Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

No link at all

• Fails every criterion on Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment (particularly note the link asessment table), the directly applicable guideline.. End of story. No link, live or dead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • End of story? Sorry you don't get to arbitarily end this discussion I'm afraid. Exxolon (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The applicable guideline has not previously been pointed out. The guideline says we may not link to it. Hence, policy overrules the wishes of a few promoters of the site. Per the table, it is highly unreliable, it is at best barely notable, it includes extreme privacy violations, it has a systematic campaign of harassments against Wikipedians, and this harasssment is deliberate. Hence we cannot include a link. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's a guideline, not a policy, and it also includes "If a website is in itself notable enough to have its own article, it should be linked from that article." *Dan T.* (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the guideline it should be a dead link. --Kip Kip 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see that in the guideline? Wikidemo (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just idiotic. There's no real reason not to include a live link, let alone remove the URL entirely. The only passable reason that I can think of not to include a live link is that some ED pages contain links to sites which contain viruses and crash browsers, and this reason is at best sketchy. Other than that, there's no legitimate reason not to include a URL and a live link, and the reasons to include both far outway those presented in favor of not including either one. If you're unhappy that the site attacks Wikipedians, get over it and stop advocating censorship for any reason, but especially a reason as idiotic as that.--Urban Rose 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Link assessment table

The following table may help in determining the suitability of any external link:

Criteria	Reliability	Notability	Violation of privacy	Frequency	Intention
Links to include	Highly reliable	Highly notable	Completely respectful of privacy	Isolated event	Good-faith critique
	↕	↕	↕	↕	↕
Links to exclude	Unreliable	Non-notable	Extreme privacy violation	Systematic campaign	Deliberate harassment
Relevant authorities	WP:RS and WP:SPS	WP:NOTABILITY and WP:EL	WP:BLP and WP:NPA	WP:HARASS and WP:CIVIL	WP:HARASS and WP:NPA

This is misleading. It's a copy of Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment#Link assessment table, and in the paragraph that's right below the table (and that's conveniently not included here) it says:

This table is not intended as a "point system", its aim is to act as a guide to your decision making in posting, or removing a link. In general, reliable sources should always be linked when needed for use as a source in an article. Websites maintained by notable people or groups should be linked in their article, per WP:EL, though linking to them from other articles may not be appropriate. If a website is in itself notable enough to have its own article, it should be linked from that article. (Emphasis mine)

--Conti|✉ 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just for shits and giggles, let's pretend this is a points system, and is policy, not a guideline. Is the link reliable? Well, for as long as EncyclopediaDramatica exists, it will remain a link to EncyclopediaDramatica, so I'd say it's incredibly reliable. Is it notable? Eh, notable enough for a Wikipedia article - certainly not the most notable website in the world, but it's well into the "yellow" zone, approaching "green" when one considers the scope of the article. It's not completely anal about respectful of privacy, but the "privacy violations" usually amount to a real-life name and possibly a picture, no social security numbers, mothers' maiden names, or anything of that sort. Definitely in the "yellow", possibly approaching the red, but not as privacy-violating as it's cooked up to be. Frequency's a tricky one. It's a Wiki, so no doubt there are editors trying to make a systemic campaign of... "bad stuff" or whatever. But it's not "EncyclopediaDramatica, the Wiki dedicated to exposing the truth about Wikipedia". Articles on Wikipedia and Wikipedians are merely a small subset of the broader scope of internet-related articles. Somewhere in the yellow. Finally, "intention" - and even attempting to describe "intent" with something of this nature is a fool's errand. The intent is not exactly as "noble" and "scientific" as, say, the intent here - but, likewise, the intent is not exactly to harass. to say that it is would be a gross oversimplification. So, even bending over backwards to give this chart the benefit of the doubt, it seems that ED still manages to average out in "green" territory. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "reliable" doesn't mean the link works, it means the site can be trusted for the information on it - and it absolutely cannot (not that it matters as we're not using it as a source, but there you go). --Random832 (contribs) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can. The information on the site will be Encyclopedia Dramatica and always will be Encyclopedia Dramatica in whatever form Encyclopedia Dramatica currently exists in. I understand this isn't about sourcing at all. To say the link is unreliable because it may become a redirect (for fuck's sake, what a silly argument - Encyclopedia Dramatica will redirect their entire front page, permanantly, just to piss Wikipedia off? Now I know why every other wiki-linked occurance of "Wikipedia" there is piped to "unwarranted self importance") is just as stupid as saying that whitehouse.gov is unreliable, since Obama might redirect it to a rap site or Hillary to a site about vaginal eczema or McCaine to a Family Circus tribute site or what have you. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

spam blacklist is gonna be a problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See meta:Spam_blacklist, since October 2006 it's been technically imposible to add a live link. Also, I think that if you try to edit and save a page that had a link before it was blacklisted, then it's imposible to save the page unless you remove the link first. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted links that remain in articles Prior to blacklisting will not effect editing (as in the past), however if they are removed or new additions of the blacklisted domain are added, the filter will trigger. fyi--Hu12 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I assume that, once the RfC is closed, we can ask an admin in meta to remove the link from the spamlink for a moment, add the link, and then restore it to the spam blacklist, right? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No need for all that. There is already a "live" link in the article which has been whitelisted and added some time ago. The RfC seems to reflect previous consensus, therfore it will continue to remain a "live" link.--Hu12 (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

NOTE ADDED AFTER ARCHIVAL: the "whitelisted" section was moved to Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_5#Whitelisted --Enric Naval (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a silly argument

If the article exists, which it does, then it should have a live link to ED. It really is that simple. And this nonsense about ED and viral code? What? That doesn't even make sense. Why would ED want to infect their visitors with viruses... that's just silly. Like all websties, ED wants readers and contributors. The only thing remotely close is a few links to GNAA's Last Measure browser-crashing website scattered here and there, but those are few and far between, and are pretty easy to spot. They are usually marked as such. The whole "ED will give your computer a virus" rumor is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Caleb462 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, I've been to ED plenty of times myself and nothing has ever gone wrong, I think it is because of the fact that Wikipedia is "not the biggest fan" of ED for parodying it. Conspiracy? - Crazyconan (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Conspiracy? In my Wiki-vagina? It's more likely than you think... but seriously, it's just another one of those cases where those in oppositition to something will argue their case using whatever policy they can muster, lawyering well beyond the point of rationality, to the point where it's obvious to all but the few most involved participants that it's a power-struggle, nothing more, nothing less. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, I have been visiting ED for years and have never received any viruses (virii?) from it. As mentioned, there is the occasional Last Measure link (on the Last Measure page itself unsurprisingly), which is easily avoided. Reading some of the stuff on ED, it all seems rather far-fetched, and you think "nah, it can't possibly be like that on Wikipedia", but this whole episode proves that yes, yes it is. There is no justifiable reason for not linking to the site. Olliemilne (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just because Wikipedia doesn't like ED should NOT mean that a link should not be included. What happened to wikipedia being a non-biased encyclopedia? This kind of treatment is disgusting, and from now on I will not be helping Wikipedia any further. Also, the allegation that ED gives you viruses is totally untrue and complete slander. Ellimist91 (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's because ED gives you AIDS, and, as everybody knows, AIDS is not a virus (lol). On the other hand, there has been a link to the main page since 19 May 2008 [1], see the discussion on the topic, so the RFC is about removing the live link, not about adding it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"see also" strange adition

(Hint: those ED articles are NSFW and some of the images there are not for the weak of stomach). I added Furry fandom to the "See also" because I couldn't find any article called Furry haters or Furries, yiff in hell, which would have been more accurate additions (a category for furry hater websites?). Anyone having doubts on the appropiatedness of this adition should go to ED's website, go to the "Furry" and look at the links under "Typically Associated with furries", specially "Fursecution#The_origins_of_fursecution".

Unfortunately, I don't remember if ED or 4chan ever made organized protests in furry conventions. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was one of the chan boards at an Anthrocon, I believe. I'm not sure of the need for this - furry fandom isn't mentioned in the article anywhere, and the only real association between it and ED is that it's one of their attack targets. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I was sure that they were the ones doing it :( Oh, well, in that case, I'll remove it. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn again, the Wired article[2] talks about furries in relation to Goons, and not on relation to ED, so I can't use it to source any furry connection with ED --Enric Naval (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See also is not a link farm

I removed the See also section. I linked the "terms" of culture and slang to pipetext in the article. The "similar" web sites may be interesting, but that is what categories and navboxes are for. 4chan was already linked in the text. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I totally agree with your comment. I propose below ti make a navbox to link all the sites that are related to ED instead of spamming "see also" --Enric Naval (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

navbox proposal

Per above section, I would like to make a navbox that links together ED, 4chan and YTMND, see {{Scientology and the Internet}} for what they look like.

However, I can't get started until I don't have a clear excuse criteria to group those "multiple related articles". I have thought of some: parody websites, internet communities, attack sites, etc. but they all look either too weak or too generic. Maybe "Annonymous and the internet" would work. Suggestions? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a topic that needs to be covered, but how do you define what is a part of Anonymous and what is not?The Myotis (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do it. Z00r (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Anonymous_and_the_Internet --Enric Naval (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this seems encyclopedic. DigitalC (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The subjects in the navbox seem very loosely related. Not everything needs to be connected by a box at the bottom/side of an article....-Wafulz (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly see the use of this template at all. They're loosely related, yeah, and this just isn't a broad enough topic to warrant a navbox. This does, but "Anonymous and the Internet"? I dunno. I think this template won't make it to the end of the month, frankly. Howa0082 (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started a TfD for it here. Improvements/suggestions are welcome if they can prevent deletion.-Wafulz (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I need help with the template. Can you go to the talk page and help to confirm or deny whether Goons are part of Anonymous or not? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

YouTube

The site also criticizes YouTube celebrities. OnurT^contribs 13:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP rules apply to this article and we can't say that unless we have a source. Shii (tock) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the ignorance, but exactly what the hell does that have to do with anything?  Esper  rant 05:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Owner tags in infobox, continued

Continued from this old discussion that was archived because of this removal

So, ok, the sources given for the owner are not reliable, but Ed editors saying that Envers is fictional are even less reliable. Not to mention that their statements are not published anywhere and otehr editors can't verify them. It's very posible that those editors might been confused by misinformation (or spreading it on purpose for the lulz of seeing wikipedia editors fighting for this specific fact).

Mind you, If Envers is fictional, then it's a damned good fiction. His LinkedIn profile says that he is fluent on Perl, see his profile on the Perl page and , see a module that he uploaded, download it and open lib\Time\Cubic.pm with Wordpad. See also the README file for the module. It looks improbable to me that someone would use a fictional name to send in that module instead of using their own name.

See a tribute Youtube video using the linkedin profile photo. Basically, if Evers is fictional, then who is the guy on that photography and why hasn't he raised a lawsuit for identity theft? (he also looks like the guy at the LinkedIn profile).

The LinkedIn profile looks like too well done, including employement on at least one real company "The Capital Group Companies". Sherrod's profile [3] list her as running EDRAMA LLC, which would be the chilp company of Dramatic Inc. on Ever's profile.

Also, if he is fictional, then the name should be based on some inside joke, but the only posible reference I could find is one person in a baseball player trio

So, I'd rather restore the owner information, unless there are sources more reliables than the actual ones, saying that he is actually fictional. IMHO, currently, we have ED itself and one LinkedIn profile saying that he exists, and only especulation on his non-existance, with nothing to back it the non-existance. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ED editors are obviously not a reliable source, either, yes. But then again, I don't want the article to say "Joseph Evers is not the owner of ED". Rather, it's an indication that it's a hoax created to confuse outsiders.

Have you looked at the readme file you linked? "He has demonstrated absolute unrefutable proof of 4 simultaneous 24 hour days with in a single rotation of Earth." Eh, right. Looks like a reference to Time Cube to me, and not like anything remotely serious.

I don't see what the youtube video is supposed to prove. If that's a photo of a random person from the internet, said person probably doesn't even know his photo is used by the ED crowd. Not to mention the obviously photoshopped pictures, while the video description pretends the video is entirely serious.

The LinkedIn profile looks well done? Are you serious? I don't even know what to say to that.. anyhow, look at the picture in that profile (http://media.linkedin.com/mpr/mpr/shrink_80_80/p/3/000/007/346/249274e.jpg) and then at the one at ED.com (http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/c/c8/2005-10-4-evers.jpg). Especially the hair looks vastly different.

So, all in all, this looks just like another meme to me. I'm sure a bunch of people are having a lot of fun right now reading this discussion. :) --Conti|✉ 22:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right that's it's a reference to Gene Ray, go here and search for "testament" --Enric Naval (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Joseph Evers via his facebook account (linked on his LinkedIn page). We proceeded to have a phone conversation. There is more evidence now that Joseph Evers has something to do with ED than Girlvinyl. Both these sources are of equal weight (Both Girlvinyl and Evers being associated to ED solely on ED pages). I want to know what makes you think Evers is a meme. There is no evidence of him being a "meme", as that would imply that he would be spread around the internet virally. --Truthseeq (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The LinkedIn's photo is very small, but the nose, face shape and hair under the mouth look similar to me. The hair does look different, but I think that on the ED photo he is using a hairstyle to cover the entries on his hair and show less incipient baldness (he prepared himself to look good on the photo), while on the LinkedIn photo he is showing the entries. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that pretty much all your contributions are about ED in some way, it's hopefully not too surprising that I'm not inclined to believe you. Anyhow, I could've made this much easier for myself by looking at the history of the Evers article at ED. Apparently, the article started out as a random nonesense article, see http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Evers&oldid=1996977019. Entirely different "biography", a different photo, no mention of relationship with ED at all. Come on guys, why don't you just admit it? :) --Conti|✉ 00:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF. I just want to know what evidence you have to call the existence of Evers a fake. --Truthseeq (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also ED isn't exactly a bastion of accuracy. Someone there may have heard his name as the owner, and created some ridiculous article about him. The new one seems to be enforced better for factual accuracy as ED gets more press coverage. --Truthseeq (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya, right. And this edit (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Evers&diff=1996978717&oldid=1996977019) was the first step in creating a more accurate article about Evers, eh? --Conti|✉ 01:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, that version has the same photo and then another one with someone who is obviously the same guy. I see that the current version was done on 10 April 2008 http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Evers&diff=next&oldid=1997504420 replacing all previous info, and the article became featured article on 29 April. The mention on ED founding was added on 31 July 2006 http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Evers&diff=next&oldid=1996977019 so only 3 days after the diff you provided. Anyways, looking at previous versions, there is no mention at all of why the article on him was created, except to say that he was the major of Bantown, which I suspect was a reference to ED (can you think of any reason? See next sentence for suspicious timing). I also see references to him appearing as the system administrator of vinylgirl.com around 2005 http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/User_talk:Girlvinyl/Archive_01 (search for "evers"), on 02:14, 4 September 2005, and the article was started only 5 hours later that same day, so the real person appearing on the contact information for a website for ED's founder predates the article. (I provide no diff for the comment because of privacy concerns with the original message). The article originally listed the phone number that is referred to on that discussion, and it got later removed.

Soooo, I think that, seeing all this stuff, the ED article on him might be a bunch of lies, but Evers most probably exists as a real person somewhere, and he is probably ED's owner. And, anyways, we don't have any reliable information on him being fictional, since it could be perfectly a practical joke due to him never being seen by ED editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When the ED article about him is entirely made up (Before April 2008 his "biography" section was entirely different), what would stop the ED folks from making up his name, too? And his picture. And, well, everything. The Girlvinyl archive is interesting, tho, as there's a complaint about an article on it. Someone tried to contact the folks at ED, it seems: "It needs to be noted that phone calls were placed to a Mr. Joseph Evers at [Number removed], a number which is appearing as the System Administrator for girlvinyl.com" Now, there's an article about these phone calls on ED. I'm not going to link to it for hopefully obvious reasons, but it states: "Little did [he] realize that it was the Bantown voice mailbox and that the city-state's entire population had access to it." Soo.. if you try to contact Mr. Evers, you end up calling a voice mailbox which countless trolls have full access to. That's certainly counting for his credibility! Now, if I still haven't convinced you, I never will. To me it is glaringly obvious, tho, and I'm going to stop arguing now. Anyhow, it's up to you (per WP:RS and WP:BLP, etc.) to provide clearly reliable sources that state he owns ED, it's not up to me to provide reliable sources that state that he does not. --Conti|✉ 02:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed girlvinyl from the article as per this discussion. --Truthseeq (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point there, I agree. I think that the general principle is something like "if you have problems to find reliable sources for the info, then don't add it to the article" --Enric Naval (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm saying someone filled in a bunch of bullshit who didn't know anything about him. I'm not, nor have ever been, an ED editor. However, I've taken an interest in the fairness of this article, and have talked to everyone involved. This isn't some sort of conspiracy, and clearly is not a meme. You are being crazy, irrational and going against the same exact series of sources listed for girlvinyl. If Joseph Evers is to be removed from the article, so must girlvinyl. --Truthseeq (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)