Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

No external link

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

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

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

Nuetrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Encydra" listed at Redirects for discussion

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