![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
As before, we're not the ED Helpdesk. Tarc ( talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I see my earlier post was closed without much discussion. I have tried to contact the people running ED, and all I got was an email from someone telling me to hang myself, but take nude photos of myself first, and then they'd "think about it". I really feel that this cyber abuse should be addressed on the page, and not covered up. I'm not their only or even most popular target. They've gone after several women and children who are not celebrities. Death threats are not to be taken as "lulzy". FF3TerraAndLocke ( talk) 06:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Would there at least be a way to neutrally mention cases like mine, without sounding like this page is taking one side vs. another? Maybe without mentioning names/screen names, we could at least add a short note that many of the targets on the .ch page are not famous celebrities. FF3TerraAndLocke ( talk) 06:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
So the actual .ch page is not considered a reliable source, even though this page covers it? So even a screen cap of the page wouldn't be considered reliable, right? FF3TerraAndLocke ( talk) 06:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for clearing this up for me. FF3TerraAndLocke ( talk) 07:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Idk if it's notable enough, or if there is even any usable information, but I was quoted in a printed newspaper which mentions ED. http://neighbourhood5.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/the-good-the-bad-and-the-anonymous. -- Zaiger ( talk) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I have one source of ED's new advancement to another dinner, site. 75.171.14.76 ( talk) 05:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a well researched article highlighting that the conclusions in this article and its adherence to the DeGrippo version of events is a major distortion of the truth and potentially POV-pushing.
Interestingly and I wouldn't be bothering with this at all, save for this very interesting fact is that the author has discovered that a cabal of mods from the ED site had already established user names at the new OH Internet site months before it was launched.
The article concludes, and IMO I agree, that "the demise of Encyclopaedia Dramatica was not the single-handed doing of Sherrod DeGrippo/girlvinyl. Secondly, profitability or financial constraints may have not been at issue." Therefore a conclusion that smacks in the face of propaganda/misinformation found in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.66.199 ( talk) 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
techtanerine.com is an blog without any editorial oversight. The author Hamad Subani (apparently the only author of that infrequently updated blog) obviously doesn't understand how the "Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License" works. He's basically saying that we can't make derivations of images that are painstakingly derivatives (of non-free images) themselves. techtanerine.com is also run by the same people who run cabaltimes.com. A person working on those sites could publish whatever the hell they want without any fact-checking. Their legal disclaimer also makes it clear that they aren't responsible for what happens after an article is published:
3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. shall not in anyway be held responsible for the damages you incurred through the use of this website. Under no circumstances shall 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd., website administrators, editors, contributors, or any of their respective partners, officers, directors, employees, agents, associates or representatives be liable for any damages, whether direct, indirect, special or consequential damages for lost revenues, lost profits, or otherwise, arising from or in connection with this website, the materials contained herein, or the Internet generally. We makes no, and expressly disclaims any, representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the Website, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. We make no, and expressly disclaim any, warranties, express or implied, regarding the correctness, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and reliability of the text, graphics, links to other sites and any other items accessed from or via this Website or the Internet, or any other material. or that the services will be uninterrupted, error-free or free of viruses or other harmful components. If the jurisdiction does not allow the liability limitations described earlier, this website shall only be liable for the amount you paid to access this website.
This lack of responsibility means that they don't have any incentive to be accurate. 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. basically say, "Here's a website for you guys. You can do whatever the fuck you want because it won't do any harm to us." 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. doesn't provide any editorial advice or oversight. techtanerine.com is a tabloid. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 21:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am the author of the article. I cannot help giggling at the audacity anonymous, maybe ANONYMOUS Wikipedian who thought he could link it to the Wikipedia article. But that would be the equivalent of linking this article on a Wikipedia Cabalster to the Wikipedia page on Pan Am Flight 103. In other words, it aint gonna happen. I accept that. But the rest of you don't have to resort to WikipediaSpeak to drive home that point. User Michaeldsuarez, I do understand how a Creative Commons License works. To illustrate my point, let me give you an example. Suppose in India, a copyright expires after 60 years. Therefore I use an image with an expired copyright in a work, and then I release that work under a CC license, It would be technically OK to reproduce that work in India under CC. But suppose in another nation where copyright expires after 100 years, that would not be the case. You call that a caveat. Regarding the disclaimer, check out Wikipedia's. To quote, WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. So going by your logic, "Here's a website for you guys. You can do whatever the fuck you want because it won't do any harm to us." I understand that Wikipedia has had an acrimonious relationship with ED, and I am aware that even an ED page was not permitted because some Wikipedios did not like it. Please show maturity.( -----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- ( talk) 15:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC))
Those are sources for some technical information that I discovered, and I could not find "other" sources for the same. BTW those are very different articles than ED. Ummm what exactly is the sin involved in openly "using your own blog articles as sources?" especially when others are not available?( -----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- ( talk) 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)).
Ok...so Jimbo says it is a sin. Go ahead and delete them if that is the case. Interesting how no one found the links for those two articles questionable, even though they were openly self-published. But when someone else wanted to link to a Wikipedia-critical article on ED, the same website becomes questionable. Pretty much sums up the situation here( -----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- ( talk) 00:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC))
We've lost our .ch domain, so we're now at encyclopediadramtica.se encyclopediadramatica.se. May I please change all instances of ".ch" in the article to ".se"? --
Michaeldsuarez (
talk)
21:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Way too soon to start putting it on Wikipedia. I don't even think .ch deserves a mention. -- JohnnyLurg ( talk) 21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Clarification: The Twitter did not claim that brandt was behind the block. The Twitter claimed he was full of shit when he posted to his blog that the domain had been deleted from the registrar because of representatives of Ryan Cleary. It wasn't, we still own the domain, it's just suspended until we can furnish a Swiss mailing address. I never said that he was behind the block on Twitter. This had nothing to do with Brandt and we did never claimed that it did, we were just addressing his speculations. Also, we didn't "start over", none of the data moved from the server it was on, we just changed the domain suffix. -- Zaiger ( talk) 05:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Encyclopedia_Dramatica&diff=483398296&oldid=483361220 – I've fixed the timeline of events. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 18:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
encyclopediadramatica.se
. JohnnyLurg
noted a typo in my original statement. --
Michaeldsuarez (
talk)
15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt accuses "Friends of Ryan Cleary" and Encyclopedia Dramatica for the alleged DDoS attacks against his websites:
http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:DanielBrandtFriendsOfRyanCleary.jpg
(a screenshot of a private forum post by Brandt)Should this (or at least the information within the two Betabeat articles) be mentioned in the article? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
On March 31, 2012, wikipedia-watch.org, google-watch.org, scroogle.org, and namebase.org were all redirected to http://josephevers.blogspot.com/2012/02/scroogle-shuts-down-for-good.html. On that same day, the following text was added to http://josephevers.blogspot.com/2012/02/scroogle-shuts-down-for-good.html:
Please visit the main page of this blog for more on Ryan Cleary and his friends who run Encyclopedia Dramatica.
-- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 17:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
http://blog.ohinternet.com/11618/wikipedia-questionable-content/ – Apparently, OhInternet is upset about the sources used in this article:
We’ll start with a website known as “ The Daily Dot,” which, according to Wikipedia (yes, I’m quite aware of the irony here,) is an online newspaper that covers internet topics. It aims to be the “hometown newspaper” of the internet. The site was started by a pop musician who, as far as we can tell, has no background in journalism whatsoever ( Fact-checking? What’s that?) This site came to light when one of their writers spewed hundreds upon hundreds of words about the hilarious ShitRedditSays subreddit, most of them ill-informed. A cursory search indicates that The Daily Dot is cited as a reference on a handful of Wikipedia articles, despite being little more than an internet rumors blog masquerading as a legitimate news source. More damning is the fact that the site seems to think the “Men’s Rights” movement is valid and not filled to the brim with misogynistic hate groups.
-- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 15:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Al-Jazeera mentions ED here [3] and the context appears to refer to it as a presently existing wiki, rather than one that is defunct. If enough sources refer to ED.ch/se simply as "Encyclopedia Dramatica", or discuss Encyclopedia Dramatica as something that presently exists, will the intro section be changed to reflect this? My own subjective assessment is that virtually everyone across the internet who had been interested in ED, including the site's userbase, readerbase, and even arch-enemies, presently perceives the site that is up now as, simply, "Encyclopedia Dramatica", rather than a mirror of a defunct site (the only serious exceptions being Sherrod DeGrippo herself and her inner circle). Adlerschloß ( talk) 03:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone has submitted an academic thesis to Baylor University citing encyclopediadramatica.ch as Encyclopedia Dramatica. [4] Adlerschloß ( talk) 07:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ncGVPtoZPHcC&q=dramatica
Thank you, Adlerschloß. This looks somewhat promising. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just read the posts on this talkpage...and can only conclude that the aforementioned "holier-than-thou-stick-in-the-mud" is deliberately trying to keep their version: the one where EA died for good after De Grippo left. However this is irrespective of the reality, EA.se et all lives on.
Will some registered user who actually can get passed the block on this page please WP:BOLD and change the page to reflect the realpolitik. The EA article just gets the tone so right regarding Wikipedia editors like SilverserenC whose only possible reward from being so obtuse and pigheaded, is "unwarranted self importance".
Note the fact that SilverserenC just uses misdirection and fallacy ( shifting the burden of proof) to hang on to their tenuous version. They state this article is about EA.com not EA.se. Then someone else points out, hang on, this article is just about encyclopedia dramatica (no mention of .com) therefore any "encyclopedia dramatica". Then its a problem with the content? What has got that to do with anything, another fallacy ( Moving the goalposts). It just goes on and on.
When is someone with the balls and the brains going to override this person and do the right thing? We have now reached the point where the content in this article is so far from being factual, its like demanding this: water is wet citation needed!!
EA exists...get over it! 86.145.5.23 ( talk) 20:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/finding-the-mystery-man-behind-funnyjunk/ – Encyclopedia Dramatica apparently played a role in outing FunnyJunk's owner. One thing that the Ars Technica article hints at but doesn't meation is SuperIrene's earlier ED account "Mightyirene", which was active in late August 2011. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 20:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=FunnyJunk&diff=236739&oldid=236667
(August 2011)https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=FunnyJunk&diff=237541&oldid=237097
(August 2011)https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=FunnyJunk&diff=324440&oldid=322835
(January 2012)BoingBoing has referred to ED [dot] se as "Encyclopedia Dramatica", without any qualifier, such as "fork", "unofficial continuation", etc. it seems like everyone has now acknowledged ED [dot] se as Encyclopedia Dramatica except Wikipedia. - badmachine 08:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/cloudflare-watch.htm – Daniel Brandt apparently sent a press release about a new website of his to Cryptome, which is a website for privacy advocates. He also talks about why he became interested in Encyclopedia Dramatica in the release:
My interest in CloudFlare came from my battle with Encyclopedia Dramatica. This started in mid-2010 with a bio on me on encyclopediadramatica.com that Sherrod DeGrippo refused to take down when I asked her nicely. So I helped a friend start the site josephevers.blogspot.com to research the anonymous admins behind ED. It had some impact -- ED.com was abandoned by DeGrippo in April 2011, in favor of a mild meme site at ohinternet.com.
I've added this information to article. Feel free to look over the changes.
One thing to keep in mind is that in the press release, Brandt claims that Sherrod "refused" to take the article down, but according to a post blog that Brandt published on the Wikipedia Review, Brandt said,
I was informed by [an] insider that the Queen [Sherrod] got my email, didn't recognize my name, and then informed this insider that she (the Queen) had decided not to reply to me.
It seems to be a case of Sherrod not caring ("didn't recognize [Brandt's] name") or not wanting to interact with Brandt rather than outright refusing to delete the article. As a result, I used the words "chose to ignore" in the article. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I just came across this article and noted immediately that it's a load of hot air. Firstly why is EA referred to in the past tense, when its website the first choice before this link in a google search? Secondly why does it purport that "several mirrors" exist when there are actually none of note, only the Encyclopedia Dramatica.se site? Thirdly, as I can see from the talk archives, whenever this point is raised there seems to be a POV-derived campaign to deny the existence that EA existed after DeGrippo pulled the plug in favor of OhInternet?
In my view the logic on show here is nothing shy of POV pushing. Firstly just because something closes and then restarts does not mean it does not exist. Secondly the fact is does exist but is not in use/manufacture does not preclude it from being talked of in the present tense. For example, people no longer ride horses to work, they therefore were not beasts of burden because they remain beasts of burden. Likewise the ending of a TV series does not it "was" a TV series because it will always exist as long as no one destroys all the copies. However a lost film could be referred to as "was" because it really is "was" as there is nothing else like it.
On reading this article, it could be surmised that EA existed, was withdrawn and then "several mirrors" (i.e. many pale imitations were spawned) began but they were not the original EA. Hardly, the EA.se website is just as much like the old one. It therefore seems completely misleading and ridiculous to suggest that the original was the only one. TBH after reading EA's article about WIkipedia, I have to admit beyond the hate and bile, there are some very fair observations about this site, its users and its creator Mr Wales. I can only concur that with such criticism even Wikipedia is not immune to altering history a la totalitarian regime.
The point of this article seems to be, there was only one EA created by DeGrippo and anything else is not real! EA is a meme, it exists to troll and it does not matter how many portals, or reincarnations of it exist. I suggest the people who defend this article's slant take their high horses over to pages on religions, for instance Christianity. I would like them to use their logic to decry sectarianism, for surely the Church established by Christ has absolutely nothing to do with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism because all the latter denominations were all created long after the original church ceased to exist.
It makes me think that DeGrippo is being treated like a messianic figurehead whose ownership of an idea far outweighs the subscribers to that idea! Go on, trot over to Christianity and tell all those believers that their churches are false as they worship versions that were not created directly by Jesus. DeGrippo lost control of the thing she created, that does not mean the idea she spawned ended with her too. Until you get your heads around that this page will be permanently blocked from editing. Not because of stupid swearing but because it is patently not true.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.117.223 ( talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I also think it shouldn't be presented in the past tense. It doesn't matter if the owner walked away or that it now says ".se" instead of ".com". Do we need to resort to a vote in order to resolve this? Acoma Magic ( talk) 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Silver Seren is right that DeGrippo probably still holds the copyright on the 2004-11 material, but there needs to be reliable sourcing to make this an issue worth mentioning in the article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I see we're just not going to be able to agree on anything here, since we have pretty much opposing opinions on what to do with this article. However, that means then that you need to reach a consensus to make the change, per WP:BRD. The two of you and the two of us is just a stalemate. The other reverters were Zaiger and 8nate. Zaiger, being an ED Government member, would have to be taken with a grain of salt and 8nate turned out to be a sockpuppet. So, at this point, there needs to be an RfC or something for this change to remain. Silver seren C 08:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I discussed this article a couple of years ago with partial success (as the consensus was reached and edits made) and now that I've stumbled upon it again I discover that informations and sources about gore/shock/etc materials being widely used in E.D. have been deleted. The lead now says E.D. is merely a "satirical site". 83.7.161.227 ( talk) 01:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
At 50 shades of Wikipedia? UK head banned after bondage porn ties, ED is used as a citation for the fact that "Fae" being Van Haeften's Wikipedia username. Tarc ( talk) 16:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
encyclopediadramatica.com was closed, but all the articles were mirrored in encyclopediadramatica.se, who has a different owner. Should we speak of Encyclopedia Dramatica in the present (.se is a website) or in the past (.com was a website)? Enric Naval ( talk) 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I submit that encyclopediadramatica.se should be officially referred to as Encyclopedia Dramatica in the same way that the 1999 NFL expansion Cleveland Browns are considered as THE Browns, with the Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns) discussing the entire history of the franchise, not just what happened before the move, and after the expansion franchise.
Art Modell owned the Cleveland Browns. He decided to move the team to Baltimore and call them the Ravens.
Sherrod DeGrippo owned Encyclopedia Dramatica. She decided to rename the site Oh Internet.
New ownership formed a franchise in Cleveland and named them the Browns. That team continued on AS the Browns, and as time advanced, they built their own history AS the Browns.
Ryan Cleary (amongst others) created a mirror site with cached information and titled it Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site (first .ch, then .se) continued on compiling new articles and expanding upon current articles, thusly creating or rather extending the life of the current site KNOWN as Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Just as the Baltimore Ravens aren't considered to be the Cleveland Browns in actuality, nor is Oh Internet still Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Because the parallels exist, and because all changes concerning the Cleveland Browns franchise is referred to in its entirety pre and post move, this should be the way that the Encyclopedia Dramatica article should be formed, using the Browns as a true precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.73.92 ( talk) 17:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's just unhelpful. The RfC wasn't ever actually closed. What now? Silver seren C 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
As before, we're not the ED Helpdesk. Tarc ( talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I see my earlier post was closed without much discussion. I have tried to contact the people running ED, and all I got was an email from someone telling me to hang myself, but take nude photos of myself first, and then they'd "think about it". I really feel that this cyber abuse should be addressed on the page, and not covered up. I'm not their only or even most popular target. They've gone after several women and children who are not celebrities. Death threats are not to be taken as "lulzy". FF3TerraAndLocke ( talk) 06:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Would there at least be a way to neutrally mention cases like mine, without sounding like this page is taking one side vs. another? Maybe without mentioning names/screen names, we could at least add a short note that many of the targets on the .ch page are not famous celebrities. FF3TerraAndLocke ( talk) 06:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
So the actual .ch page is not considered a reliable source, even though this page covers it? So even a screen cap of the page wouldn't be considered reliable, right? FF3TerraAndLocke ( talk) 06:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for clearing this up for me. FF3TerraAndLocke ( talk) 07:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Idk if it's notable enough, or if there is even any usable information, but I was quoted in a printed newspaper which mentions ED. http://neighbourhood5.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/the-good-the-bad-and-the-anonymous. -- Zaiger ( talk) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I have one source of ED's new advancement to another dinner, site. 75.171.14.76 ( talk) 05:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a well researched article highlighting that the conclusions in this article and its adherence to the DeGrippo version of events is a major distortion of the truth and potentially POV-pushing.
Interestingly and I wouldn't be bothering with this at all, save for this very interesting fact is that the author has discovered that a cabal of mods from the ED site had already established user names at the new OH Internet site months before it was launched.
The article concludes, and IMO I agree, that "the demise of Encyclopaedia Dramatica was not the single-handed doing of Sherrod DeGrippo/girlvinyl. Secondly, profitability or financial constraints may have not been at issue." Therefore a conclusion that smacks in the face of propaganda/misinformation found in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.66.199 ( talk) 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
techtanerine.com is an blog without any editorial oversight. The author Hamad Subani (apparently the only author of that infrequently updated blog) obviously doesn't understand how the "Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License" works. He's basically saying that we can't make derivations of images that are painstakingly derivatives (of non-free images) themselves. techtanerine.com is also run by the same people who run cabaltimes.com. A person working on those sites could publish whatever the hell they want without any fact-checking. Their legal disclaimer also makes it clear that they aren't responsible for what happens after an article is published:
3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. shall not in anyway be held responsible for the damages you incurred through the use of this website. Under no circumstances shall 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd., website administrators, editors, contributors, or any of their respective partners, officers, directors, employees, agents, associates or representatives be liable for any damages, whether direct, indirect, special or consequential damages for lost revenues, lost profits, or otherwise, arising from or in connection with this website, the materials contained herein, or the Internet generally. We makes no, and expressly disclaims any, representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the Website, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. We make no, and expressly disclaim any, warranties, express or implied, regarding the correctness, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and reliability of the text, graphics, links to other sites and any other items accessed from or via this Website or the Internet, or any other material. or that the services will be uninterrupted, error-free or free of viruses or other harmful components. If the jurisdiction does not allow the liability limitations described earlier, this website shall only be liable for the amount you paid to access this website.
This lack of responsibility means that they don't have any incentive to be accurate. 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. basically say, "Here's a website for you guys. You can do whatever the fuck you want because it won't do any harm to us." 3211721 Nova Scotia Ltd. doesn't provide any editorial advice or oversight. techtanerine.com is a tabloid. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 21:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am the author of the article. I cannot help giggling at the audacity anonymous, maybe ANONYMOUS Wikipedian who thought he could link it to the Wikipedia article. But that would be the equivalent of linking this article on a Wikipedia Cabalster to the Wikipedia page on Pan Am Flight 103. In other words, it aint gonna happen. I accept that. But the rest of you don't have to resort to WikipediaSpeak to drive home that point. User Michaeldsuarez, I do understand how a Creative Commons License works. To illustrate my point, let me give you an example. Suppose in India, a copyright expires after 60 years. Therefore I use an image with an expired copyright in a work, and then I release that work under a CC license, It would be technically OK to reproduce that work in India under CC. But suppose in another nation where copyright expires after 100 years, that would not be the case. You call that a caveat. Regarding the disclaimer, check out Wikipedia's. To quote, WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. So going by your logic, "Here's a website for you guys. You can do whatever the fuck you want because it won't do any harm to us." I understand that Wikipedia has had an acrimonious relationship with ED, and I am aware that even an ED page was not permitted because some Wikipedios did not like it. Please show maturity.( -----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- ( talk) 15:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC))
Those are sources for some technical information that I discovered, and I could not find "other" sources for the same. BTW those are very different articles than ED. Ummm what exactly is the sin involved in openly "using your own blog articles as sources?" especially when others are not available?( -----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- ( talk) 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)).
Ok...so Jimbo says it is a sin. Go ahead and delete them if that is the case. Interesting how no one found the links for those two articles questionable, even though they were openly self-published. But when someone else wanted to link to a Wikipedia-critical article on ED, the same website becomes questionable. Pretty much sums up the situation here( -----<<O>>--<<O>>--<< H A M A D>>--<<O>>--<<O>>----- ( talk) 00:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC))
We've lost our .ch domain, so we're now at encyclopediadramtica.se encyclopediadramatica.se. May I please change all instances of ".ch" in the article to ".se"? --
Michaeldsuarez (
talk)
21:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Way too soon to start putting it on Wikipedia. I don't even think .ch deserves a mention. -- JohnnyLurg ( talk) 21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Clarification: The Twitter did not claim that brandt was behind the block. The Twitter claimed he was full of shit when he posted to his blog that the domain had been deleted from the registrar because of representatives of Ryan Cleary. It wasn't, we still own the domain, it's just suspended until we can furnish a Swiss mailing address. I never said that he was behind the block on Twitter. This had nothing to do with Brandt and we did never claimed that it did, we were just addressing his speculations. Also, we didn't "start over", none of the data moved from the server it was on, we just changed the domain suffix. -- Zaiger ( talk) 05:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Encyclopedia_Dramatica&diff=483398296&oldid=483361220 – I've fixed the timeline of events. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 18:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
encyclopediadramatica.se
. JohnnyLurg
noted a typo in my original statement. --
Michaeldsuarez (
talk)
15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt accuses "Friends of Ryan Cleary" and Encyclopedia Dramatica for the alleged DDoS attacks against his websites:
http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:DanielBrandtFriendsOfRyanCleary.jpg
(a screenshot of a private forum post by Brandt)Should this (or at least the information within the two Betabeat articles) be mentioned in the article? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
On March 31, 2012, wikipedia-watch.org, google-watch.org, scroogle.org, and namebase.org were all redirected to http://josephevers.blogspot.com/2012/02/scroogle-shuts-down-for-good.html. On that same day, the following text was added to http://josephevers.blogspot.com/2012/02/scroogle-shuts-down-for-good.html:
Please visit the main page of this blog for more on Ryan Cleary and his friends who run Encyclopedia Dramatica.
-- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 17:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
http://blog.ohinternet.com/11618/wikipedia-questionable-content/ – Apparently, OhInternet is upset about the sources used in this article:
We’ll start with a website known as “ The Daily Dot,” which, according to Wikipedia (yes, I’m quite aware of the irony here,) is an online newspaper that covers internet topics. It aims to be the “hometown newspaper” of the internet. The site was started by a pop musician who, as far as we can tell, has no background in journalism whatsoever ( Fact-checking? What’s that?) This site came to light when one of their writers spewed hundreds upon hundreds of words about the hilarious ShitRedditSays subreddit, most of them ill-informed. A cursory search indicates that The Daily Dot is cited as a reference on a handful of Wikipedia articles, despite being little more than an internet rumors blog masquerading as a legitimate news source. More damning is the fact that the site seems to think the “Men’s Rights” movement is valid and not filled to the brim with misogynistic hate groups.
-- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 15:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Al-Jazeera mentions ED here [3] and the context appears to refer to it as a presently existing wiki, rather than one that is defunct. If enough sources refer to ED.ch/se simply as "Encyclopedia Dramatica", or discuss Encyclopedia Dramatica as something that presently exists, will the intro section be changed to reflect this? My own subjective assessment is that virtually everyone across the internet who had been interested in ED, including the site's userbase, readerbase, and even arch-enemies, presently perceives the site that is up now as, simply, "Encyclopedia Dramatica", rather than a mirror of a defunct site (the only serious exceptions being Sherrod DeGrippo herself and her inner circle). Adlerschloß ( talk) 03:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone has submitted an academic thesis to Baylor University citing encyclopediadramatica.ch as Encyclopedia Dramatica. [4] Adlerschloß ( talk) 07:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ncGVPtoZPHcC&q=dramatica
Thank you, Adlerschloß. This looks somewhat promising. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just read the posts on this talkpage...and can only conclude that the aforementioned "holier-than-thou-stick-in-the-mud" is deliberately trying to keep their version: the one where EA died for good after De Grippo left. However this is irrespective of the reality, EA.se et all lives on.
Will some registered user who actually can get passed the block on this page please WP:BOLD and change the page to reflect the realpolitik. The EA article just gets the tone so right regarding Wikipedia editors like SilverserenC whose only possible reward from being so obtuse and pigheaded, is "unwarranted self importance".
Note the fact that SilverserenC just uses misdirection and fallacy ( shifting the burden of proof) to hang on to their tenuous version. They state this article is about EA.com not EA.se. Then someone else points out, hang on, this article is just about encyclopedia dramatica (no mention of .com) therefore any "encyclopedia dramatica". Then its a problem with the content? What has got that to do with anything, another fallacy ( Moving the goalposts). It just goes on and on.
When is someone with the balls and the brains going to override this person and do the right thing? We have now reached the point where the content in this article is so far from being factual, its like demanding this: water is wet citation needed!!
EA exists...get over it! 86.145.5.23 ( talk) 20:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/finding-the-mystery-man-behind-funnyjunk/ – Encyclopedia Dramatica apparently played a role in outing FunnyJunk's owner. One thing that the Ars Technica article hints at but doesn't meation is SuperIrene's earlier ED account "Mightyirene", which was active in late August 2011. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 20:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=FunnyJunk&diff=236739&oldid=236667
(August 2011)https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=FunnyJunk&diff=237541&oldid=237097
(August 2011)https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=FunnyJunk&diff=324440&oldid=322835
(January 2012)BoingBoing has referred to ED [dot] se as "Encyclopedia Dramatica", without any qualifier, such as "fork", "unofficial continuation", etc. it seems like everyone has now acknowledged ED [dot] se as Encyclopedia Dramatica except Wikipedia. - badmachine 08:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/cloudflare-watch.htm – Daniel Brandt apparently sent a press release about a new website of his to Cryptome, which is a website for privacy advocates. He also talks about why he became interested in Encyclopedia Dramatica in the release:
My interest in CloudFlare came from my battle with Encyclopedia Dramatica. This started in mid-2010 with a bio on me on encyclopediadramatica.com that Sherrod DeGrippo refused to take down when I asked her nicely. So I helped a friend start the site josephevers.blogspot.com to research the anonymous admins behind ED. It had some impact -- ED.com was abandoned by DeGrippo in April 2011, in favor of a mild meme site at ohinternet.com.
I've added this information to article. Feel free to look over the changes.
One thing to keep in mind is that in the press release, Brandt claims that Sherrod "refused" to take the article down, but according to a post blog that Brandt published on the Wikipedia Review, Brandt said,
I was informed by [an] insider that the Queen [Sherrod] got my email, didn't recognize my name, and then informed this insider that she (the Queen) had decided not to reply to me.
It seems to be a case of Sherrod not caring ("didn't recognize [Brandt's] name") or not wanting to interact with Brandt rather than outright refusing to delete the article. As a result, I used the words "chose to ignore" in the article. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I just came across this article and noted immediately that it's a load of hot air. Firstly why is EA referred to in the past tense, when its website the first choice before this link in a google search? Secondly why does it purport that "several mirrors" exist when there are actually none of note, only the Encyclopedia Dramatica.se site? Thirdly, as I can see from the talk archives, whenever this point is raised there seems to be a POV-derived campaign to deny the existence that EA existed after DeGrippo pulled the plug in favor of OhInternet?
In my view the logic on show here is nothing shy of POV pushing. Firstly just because something closes and then restarts does not mean it does not exist. Secondly the fact is does exist but is not in use/manufacture does not preclude it from being talked of in the present tense. For example, people no longer ride horses to work, they therefore were not beasts of burden because they remain beasts of burden. Likewise the ending of a TV series does not it "was" a TV series because it will always exist as long as no one destroys all the copies. However a lost film could be referred to as "was" because it really is "was" as there is nothing else like it.
On reading this article, it could be surmised that EA existed, was withdrawn and then "several mirrors" (i.e. many pale imitations were spawned) began but they were not the original EA. Hardly, the EA.se website is just as much like the old one. It therefore seems completely misleading and ridiculous to suggest that the original was the only one. TBH after reading EA's article about WIkipedia, I have to admit beyond the hate and bile, there are some very fair observations about this site, its users and its creator Mr Wales. I can only concur that with such criticism even Wikipedia is not immune to altering history a la totalitarian regime.
The point of this article seems to be, there was only one EA created by DeGrippo and anything else is not real! EA is a meme, it exists to troll and it does not matter how many portals, or reincarnations of it exist. I suggest the people who defend this article's slant take their high horses over to pages on religions, for instance Christianity. I would like them to use their logic to decry sectarianism, for surely the Church established by Christ has absolutely nothing to do with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism because all the latter denominations were all created long after the original church ceased to exist.
It makes me think that DeGrippo is being treated like a messianic figurehead whose ownership of an idea far outweighs the subscribers to that idea! Go on, trot over to Christianity and tell all those believers that their churches are false as they worship versions that were not created directly by Jesus. DeGrippo lost control of the thing she created, that does not mean the idea she spawned ended with her too. Until you get your heads around that this page will be permanently blocked from editing. Not because of stupid swearing but because it is patently not true.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.117.223 ( talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I also think it shouldn't be presented in the past tense. It doesn't matter if the owner walked away or that it now says ".se" instead of ".com". Do we need to resort to a vote in order to resolve this? Acoma Magic ( talk) 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Silver Seren is right that DeGrippo probably still holds the copyright on the 2004-11 material, but there needs to be reliable sourcing to make this an issue worth mentioning in the article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I see we're just not going to be able to agree on anything here, since we have pretty much opposing opinions on what to do with this article. However, that means then that you need to reach a consensus to make the change, per WP:BRD. The two of you and the two of us is just a stalemate. The other reverters were Zaiger and 8nate. Zaiger, being an ED Government member, would have to be taken with a grain of salt and 8nate turned out to be a sockpuppet. So, at this point, there needs to be an RfC or something for this change to remain. Silver seren C 08:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I discussed this article a couple of years ago with partial success (as the consensus was reached and edits made) and now that I've stumbled upon it again I discover that informations and sources about gore/shock/etc materials being widely used in E.D. have been deleted. The lead now says E.D. is merely a "satirical site". 83.7.161.227 ( talk) 01:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
At 50 shades of Wikipedia? UK head banned after bondage porn ties, ED is used as a citation for the fact that "Fae" being Van Haeften's Wikipedia username. Tarc ( talk) 16:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
encyclopediadramatica.com was closed, but all the articles were mirrored in encyclopediadramatica.se, who has a different owner. Should we speak of Encyclopedia Dramatica in the present (.se is a website) or in the past (.com was a website)? Enric Naval ( talk) 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I submit that encyclopediadramatica.se should be officially referred to as Encyclopedia Dramatica in the same way that the 1999 NFL expansion Cleveland Browns are considered as THE Browns, with the Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns) discussing the entire history of the franchise, not just what happened before the move, and after the expansion franchise.
Art Modell owned the Cleveland Browns. He decided to move the team to Baltimore and call them the Ravens.
Sherrod DeGrippo owned Encyclopedia Dramatica. She decided to rename the site Oh Internet.
New ownership formed a franchise in Cleveland and named them the Browns. That team continued on AS the Browns, and as time advanced, they built their own history AS the Browns.
Ryan Cleary (amongst others) created a mirror site with cached information and titled it Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site (first .ch, then .se) continued on compiling new articles and expanding upon current articles, thusly creating or rather extending the life of the current site KNOWN as Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Just as the Baltimore Ravens aren't considered to be the Cleveland Browns in actuality, nor is Oh Internet still Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Because the parallels exist, and because all changes concerning the Cleveland Browns franchise is referred to in its entirety pre and post move, this should be the way that the Encyclopedia Dramatica article should be formed, using the Browns as a true precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.73.92 ( talk) 17:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's just unhelpful. The RfC wasn't ever actually closed. What now? Silver seren C 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)