This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dril article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Dril has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 21, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
absurdist
Twitter writer known as
dril continues to insist that he is not
owned, even as he slowly shrinks and transforms into a
corncob? |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is definitely not "high importance" for internet culture. It's obvious someone filled that in as a joke. I know I should assume good faith, but there is no evidence provided in the article for why its subject should be high importance. Yet another internet personality, not exactly on the same level of importance of someone like Tim Berners-Lee. And to address the content of the article: most of it seems to be written as a joke, or a collection of jokes this person has made. Is this really encyclopedic content? It doesn't seem like including the person's jokes makes a fitting biography. This whole article is someone taking a joke too far, probably a fan engaging in hero worship. Cnehren ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is way too long, it seems like it was written by someone who doesn't have a clue how to summarize. Yes I agree this user is very famous as an avid user of Twitter myself. But I haven't even ever heard of the "corncob meme" and "Keebler Elves controversy." Much more well known memes from his tweets would be the "skeleton war" and "the year of luigi". Leave meme documentation to Know Your Meme, those wouldn't even be confirmed on there. If people want to know what he's like, they can just look at his twitter page, not read inane comments comparing him to Trump. Also, what's up with the emoji approximation of his icon in the tweet template??? I thought that was funny. Kingtunk ( talk) 15:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm new to wikipedia so i don't know yet how to properly cite sources but I think that the article would benefit from rewording the section referring to "the ratio" to make it more clear to someone unfamiliar with Twitter. I think we can cite some more sources about "the ratio" to make it clear that this is a notable/enduring (albeit mildly tongue-in-cheek) thing and not just a throwaway/flash-in-the-pan meme:
https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/d338qj/corncob-donut-binch-a-guide-to-weird-leftist-internet-slang http://news.avclub.com/congressman-finds-out-the-hard-way-that-people-liked-ob-1798261686 http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a54440/twitter-ratio-reply/ http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/ny-rep-john-faso-gets-owned-for-supporting-ahca-on-twitter.html http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a54750/ratio-watch/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/06/the-gop-tried-to-troll-hillary-clinton-it-backfired-spectacularly/?utm_term=.cefd2d07f44f — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGBTQ ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I just don't "get it" but I am very confused about the "corn cob" bit. Was dril quoting/referencing something with the "slowly shrink and turn into a corn cob" bit or was that usage something he originated? The article talks about "use of the term 'corncob' in this sense" and "slang use of 'corncob'" but has not (to that point) actually explained what the sense was. -- Khajidha ( talk) 11:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Otterathome: Hello, Otterathome. Here's why a Know Your Meme link should be included among the external links section.
You raise two policy objections under "Links normally to be avoided" ( WP:ELNO), categories 2 and 12 (of links an editor "should generally avoid providing external links to").
WP:ELNO 2:
I'd be very curious where misleading, factually inaccurate, or unverifiable information can be found on that page. I welcome you to survey that page and determine where misleading or factually inaccurate information can be found. I'd be especially shocked to learn that there's "unverifiable" information, as the Know Your Meme page has 28 references as of this writing. It may not conform to Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, but that's precisely the point of linking it. Know Your Meme's looser, "anthropological" standards allow them to write about aspects of this topic that Wikipedia itself wouldn't under WP:OR. If you find severely glaring misleading, factually inaccurate, or unverifiable information, please indicate where it occurs in response here.
(Side note: to be clear, I would never cite Know Your Meme as a reliable source in its own right. I would completely agree with any users anywhere on the site who sought to remove Know Your Meme as a reference, the site is clearly not suited to that purpose. However, Know Your Meme is never used here as a source. Indeed, the compilation of dril-related information and memes it contains are precisely where we should refer a reader who wants to seek out more information beyond the bounds of what Wikipedia can, within its own policies, permissibly describe, so in other words it is ideally suited to an "external links" [in essence, "further reading"] section.)
WP:ELNO 12 (note that I've italicized and bolded relevant portions of all quotations that follow):
From Know Your Meme's " about" page:
In short, Know Your Meme is not an "open" wiki within the meaning of WP:ELNO 12. The site is only a wiki to the extent that it welcomes submissions and research contributions from a general community of registered editors ("registered" being important because it evinces a level of gatekeeping that, for instance, Wikipedia itself is not subject to). Those submissions and contributions are then evaluated by a permanent editorial staff. Beyond the site's general, structural policy of strong editorial control, the specific page at issue demonstrates a high level of stability: most edits occurred three years ago when the page was first created and published (by a site moderator, no less). If some prior Wikipedia discussion to categorically rule out Know Your Meme as an acceptable external link on meme/internet phenomena pages exists, well, I'd like to be made aware of what has been said, because I would dispute the wisdom of such a blanket policy.
Finally, I'd like to address additional arguments implicit in a message you left on my talk page, which can presently be found here:
Like any Wikipedia user who's contributed to the site for ten years, I appreciate the experience of receiving a note as carefully considered, personalized, and respectful of my experience as the one above. Ah, wait, actually it's a generic template message that broadly accuses me of under-handed, self-serving motives and/or misunderstanding or ignoring basic policy. So, if I may go line-by-line to deflate any conclusory assumptions in the above message:
— BLZ · talk 07:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I feel this section could be improved by referencing/including dril's apparent reaction to the backlash: https://twitter.com/dril/status/749438005706883072 2601:5CC:C780:1D06:EC10:779D:4120:183E ( talk) 02:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos ( talk · contribs) 22:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | No concerns with the prose, spelling, or grammar. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Layout is sensible. No concerns with regards to words to watch. Fictional elements (ie the dril persona) are clearly delineated as such. I really like the boxed tweet reproductions as opposed to screenshots. They're a unique way of presenting the relevant tweets, in my opinion. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Reference list is correctly formatted, references are clear and easy to read. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Although citations to Buzzfeed are unusual on WP, in this case I think it can be considered a reliable source for the people it interviews. Ditto for citations to Twitter. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything is cited and reffed, no conclusions are drawn that are not supported by the refs. No WP:SYNTH. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | All quotes attributed in-text and are correctly cited with references. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Gives a good overview of dril's style and impact such that you would understand the topic reasonably well even if you knew nothing about it when you started the article. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | With a prolific and memetic topic like dril, there is a danger of going overboard with examples, but this article avoids that by focusing on particular tweets that have been specifically remarked on by reliable sources. Again, there are enough examples that you understand the style and the humor, but not so many that it overtakes the article. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No POV concerns. Any POVs are quoted and attributed. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I made a few tweaks during my review and the author has been making some here and there but the majority of the content is stable. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The work put into the fair use rationale for the dril avatar (and also used on the lead image of the two dril screenshots) by Ajfweb is scarily thorough. I'm impressed. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Relevance of images is clear via the captions. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Comment: review basically ready to pass, just holding on the expansion of the lead or a reply from BLZ. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Since this article says that Dril's real name has been revealed, why isn't it on this page? Is it simply to "preserve the mystery"? And if that's the reason, is that really something Wikipedia should be doing? I can imagine Wikipeida would not hesitate to name Banksy if the time came.
I realize the author is a private person, but the article seems to state he is not really hiding his identity. And considering Dril has one million plus followers, and has heavily influenced Twitter culture as well as some of the popular culture, I'd say he's become a public figure. PBP ( talk) 16:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Whether to include dril's name is something I've given some careful thought. Here are the factors I've considered:
First, I want to say that "preserving the mystery" is not the reason, and I agree with PBP that that would not be a good reason. If that were the only reason, or even a major reason, it would be tailoring the page to fit a non-neutral viewpoint, namely, a view that dril's name should never be included in the page no matter how widespread or verified it became, because the "mystery" outweighs any other encyclopedic principles. For the record, that is not my personal POV: I think there are numerous possible circumstances that would warrant inclusion of his name—the most obvious being if he came right out with it in an interview or a public statement.
I'm approaching this issue guided by the policies at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, specifically the subsections on "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources," "People who are relatively unknown," and most of all "Privacy of names". I also referred to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. I'll admit that none of this policy is squarely on point in terms of drawing a clear line that perfectly fits this case; if anything, dril's doxxing presents a sort of novel set of circumstances that, while not perfectly encapsulated by current policy, will probably become increasingly common as more and more culture originates online. Nevertheless, the guiding principles and overall policy rationale tend toward erring on the side of caution. Take, for example, this paragraph from "Privacy of names":
None of this policy strictly forbids inclusion of dril's name under the present circumstances. dril is not so low-profile or so incidentally noteworthy that we would never even consider including his name. However, the policy does generally guide us to prefer erring on the side of excluding his name at the moment. Since we're in a gray area, we should resolve that ambiguity in favor of privacy, at least a time comes when the circumstances are unambiguously in favor of including the name.
So, what are the circumstances right now? As PMC mentions above, most of the articles about the doxxing omit dril's name. These news orgs are following a lot of the same principles that we would be. There's nothing yet that absolutely confirms dril's identity and the orgs themselves aren't independently verifying it, so they're erring on the side of caution and privacy. The closest any sources got to providing the identity were New York, which coyly hinted "Any of the links above will clue you in on who the actual the writer behind the Dril account is," and The Daily Beast, which included the first name (and an exhaustive recounting of the clues that led the Tumblr user to the identity, which is too trivial for us to include anyway).
The New York article's approach is more or less the approach of the Wikipedia article right now; anyone who really wants to find the name could click around through sources included on this page and find it quite easily, or google it themselves. (The Daily Beast article is not currently used in the article, but I was planning to incorporate parts of it. My browser crashed when I was expanding that section and I lost the edits I was making, and haven't gotten around to redoing it.) Although The Daily Beast includes the first name, I still think we should err on the side of exclusion, since it's a sensitive topic and most news orgs erred on the other side of this issue.
So far, dril has hinted at confirmation of the doxxing in his Patreon/reddit statements, but I don't think that really suffices. All of these statements remain somewhat oblique or suggestive. Their purpose isn't to say "I, dril, am X". He's reacting an unwanted, unplanned doxxing—and to that extent, they are valuable statements, and are included in the article toward that purpose—but none of these statements suggest that he is choosing, as part of that reaction, to now voluntarily forfeit anonymity.
In sum: I think there are a lot of "close, but no cigar" moments, and I also think it's likely (but not certain) that we will eventually pass the tipping point for inclusion in the future. We should wait for a clear signal to include it, and in the meantime err on the side of privacy. — BLZ · talk 19:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I reverted Cunctator's edit to dril adding the author's real name. I've written some of my thoughts on this issue above, in a discussion that resolved in a consensus not to name him, but among an admittedly small group.
Although I take the position that his name should not be included (given the present state of secondary sources), I'm not an absolutist on this point. Whether his name should be included in the article is a fair question, and the conditions to help us answer that question will continue to evolve as people continue to write about dril. I have little doubt that the Wikipedia article will and should include his name at some point in the future. Either something big will happen like the author doing an interview "as themselves", which would unequivocally signal that his name is no longer subject to privacy considerations, or we will pass some tipping point where a significant number of sources have used the name and rendered the issue a moot point.
Currently, I don't think we've passed that tipping point. It's true that one or two web publications have named him since the dox, but the majority of publications omitted his name as an ethical consideration of privacy at the time of the dox, and most publications that have written about him since the dox have omitted the name without comment. There are points on both sides, but on balance I feel there's a stronger case not to publish the name right now—and Wikipedia policy should lead us to err on the side of omitting the name, rather than erring on the side of including it. If you still feel his name should be included, an RFC would probably be the best way forward. Again I'm not 100% against inclusion but, short of an unequivocal sign like the author's self-identification in the press, I think a discussion and consensus would be warranted before making the decision to include his name.
You're right that dril is a figure of public interest, and he is neither a victim nor a person notable for only one event. So, certainly, we wouldn't use the higher level of caution and scrutiny we would extend in those situations. My case is more that the baseline for almost any involuntary doxing should be fairly high, even in a scenario as here where the harm may not be drastic or obvious. While the potential harm is less than it could be, note that dril has said people called and harassed his parents in the immediate aftermath of the doxing. Of course at a certain point things like that are out of our hands, but it shows why there are general policies in place urging caution in situations like this one. The trend in media has been (and generally remains) to recognize and respect this aspect of dril's privacy—despite two publications naming him in passing—and I still feel on balance that we're not at the tipping point quite yet. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? — BLZ · talk 21:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I feel like we would be remiss not to include discussion of the memetic success of the Skeleton War, a famous dril coinage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.90.37 ( talk) 23:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 23#File:Dril.jpg. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of the recent discussion which resulted in the removal of Dril's actual avatar from his tweets as displayed on the page. It seems it has been replaced with a blurred version of a different, freely licensed, photo of Jack Nicholson's face. I think it would be better to omit any avatar than include a "knockoff" which misrepresents the subject. The Wikipedia freely licensed version is very clearly different from the actual version, and the lack of even a note to the reader is certain to cause confusion. This likely gives readers who are not aware of this copyright fiasco the impression that the photo is either Dril's actual avatar, or was at some point, both of which are entirely incorrect. 128.189.16.205 ( talk) 22:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. There's no factual basis to this fake avatar, therefore no reason to have it. Nihkee ( talk) 19:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
_.---,._,'
/' _.--.<
/' `'
/' _.---._____
\.' ___, .-'`
/' \\ .
/' `-. -|-
| |
| .-'———————`-.
| .' `.
| | R I P |
| | ~𝘧𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘳~ |
| |
|
\ \\| 2019–2019 |//
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've added the name up top while beginning to trim out extraneous material. This is a biographical entry about an author who writes under a pseudonym. The author might prefer that nobody knows their real name, but publications have reported on it and that alone makes it valid for inclusion. And the author himself has admitted to it while promoting his book.
The concerns about doxxing should not factor into this case, especially because the examples provided are so mild that classifying them as doxxing is a stretch. A public figure's parents (supposedly) being called isn't a reason to obfuscate their wikipedia entry or hide their identity from sight.
This issue has nothing to do with deadnaming, so nothing related to wikipedia's approach is relevant to discuss here.
The only question is to what degree of certainty the real name should be written about with. The author themselves did confirm it an AMA while promoting their book: "im some guy named paul dochney who cares big whoop" [1] They have never disputed it. Those two things should be enough to treat the name as a known fact. John Bailey Owen ( talk) 05:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
"In 2017, New York Magazine identified Paul Dochney as dril."Putting aside for a moment the question of whether "New York magazine" should be formatted that way—did they say that? Pull up, ctrl-F "Dochney"... ctrl-F "Paul"?? Hmmm... Oops. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 06:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
This is semantics - "identified" doesn't imply some kind of absolute certitude. But I'm happy to use the AMA with Paul's admission as the source. John Bailey Owen ( talk) 15:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
References
the "please help me budget this tweet" in the Acclaim for individual tweets section is parodied in the strategy game Crusader Kings III [1]. Since there is an entire paragraph on the reception and legacy of that tweet, should this be included? Or do we need someone to write an article pointing out that it is in fact a reference? -- jonas ( talk) 09:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Please maintain the usage of "dril" throughout the article except when Dochney's real name is directly relevant. MOS:PSEUDONYM and MOS:SURNAME are clear on this point:
When a majority of reliable secondary sources refer to persons by a pseudonym, they should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used.
This clearly applies to dril, who is overwhelmingly referred to as such. Nickelpro ( talk) 00:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
And again per MOS:PSEUDONYM
For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym.
Nickelpro ( talk) 00:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I’m curious if anyone else agrees that the lede as currently written completely misplaces the emphasis of the article. It is about the character and account dril, not the creator, so leading with his name and birth month seems highly irrelevant. Dochney is known almost exclusively for dril, and I’m fairly confident that most people who know about dril do not know Dochney’s name. As such, the language “is an American writer and comedian” completely misses the point, and should be replaced with what was there before, something along the lines of “dril is a pseudonymous Twitter account”. Maybe we should mention his real name later in the lede, maybe not, but given that most other articles for equivalent accounts (such as Depths of Wikipedia) push it far down into the article, I don’t see why this should be any different. At this point I’m just interested in hearing other editors’ thoughts, but in the morning once I’m back at my computer, I can be more thorough and point to more examples, and a formal proposal. Cpotisch ( talk) 05:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
how has this person impacted the real world, or, even, the internet outside of twitter, in any way, shape, or form? why is this person's article so long ? wikipedia is not an encyclopedia like https://youtube.fandom.com/ registering online influencers 2A01:CB00:F0C:3A00:1D5A:5FDD:3BC6:5D60 ( talk) 17:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to note that long before Twitter and Something Awful, dril was an active member of an animation group called `The Clock Crew` that was created by members of Newgrounds.com
dril went by `drunkmagikoopa` as a member of `The Clock Crew` and created several animations during that time. As someone who was also an active `Clock` at the time, I argue that his humor and prose directly came from `The Clock Crew` and not Something Awful's FYAD board yet in this article there's no mention of `The Clock Crew` or Newgrounds.com
One of his animations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDnWbcapIEU (warning: explicit)
Considering the extensive detail in and length of this article, is any of this worth mentioning at all? I think it is. 69.203.66.242 ( talk) 05:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Not really a wikipedia guy but I follow dril's account and he's been very outspoken about his views on the ongoing Israel/Palestine war, specifically he is very much against Israel's actions. Should this section be included? PowerglidePrime ( talk) 04:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Its a twitter account. Why does he deserve a page? CobGemmothy ( talk) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dril article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Dril has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 21, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
absurdist
Twitter writer known as
dril continues to insist that he is not
owned, even as he slowly shrinks and transforms into a
corncob? |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is definitely not "high importance" for internet culture. It's obvious someone filled that in as a joke. I know I should assume good faith, but there is no evidence provided in the article for why its subject should be high importance. Yet another internet personality, not exactly on the same level of importance of someone like Tim Berners-Lee. And to address the content of the article: most of it seems to be written as a joke, or a collection of jokes this person has made. Is this really encyclopedic content? It doesn't seem like including the person's jokes makes a fitting biography. This whole article is someone taking a joke too far, probably a fan engaging in hero worship. Cnehren ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is way too long, it seems like it was written by someone who doesn't have a clue how to summarize. Yes I agree this user is very famous as an avid user of Twitter myself. But I haven't even ever heard of the "corncob meme" and "Keebler Elves controversy." Much more well known memes from his tweets would be the "skeleton war" and "the year of luigi". Leave meme documentation to Know Your Meme, those wouldn't even be confirmed on there. If people want to know what he's like, they can just look at his twitter page, not read inane comments comparing him to Trump. Also, what's up with the emoji approximation of his icon in the tweet template??? I thought that was funny. Kingtunk ( talk) 15:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm new to wikipedia so i don't know yet how to properly cite sources but I think that the article would benefit from rewording the section referring to "the ratio" to make it more clear to someone unfamiliar with Twitter. I think we can cite some more sources about "the ratio" to make it clear that this is a notable/enduring (albeit mildly tongue-in-cheek) thing and not just a throwaway/flash-in-the-pan meme:
https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/d338qj/corncob-donut-binch-a-guide-to-weird-leftist-internet-slang http://news.avclub.com/congressman-finds-out-the-hard-way-that-people-liked-ob-1798261686 http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a54440/twitter-ratio-reply/ http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/ny-rep-john-faso-gets-owned-for-supporting-ahca-on-twitter.html http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a54750/ratio-watch/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/06/the-gop-tried-to-troll-hillary-clinton-it-backfired-spectacularly/?utm_term=.cefd2d07f44f — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGBTQ ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I just don't "get it" but I am very confused about the "corn cob" bit. Was dril quoting/referencing something with the "slowly shrink and turn into a corn cob" bit or was that usage something he originated? The article talks about "use of the term 'corncob' in this sense" and "slang use of 'corncob'" but has not (to that point) actually explained what the sense was. -- Khajidha ( talk) 11:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Otterathome: Hello, Otterathome. Here's why a Know Your Meme link should be included among the external links section.
You raise two policy objections under "Links normally to be avoided" ( WP:ELNO), categories 2 and 12 (of links an editor "should generally avoid providing external links to").
WP:ELNO 2:
I'd be very curious where misleading, factually inaccurate, or unverifiable information can be found on that page. I welcome you to survey that page and determine where misleading or factually inaccurate information can be found. I'd be especially shocked to learn that there's "unverifiable" information, as the Know Your Meme page has 28 references as of this writing. It may not conform to Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, but that's precisely the point of linking it. Know Your Meme's looser, "anthropological" standards allow them to write about aspects of this topic that Wikipedia itself wouldn't under WP:OR. If you find severely glaring misleading, factually inaccurate, or unverifiable information, please indicate where it occurs in response here.
(Side note: to be clear, I would never cite Know Your Meme as a reliable source in its own right. I would completely agree with any users anywhere on the site who sought to remove Know Your Meme as a reference, the site is clearly not suited to that purpose. However, Know Your Meme is never used here as a source. Indeed, the compilation of dril-related information and memes it contains are precisely where we should refer a reader who wants to seek out more information beyond the bounds of what Wikipedia can, within its own policies, permissibly describe, so in other words it is ideally suited to an "external links" [in essence, "further reading"] section.)
WP:ELNO 12 (note that I've italicized and bolded relevant portions of all quotations that follow):
From Know Your Meme's " about" page:
In short, Know Your Meme is not an "open" wiki within the meaning of WP:ELNO 12. The site is only a wiki to the extent that it welcomes submissions and research contributions from a general community of registered editors ("registered" being important because it evinces a level of gatekeeping that, for instance, Wikipedia itself is not subject to). Those submissions and contributions are then evaluated by a permanent editorial staff. Beyond the site's general, structural policy of strong editorial control, the specific page at issue demonstrates a high level of stability: most edits occurred three years ago when the page was first created and published (by a site moderator, no less). If some prior Wikipedia discussion to categorically rule out Know Your Meme as an acceptable external link on meme/internet phenomena pages exists, well, I'd like to be made aware of what has been said, because I would dispute the wisdom of such a blanket policy.
Finally, I'd like to address additional arguments implicit in a message you left on my talk page, which can presently be found here:
Like any Wikipedia user who's contributed to the site for ten years, I appreciate the experience of receiving a note as carefully considered, personalized, and respectful of my experience as the one above. Ah, wait, actually it's a generic template message that broadly accuses me of under-handed, self-serving motives and/or misunderstanding or ignoring basic policy. So, if I may go line-by-line to deflate any conclusory assumptions in the above message:
— BLZ · talk 07:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I feel this section could be improved by referencing/including dril's apparent reaction to the backlash: https://twitter.com/dril/status/749438005706883072 2601:5CC:C780:1D06:EC10:779D:4120:183E ( talk) 02:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos ( talk · contribs) 22:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | No concerns with the prose, spelling, or grammar. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Layout is sensible. No concerns with regards to words to watch. Fictional elements (ie the dril persona) are clearly delineated as such. I really like the boxed tweet reproductions as opposed to screenshots. They're a unique way of presenting the relevant tweets, in my opinion. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Reference list is correctly formatted, references are clear and easy to read. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Although citations to Buzzfeed are unusual on WP, in this case I think it can be considered a reliable source for the people it interviews. Ditto for citations to Twitter. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything is cited and reffed, no conclusions are drawn that are not supported by the refs. No WP:SYNTH. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | All quotes attributed in-text and are correctly cited with references. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Gives a good overview of dril's style and impact such that you would understand the topic reasonably well even if you knew nothing about it when you started the article. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | With a prolific and memetic topic like dril, there is a danger of going overboard with examples, but this article avoids that by focusing on particular tweets that have been specifically remarked on by reliable sources. Again, there are enough examples that you understand the style and the humor, but not so many that it overtakes the article. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No POV concerns. Any POVs are quoted and attributed. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I made a few tweaks during my review and the author has been making some here and there but the majority of the content is stable. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The work put into the fair use rationale for the dril avatar (and also used on the lead image of the two dril screenshots) by Ajfweb is scarily thorough. I'm impressed. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Relevance of images is clear via the captions. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Comment: review basically ready to pass, just holding on the expansion of the lead or a reply from BLZ. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Since this article says that Dril's real name has been revealed, why isn't it on this page? Is it simply to "preserve the mystery"? And if that's the reason, is that really something Wikipedia should be doing? I can imagine Wikipeida would not hesitate to name Banksy if the time came.
I realize the author is a private person, but the article seems to state he is not really hiding his identity. And considering Dril has one million plus followers, and has heavily influenced Twitter culture as well as some of the popular culture, I'd say he's become a public figure. PBP ( talk) 16:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Whether to include dril's name is something I've given some careful thought. Here are the factors I've considered:
First, I want to say that "preserving the mystery" is not the reason, and I agree with PBP that that would not be a good reason. If that were the only reason, or even a major reason, it would be tailoring the page to fit a non-neutral viewpoint, namely, a view that dril's name should never be included in the page no matter how widespread or verified it became, because the "mystery" outweighs any other encyclopedic principles. For the record, that is not my personal POV: I think there are numerous possible circumstances that would warrant inclusion of his name—the most obvious being if he came right out with it in an interview or a public statement.
I'm approaching this issue guided by the policies at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, specifically the subsections on "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources," "People who are relatively unknown," and most of all "Privacy of names". I also referred to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. I'll admit that none of this policy is squarely on point in terms of drawing a clear line that perfectly fits this case; if anything, dril's doxxing presents a sort of novel set of circumstances that, while not perfectly encapsulated by current policy, will probably become increasingly common as more and more culture originates online. Nevertheless, the guiding principles and overall policy rationale tend toward erring on the side of caution. Take, for example, this paragraph from "Privacy of names":
None of this policy strictly forbids inclusion of dril's name under the present circumstances. dril is not so low-profile or so incidentally noteworthy that we would never even consider including his name. However, the policy does generally guide us to prefer erring on the side of excluding his name at the moment. Since we're in a gray area, we should resolve that ambiguity in favor of privacy, at least a time comes when the circumstances are unambiguously in favor of including the name.
So, what are the circumstances right now? As PMC mentions above, most of the articles about the doxxing omit dril's name. These news orgs are following a lot of the same principles that we would be. There's nothing yet that absolutely confirms dril's identity and the orgs themselves aren't independently verifying it, so they're erring on the side of caution and privacy. The closest any sources got to providing the identity were New York, which coyly hinted "Any of the links above will clue you in on who the actual the writer behind the Dril account is," and The Daily Beast, which included the first name (and an exhaustive recounting of the clues that led the Tumblr user to the identity, which is too trivial for us to include anyway).
The New York article's approach is more or less the approach of the Wikipedia article right now; anyone who really wants to find the name could click around through sources included on this page and find it quite easily, or google it themselves. (The Daily Beast article is not currently used in the article, but I was planning to incorporate parts of it. My browser crashed when I was expanding that section and I lost the edits I was making, and haven't gotten around to redoing it.) Although The Daily Beast includes the first name, I still think we should err on the side of exclusion, since it's a sensitive topic and most news orgs erred on the other side of this issue.
So far, dril has hinted at confirmation of the doxxing in his Patreon/reddit statements, but I don't think that really suffices. All of these statements remain somewhat oblique or suggestive. Their purpose isn't to say "I, dril, am X". He's reacting an unwanted, unplanned doxxing—and to that extent, they are valuable statements, and are included in the article toward that purpose—but none of these statements suggest that he is choosing, as part of that reaction, to now voluntarily forfeit anonymity.
In sum: I think there are a lot of "close, but no cigar" moments, and I also think it's likely (but not certain) that we will eventually pass the tipping point for inclusion in the future. We should wait for a clear signal to include it, and in the meantime err on the side of privacy. — BLZ · talk 19:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I reverted Cunctator's edit to dril adding the author's real name. I've written some of my thoughts on this issue above, in a discussion that resolved in a consensus not to name him, but among an admittedly small group.
Although I take the position that his name should not be included (given the present state of secondary sources), I'm not an absolutist on this point. Whether his name should be included in the article is a fair question, and the conditions to help us answer that question will continue to evolve as people continue to write about dril. I have little doubt that the Wikipedia article will and should include his name at some point in the future. Either something big will happen like the author doing an interview "as themselves", which would unequivocally signal that his name is no longer subject to privacy considerations, or we will pass some tipping point where a significant number of sources have used the name and rendered the issue a moot point.
Currently, I don't think we've passed that tipping point. It's true that one or two web publications have named him since the dox, but the majority of publications omitted his name as an ethical consideration of privacy at the time of the dox, and most publications that have written about him since the dox have omitted the name without comment. There are points on both sides, but on balance I feel there's a stronger case not to publish the name right now—and Wikipedia policy should lead us to err on the side of omitting the name, rather than erring on the side of including it. If you still feel his name should be included, an RFC would probably be the best way forward. Again I'm not 100% against inclusion but, short of an unequivocal sign like the author's self-identification in the press, I think a discussion and consensus would be warranted before making the decision to include his name.
You're right that dril is a figure of public interest, and he is neither a victim nor a person notable for only one event. So, certainly, we wouldn't use the higher level of caution and scrutiny we would extend in those situations. My case is more that the baseline for almost any involuntary doxing should be fairly high, even in a scenario as here where the harm may not be drastic or obvious. While the potential harm is less than it could be, note that dril has said people called and harassed his parents in the immediate aftermath of the doxing. Of course at a certain point things like that are out of our hands, but it shows why there are general policies in place urging caution in situations like this one. The trend in media has been (and generally remains) to recognize and respect this aspect of dril's privacy—despite two publications naming him in passing—and I still feel on balance that we're not at the tipping point quite yet. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? — BLZ · talk 21:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I feel like we would be remiss not to include discussion of the memetic success of the Skeleton War, a famous dril coinage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.90.37 ( talk) 23:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 23#File:Dril.jpg. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of the recent discussion which resulted in the removal of Dril's actual avatar from his tweets as displayed on the page. It seems it has been replaced with a blurred version of a different, freely licensed, photo of Jack Nicholson's face. I think it would be better to omit any avatar than include a "knockoff" which misrepresents the subject. The Wikipedia freely licensed version is very clearly different from the actual version, and the lack of even a note to the reader is certain to cause confusion. This likely gives readers who are not aware of this copyright fiasco the impression that the photo is either Dril's actual avatar, or was at some point, both of which are entirely incorrect. 128.189.16.205 ( talk) 22:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. There's no factual basis to this fake avatar, therefore no reason to have it. Nihkee ( talk) 19:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
_.---,._,'
/' _.--.<
/' `'
/' _.---._____
\.' ___, .-'`
/' \\ .
/' `-. -|-
| |
| .-'———————`-.
| .' `.
| | R I P |
| | ~𝘧𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘳~ |
| |
|
\ \\| 2019–2019 |//
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've added the name up top while beginning to trim out extraneous material. This is a biographical entry about an author who writes under a pseudonym. The author might prefer that nobody knows their real name, but publications have reported on it and that alone makes it valid for inclusion. And the author himself has admitted to it while promoting his book.
The concerns about doxxing should not factor into this case, especially because the examples provided are so mild that classifying them as doxxing is a stretch. A public figure's parents (supposedly) being called isn't a reason to obfuscate their wikipedia entry or hide their identity from sight.
This issue has nothing to do with deadnaming, so nothing related to wikipedia's approach is relevant to discuss here.
The only question is to what degree of certainty the real name should be written about with. The author themselves did confirm it an AMA while promoting their book: "im some guy named paul dochney who cares big whoop" [1] They have never disputed it. Those two things should be enough to treat the name as a known fact. John Bailey Owen ( talk) 05:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
"In 2017, New York Magazine identified Paul Dochney as dril."Putting aside for a moment the question of whether "New York magazine" should be formatted that way—did they say that? Pull up, ctrl-F "Dochney"... ctrl-F "Paul"?? Hmmm... Oops. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 06:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
This is semantics - "identified" doesn't imply some kind of absolute certitude. But I'm happy to use the AMA with Paul's admission as the source. John Bailey Owen ( talk) 15:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
References
the "please help me budget this tweet" in the Acclaim for individual tweets section is parodied in the strategy game Crusader Kings III [1]. Since there is an entire paragraph on the reception and legacy of that tweet, should this be included? Or do we need someone to write an article pointing out that it is in fact a reference? -- jonas ( talk) 09:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Please maintain the usage of "dril" throughout the article except when Dochney's real name is directly relevant. MOS:PSEUDONYM and MOS:SURNAME are clear on this point:
When a majority of reliable secondary sources refer to persons by a pseudonym, they should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used.
This clearly applies to dril, who is overwhelmingly referred to as such. Nickelpro ( talk) 00:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
And again per MOS:PSEUDONYM
For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym.
Nickelpro ( talk) 00:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I’m curious if anyone else agrees that the lede as currently written completely misplaces the emphasis of the article. It is about the character and account dril, not the creator, so leading with his name and birth month seems highly irrelevant. Dochney is known almost exclusively for dril, and I’m fairly confident that most people who know about dril do not know Dochney’s name. As such, the language “is an American writer and comedian” completely misses the point, and should be replaced with what was there before, something along the lines of “dril is a pseudonymous Twitter account”. Maybe we should mention his real name later in the lede, maybe not, but given that most other articles for equivalent accounts (such as Depths of Wikipedia) push it far down into the article, I don’t see why this should be any different. At this point I’m just interested in hearing other editors’ thoughts, but in the morning once I’m back at my computer, I can be more thorough and point to more examples, and a formal proposal. Cpotisch ( talk) 05:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
how has this person impacted the real world, or, even, the internet outside of twitter, in any way, shape, or form? why is this person's article so long ? wikipedia is not an encyclopedia like https://youtube.fandom.com/ registering online influencers 2A01:CB00:F0C:3A00:1D5A:5FDD:3BC6:5D60 ( talk) 17:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to note that long before Twitter and Something Awful, dril was an active member of an animation group called `The Clock Crew` that was created by members of Newgrounds.com
dril went by `drunkmagikoopa` as a member of `The Clock Crew` and created several animations during that time. As someone who was also an active `Clock` at the time, I argue that his humor and prose directly came from `The Clock Crew` and not Something Awful's FYAD board yet in this article there's no mention of `The Clock Crew` or Newgrounds.com
One of his animations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDnWbcapIEU (warning: explicit)
Considering the extensive detail in and length of this article, is any of this worth mentioning at all? I think it is. 69.203.66.242 ( talk) 05:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Not really a wikipedia guy but I follow dril's account and he's been very outspoken about his views on the ongoing Israel/Palestine war, specifically he is very much against Israel's actions. Should this section be included? PowerglidePrime ( talk) 04:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Its a twitter account. Why does he deserve a page? CobGemmothy ( talk) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)