Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

ED letter

All that is known reliably is that the AHRC sent Encyclopædia Dramatica a letter saying that the content on the site may violate Australian law. It looks like standard legal blather in response to complaints received about the article "Aboriginal". What Evers (whoever he is) says in his blog is not a reliable source, and the article should reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To expand on this, the letter (which was apparently sent by e-mail in February 2010) is headed "Dear Sir/Madam", so it was not sent to Evers personally or to any named person at the site. In this respect, the ninemsn story is slightly misleading and they may have failed to take this fully into account. The article should stick to the ninemsn sources, since all of the other March 2010 coverage is based on what the two ninemsn stories say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya,you actually have to have more information that who "What Evers says in his blog is not a reliable source."

First, you have demonstrated a biased with calling him "What Evers." Second, his blog is as reliable has any other blog we have used on wikipedia( e.g. Perez Hilton.) If you are not serious enough to call him by his name then we are not serious to take your critism of the source.Just saying his source is not reliable is not enough info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.224.192 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Joseph Evers, I am reminded of Charlie's Angels, where we only ever get to meet Charlie as a voice coming from a loudspeaker. The comparison with Perez Hilton is inaccurate, as he turns up regularly at showbiz events. We also know that Perez Hilton is an online pseudonym used by Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. Joseph Evers remains a man of mystery. Perhaps he prefers it that way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are missing the point we have been given many blogs to cite and we do on Wikipedia until you give a reason for his blog to not be used it is in violation of WP:NEU. This view does not reflect the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.224.192 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See above. The article does mention the ninemsn story in March 2010 about the AHRC letter. However, it was not sent to Joseph Evers, as it was headed "Dear Sir/Madam".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The letter and the situation surrounding it would not exist if not for the blog. Anything written about it was from the blog itself by anyone else was information obtained from the blog. The blog itself is a sub-domain of ED, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.155.132 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Launch date

[1]

"the first version of ED's frontpage is timestamped 44 minutes past midnight... December 10.)"

That's UTC. In a normal timezone it'd be December 9th.

Right or not? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is a "normal" timezone? I am in UTC+1 (Spain) so for me that would be 1:44 10th December :) Because of saving time I am right now in UTC+2, so I would be in 2:44, still in 10th.

In summary: we have no RS for "in which timezone was the guy when he pressed the create page button". I would assume that he was in the US, but, IMHO, that's picking into too much detail. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well ED is headquartered in Illinois. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be now. We don't know where the owner was when he posted it. When in doubt, we should use UTC. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Biased

There is some biased on the ED article over Aborginies stating "... a deliberately offensive article about Aborigines" This has some controvery to it and has recieved several edits. The orginal person who changed this has expressed a biased that can beeen seen above in talking about editing the letter. This person shows biased by disrespectfully refering to the ED majority shareholder as "What Ever." The biased is a volation ov WP:NEU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdouma1 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, as far as I am aware the article is open to edits by all registered users and has had (in its entire lifespan) over 150 individual edits. To suggest that each one of these edits (and the many authors thereof) were all intending to be offensive toward Aborigines is ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that the article has been completely rewritten at least twice. I think "deliberately offensive" and "satirical" have been mixed up in this instance. Snaisybelle (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Aboriginals are the niggers of Australia. They are the most primitive animals on the planet." Yep. Totally not deliberately offensive at all. --Conti|✉ 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't disagree or agree with that. This isn't a forum, the point is that biased unless it reflects the views of the majority and do to the many edits of it it does not seem so. I believe you are a separate account of that person. The writing style is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdouma1 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points here: firstly, I did not refer to Joseph Evers as "What Ever" (see above). I do reiterate that few people seem to have met Mr Evers, and those who have seem unable/unwilling to confirm whether this is a real name or an online nom de plume. Secondly, even ED is entitled to WP:NPOV. Is the article Aboriginal "deliberately offensive"? This phrase comes exactly from the ninemsn article cited at [2]. I've tweaked the wording in the article to avoid any suggestion of bias/POV.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Then use an apostrophe. The source you gave shows the shareholder saying it was a comedy piece and calls that article many things. The view of the article must reflect the majority anyways. It doesn't matter if some random internet site calls it [insert name here] if it does not reflect the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdouma1 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The quote above is "What Evers (whoever he is) says in his blog is not a reliable source, and the article should reflect this". This was intended to point out that the AHRC letter in February 2010 was not sent directly to Evers or any named person at the site. Blogs are usually not acceptable as sources per WP:SPS. We know far too little about Joseph Evers to make any firm judgements about him. There are few if any recorded public appearances by him in reliable media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are used as sources when the blog is written by the person who the article is about. Since we are using his blog we are quoting him and this isn't an argument about his blog is is about biased go to proper place above to talk about the blog. This is about biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.224.192 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is the bias? The article mentions the AHRC letter and the ninemsn story. Joseph Evers was not sent the letter personally, as it was headed "Dear Sir/Madam". Given how ED laughed at Wikipedia over the Essjay controversy, it is only fair to ask how much of Joseph Evers' online postings are accurate. Caution is always needed when citing personal blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The bias is obviously calling is it "a deliberately offensive article about Aborigines" or should I say was you edited it out today after the talk page. I have no complaint following biased after edit.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdouma1 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The "deliberately offensive" phrase has been removed from the article, even though it came directly from the ninemsn cite. While I would not be in any hurry to disagree with the description of ED as "deliberately offensive", the phrase was removed to avoid POV in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm astonished at some of these points here. "Given how ED laughed at Wikipedia over the Essjay controversy, it is only fair to ask how much of Joseph Evers' online postings are accurate." Are we to understand that if someone pokes fun at Wikipedia, then their online postings are nonsense? That's not objectivity! I also disagree with "Blogs are usually not acceptable as sources per WP:SPS", as blogs are acceptable if their authors are an expert on their subject material. Presumably, JE is an expert on himself, and can be quoted when appropriate. cojoco (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See above, pretty much ad nauseam. There is little evidence in reliable media that Joseph Evers is a real person and not a nom de plume of some kind. Please Mr Evers, would you care to settle this debate once and for all?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, but Mr. Joseph Evers doesn't appear on demand. A Wikipedia talk page is far from his top priority. There are sources saying that Evers exist, yet there aren't any sources stating that he doesn't exist. "Little evidence" that he does exists is much more stronger than zero evidence that he doesn't. You are basing your argument on a hunch. You are saying that he doesn't exist simply because you don't trust ED and the media that have investigated and interviewed ED. You can't let feelings and hunches affect the quality of the article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling ED's article "deliberately" offensive is within editorial discretion of Wikipedia editors as a description of something obvious on its face. However, it is not terribly relevant or informative to say that the offense is deliberate. The Wikipedia reader can make up their own mind. This isn't a question of bias, and the distinction between the site's collective intent and that of its individual editors is a red herring. Regarding the ownership of the site, Joseph Evers seems to check out as CEO of Dramatica, Inc., and is given by multiple reliable sources as the owner of the site. Is there any evidence that he does not exist or that this is not his real name? If not, you could always contact his current or former employer, or the institution where he claims to have received his JD or for undergrad to confirm his degree, but the reliable sources are in a better position to fact check this stuff than we are and it's pretty basic journalism to confirm this sort of thing... exactly the sort of thing we use reliable sources for. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Finding out that Joseph Evers is real by one's own personal research would be original research. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

...which is just fine. You've got to sniff to see if things pass the sniff test. WP:OR is a policy governing the content that goes into articles, not an admonition for editors to avoid ground truthing things as a reality check on whether they consider article content to be credible or not. Thought experiment - if an article says that potato chips are flammable and you think that sounds dubious, who is to stop you from lighting one up yourself before deciding whether or not to make a fuss about it on the article talk page? - Wikidemon (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In theory, your point about reliable sources are correct. But in reality, sometimes journalists simply write whatever other journalists published, who in turn write whatever the ED blog published. But as long as we blindly assume journalists to be right, there's not much we can do about that kind of thing (which certainly doesn't apply solely to issues regarding ED). --Conti|✉ 14:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For several months, my hunch has been that Joseph Evers is a nom de plume. However, if this turns out to be wrong, I will freely admit that I was wrong. What matters here is not identifying the owner of a major website on the basis of a personal blog, a LinkedIn profile and a letter that was not addressed to him in the first place. "Insufficient data, Captain" as Spock would say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis the last two comments, I'm not saying we should blindly assume journalists to be right just because they're in the mainstream press. Weighing the credibility of sources is what WP:RS is all about. The main task, as the guideline suggests, is looking at the publication, author, and specific piece to see just how much they fit the criteria of reliable sources. That is context specific with respect to the claims being supported: are they commonplace or extraordinary? Corroborated or outliers? Within the apparent expertise / job function of the author and publisher? And then you look for indicia of reliability or unreliability: is the article written precisely or vaguely? Is it part of a colorful flourish ("the crowd was electric with anticipation") or a dry fact ("there were seven people in the vehicle"). Is there any special reason, all things considered, to believe that the source has it wrong? Here we have a few squarely reliable if minor sources that proclaim the man's name and call him owner of the site. That's corroborated by some unreliable sources (the site blog, the man's apparent facebook and linkedin pages), and contradicted by none. However, everything about ED is prank-ish, they're known to hoax Wikipedia and the press, it's fairly common for owners of sites like this to use pseudonyms, and so on. There's also a not-so-obvious inconsistency: the person identifying himself as Evers claims that the site is owned by a corporation, Dramatica, Inc., not him personally. If that is indeed true, a cautious journalist would make that distinction. Anyway, per this edit[3] I don't think this is colorable as a BLP question. The reliable sources identify the owner and there is no concrete challenge to that. If it is in fact a pseudonym then BLP does not apply at all. We don't need to repeat the owner's name in connection with the Australian incident, but it's fair game to include it in the site owner field in the infobox, cited to a reliable source. The question is, who owns the site: Dramatica, Inc., or Joseph Evers, its apparent CEO? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Before the article gets fully protected over this (which would undoubtedly amuse the folks over at ED), let's go through the evidence again: the AHRC letter about Aboriginal is headed "Dear Sir/Madam". The e-mail address to which it was sent is obscured, on reasonable privacy grounds. However, it is a leap of faith to assume that it was directed to Joseph Evers personally when it was headed "Dear Sir/ Madam". Maybe he got to see the letter on his BlackBerry, but that is not clearly supported by the vague "Dear Sir/Madam" header.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the reliable source say that it was addressed to the website's owners, and that Evers is the owner?[4] I don't think it's necessary to include the name here, but it would make sense in the infobox. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the original source (that all the other sources based their reports on) did report that Evers was directly contacted[5]. It's one of those small mistakes that makes me think that the ninemsn source isn't the most reliable one in the first place ("reliable" in the common definition of the word, not the Wikipedia definition). As ianmacm has said above, it's unlikely that Evers was contacted directly. But the first reliable source said so, so all others do, too. --Conti|✉ 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point per my comment at 17:52, above. It looks like journalists replicating small errors in unimportant points on minor news stories. I think it's fair, sometimes, to disregard an otherwise reliable source if we reasonably think there's a good chance it's just plain wrong. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The original story was from ninemsn [6], and Joseph Evers is never mentioned by name in the AHRC letter. Using Joseph Evers' ED blog as a source runs into WP:SPS. Unfortunately, without other sourcing, the article is not on very solid ground over this issue. When all is said and done, the AHRC wrote a letter with some bureaucratic and legal hot air, and sent it to the site headed "Dear Sir/Madam". This is nowhere near a WP:RS for establishing the existence of Joseph Evers as a real person.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: the correspondence addressed to "Dear Sir/Madam", it's common practice in business letter writing and could even be the result of a standardized template dictated by policy. As for the cited article (and all related news) mentioning Evers and owner in conjunction, irregardless of title (call him site operator), the name *is* the news, the blog reply was optional and most likely the result of confirmational inquiry followed by a strong desire for publicity.DeXXus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

The claims of BLP concerns are a complete nonsense way to just remove the name Joseph Evers. In no other article do people go around trying to remove the owner's name. In most, people just take the word of the website itself even if the website is considered unreliable. New ED has tons of reliable sources saying the owner's name and still people just make up fictional BLP concerns purely out of spite. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly not tons of reliable sources which state the owner's name. There are two sources, both from NineMSN. One of these sources is based on an interview with an ED sysop. the other one is based on a self-published blog. We should exercise editorial judgment in this case. If Mr. Evers does exist, he appears to be a very private person.. I believe that we should respect his privacy. In addition, per WP:BLPNAME, "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability." The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Evers has an article about himself on ED, and he has never requested the deletion of that article. He certainly isn't locking himself from the world and the Internet. I don't think that your privacy argument is strong. As the owner, Evers is indeed largely involved with the site. In addition, it's only a name. We're not going to give you photos or details. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a YouTube video purporting to show Joseph Evers.[7] Is this actually him, or is it a prank?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that picture has been on Evers' ED article for years, but has just recently been deleted there without any comment. The one that is used on his Facebook and LinkedIn profiles is a different one. --Conti|✉ 18:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming he exists, which I have doubts on, he might be comfortable with having an article on ED. However, as far as I know he has never spoken publicly or to the press (except for that one blog post). Several news sources that discuss ED mention that he was not available for comment, or did not return calls, or was on vacation or something like that. It may well be the case that Mr. Evers is comfortable being known around the ED community but not publicly. An analogy would be porn stars; while their friends and associates may use their real name, they don't necessarily want the public to know it. The convention on Wikipedia is that if their real name is widely known it may be used (cf. Brent Corrigan, whose real name of Sean Lockheart is used), but otherwise we don't disclose their names.

As to the "involved" argument, it would appear that he doesn't do much of the day=to-day running and maintenance of the site. He seems to be more of a shadow figure. Anyway, the fact that we even have to discuss this means that we should probably err on the side of caution. If Mr. Evers comes here and states that its okay for us to use his name (confirmed by OTRS) then i'll relent, but until that happens we really should tread carefully here. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never asked Joseph Evers to reveal his real name online (I don't know The Wordsmith's real name, but am not fretting over it). What I have asked is whether Joseph Evers is a pseudonym. This is a reasonable question for the article, as it would be in Perez Hilton.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ian, I'm sure you are correct about JE. However, there are no WP:RS which state your position, and bringing BLP into it looks like wikilawyering in an attempt to get a similar result. Apologies, but modifying an article to support your own private research just doesn't seem right. Maybe you'd be better off writing letters to newspapers requesting that they make a correction, or following this up themselves, then we'd have something to cite. cojoco (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking very generally here, there's nothing in the world (or in the Wikipedia Policies) that stops us from not using sources, even reliable ones. We are still allowed to use common sense, and we are allowed to evaluate sources and decide to use them, or not to use them. --Conti|✉ 00:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If Joseph Evers was a private person, he wouldn't always be going by his real name. He would not give it out. On any other article if the website says the owner is say "WarezD00d" then that's what the wikipedia article puts as the owner and if the site owner says the owner's name is say "Harry Smith" then the article puts it as "Harry Smith" even if the site owner has done not a single thing but list their moniker as the site owner on the website, that's what is put on the article. There's no fictional BLP concerned or anything. I see people here throwing the fictional BLP claims around and when questioned, they're all "But I don't think Joseph Evers is a real person or it's an alias" and that's not the BLP issue. The site says that's who the owner is. The site does not say the owner is named "Sysop", it says "Joseph Evers". And if it's used all over the site he owns and he gives it out himself, then it invalidates the fictional BLP concern. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that WP:BLP is directly involved here, as it relates mainly to statements about a living person that could be inaccurate. Nor do I want the name Joseph Evers to be "censored" from the article. The issue arose because the ninemsn stories were somewhat unwise in accepting online self published sources as reliable, and giving an interpretation of the AHRC letter that is not supported by the actual text. The workings of ED are opaque at best, and a blog posting does not carry the same weight as information that can be confirmed through a range of independent sources. I am prepared to accept that there is a person at ED who goes by the name of Joseph Evers, but it should be clear by now that this is almost certainly a pseudonym.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - not a BLP issue, but there is enough doubt over whether this is a real name that we should be careful lest we allow errors to creep into the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I don't know if you've noticed, but Joseph Evers does not appear in the article at this time So how did that happen? cojoco (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wordsmith removed his name from the infobox in this edit, while I reworded the part about the AHRC letter in this edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since everyone agrees BLP was never really the issue, then people should stop removing Jevers and falsely claiming BLP reasons. Oh and yeah Jevers isn't there right now but eventually someone will add it back. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to complain if someone adds his name back to the infobox, but still would prefer an accurate version of what the AHRC letter said. The role of Sherrod DeGrippo/Girlvinyl in creating the site is reliably sourced, but there is virtually nothing about Evers' role in WP:RS. We have to take the word of his blog and LinkedIn profile, which is far from ideal with a site like ED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliably sourced how? There are now more news sources claiming Evers as the owner than Degrippo as the founder. The original source of both these statements is the Encyclopedia Dramatica website. All of your claims are original research. This is bordering on the ridiculous and obsessive. --Truthseeq (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality, not quantity. As The Wordsmith pointed out, there were two stories on ninemsn which were picked up by other sources. The sum total of our knowledge about Joseph Evers comes from an ED sysop, a blog posting, a Facebook and a LinkedIn profile. Not exactly WP:RS material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, normally if any website says their owner is someone, Wikipedia just puts it. Now after that, ED has a large number of news sources stating the owner, all these conspiracy theories saying Joseph Evers isn't real are not just orignal research, they are fringe theories like saying 9/11 wasn't done by Muslims, but by Israeli intelligence to provoke the USA to attack their enemies. Now it may be possible both are true, but they're still both Fringe theories. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here, always a bad sign on a talk page. There were only ever two ninemsn stories and the "large number of sources" are repeating what ninemsn said. True enough, if it all got screwed up, we could blame ninemsn, because they are a "reliable" source. However, there is very little about Joseph Evers that can be verified independently. I have never removed his name from the infobox, and edited what the AHRC letter said because it makes no direct legal threats against him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Joking and trolling are standard at all pages associated with ED, so a blog on ED cannot be used to state unequivocally that a certain person is the "owner". What did ninemsn (the source used for the owner label) actually do? Of course they emailed a contact address at ED and reported what they were told – they have no idea (and don't care) whether the name is a pseudonym, or a joke, or whatever. Here, however, we are supposed to report what is actually known, and ninemsn are not stating that they know or that they have checked who is the owner, and neither should we. If the ownership is important we need a source that has done more than exchange a few emails. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

John, no we simply report that ED states the owner is Joseph Evers and that it is commonly taken that this is the owner. I mean we cannot be certain that those 9/11 cell phone calls were real (as they were from too high in the air to reach cell towers) and we cannot be certain what actually went on inside those airplanes as maybe they were remote controls, maybe it was white people and not middle easterns hijacking them, but we must take the facts that the news reports as the official story and the rest can be WP:FRINGE. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been explained above multiple times by multiple users, so I won't bother doing it again. But no, we don't. --Conti|✉ 09:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)