Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

What?? This article exists now??

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

Thank you in advance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just found one of them (already reverted).

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

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

ED Facebook, myspace, Bebo links

Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided says: "Except for a link to an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" - ALL of them are official pages from the article subject, so all of them should be linked. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's fair. I think I was misreading ELNO or reading it too narrowly. My gut says I would prefer to not link to them (as they sort of only serve to promote the site), but if it isn't explicitly disallowed by the guideline, then I'm not too entrenched in that view. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Notice that ELNO says "except for a link to an official page of the subject", it doesn't say "except for links to every official page of the subject" We should link only to the most official website, not to multiple "official" websites, as in one link per every networking website where they have an account. Otherwise, articles about certain musicians would have dozens of links. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I actually kind of agree with Enric. We just had a similar discussion on the Stephanie Adams talk page and the consensus was to limit it to one "official" page, at the most, based on our reading of WP:EXTERNAL. Linking to MySpace is specifically discouraged in the guidelines unless it is the official page. ED is already a website. I would think its website becomes the official page by default, no? J Readings (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, just link to the front page of the site. ED has it's own links for MySpace, Facebook, and Bebo. No need to post again. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Ok. I was going to swing back and say something like this but I'm glad I didn't have to. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The discussion here Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_23#Linking_to_multiple_official_sites_and_social_networking_sites now shows a disagreement. There is no agreement that the guideline means only one official site may be linked. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

vague tag on trolling

About tagging "trolling" with {{vague}} because the definition on Troll (internet) doesn't fit with the definition here. Note that we shouldn't use wikipedia articles as reference, that there are plenty of sources saying that Anonymous is into the bussiness of trolling on the internets.

Also, "trolling" can be done in many manners, we are just talking about one particular troll tactic that happens to not be described on the Troll article.

I expanded the explanation on the lead to try to address how trolling works in this case. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ref #3

The first sentence of the article reads:

Encyclopædia Dramatica is a collaborative website whose stated purpose is to provide a central catalog for the e-public to view parody and satire of "drama", memes, and other happenings on the Internet.^[3]

For this, ref #3 has a lengthy quotation in the citation itself, which repeats -- virtually word for word -- what the article says. Compare this first sentence to how it would read if the quotation appeared inline:

Encyclopædia Dramatica is a collaborative website whose stated purpose is to "provide a central catalog for the e-public to view parody and satire of drama, memes, e-pals and other interesting happenings" on the Internet.

From the word "purpose" to the word "Internet", the phrase is almost exactly the same as that of the source. The difference lies solely in dropping the word "e-pals" and adding scare quotes around "drama".

This isn't kosher. Had the writing skills of the ED editor been any good, there would be good cause to quote verbatim, with quotation marks as appropriate for an inline quotation. But as it stands, the WP editor(s) copy-vio'd the pitiful prose, then evaluated the source's own words with selective scare quotes. To crown it all, the editor(s) then provide in-your-face evidence of both. Sheesh.

The idea being expressed in the first sentence is banal. Were it not for the word-for-word repetition and the use of the word "stated", the first sentence would not need "special" treatment. Such a first sentence that did not "special" handling might read:

Encyclopædia Dramatica is a website that catalogs and/or satirizes current events and themes, especially Internet-related ones.

That says it all, and avoids regurgitating ED's butchery of the English language ("e-public", "e-pals", "drama", "happenings"). No special handling necessary. Indeed, the sentence is so ordinary that a reference should not be needed at all, but if so, the previously used ref #2 would do just fine. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms

I hope the editor that placed the tag on the article will come here with some suggestion as to the desired changes. Protonk (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about this, too. I'm pretty familiar with the list of peacock terms and I didn't see any in the article unless phrases like "mainstream media attention" and "recognized" are on their way to becoming peacock terms. There is an example of a verb that probably shouldn't be in the article, but it's not a peacock term. It's just one of the standard verbs to avoid (see WP:AVOID). I'm referring to the verb "noted." I would suggest perhaps "argue" is a better action verb without the POV undertones. Too many people use the verb "say" or "state" as part of the NPOV language, but I think argue reads better. J Readings (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Then again, the way the sentence is written in the passive voice, my suggestion might seem grammatically awkward. We might have to reword the sentence. I don't know.J Readings (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit summary: PEACOCK: "served as a place for its members to assimilate new memes": WtF does that mean, in English? But that seems to have been cleared up. Oh dear this message is not very interesting so far, so I give you: Sarah Palin. Tama1988 (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I notice the media attention section has again changed back to "the site has served as a place for members of Anonymous to mingle for purposes of learning new words." How many times does it need to be said that a) the wiki is not all that popular with Anonymous and b) there is no actual learning involved? I'm pretty sure you can find some diffs to show they vote memes according to the /what links here/ page. Nothing more needs said to be said per WP:undue. Ottre 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

a) no claims of undue popularity are asserted in the article AFAIK b)reversion to (and initial use) of the "learning new words" phrasing derives from Times Online article cited... where statement is made directly "I found out they were getting all their new words from Encylopedia Dramatica." and indirectly via article subheading "We're in it for the 'lulz': understanding the lingo" and it's content (which BTW probably defies your WP:undue "characterization") including assertion that "Initially, it was the slang that drew me into Anonymous" and proceeds to illustrate how "words" and memes relate to propagation of Anonymous as some sort of "enitity" (whatever it may or may not be).DeXXus (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)DeXXus (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WSJ article links to ED page

[1] -- 78.34.142.114 (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why no warning?

ED has viruses, spyware, and adware. I just opened the article "That One" and it tried to put a virus on here. I know they've been having financial problems so maybe that explains it. I'll put a warning.YVNP (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NDA; no disclaimers in Wikipedia articles. The page linked to (the ED homepage) does not contain any such malicious material (as far as I'm aware); if someone goes to another page on ED that's their problem and it's not because of a Wikipedia EL that they're doing so. Giggy (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we even mention that they do this? It is common for ED to link to malicious programs. For example nimp.org(which is blacklisted by wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that says they do that, the determination that they do that is Original Research. Yes, that is taking the moral high road, but a) that is precisely the difference between WP and ED, and b) articles on people and institutions that attack WP are the ones that require the most due diligence. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no reputable source would write about Ed in the first place. That;s why it is so hard to source anything in this article let alone virus/malware (hundreds of people have experienced this. I have seen posts at different places about it) AlioTheFool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

I think it's necessary to note that ED doesn't do any of this stuff. on.nimp.org will crash your browser session, but it's not a virus by any means. On top of that, anything virus-like that exists on ED is in link form, which people would actually have to click on to be affected. You could say that google is an attack site based on the fact that they link to sites which can load viruses onto your computer in a similar manner. ED is based on the same Wiki software as Wikipedia. If ED editors could load viruses on ED articles, Wikipedia editors would be able to load them on Wikipedia. The idea that the owners would load viruses into ads is ludicrous and should NOT be noted in the article imo. --71.82.111.178 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ED is virus-free. Likely an ad-loader was picked up and called a Trojan, most anti-viruses are happy to do that. It makes people feel like they're getting their money's worth. But ED is a safe site; I used it for years and still have an account there--not that I am a vandal, just that I once enjoyed the site's plentiful satire. The only "viruses" are really nothing malevolent unless you click an external link, such as Last Measure, which is linked to in multiple locations. To summarize my point: browsing ED will not infect your computer with viruses; just your mind with horrifying images. VolushGod (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Too discriminative?

Reading through just the beginning... it seems hateful to go ahead and point out the flaws right in the beginning overview of the site. "primarily presents its subject matter in an irreverent, obtuse, politically incorrect" (taken from 3rd line on Dec. 08, 2008). How about a category for the 'hating'? Twiggletz (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Category? I don't get it. ED peeps themselves admit to the 'irrevent, obtuse etc.' description. There's no hating, ED is filled with all sorts of negativity. Lots42 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make the article any more neutral.

Neutral Point of View

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

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

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

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

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

Even if it's all sourced, does that automatically mean that the source, and the material it's being used to back up, are neutral and fair? To automatically assume that without verification is a fallacy.^_^ ^_^ (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed, I'm also an ED editor and a Wikipedia editor. I think it is very uncontroversial and accurate to say that ED contains pornographic and politically incorrect content. --Mongreilf (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it like above about "Anti-semetic and homophobic" ? For sure ED is full of offensive pictures, beyond any morale, with intention to strike reader's emotions. Including pornographic ones. Including over-violent ones. Including disgusting ones. Including acid-colours-blinking ones. etc. Why to highlight pornographic images among al different kinds of offensive pictures there ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.59.191 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

But point is that there has to be a third party stating that ED has pornographic images. Just because it has them doesn't mean it can be posted here. Until the claim can be sourced by a third party, it should probably be taken out. Mwahcysl (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Errr, there are also some obvious statements that might not need to be sourced, or can be tagged with {{fact}} until a source is found. In particular, I'll tag the "pornographic images" part since I don't that ED's intent is providing porn, but the "schocking images" part is fairly undisputable (just look at their "cock" article and calculate the proportion of pornographic images versus shocking images. P.D.: for the obvious counterpoint, "breast" does have a higher proportion of porn, but it still has a majority proportion of too-big tits, silly jokes, image macros and manboobs of old people and of, ecs, John Travolta. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Speak for yourself Springeragh. Neutrality is easy for those that are neutral--Mongreilf (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Agreed. Just because it's a viable source doesn't mean it's not without bias.^_^ ^_^ (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. I think that this is obviously biased. We need to document more neutral sources. If I souced Mein Kampf in the Judaism article, it is sourced, right? Quite obviosly we need more nuteral sources. Zarongmaster (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia even admits in the article that the reason they keep the page in this context is because of how "notably critical" they are of wikipedia admins. This page is them attempting a revenge tactic- notice that they refused to delete the pic of the guy eating the baby above? And don't allow the caption under it to be changed?

Wikipedia plays favourites with cyber-culture topics... I looked up some other really popular sites, and other sites that they don't like get this same kinda shaft, while sites they do like are nothing more but ad space for that. The talk pages for Snopes and Deviant Art in prticular reek of them telling us no amount of validation for a complaint made about the site is acceptable, but they'll allow blogs and disreputable sources for praise... forgive my french, but that's bullshit. --71.38.106.54 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hosting the fake baby eating pic? And are you sure it's not just some editor giving you problems and not Wikipedia bosses?

Anywho, Wikipedia IS notability. And you do make a good point. Third party sources should be evaulated AS sources, not whether they praise a topic or deride a topic. Lots42 (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate to admit it, ED makes one seriously amazing case about what this area of discussion brings up. On their page for this site, they bring up that Wikipedia supposedly deleted their article for being "non-notable", while many wikipedia admins at the time were USING IT TO BADMOUTH EACH OTHER! The current state of this article is childish, at best, and it's just another example of how this site mistreats topics that are critical of them. And I'm moving on from this discussion... it's too much of a dead horse now. --71.38.103.136 (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Propose that we Delete this again

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

• What policy governing inclusion do you feel this article does not meet? Protonk (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's funny. I was going to ask the same thing, but was preempted by Protonk who beat me to it. What particular points in that essay do you think this article violates? And more importantly, which policies and guidelines do you think violate its inclusion in Wikipedia? J Readings (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Same here. Last time it went to AfD it was closed as speedy keep. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Personally, and this is as one of the 'sane' users of ED, I say that the page be kept simply to show that unlike in the real world, one of the giants of the Internet (Wikipedia) CAN in fact acknowledge one of it's critics (ED) as a notable and archive-worthy 'opponent'. Don't mean to bring in Politics into the discussion, but whatever floats the boat. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you are involved with this site? Ottre 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but from what that looks like, I wouldn't enjoy it. I like ED the way it is, with all it's trolls and 'OH-NO!'ers. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• The very fact that this page harbors Wikipedia vandals makes it a violation of WP:DENY. G***p maintains a vast page of his exploits here on ED. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• WP:DENY is an essay arguing that wikipedia shouldn't create "shrines" to vandals in project space. It doesn't impact what we include or exclude in article space. ED, like it or not, has been covered by multiple independent sources. We summarize that coverage. The content of the article subject is immaterial. Again, what policies or guidelines governing inclusion do you feel this page does not meet, and how have the numerous previous deletion debates not addressed those concerns? Protonk (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, the existence of ED here is a shrine that glorifies vandals. I, for one, won't stand for this. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The existence of an (properly sourced and encyclopedic) article on ED no more glorifies vandals than a properly sourced and encyclopedia entry on 9/11 glorifies terrorists. –xeno (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it's a moot point. These sources are what they are. We're just synthesizing them for the sake of the article. If you want to complain to anyone, complain to the journalists who decided to write these articles about ED. We're just following the established policies on WP:N. J Readings (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Tried to get this in before J steped in, but doesn't conflict with what was said, so here) Motion to end this line of argument for two reasons. 1) The topic of ED on Wikipedia will always be controversial, no matter what. It should be accepted as a way of Wiki-life. (Serious Reason). 2) Arbiteroftruth seems to lack any sense of humor and has the proverbial stick up the bum. (Not so serious reason, no offense meant, just noting how zealous you are on this topic. If you'd like to respond to me directly, I do have a talk page. Just keep it civil.) ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Were it not for WP:AGF (and his long and respectable edit history) my first impression would have been that Arbiteroftruth was a troll coming here from ED to stir up drama. I agree with DWolf2k2, this line of argument is pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, there is simply no chance that this discussion can accomplish the deletion of this article, so it's pointless. If someone doesn't like the AfD result, then WP:DRV is thataway. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the likelihood that this will be deleted from a DRV is close to zero, so I wouldn't even recommend doing that. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well you can stand for it or GTFO. The community has spoken numerous times and there is consensus to keep. Chuthya (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is retarded. It's a glorified WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, disguised as WP:DENY. WP:DENY is about original Wikipedia content (i.e. meta pages and talk pages) glorifying vandals. It is not about external media glorifying vandals.

If Wikipedia is going to start deleting pages on notable subjects because those subjects are so shitty they don't merit our attention, the first thing I'm bring to DRV is Sarah Palin. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A better application of WP:DENY would be to stop this constant hand-wringing about deleting the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. The hand-wringing is recognizing vandals; the article is recognizing that the mainstream media recognizes vandals. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Along with death and taxes, it's a certainty that if an article on ED exists, people will keep agitating for it to be deleted, and if an article on ED doesn't exist, people will agitate for it to be created. They'll also agitate to add or drop live links to it from its article while it exists, and to add or drop it from the spam blacklist. No matter what the current status quo may be regarding all these things, somebody will be loudly fussing about how it is absolutely imperative that it be changed right away, and it's irrelevant what the rest of the community feels about it because that person has The Absolute Authoritative True Proper Moral And Ethical Position on the issue. And so the drama never ends. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gratz on the succesful Troll. 142.33.122.236 (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez. Uncyclopedia harbors vandals by the boatload, and THEY still stand. Also, I really do not see how this site merits so little text: Uncyclopedia, a 37KB article, has an Alexa Web rank of 8691, ED's is 3560. Zarongmaster (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

very true, but... WP:OTHERSTUFF -- Bobyllib (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's go straight to the end of this thread; "Hitler and Stalin were mass-murderers, Wikipedia shouldn't encourage these people by having articles about them. Discuss." 87.194.94.223 (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Too bad they're both dead and therefore incapable of being encouraged. --clpo13_(talk) 07:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, Hitler is neither a mass murderer nor a genocide and not even a dictator. He was "an Austrian-born politician, leader of the Nazi Party, Chancellor of Germany and Führer und Reichskanzler of Germany." People are supposed to read the article and reach their own conclussions based on his actions. I suggest we make the same here --Enric Naval (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no real reason to delete this article. I agree that the argument for this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, made by some butthurt editor who doesn't like ED.-Raziel (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)