Talk:EBaum's World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

NOTE: New topics (headings) of discussion should be added to the bottom of the page please. In addition, please sign your comments. You can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ where you want the signature to appear.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During making any such changes, be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] "Features" and "Controversy" sections are redundant

It seems to me that the "Features" section is merely a summary of the "Controversy" section. Shouldn't it instead list some of the web site's regularly recurring features, and not simply present information that is presented later on in a condensed fashion? I suggest that for the time being the "Features" section be removed until it can be rewritten. --Impaciente 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just restored an older version of the Features section from a few weeks ago, before it had been overwritten with negativity. -- Bovineone 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does that matter? One of the biggest features of eBaum's world is rip-offs anyway, a fact which deserves to be reiterated. -- Superwilliam3 2:09, 9 November 2006

[edit] Subheading as thief

Should we do this?

No, we should not. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. I removed the features section which contained nothing but "ebaumsworld steals from Newgrounds k?" and such. I know Eric Bauman is not very well liked by internet users but try to keep this artical neutral.

Neutral? Being a thief or enemy isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. He either stole it or he didn't. And in this case, HE DID. Vegetaman 05:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not the point, Vegetaman. As pointed out above, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, which means that both sides must be equally represented, with no bias. 207.216.10.130 08:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
So we should go back and make sure that we don't represent Ed Gein as a murderer or Peter Brock as a race car driver? A fact is a fact. 202.12.144.21 06:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Accusing Bauman of theft is inappropriate to an encyclopedia article, regardless of the 'truth' or the 'facts'. An encyclopedia is not supposed to declare for one side or the other. As has been stated above, the Internet may hate Bauman, but this article must be neutral.207.216.14.202 06:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
So accusing Hitler of being the leader of the nazi party is inappropriate, regardless of the 'truth' or the 'facts'? If you don't declare one way or another, you don't -have- facts in the first place. 202.12.233.21 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, in the eyes of the law, Eric Bauman is not a thief. I know that his business practices are rather questionable, but unfortunately he hasn't been tried in a court of law. Let's hope he is one day. (82.11.252.151 00:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
Until he has been proven guilty of theft in a court of law, calling him a thief is slander, which is itself illegal. Odds are, he wouldn't try to sue Wikipedia (since a lawsuit regarding someone calling him a thief could easily backfire), but its best to stay on the right side of the law, particularly when accusing osmeone else of a crime. Hypocrisy + breaking the law + lack of neutrality = not good.--Salty53 00:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, by avoiding any side to be biased against another, we can avoid a bickering catfight between each on respective articles as much as possible. --Delf 19:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You want neutral? How's about this: although eBaum used the animators flash without permission, he later offered the author money to keep AvA up. The offer was accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.63.82 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Page?

This page seems to be biased towards the alleged fact that ebaums world is stealing. If someone could try and edit this page to be more unbiased and present both sides of the story equally it would be great. Floog 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbiased? You mean lie to make EBaum's World look better? The story is very clear. I don’t think there is some huge conspiracy going on between many internet forums to create animation, allow EBaum's to use it, and then claim it never happened. Redd Dragon 18:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not biased. I've looked it over, it only gives facts. Don't look at me if most of those facts point against it. --72.70.53.60 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
All of the stories of eBaums stealing are cited and true. Therefore, they should stay. --DarkAdonis255 13:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could make this show a bit more of their side, except for the fact that there are no fact that could be put up. I've even read this interview with Mr. Bauman. He says that he does steal, but it's the only way he can stay so popular. Although generally they dont go hunting for things anymore. The site can live off of uploads now, but they still will steal if they see something really good. They admit it themselves. PokeOnic (talk)17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack: this page actually seems more biased toward mr eric used up all my creative idea's 10 years ago ebaum.

[edit] More Theft Controversy

There's something new that Ebaum's World has stolen. Animator vs. Animation. This flash cartoon appeared on Albino Black Sheep as well as Newgrounds before appearing on Ebaum's World. The creator has stated that he did not give permission on Newgrounds and elsewhere. User:Bill BIsco June 12th, 2006

AB, the owner of Albino Black Sheep, has already contributed in many ways and has teamed up with the creator's family against Bauman. -Led—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.112.227 (talk • contribs)


Psh, everything on the Internet's stolen by Eric Bauman.

[edit] NAMBLA?

"Eric Bauman is a member of NAMBLA (the north american man-boy-love-association) and has been since 2000. Many people do not believe this yet Eric admited to his membership after constant pressure from the media." Does anyone have a source to that statement?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.113.245 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is just vandalism by eBaum's World Sucks. They even have a topic there condoning it. --Machchunk
Not by us, we don't do stuff like that. It makes Bauman look like the victim.--Alexrules43 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Machchunk, I'd like you to re-read the article from the first page. The majority of comments posted in that thread condemn the vandalism, rather than condoning it. I myself have posted to that thread, in fact. DarkMasterBob 07:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
First off, spell my name right. Second, yes, maybe I said it in a wrong way (in fact, I'm the member webmeister from that forum), but the point is there were people saying it was justified. What I said doesn't even have to mean the regulars did it. It could just be the n00bs who don't know any better. --Machchunk
I notice you reported me for saying I'm webmeister. Um, why? Because I am. I really am the member "webmeister" from that forum. What do you find particularly wrong with that? Machchunk 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, I didn't report you for any such thing. I might have (I have a lousy memory), but I'm fairly sure I didn't. That being said, I may, alternately, have jumped the gun, because I'm usually online at 3:30 AM and half-asleep at the time. If I misread and did something dumb, I apologize. 207.216.10.130 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure someone did. I checked Tiwhatevertheheckitis Brass's contribs and I saw his comment to a report on the administrators' noteboard or something that said something like, "this guy says he's the 'webmeister' of that forum, go check him out". What the heck would a webmeister BE anyways. --Machchunk 02:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It was Zoe, apparently. Geez, what nerve. --Machchunk 03:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Us regulars at EBWS don't do that, some newbies might, I am F-U ebaum at EBWS and i am not a moron that goes arund saying "0MFG BAWMAN STEALZ! HE IS FUXX0RZ LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL" It makes Bauman look like the victim. --Starbucks95905
...You did read what I just said, right? I know the regulars aren't idiots. I'M WEBMEISTER. And I already pointed out I meant the n00bs. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

EBaum might be a jerk, but if your going to make a statement like that, you better back it up. I don't care who it is, back up the statement

[edit] Reposted Content

I reposted some of the content and added a disclaimer that it just rumor. People still need to know that SOMETHING was/is still going on. Again, they are rumors without evidance, but there are some strong claims on there. Dragon-Girl March 28th, 2006

What sucks is you're getting a lot of childish people posting ignorant comments. That's what happens when EVERYONE can edit anything (i.e. Congress Controversy). And thank you Alwarren. I would of done that sooner, but I was at school and didn't have the time. You've made it a decent page again. Dragon-Girl March 28th, 2006

[edit] Unveryfiable content removed

I removed all of the unverifiable content on this page. There's no reason to have rumors and propaganda here. Fetty 19:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Quality" section

I personally see little need for the section detailing that when eBaum rebrands images that it degrades the quality of them. Looking at the comparison of an original image and rebranded one, it's difficult to see a significant difference, and thus it would have done better for them to be bigger. However, I don't really see how much the section adds to the article, and it would probably benefit it to shorten it a little and integrate it into another part. 24.7.163.154 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the difference in image quality, if it exists, is not clear enough to be mentioned. -Unknownwarrior33 02:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article keeps getting worse

And worse, and worse, and worse. Also, someobdy removed my comments to the talk page. Anyway, going to make an effort at cleanup. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do. The vast majority of it could just be deleted. Dbchip 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Made an attempt at cleaning things up a bit. Definitely not done, but most of the stuff that made me wince is gone. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where exactly, then, does the YTMND incident belong? Someone tried to make a seperate Contreversy page, but that was shot down. --Tiler 05:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Like any other page, controversy belongs ON the page of the article, rather than on another site in an attempt to redirect information and avoid discussion of the topic. --OMG LAZERS 22:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forum Invasions

Ebaum's users have hacked the YTMND forums again at forums.ytmnd.com/ , replacing the letter 'a' with a message about '_EBAUMS FORUMS OWNS U_' and a number of unidentifiable characters. The stylesheet has been removed, and the line dividing the signature from the main body of the post has been replaced with a pornographic image of two men having intercourse. After 10 seconds, every page forwards to forums.ebaumsworld.com. I'm not sure what proof you guys need to say that this sort of thing is happening, but it's happening right now if you want to go over and check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.145.64 (talk • contribs)

You should've checked the April 1, 2006 page. YTMND is pretending to be "bought" by Eric and Neil Bauman. In the process, the real eBaum's World forums are being flooded. --Tokachu 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This was stolen?

AS much as I hate bauman, when i checked this page, all it said was "I stole this from ebaumsworld. People need to stop playing with this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superducktoes (talk • contribs)

Are you suggesting we request the page be protected? --Tokachu 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This page is not protection-worthy since the controversy is long gone and people are not out to vandalize the page as much as say, things related to current issues. --OMG LAZERS 22:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the controversy is *not* 'long gone'. Bauman attempted to have a television show launched, though as of 9/25/2006, it was apparently cancelled before production began. He has also, apparently, stolen from Disney's website (does he know what a pile he's stepping in by messing with the House of Mouse, I wonder?) sometime in the past three months. 207.216.10.130 07:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If he messes with Disney he will never be seen again- Solomn_Edifice

[edit] Unverified Section

"On February 27, 2006 a researcher named Bradley Scott..."

The unverified section above is from the albinoblacksheep forums, in a thread by AB (the owner of albinoblacksheep) I'll get the link as soon as I get a chance. Ziiv 15:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. This is what that person was referencing. [[1]] Since a forum can't be considered a "credible publication," I'm going to delete the section.Ziiv 06:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A recorded phone call and emails are evidence though. http://www.absforums.com/ebaum.html Please do not dismiss this.

[edit] Anything Good?

Is there anything good to say about eBaums World? I am finding it more and more difficult to find any site that have any positive comments towards this website. What's the deal? --MrBucket 01:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The main reason that most people who are active enough on the internet to actually make a presence and voice their opinion for people to read are the people who frequent sites like YTMND or Something Awful. EBaum's policy of 'it is easier to ask for forgivness than permission' has really riled these readers up (like myself). For that reason, it's hard to find anyone who posts on things like, say, Wikipedia discussion pages with much good to say about Ebaum. If you find someone who only knows Ebaum from word of mouth and is less internet savy (See - 10 year old girls and yuppies) they'll enjoy Ebaum for it's large archive of content in one place. --OMG LAZERS 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, they'll only think that until they're told that all eBaum does is steal the content, and then probably join one of the three camps of opinion on him. And sadly, once you've visited the site many times, you become ensnared by the opinion that it's so wonderful, you feel threatened by those who want it to not be there. ...Gee, I guess psychology class did help... Tom Temprotran 01:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, yeah this is far from neutral. --Spikelee 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something that needs to be said

I know that Eric Bauman is not the most highly regarded person on the Internet today, but there is an obvious lack of effort in trying to keep this page neutral. The image of the main page with the advertisements and popups is blatantly biased and completely inappropriate. Just because there are advertisements on the site and this is a true statement does not make this OK. Why isn't the first sentence of the Adolf Hitler article, "Adolf Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany and an oppressive racist responsible for the heartless slaughter of millions of Jews"? Yes, it's every bit true, but it's inconsistent with the policies of Wikipedia because it gives people a technically non-neutral impression. Of course, everybody who read the article would eventually realize that he was a sick monster, but that's only through presenting facts in a completely neutral way.

I don't mean writing this article like "eBaum said X, but X is wrong because of Y"; you should say stuff like "eBaum claims X, but critics contest this because of Y". Wikipedia is a neutral enyclopedia. I know that we can all do better. Oklonia 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot is displaying the page with ads. It is correct to point out that part of the screenshot is ads and not part of the website, not to mention that the ads are the reason why Ebaum has gotten so much revenue off the site. It is not negative and is completely accurate to say that the site has a lot of ads. The supposedly non-NPOV things you are point out aren't even being put in to portray the site in a negative light. Nor are we going to water down facts as "claims". --Xombie 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The original screenshot (check the image history) was much cleaner and had no ads visible on it, but it was removed under claims that the image was inaccurate. So I took a screenshot with the advertisements. What you don't see is that the "Entrepreneuer" pop-up appeared four times, not just once as it appears in the screenshot. If you doubt me, go to the web site yourself. --Tokachu 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no problems with ads but placing the pop-up at the bottom is biased. We would not do that with any of the millions of other sites that have pop-up ads. I have no problem with banners ads being displayed because they are part of the page... or mentioning that the site does open lots of pop-ups... but, they are not part of the site. gren グレン 07:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The part edited out was not necessary or factual. I am going to edit out (humorously subtitled "Media For Dumbasses") It is unnecessary and not factual. --Spikelee 15:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I some changes. Feek free to comment on them,. --Spikelee 00:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture that used to be there wasn't a pop up but something that was built onto the front page, like a layer, that slides across from the side -inside- the window. If they don't wanna be depicted like that, take off that one ad and makes 1% less money and earn some credibility and not look like a porn site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.33.44 (talk • contribs) .

I uploaded that image. That image is exactly how eBaum's World appeared when I loaded the web site without using any sort of ad-blocker or pop-up blocker. It's meant to convey the most accurate representation possible; in other words, what the average visitor would see. --Tokachu 03:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not ok to have ads beccause it violates US copyright laws, because ebaumsworld is a profitable organziation, and is hosted in the USA, it is subject to copyright laws, by taking others people's work and having ads he violates it, and he takes credit for their work by putting his watermark on it, claiming it as his. Secondly because some artist charge money to see their animations, hosting them on ebaumsworld, is disrupting the market, another violation of copyright laws 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Sgt Simpson

[edit] Latest Change

Okay, the last change I made I deem worthy of change. The alligations of the Funbar containing spyware are false according to the link. I'm also trying to keep this site neutral. It is not neutral. And the people that claim they are just reporting facts don't even have arguments for eBaums actions. They are all against eBaums actions. Please do not revert to the old article. --Spikelee 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit once again and added another warning your talk page. The 'allegation' is sourced via a notable website. Please stop removing it.--Andeh 00:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Animator vs. Animation"

Considering the recent conflict going on between Albino Blacksheep and ebaumsworld due to the "A vs A" video, could someone with knowledge about the whole issue write about it? --hello,gadren 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Wrote some stuff about it, but it can be added to. Greatly added to. --Batmobile 22:16, 12 June 2006

You have to admit, he's good at what he does. Only took him...what? 2 days? To rip it off albinoblacksheep.com. We can only hope he doesn't manage to worm his way out of this next court case...--Labine50 04:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


http://ebaumsworld.com/flash/animator-vs-animation.html http://newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=511039 sources for new info added. So the guy took the money and then decided that he was cheated? Mgunit

From what I saw, he was sent the check without any notification. Then when he threatened with legal action, Eric Bauman said he won a "contest", offered him an additional $1000, and posted a quote making it look like he agreed to have it posted there. Alan also tried to send the money back.
Maybe you should go back to spamming siteadvisor.com. You're not fooling anyone. --Tokachu 04:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what I gather: eBaum took the flash. Alan threatened to sue (with the help of AlbinoBlackSheep). eBaum then gave Alan a grand total of $1250 for the flash. Alan took the money and said that eBaum had paid for it. eBaum put up a quote on the page from Alan saying he paid for it and he talked to Alan before the whole law suit thing started. Technically he did talk to Alan before the lawsuit but Alan told him that he couldn't have the flash so eBaum stole it. However, the quote made it sound like eBaum had permission before hand to post it which he did not. But since Alan took the cash he sold everyone out, everyone got pissed at him, and now he is trying to unsell out. It does look like eBaum removed the flash though Dominic 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Event banner

What happened to the curret event banner (or whatever it's called) at the top of the Controversy section? Considering the recent developments in the Animator vs. Animation/Albino Blacksheep vs. eBaum's battle, it seems like this is still quite current and likely to keep changing. IMFromKathlene 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YTMND / eBaums war?

What happened to the mention of the DOS attack that YTMND users launched against eBaums? That seems to have been covered up nicely.

Y'know, when they pinged their chat and forums to death?--Mofomojo 03:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned. And let us not forget the DOS attack Ebaumsworld launched against SomethingAwful; after all, if we are going to mention such actions taken against Ebaumsworld, we must mention the DOS attacks they have launched.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.62.130 (talk • contribs)

I'm going to tone down the paragraph about YTMND-Day in the YTMND article and include it here. It deserves a huge mention.Sam 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Forums are not considered 'credible sources' on Wikipedia. Therefore, that claim is not substantiated, and every time you try to re-add it to the main page, I will delete it. Find some hard, admissable evidence, type it up in a way which dignifies Wikipedia (captials and punctuation especially), then add it. Not before. --Killfest2 13:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WTF? No mention of YTMND-Day? It happened! Thousands of us were there! It's the most "HELL YEAH" incident in Ebaums history!

Ebaums are responsible for every DDoS attack ever. Ebaums did it.

[edit] Child Pornography Claims

While YTMND is clearly a biased source for information, I do find that this image... [2] may be bordering on child pornography in this case, and thus the claims to be founded. Discussion? Payneos 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The edits are vandalism -- repeated, unsourced, exaggerated, inflammatory. I am not sure what you intend to accomplish by diverting the semi-protection discussion here. --G0zer 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A moderator already denied the protection claims and asked that discussion on the topic be redirected here. I have sourced the picture in question as being *possible* child pornography. You may view it here [3]. Payneos 03:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is there to discuss about this? That's clearly child porn, and it is clearly on eBaum's World. It should be mentioned, and damn it, forewarded to the FBI.--72.140.12.15 06:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. That picture is NOT child porn. Huggies commercials show worse. That picture in no way is meant to arouse a person. Unless you can show a specific law that decrees that to be child pornography, it should not be added. Hardxcorey 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you're just ashamed of enjoying looking at the picture and don't want it to be cp because you are ashamed of being a pedo.202.53.198.81 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
http://images.ebaumsworld.com/images2/maxipadmummy.jpg The image can be viewed here. If anyone thinks this is NOT Child Pornography, they need to have their head examined. 99.165.110.35 (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Telemarketer

Unless and until there are relibale secondary sources (i.e. outside eBaumsWorld forums and YTMND) this cannot go in. The irony of YTMND, masters of the copyvio soundtrack, accusing eBaums of copyright infringement is not lost on me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 10:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes...There is one big difference though...its called "Image Origin" and "Sound Origin". That means that the original image and audio authors or source are given credit. Ebaums world has had a number of instances where the author was not given credit and instead had Ebaums infamous watermark pasted on it. This made it look like it was the work of the website and not the authors. Ebaums also have had a number of authors come out and say they did not submit their work to Ebaum's, did not consent it, and still didn't approve of it after the "theft". Ytmnd has never been accused of this by any authors. They have only been accused by retaliating Ebaum's users. If Ebaums is just like YTMND in theft, then why isnt YTMND being as openly criticized like Ebaums by both spectators and Authors alike?--CoolDrMoney9 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)My Brother and Me = Best show ever
    • True. JzG, maybe you should look into this kind of stuff more. --Clorox (talk)> 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • giving credit to source is a pretty minor thing under US law and you are pretty much required to do it but it provides you with sod all protection. For example mysterysongisfound.ytmnd.com/ is a pretty clear copyvio. The reason no one objects that most of the theft is from big companies or from random people with stuff on google images so no one cares (If I was really feeling board I'd send YTMND the standard set of failing to follow the GFDL notices).Geni 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not the issue though, YTMND is not on trial. This is about how eBaum allegedly stole a long humorous sound file from someone else without giving proper credit. Attacking YTMND is not a way of proving eBaum's innocence. Payneos 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You appear to have missed to point. I'm not getting involved in you conflict or issues. Just makeing observations from the sidelines.Geni 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The way it was presented, however, does not make sense. YTMND is not in copyright violation because YTMND is a non-profit website, where the vast majority of its' users cite where they get their work, and do not profit from it in any way (As does the owner of the website.) The difference comes where eBaum sells his prime slot ads at up to $8,000, does generally not cite his sources, copyrights them for himself (with his "trusty" watermark), allows them to be seen for free, and the site as a whole *is* for profit. Payneos 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Stangly being non-profit while helpful in a fair use case does not provide any where near complete protection. Neither does citeing your source. YTMND contians thousands on copyvios. So do other sites that allow user uploads such as youtube and even wikipedia (I should know I delete enough of the darn things). It is just how things are. Until you have read say this at least I would suggest you don't argue with me about copyright since I deal with it on wikipedia day in day out and as a result have a fairly good idea about how it works.Geni 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
However, it does provide enough protection. YTMND does not copyright violate due to the Fair Use clause that states... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. As it states, YTMND is strictly for the use of criticism, commentation, and parody. As with § 107. (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, the amount of a whole of material that is used in each YTMND is so insignificantly small, it shouldn't matter. This also works with § 107. (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, where YTMND clearly has *no* effect on the use upon the potential markets of all the copyrighted work used. YTMND is quite safe under the fair clause, as stated here [4], and if it's good enough for Cornell, it's good enough for me. Payneos 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
criticism and commentation on YTMD is limted. Parody would of course be it's strongest case but far from universal. While the short should loops would probably be OK complete images would not be so for example content.ytmnd.com/content/c/8/d/c8dccc9b0d1e0ec7815a9786deb8af81.jpg content.ytmnd.com/content/1/b/c/1bcbff340b35b90ca311d839fce0844a.jpg content.ytmnd.com/content/7/b/e/7be89fe3d874d151fa26819973034a5a.gif content.ytmnd.com/content/1/a/3/1a3846a1c4d84dfa219f00eba43fe24a.jpg content.ytmnd.com/content/4/c/2/4c266b9dadbe01f3a1b208beb84fe221.jpg Are probably copyvios. didto most of the wikipedia screens shots which need to be released under the GFDL and have a list of authors and copy of the GFDL added.10:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree as well. Though YTMND is known for being a bit sycophantic in their crusade against eBaums, they do hold the high ground in this argument if you look into it. A proper citation is not needed as of yet, but will be if this drags on longer, especially since one will become available. You tend to be very aggressive in your deletions as your talk page suggests, but give this one time, it's not something that will happen overnight. This situation requires patience. Payneos 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
A proper citation is always needed.Geni 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Not if you take the edit on Good Faith. Payneos 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I don't think that WP:AGF means "believe what other editors say even if they don't offer proof." That seems to be completely contrary to WP:CITE and WP:V not to mention completely unworkable in practice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ElKevbo (talk • contribs) 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism."
I would have to guess by the opening statements that by this effect, these people are trying to help Wikipedia by adding reasonable facts to the site. They don't seem to be vandalizing, but actually making a contribution. You can't cite EVERYTHING you place in Wikipedia (See: Opie and Anthony) so sometimes an edit that is not qualifiable under vandalism should be taken in good faith. Payneos 00:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can't provide a cite you run into WP:NOR.Geni 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to do "original research" in this case, so no, it does not. Again, the edit must be taken in good faith, you are not taking the edits in Good Faith, so you request citation. Payneos 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Requesting sources for a particular assertion or alleged fact has nothing to do with good faith and everything to do with verifiability and providing reasonable evidence for what we state in this encyclopedia article. Someone who requests that you provide a source is not necessarily assuming that you are wrong or that your edit is vandalism - they are simply requiring that you provide verifiable evidence supporting your edit. It's not personal and it's certainly not any sort of attack on you or your credibility. It's how we maintain this encyclopedia. It's what makes this an encyclopedia. --ElKevbo 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur, but it is a noteworthy event. If it was irrelevant, I would agree, but there's no publication to cite off of yet, yet it is a reasonably major event in the controversy that surrounds eBaumsworld. I also believe that just because it can't be cited, that means it needs to be deleted, which is what is being done. It should be modified so that it IS acceptable for the article. Not everything can be cited, and that's my point. The relevance is there, so I see no need to cite it right off the bat. Payneos 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If it can't be cited then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean it's not important or interesting - it's just something we can include in an encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo 06:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And again, if you're to hold to that faith all the time, most articles would be a few sentences long, if that. Not everything can be cited, and that's why you have Good Faith. Just because you cannot cite it does *not* mean it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Payneos 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If it can't be cited it is original reseach.Geni 08:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Waving the flag of WP:AGF to obscure blatant violations of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS is called Wikilawyering. The "parody" fair use justification would apply to a short clip parodying the sound work itself; many of the soundtracks are long or complete and used to parody some other work (which is definitely not covered by fair use). If the copyright lawyers ever became interested in YTMND I suspect that there would be a wholesale cull. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
So, here's what I propose. Clean up everything from every article that cannot be cited. Yes, I know, but if you're going to scream citations on the simplest of things, I could give you a laundry list of articles with little to no citation that need your attention far more than a simple eBaum/YTMND debate. I doubt YTMND could ever be brought under any lawsuit because if looked at the way it is intended, it is a parody website as all sound clips are used in humor, and the vast majority are short (under the 15 seconds which is usually the standard before it becomes a copyright violation). In most cases, if an author did not truncate the audio properly, it's because they didn't know how.
What I'm trying to say is, don't be so anal aboot uncited sources sometimes. They're necessary to the Encyclopedia, especially when there is no proper citation available yet to relevant, important information. Payneos 09:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No probler citetations available = original research.Geni 10:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually what you propose (in order to knock it down) is precisely what we should do. There sould be no facts in Wikipedia which canot be verified from reliable secondary sources. That's policy - uncited content is never necessary, if something can't be cited then it has no place here. I think the fundamental problem here is that you seem to want Wikipedia to take on the role of a YTMND news / FAQ / Wiki / blog; actually the encyclopaedic content here is that YTMND is a social networking site with humorous content, and its members have had spats with membvbers of some other social networking sites. Just zis Guy you know? 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Geni, repeating the same thing over and over won't make it any more valid in this case. As far as what you're stating JzG, in my work on the Opie and Anthony Article, if you remove all that can't be "properly cited" you lose most of the information in the article. Because it is a radio show, most of the show's important, relevant information is not normally cited in a publication, and therefore is simply included without it. For instance, an important member of the show, their producer Erik Nagel is not once placed in any publication they've been in. But he is very important to the show, because he is their Producer.
It has nothing to do with wanting to turn eBaums into a YTMND News/FAQ/Blog, that's what the YTMND wiki is for. They have one, you know. This has everything to do with the spread of important, relevant information which is what Wikipedia IS for. And sometimes, you have to assume good faith, which you have not done, when it comes to an uncited source. It might be Wikilawyering, but as I see it, this Encyclopedia cannot stand on citations alone. Payneos 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes it can. How do you know that Erik Nagel has never appeared in any publication? He appears here.Geni 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Then let's be a little more fancy, since I wasn't aware Foundry would be acceptable to some of the tougher standards of Wikipedia. Can you find citation for Steve from Yellowstone, Gregg Hughes (Not Opie himself, but when he steps out of character), and G. Yogurt Liddy? They're all characters from the show that are "important and relevant." Payneos 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Plus, as far as I can recall, every time I have been told that information should be included because it is "important" and "relevant" even though it can't be cited from reliable sources, it has been by someone with a vested interest in one side or other of the argument. Which is, of course, why we insist on verifiability from reliable secondary sources, because otherwise not only is it WP:OR, it's also impossible to ensure [{WP:NPOV]]. Just zis Guy you know? 16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Which again, shows you do not take the edits in "good faith." How are you to infer that just because they cannot cite, immedately they have a "vested interest" in making the article lean one way or another? And by that extension, are you inferring that I am? As having a long standing debate on the importance of "important" and "relevant" information that cannot be cited, I am debating this because I have a similar issue going on over at Talk: Opie and Anthony. Payneos 05:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
What, do you people actually expect a real media outlet to print, "EBaum's World steals Crazy Telemarketer!"? What kind of secondary source do you people need?! There are plenty of dates on the content that show what date each we put up, so there should be no debate about neededing another media source.
The kind where it's in a major media outlet that's able to be a citable source (Like a newspaper's website). The Wiki prides itself on being reliable and accurate, sometimes at the cost of notability. --Payneos 19:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR and Factual

I went ahead and put the OR and Factual Accuracy tags up on the main page since it seems both are in serious question on a daily basis on the page. Can we go ahead and sort out facts, fiction, and claims that should/should not be on the page and work on a consensus for getting them in the article/dropping them? Payneos 23:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Merge completed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Bauman. ViridaeTalk 00:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Baum?

There is this resistance against Eric Bauman, wich is found here, at [5]. How this is done? By using the Google Bomb technique, there is a one-line article about this, found at [6] at the end of the controversy. (WikiSearch the term, my friends)

[edit] Call Centre

Don't know if this is relevent but when you call Ebaums world HQ to comaplin or enquire about things sometimes they put you on to a black guy who just seems ot try and take the piss out of you and it is almost impossible to complain properly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.59.222 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure that that's entirely relevant. At least Albino Blacksheep recorded their calls to/from eBaum. --Tokachu 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why has it not been taken down?

I don't get it. They show people getting killed, blown up, someone jacking off on other people and animals gettting killed but it is still up. What the hell is going on, surely it is illegal? I used to like it but now it just goes to shock tactics. --80.229.241.200 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite an example of such claims? --Payneos 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure just go and look at the site. But if you really want to list some.

There was this video (which I did ot watch) named "Dog being used as shark bait", how sick do you have to be to watch that. There was this video named "someone takes public masterbation to the next level, public ejaction" Urm cumming on someone in the street that kinda comes under prevert!

Yeah I saw the public masturbation video. It has been taken down now, but it was so horrible. It was just gross, I don't see how anyone could find it funny. It was just a video of a guy jerking off and then he walked up to a girl and ejaculated on her hair....that's it. So gross. Konman72 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter if what KIND of content is on the site, but the fact that this person earns a PROFIT off of other people's work, without their consent. THAT in itself is WRONG, and I don't have any clue to why this guy and his father has not been seriously sued. Instead, the guy gets his own television show? That's sick. -- IceSage 09:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's the fact what he's doing is wrong, KNOWS what he's doing is wrong, KNOWS that he can get away with it, and does so that makes me respect him. He's like Bill Gates on a smaller scale -- he knew every single thing he did to eliminate his competition was wrong, and the worst he could get is a slap on the wrist for it, given how much money he has. Bauman's the same way -- he knows it'd take way too much work for anyone to get his site taken down and successfully sue him. Even if it did happen a long time from now, he'll probably have maneuvered his money around so that there's nothing left for the plantiffs to get. MewtwoStruckBack 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I got concerned about the animal abuses and contacted a big animal rights group. They said that the only option is to complain to the FCC. They are the ones that can sort this out. Archer7 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi/Full protection

I think it's probably about time this page was protected again. In the full week and a half since this page was unprotected, there must have been only one or two genuine edits, with the rest being vandalism, time and again. It's clear that this page is just going to continue to attract vandalism for a long time to come. Perhaps it is time for protection again, even if just semi, incase someone actually wants to make a valid edit any time soon? --Dreaded Walrus 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just request semi protection that should stop it, most of them are coming from ytmnd.com --Synth 16:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I was about to mention the same thing. Yeah, we need semi-protection, just to keep the anonymous people at bay. --DarkAdonis255 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I would request it myself, but I am not fully certain how to go about it. Also, it is certain that the vast majority are from ytmnd. I actually quite like that site, and I am very much against eBaum's world, but just like with the Jack Thompson article, it's certainly best to just list the facts and let people themselves decide how morally wrong it is. If anyone can go about getting a semi-protection on this though, that would be great. --Dreaded Walrus 02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Requested. HawkerTyphoon 16:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I couldn't help but notice that the categories for this article are "Stolen works of art" and "Gay porn stars." When I look back at the history of this article, those two categories aren't associated with this article and instead has the categories "Comedy Websites" and "Entertainment Websites." I think it would be best if that part of the article was reverted to how it was originally. Rruelas 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As you can see in the page history, it was pretty heavily vandalised earlier, so some of the reverts might not have hit their mark. I've reverted the categories you mentioned. Again, thanks for the heads-up. --Dreaded Walrus 04:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's been hit pretty hard today. What the heck's going on? Kestrel 04:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As you'll probably know if you've been watching this article, it's been steadily vandalised ever since it was unprotected, weeks ago. Pretty much all of the vandalism seems to be coming from YTMND users. And whilst I understand their side of the story, and am in no way a fan of eBaum's World myself, I feel (as I mentioned in response to a comment on my talk page just now) that putting merely the facts in an event such as this often portrays the subject more accurately than removing all text other than the letters "NEDM". --Dreaded Walrus 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWWWI

"On January 6, 2006, eBaum's World hosted and watermarked a Lindsay Lohan montage created by YTMND user SpliceVW without crediting either SpliceVW or YTMND. In response, users from YTMND joined users from other internet communities, namely Something Awful, LUElinks, Newgrounds, Totse, 4chan, FARK, Ugoplayer (Flashplayer.com), Weebls-Stuff, and IGN. These groups disrupted the eBaum's World forums with spam posts and DDoS attacks. On January 10, eBaum's World alleged the attacks were a form of "cyber-terrorism", and on January 11, Neil Bauman stated publicly that arrests were being made in relation to the attacks, though none have been made public as of yet. Max Goldberg, the owner of YTMND, and Neil Bauman eventually came to an agreement, with Bauman agreeing to remove the montage from his website, and in return, for Goldberg removing any reference to "eBaum" from his website. Despite the resolution, both sites experienced DDoS attacks on the morning of January 12, 2006. "

Yet there are still pllllll-enty of YTMNDs featuring, making fun of or attacking eBaum's World, Eric Bauman and his father... Could it be possible that frustrated eBaum's World users and/or fans noticed this that day, which led to the retaliation? --Delf 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

UGOplayer, also known as flashplayer, never took any part in the attack. I do not know where you had a source to say that. There was an urging that Flashplayer should join the YTMND side, but no person representing UGOPlayer as a forum attacked.68.192.25.106 13:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my dos pesos!

Ok, i don't know much about eBaum's world, but from scanning the article i must say that unless someone NPOV's this article some more, you may as well say the author was the illegitimate child of Bill Gates and Prometheus. In other words, negative much? WookMuff 08:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link

I'm too new a member to do anything about this but, the link in the trivia section seems to be broken.

"He has also purchased an $850,000 office building and a $150,000 home."

If anyone wants to do anything about this, it mightn't be a bad idea.

Sakesaru 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Entire page was deleted and redirected to the word Thief. Reverted it back to the previous version. Eban 19:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not necessary to note this in the Talk page. This one would quickly fill up if we left a note here every time we reverted vandalism. :) --ElKevbo 19:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV line

The following paragraph seem to add a lot of commentary of eBaumsWorlds actions.

“ In late 2005, Sega threatened to sue eBaum's World after a copy of the game "Super Monkey Ball" was posted on the site. Adding injury to the insult, not only was the Flash-based game posted on the site, it was "hot-linked," meaning that the game was merely diplayed on the webpage while being hosted on Sega's official website... ”

The paragraph states that hotlinking the flash file was "adding injury" to the "insult" The problem with this is that it has a condoning tone. Not to mention weasel words like "insult" and "injury".-- Selmo (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vague sentence

“ It went on to issue him a draft notice to join Eric's program for flash animators to put eBaum's World logos in all their animations. ”

What exactly does it mean by this? That Bauman asked Mokris to get all animators to put his logo on everything? That he wanted eBaum's users to put the logo on stuff? It's a bit indefinite in it's meaning. ANyone care to refone it? --Ω 11:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It says eBaum's World logos. It think that sounds pretty clear, no need to change it. --Machchunk | make some noise at me

That's not what I meant, I meant that it doesn't specify which flash animators it means. Sorry if I was a bit unclear about that. --Ω 16:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other side of controversy

I am Pro-eBaum, and I can make this article more neutral by putting up what we believe. Should I do it or not? To see what I'm talking about, look at this thread: (link removed due to it being on the spam blacklist) ZerotigerX 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking no. The Ebaumsworld forum is not a valid source. Just like any other website. I think I remember something like this on the YTMND page, but I can't find it... Mchmike 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you even look at the URL of that link? It's from eBaum's World Sucks Sucks, as you could've plainly seen. Not the eBaum's forums.
And yes, that is in fact a valid source. The thread has e-mails directly from the authors. I'm anti-eBaum, and even I think you making assumptions. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 03:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, unlike some of the stuff on this article, I try to back it up as much as I can. The stuff that I was debunking was real stuff that eBaumsworld Sucks said was stolen. That post doesn't fully explain the other side though, so you might want to check out this. As I back up these statements, I think this is a valid source. ZerotigerX 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I no longer approve of Ebaumsworld nor EBWS, I think the information included should remain with just your site link, because whilst your site's objective may be to prove Eric's innocence, there is little factual information to debate this given the nature of such an undertaking. Aside from the argument between ALtF4 and Eric, which is subjective since most of AltF4's arguments and insults arose from Max Goldberg's earlier clash with Neil Bauman, in which Neil was being the insulter. Other than Eric's comment of theft in the "Dude, That Is So Not Funny" link at the base of the Wikipedia page, no one person can be blamed for the site's use of incorporating unpermissible content. However, it is only natural that everyone directs the blame to Eric because he is the original creator of the site, and should do his best to discourage this kind of act.
Besides, the information presented in the "Controversy" article pertains only to that which is factually known. It doesn't even point out the fact that Michael Parker made the mistake in his Attack of the Show interview, only referring to his statement and nothing more. Furthermore, it does not single out Eric Bauman as an individual, but rather the whole site in general, so for all intents and purposes the entry shows only criticism of the site, whilst the rest is a description of its features and the TV attempt.

Sure, but people are getting terribly mislead here. If Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral in the first place, tells us that eBaum steals, then what's stopping us from believing it? These claims are not backed up and are just clear accusations, and therefore should not even take up 75% of the article in the first place. ZerotigerX 00:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How are they not backed up? You can go look at the original author sites of many of the things on Ebaums, then go to Ebaums and see the stolen, watermarked version. This shouldn't even be open for debate. Jtrainor 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

eBaumsworld sucks has a list of stolen content, yes. However, almost every piece of evidence has the phrase "author not contacted" meaning they don't know if the author is allowing them to have it on their site or not. They simply assume that because its on another site, that eBaum doesn't have permission to use it. Hardxcorey 18:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ebaum's World Sucks Sucks removal

I think the link to the EBWSS site should be removed. I've looked at the site and it has very little content and the forums are almost completely inactive. As it stands now the link is little more than advertisement and it adds no real content to anyone interested in the topic. DarthJesus 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the reason the forums have been inactive is probably because eBaum hasn't been doing anything bad recently, and that is where it would be discussed. Not to mention that most of our content, located in our forums, had been completely deleted in a hacking.

This page is not neutral and I am putting it back in. ZerotigerX

I think my site deserves to be in the article, so quit deleting it. We recently added some content to our main site. Check it out at www.ebwsuckssucks.com/proof.htm. There is some content. Happy now? Now the people should be exposed to a second opinion.

65.122.197.116 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your problem is that you're putting it AFTER the category list instead of BEFORE. When someone does that, it's a sign the person is likely vandalising the page or linkspamming.
Just giving a possible reason. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Machchunk (webmeister), you are the one who is removing it. Why would you need to come up with a "possible reason"? How about you just come out and say "I removed it because...."? Hardxcorey 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
....
What the heck do you mean? I've never removed it. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I say it should stay in there. If we have a link about how ebaums is negative, then one saying its positive should certainly be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikelee (talk • contribs) 00:48, January 3, 2007

I think that is a rather naive approach at "balance." We judge the merits of each potential addition on its own merits and not in some attempt to "balance" articles; that's a misunderstanding of NPOV. --ElKevbo 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those that are removing the site. The site has very little context and it looks like the people posting it in want advertising for the site more than balance. --Wizardman 06:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Despite that, I think it is as valid as EBW sucks. It has the same type proof, albieght a bit less flashy, as EBW sucks.

I agree that EBW Sucks sucks should be removed, since it seems to be non-notable in relation to the controversy surrounding eBaum's World and very light on content. It seems to me like somebody just set it up for advertising dollars and put it on Wikipedia to push hits. (It also seems from the comments that the site's creator added it to Wikipedia himself.) Ebaum's World Sucks IS relevant, though, from what I've seen, since it serves to summarize the argument of critics of eBaum's World, had a fair amount of content and popularity before it was mentioned in Wikipedia (which is not true of the counter-site), and was created by well-known web figures. TankRamp 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PB&J Time

I say we should remove these sentences from the "Features" subheading:

This site also has a very large collection of Flash movies and games from across the internet. Some of the more famous ones are Peanut Butter Jelly Time (despite the creator's explicit statements that he does not want it hosted on eBaum's World [2]), and "Where's Waldo?"

They are completely irrelevant to the topic, and belong in the "controversy" section. Hardxcorey 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a stupid war

Seriously guys, you waste so much time on eachother. Stop burning so much against them, wether or not they steal, this is no reason to make your sites look like fools. Because at this point, you make yourselves look like your firing the first shots of the war by attacking their forums and such. I do agree that they shouldn't steal, but unless you have any ideas on how to stop this, then i suggest shutting up and go do something besides waste time talking here. kthxbye Diggity-diggity-doom 05:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus needed

I would appreciate some opinions on the following:

In December of 2006, eBaum's World posted a video using both a racial slur and stereotype in its caption, describing a caucasian male wearing normal clothes with a cowboy hat as a "drunken redneck." [7] In late December of 2006, eBaum's World used the same racial pejorative in a caption describing an image depicting a toddler held in place against a wall with duct tape.[8]

As you can see, this paragraph has been properly referenced and is NPOV based on the evidence provided by said references. I see no problem reporting facts which are made notable by their nature, that is, a popular website known as ebaumsworld.com is repeatedly using racial slurs. For the sake of credibility, I disclose that I am not white and I harbor no ill will against the website - this is a good faith edit. Since I have now broached this subject on the talk page in an effort to establish consensus, unilateral edits should be avoided. Thanks. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • When commenting, please disclose wether or not you have edited/removed said paragraph at one time or another. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said when I took it out, we only write about subjects because they are notable, not because they could or will become notable.
And about the "reporting facts which are made notable by their nature"; racism might be notable, but that doesn't make everything related to it notable. That's like saying this Flash animation from Newgrounds is notable because the Internet is notable. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 00:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it notable?

You just stated that racism is notable, so why are the categorically racist captions not notable? They aren't "related" to racism, they are what defines it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This isn't like the correlation between notable musicians and their releases. Racism is an idea, and this single case of racism is part of Internet content, which need to be notable on its own under WP:WEB. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Single case of racism:" Michael_Richards. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:WEB is a set of rough guidelines that establishes wether or not the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. It does not restrict how that content is described. Your rigid interpretation of WP:WEB would eliminate a good amount of content in this very article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
(sigh) My point is, has it caused any notable controversy? If it has, can you show us that it has?
See: [9] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
...wait, WP:WEB still applies anyway. Just look at, say, shock site. Goatse and Lemonparty are listed there because they are notable examples of shock sites. In this case, for your paragraph to be added, the content would have to be a notable example of controversy eBaum's has caused. So it is, or it is not? And I'll leave it at that. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 05:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting position; controversial comments do not represent a controversy. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Erm...what exactly do you mean by that? I don't wanna say the wrong thing here. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Bigoted/racist statements are controversial.
  • eBaum's created bigoted/racist statements.
  • Controversy is broken down into controversial happenings.
  • Bigoted/racist statements are controversial happenings.
  • eBaum's created bigoted/racist happenings.
  • Ergo, eBaum's created controvery via its controversial statements. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That's an impressive list of unsupported assumptions... --ElKevbo 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you're going to contradict your own statements, deny cogent logic, and ignore standard definitions, then I can't explain it then, can I? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you purposely ignoring everything we say?
Oh well, I'll take this one at a time.
  • They can be. But has this particular case caused any notable backlash?
  • Well it is humor on the Internet, it's to be expected.
  • Controversial meaning it has caused controversy, not that it is something that could be controversial.
  • Again, they can be.
  • That's just your interpretation, though.
  • ...ONCE AGAIN, can you show us where and when those particular statements have caused notable backlash? --Machchunk | make some noise at me 17:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't when the standards for notability are capricious. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Capricious? You haven't been able to provide one single verifiable citation from a published source supporting your assertions. That's the gold standard in Wikipedia and you have not met it. --ElKevbo 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
eBaum's used an ethnic slur multiple times. The URL where this occurs is cited properly. So far, the first two clauses of this entry are the only "assertions" I have made. The only thing you can question is notability, so continue doing that. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph seems to have too many links anyway. If it turns out that it should, in fact, be included (though I doubt it — I'm sure there are many people that agree with me on this), the links should definitely be toned down to the relevant ones (Racial slur, stereotype, and redneck). --Machchunk | make some noise at me 00:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can it be proven that it's notable?

It's not notable. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that it is notable and should be included. --ElKevbo 01:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If they ever use negro, you'll probably be the first to include it in the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh? What does that have to do with this article or discussion of said article? --ElKevbo 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It's an analogy. If negro was used on eBaumsworld.com, it would most certainly be noted in the article. Well, Machchunk might argue that it was a "single case of racism," while you then claim that I need to prove notability. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I could cut the cognitive dissonance in here with a knife. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
We're not discussing a hypothetical situation. This is not, IMHO, a verifiability issue but the general principle of "if you want it in the article then the burden of proof is upon you" holds throughout most of Wikipedia. I'm not even arguing that the material in question is in poor taste (it's probably not racist but certainly bigoted). But Wikipedia editors do not get to pick and choose what novel facts and interpretations of data to include in articles. If you can cite other reliable sources that make the same claim then it might be worth including (with due weight, of course). Do you have any reliable sources that support your claims or demonstrate their notability? --ElKevbo 02:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course not, we're discussing an analogous situation. As for sources, the links in said paragraph certainly suffice IMO, just as they would if the slur in question was negro. Then again, you don't see my scurrying into an edit war. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The links obviously do not suffice as they do nothing to establish notability. Right now it's only your own personal assertion and that's entirely insufficient for Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 03:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
...which leads back to the negro analogy which has yet to be challenged. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it's inconsequential and meaningless. Stay on topic. --ElKevbo 03:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from a particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. So no, they are one in the same. That is, your argument should still apply as if I was reporting that negro was used instead of "redneck." It doesn't.--Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The argument would apply and I'd have the same objection. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or news and your accusations are thus far unsupported by an outside source. Find a reliable, outside source supporting your accusation and its notability or drop it and move on. --ElKevbo 04:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make any accusations. "Redneck" and negro are what they are. You can question the notability, but that's it. And at that point, I contend that repeated bigotry/racism is notable by itself because it is controversial in itself. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is "redneck" even racist?

If using the word "redneck' constitutes racism notable enough for mention, we could triple the size of Wikipedia by noting uses of that word alone. Haizum, you have no case, just let it go. Philwelch 12:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not really the point. The point is, using the word "redneck" is not a very notable act. Claiming that it's controversial (or even a racist slur) is, well, pushing an agenda. It's not an agenda that's without merit, but it is an agenda. Philwelch 22:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're so unfamiliar with the term. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The term "redneck" is racist in the same sense that the term "thug" is racist. Neither are. Both black and white people can be rednecks or thugs. This information is not notable. Also, it has not caused controversy. This is the first time I've heard anybody mention it. Hardxcorey 01:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're so unfamiliar with the term. Please see Redneck. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You say someone is "so unfamiliar with the term", then you link to an article that never states that redneck is racist? --Machchunk | make some noise at me 02:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a racial pejorative. If you don't think it's even slightly racist, might I suggest you casually refer to a black person as a "blacky" and a hispanic person as a "brownie." Neither of those terms are in common usage, but you will certainly earn yourself a black eye if you decide to use either one. Obviously you won't attempt this because of cognitive dissonance, but that isn't my problem. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
the term redneck is similar to the word cracker.
It helps when you read the article - but I suppose you will deny the nature of the word "cracker" as well. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I said STATED, not IMPLIED. BIG, BIG difference. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
As in, the article never says something like "the term [redneck] is a racist term" (it would never say that anyway, as it's quite POV, but that's not the point), but it only says that redneck is similar to cracker - which is racist. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 05:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

This is kind of beside the point, but first off, Haizum's opinion on this isn't close to widely accepted. Secondly, it makes no sense—if you're prone to use words like "negro", you'd use them to refer to any black person. If you use words like "redneck", you only use them to refer to certain people, like rural Southerners or poor hicks. Donald Trump isn't a redneck, even though Jeff Foxworthy is. Look, Haizum—you got offended when somebody called bullshit on you, but they were right, albeit not as civil as we ideally are. You're pushing a ridiculous agenda. I advise you to find a better way to amuse yourself. Philwelch 05:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, accusing everybody else of ignorance or cognitive dissonance is, well, really fucking annoying and it makes you look like a total prick. I'm going to assume you actually believe this, but you need to realize that you're working against the current of popular understanding, and not accomplishing anything. Put simply, either you're a troll or you're going to be mistaken for one very easily if you don't stop this bizarre crusade. Philwelch 05:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Haizum, it's 4-1. We could debate this into next year, but the fact is, no one else besides you thinks the paragraph should be put in. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 06:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that didactic exercise. You guys really need to work on your rhetorical skills though - it really shouldn't have lasted this long. LOL, come on - it's a two-sentence edit. Be thankful for Philwelch who finally came along and had the gonads to launch some ad hominem attacks to end this thing. I'm honestly no troll, but I was shocked to see the "redneck" edit last as long as it did, so I figured - what the hell, I'll defend it to the death. There's no rule against taking a position on a talk page. Regardless, I do owe you guys some time, so if you need help with a particular project, do not hesitate to call on me; I'm very knowledgeable. Thanks again. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
What, so you were just wasting our time? Philwelch 08:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You only have yourselves to blame really. I wasn't unilaterally inserting my edit, so it's not like anyone had to discuss my proposed edit. The burden was on me to convice you all that it was worth including. A simple, "no, sorry, not convinced" would have been fine, but you all decided to convince me of why the edit should not have been included. I made it clear that I wasn't going to do anything unilaterally, so...here we are. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You did unilaterally insert your edit multiple times, sometimes with edit summaries clearly indicating that you were trying to prove a point or push an agenda ("Site sponsored racism is notable in itself. The outrage comes AFTER the facts are reported."), only to have your edits reverted by different editors. Therefore I don't believe your newfound "Just kidding!" line. If you believe that your actions were wrong, admit it. If you don't, state that you disagree and move on. But in the future, don't be a dick. You disrupted Wikipedia and I'm not even sure you had a point. --ElKevbo 09:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Why spin the facts ElKevbo? Why challenge the incontrovertible history list? I inserted the paragraph twice, if I remember correctly, then made no attempt to reinsert it once it was clear that there were objections. I then moved to the debate to this very talk page. Don't get all bent out of shape because you couldn't shoot down two sentences of trifling information. If it wasn't for Philwelch, I'd still have you discussing this. Furthermore, you can't have it both ways - waving the WP:POINT finger whilst claiming that I embraced my position. The first of said finger waving is just a fat botch because WP:POINT has nothing to do with this; there's no rule against taking a contrary position for the sake of debate- people do it all the time. There's also no rule against defending a position contrary to the defender's own beliefs. Believe me, I read WP:POINT thoroughly in expectation that you in particular would drop a Policy without actually reading it. The second of said finger waving is just laughable - actually claiming that I believe the use of "redneck" is outrageous and warrants inclusion when high standards are applied. My edit history shows a strong resistance to erroneous controvery. Lesson: When a user passively suggests inclusion of content that fails a litmus, you say, "sorry, no" then move along. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, I did name the section "Conclusion". Maybe we should all just stop debating each other's supposed intentions and MOVE ON? --Machchunk | make some noise at me 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I'm starting to have fun again -- but in all seriousness... --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Altho this is dead, wanted to add something. My experience is that it's generally agreed controversies have to be notable. It doesn't matter whether you and I think something should be noteable, all that matters is whether something has became noteable. For reference, editors might want to check out cases like Ann Coulter. Althought some people may say a lot of stupid, offensive things unless what they said is in itself noteable (i.e. has received sufficient attention), the agreement appears to be to exclude it regardless of how offensive it may be 203.109.240.93 16:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

[10] [11], 20th Century Fox [12], and Sega have all claimed that Eric and Neil Bauman have infringed on their copyrights as well. Eric Bauman denies critics' claims that the site's content is stolen, citing research done by site editors and the consent form that must accompany uploads of material. He claims to honor all requests to remove unauthorized material [13], but this is contested by some content creators. In particular, web artist and animator Jonti Picking, was only able to have his animations removed at the beginning of 2006. [14] Bauman has claimed that he formerly worked with Picking, though Picking has stated that this is false. [15] [16]

The text above was removed and I suggest that it have better sources than chatlogs. Even so sometimes the logs themselves fail to implicate anyone based on thier content.

I would love it if someone put the Viacom sease and desist letter in the contreversy section.

[edit] User:Spikelee

Can someone please block this guy so he stops vandalizing the page and removing all controversy? Jtrainor 11:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Machchunk appears to be removing facts wholesale as well. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what?. I haven't removed anything without good reason. In fact, I haven't even removed that much — all that I remember is taking out your paragraph about eBaum's stereotypical comments and the part about Olde English putting out their skits under Creative Commons and the note that it is taken out on the eBaum's version (which seems to be original research anyway, as there's no references and it's written in a "you should know better" tone). --Machchunk | make some noise at me 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
according to the history, Spikelee has approximately 3/4ths of the edits to the page and most of them seem to be him deleting sections. He also describes himself as a member of the ebaum's world forums so he's probably not the least unbiased person around to be editing the topic as he is. I'd revert but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to know what is real and what isn't. --Hansonc 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I leave messages regarding my edits in this section. Consult before jumping to conclusions. --Spikelee 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least use edit summaries? You're making a helluva lot of changes with *no* edit summaries whatsoever. --ElKevbo 19:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
well do.
--Spikelee 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --ElKevbo 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page is long nyo

Can someone archive all the older discussion and keep the new stuff out front? Thanks :) Jtrainor 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Details need to stay.

The main details section should not be taken off, as it is good, unbiased info. Can you please stop taking it off? There is no reason to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.197.110 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Why so short

What happened to this article it is incredibally short, and the controversy section has been reduced dramatically with no timeline of events and no mention of animator vs. animation etc. I say we either lengthen the seciton again or make ebaums world controversy a whole new article.Father Time89 00:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I say we add the main details, the essentials first. 65.122.197.110

syntryman keeps adding information of no importance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikelee (talk • contribs) 19:19, January 17, 2007

[edit] Unclear

In particular, web artist and animator Jonti Picking, was only able to have his animations removed at the beginning of 2006

This isn't particularly clear. When did he first start to try to have them removed? 203.109.240.93 16:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy too high

Why is controversy so high up in the article? Most articles I've seen keep criticism sections as close to the end as possible. The article may not be very big, but I think for the sake of being neutral and not seeming to have an agenda against the site it should be bumped down to being just above the trivia section. Zaron 06:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing because the controversy is the most important thing about the site.--Salty53 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that is true, the site was well known for years before the controversy became an issue. - Zaron 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article in poor shape?

I worked on this article heavily about a year ago, and specifically, I tried to shape the criticism section in to something reasonable -- please, check my edit history on this. However, I'm concerned that things have been a bit too...condensed. There used to be much more information listed under the controversy section, and to my recollection it was sourced. I'm going to take some time in the next few days to get up to speed on the edit history and the talk page traffic so that I can resume an active role in editing this article. One omission that bothers me in particular is the G4 interview, as it's the only mainstream media discussion of the eBaum's World controversy that I'm aware of. Is there a "beautification" effort being undertaken by eBaum's World socks? Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I seem to recall User:spikelee having been a source of problems in the past (though I could be wrong here; if I am, sorry). Would it be possible to bring a moderator in to review his edit history? Based on the numerous warnings posted to his talk page, it seems to me that he should be blocked from editing this article -- or, at the very least, be given an official warning. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert/Edit made

Ok, ive gone through a lot (spending a long time checking eachh one, the author and the content) of the edit history's and selected one by the AntiVandalBot.

I would strongly advise protection for this article (possibly only edits allowed by admins, for at least a month or so, so vandals go away - or for at least a while). Also, how about archiving the talk page as well? Its getting to be quite big.

By the way, there are a few things I missed out from the previous edit - could you put them in (I think its a few links, but not much. Anyway, I got the majority of the good info back, now all that needs to be done is checking with the previous revision and adding in the info that is left out. Timmah01 11:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eBaum adds a quote page

eBaum's World added a page explaining how one can earn more money by adding an eBaum's World logo. It also has quotes from authors. This needs mentioning, I added it at the bottom of the timeline as that would be the best place to put it.

Here is the page: http://ebaumsworld.com/creators —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.197.46 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Why do you guys keep on deleting it? What's the reason?

The fact that you keep making subtle vandalism along with adding this? 1ne 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? I am Pro-eBaum. Why would I add that? Oh, I see the vandalism you are talking about. I did not put that. I only added the bit at the bottom of the timeline. I am sorry for any mix up this has caused you.

Yes, you did add it. See here and here. 1ne 23:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, I am PRO-EBAUM. I am not a hater. I like eBaum's World. i did not, which means that was there during the time of editing. Why would I add a portion that is good for eBaum and bring him down at the same time? It doesn't make sense. Anyways, I put it back in and made sure no vandalism was there.

[edit] STAY!

Fortunately (Unfortunately for those who are still stubborn right now) I also think http://www.ebwsuckssucks.com/ should stay too.

[edit] Racism

eBaum's is now posting racist jokes. Trashing the troops, racism against whites, now racism against Arabs.[17] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They always have, to an extent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.197.46 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Why does the ebaumsworldsucks url keep being removed?

It has always been there, is a valid external site, is well written, and informative. TheGreatZorko 01:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC) See... it has already been removed, and I got a standard warning thing. Please, what does the link do wrong? TheGreatZorko 01:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was taken out because of "Unsourced Critism." (/sp?)

[edit] Article is a little lazy.

There is many things about eBaum's World that is left out, as this article focuses more about the controversy.

-eBaum's World was in VH1's "Big '03" -Launched eMUSE, a video upload service similar to Youtube. -Launched eBaum's World Mobile, offering content for Sprint Mobile Phones.

There is many more important info out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.197.46 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Tell you what, I used to care about editing the ebaumsworld article, but after the pro-ebaum side got so scared by it and started editing it a lot, I stopped caring. Ebaumsworld should have stayed in the protected state for a longer time - given that the article content was a lot more informative than based on biased, and gave ALL SIDES of the story. Note if something is a 'fact' the information cannot come from a source which is biased.

Take ebaumsworld.com and ebaumsworldsucks.com

Supporting ebaum with a link from ebaumsworld.com - and stating that because ebaum said it, its true - is not proving its a fact.

In the same fashion, taking something directly from ebaumsworldsucks.com and citing it as fact without any external sources is also wrong.

The creator of a web-page has a reason to be biased - he would support the own side of the story. If the creator can provide evidence that their claims are true, then this should be cited.

Otherwise, direct quotes from ebaumsworldsucks.com or ebaumsworld.com without any external sources for backup.

Someone took out quite a few links from this article for their own personal reasons to make it look like ebaum had no opposition. Which is clearly not the case. -Timmah01

[edit] ebaumsucks or not?

alright, let's decide on this once and for all. are we keeping ebaumssucks.com on the extermal links section or not? i personally think we should, for obvious reasons, but i also think it is most important now to come to a decision.--Demoncat 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

eBaumssucks.com should stay. eBaumssucksucks.com should go (for reasons already gone over above). Let's not mess about people - the site's a den of stolen goods, and no one can honestly deny that. The Wiki article is as neutral as it can be; does it reflect poorly on eBaum? Sure. But that's just how the facts run. The facts on WW2 reflect poorly on Germany, too... doesn't make them biased or non-neutral, eh? Berym 14:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


alright then, lets put ebaumsucks url on, since we do actually mention it in the article. if you really think it's necessary we could put on ebaumsucksucks, too, but i'm not really sure we need it.
i was also wondering if we should mention lemon demon's song and flash video about ebaumsworld? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demoncat (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Should this article even link to ebaumsworld.com?

Throughout Wikipedia, youtube links continually get removed because they may contain a music video or movie clip, or something that could constitute violating someone's copyright. Since much of the controversy section is about copyright being violated from Internet humor sites to mega corporations like Sega and Sony, should we even link to Ebaums because of their copyright violations?

Is it okay to link to Demonoid even though there are tons of .torrent files that are used to violate copyright? 75.2.29.158 17:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a site that posts links to torrents with content that might violate copyright laws and a site that hosts that content itself. 66.36.139.65 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This part needs to be edited

"On January 6, 2006, eBaum's World hosted and watermarked a Lindsay Lohan montage created by Derek Lutz (a.k.a. YTMND user SpliceVW), while crediting neither he nor YTMND. Users from YTMND responded by disrupting the eBaum's World forums with spam posts and DDoS attacks. On January 10, eBaum's World alleged the attacks were a form of "cyber-terrorism", and on January 11, Neil Bauman stated publicly that arrests were being made in relation to the attacks (though none have been made public as of yet.) Max Goldberg, the owner of YTMND, and Neil Bauman eventually came to an agreement, with Bauman agreeing to remove the montage from his website, and in return, for Goldberg removing any reference to "eBaum" from his website. Despite the resolution, both sites experienced DDoS attacks on the morning of January 12, 2006."


The part that needs editing is the part that says "Users from YTMND responded by disrupting the eBaum's World forums with spam posts and DDoS attacks."

The reason this needs to be changed is because it was more then just YTMND that attacked them.

A quick list from memory of people who attacked them is : YTMND (of course), the GNAA, Encyclopedia Dramatica, 4chan, Newgrounds, Fark, Gaia Online, etc.

[edit] Fact or opinion?

"It is highly controversial for many reasons, primarily due to the fact that content on the website is taken from other sources without permission and rebranded with the eBaum's World logo."

This is not entirely true as one can argue that he gets his content through eMuse submissions. In order to keep this page neutral, it needs to be changed to "allegations."

Actually, a better edit would be to say that "some" or "most" of the content is taken without permission. Jtrainor 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No, the correct thing to say would be something like "many regard the site as controversial; specifically, a demonstrated history of posting content created neither by nor for ebaumsworld.com, and without the consent of the copyright owner, is cited." Alwarren@ucsd.edu 22:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter spoiler controversy

To be added to the 'controversy' section:

On July 21st 2007, many members of the eBaums forums appeared at various bookstores with megaphones and read out leaked "spoilers" from harry potter and the deathly hallows, which was to be released at midnight, to fans waiting in line.[18][19][20][21]

Kevinbacon66 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Only if there's secondary sources reporting that this happened, and that anyone cared. There's enough legitimate stuff for the controversy section that we don't need to go out and do our own reporting. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Those weren't real eBaum's members, though. It's all /b/ and /i/ blaming it on them. 12.218.194.72 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, and it's the same for the Hal Turner raids. Glad to see that "EUBAUMS DID IT!11" works. 83.254.128.123 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is eBaum's World Sucks still up?

Everytime I type in its old and new URL, it can't find the website. Is this website still up, temporarily down, or closed?

It's still up. The URL was changed to www.ebws.com because LC thought it would be easier to remember. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 17:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It's down now, or have they changed the address again? --Execvator (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Bauman

In the timeline, it goes right into talking about some guy name Eric Bauman. Who's that, the founder of the site? The article never explains it. The name redirects right back to this article, and there's nothing meaningful in that redirect's page history (yes, I treat some page histories like articles such as those former Pokemon articles--I still read those in the page histories; lol, the irony). Also, who's Neil Bauman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.57.78 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

- :Ah, never mind, I found out in an old revision of the former Neil Bauman article. This should really be incorporated into the article under a heading like "History" or something.

Eric Bauman has sold the site, shouldn't he have his own page?
76.109.174.103 (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The current material within the article does not support Eric Bauman as being notable outside of association with eBaum's world. If you have reliable sources on which to base a stand alone article , go for it. 207.69.137.25 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Members of 4chan and SA claiming to be from eBaums

I'm not sure if any of you wikipedia editors are aware, but a running gag among members of 4Chan and Something Awful has become to claim affiliation with eBaum's when trolling. The Harry Potter spoiler videos were obviously made by 4Chan members (evident from the Pool's Closed references) and the raid on Hal Turner is a well documented part of 4Chan culture. Look in any of the relevant wikis. It's a way of satirizing the site for claiming ownership of everyone else's material.

The section about Hal Turner at least definitely needs to be changed. Turner himself even later came to realize that several *chan image boards were responsible for the raid, not eBaum's world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.211.137 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Chicks with Douchebags (website) is ripped off by EBaum's world

link to original entry on HCwDB's website Text from the article: Some total assface named Eric "Ebaum" Bauman who runs a site called Ebaum's World actually stole the basic idea of my site for a bit. Without giving me a credit. Pretty ridiculous.

Not only that, he used 25 pics from the site and ran them on "ebaum's world" under the title Hot Chicks with Ass Hats.

Classy.

I've had pics and bits grabbed and used by tons of sites, but so long as they gave me a credit, I was fine with it. Even TMZ gave my site a credit after starting up a "Douchebag of the Week."

So here's to you, Ebaum. Too cool to give a simple credit. Just rewrite the title of my site.

You are a douchebag without hot chick.

May your nuts get roasted on an open fire.

Someone should add this to the Controversies section.

brob (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Italic text