough to warrent an article two years ago a "testament to the fairness of the WP community". --Alexc3 ^(talk) 04:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Only three of the current citations even existed two years ago! It's undergone an explosion of notability since this article was first created. --Slashme (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I can't get as excited as some people. I mean, I'm shocked, shocked to learn that there is gambling going on in this establishment, err, I mean that wikipedia would look more critically at a site like ED than, say, Pets.com. I remember when I used to wish the world would work that way, where people and things would be treated the same regardless of how abrasive they were. I have since discovered that the world doesn't work this way and later have slowly discovered that there are good and bad reasons for that, along with good and bad consequences. All in all, I'm amazed that wikipedia is as neutral as it is (and yes, I'm aware that it isn't entirely neutral, as a matter of fact, I think the ED domain is in the spam blacklist again). Protonk (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• All of ED is still on the spam blacklist, only the link to the main page was whitelisted to allow linking from this article, see Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_10#spam_blacklist_is_gonna_be_a_problem. On that same page you can find a long RFC on the matter --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ED's listing on the spam blacklist is independent of it having an article. ED will likely never be seen as a reliable secondary source... and that's fine. That's not what ED's goal is. ED's goal is to act as an extension to the chan culture and to cause drama/"lulz". Often at our expense. Oh well. We have our job and they have theirs... and we shall both pursue it to the best of our abilities. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but when did "not a reliable source" = spam? (I'm not trying to kill the messenger here). It took me a while to discover that ED was on the blacklist and that it was being used regularly on the basis of sourcing reliability. I can understand the argument "if it isn't reliable, why are we deep linking to it?" but I'm not really persuaded by it. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source = gets taken off the blacklist. The reason it's on the blacklist is because it was spammed all over the place and we had no good reason to link to it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Protonk (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

J.S, I've never seen it "spammed all over the place", but I probably just didn't see it. Can you give me an example or two? --Alexc3 ^(talk) 04:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I just found one of them (already reverted).

I was looking at the log of the meta blacklist here, which refers to the request to blacklist ED. The request says that there are 336 links. Following the linksearch I found that there were only four left, one of them being the one I just reverted. The other three are for this page and for two pages on userspace --Enric Naval (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex, we were wrong to try to pursue keeping this page up two years ago, even if ED was being unfairly impinged upon by a few Wikipedia admins. There simply wasn't enough media coverage back then. Besides that, ED still isn't an appropriate place to cite as a source because it is of course a parody wiki. Ninja337 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose that we Delete this again

This article violates every single aspect of WP:DENY, and should be deleted as soon as possible, and prevented from ever created again. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• What policy governing inclusion do you feel this article does not meet? Protonk (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's funny. I was going to ask the same thing, but was preempted by Protonk who beat me to it. What particular points in that essay do you think this article violates? And more importantly, which policies and guidelines do you think violate its inclusion in Wikipedia? J Readings (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Same here. Last time it went to AfD it was closed as speedy keep. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone ought to create a Wikipedia article about "YTP"!

To segue from the immediately preciding section, I have to agree with the last two posters: This is article definitely does NOT violate any of Wikipedia's guidelines, and actually I think that it's about time someone created a Wikipedia article about "YouTube Poop"! I am actually really surprised there is no article about it. Consider the following:
1. YouTube has been a Top 5 website both nationally and globally almost every single day for at least a year now, according to my daily checking of the Alexa Web Traffic stats:
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?cc=US&ts_mode=country&lang=none
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=global&lang=none
2. The Wikipedia article about YouTube is one of the Top 10 most frequently visited and edited articles on Wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages
3. As of this month, October 2008, there are 63,000 videos that show up for the quoted search term "youtube poop,"
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22youtube+poop%22&search=Search
And another 17,800 that show up for the search term YTP, of which there is certainly some overlapping, but many of the video creators don't write out the whole phrase:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=YTP&search_type=&aq=f
4. So many Internet memes are created and popularized by YTP videos, and there are Wikipedia articles about those things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_memes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena

I don't know how to create and article, and have seen all sorts of crazy multiple re-postings of articles on here (like this one itself), but a good starting point would be those above-mentioned stats, as well as the Encyclopedia Dramatica article:
(I couldn't hyperlink to it, but you know how to find it)
And the various definitions on Urban Dictionary (yet more proof of why it merits inclusion:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=youtube+poop

If any of you are admins or have like 10 minutes to get the article started, I'll help to expand and edit it!
Let me know what you think. 68.174.101.64 (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)