Talk:EBaum's World/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Stop Ebaum from ruining the Internet forums

My opinion on Ebaum, one, needs to stop raiding sites. Someone should sue them for one: Trolling, Two: flooding out the members or our sites, Three: High racism, Four: Abuse to the rules of our sites. One example is emoforums.org. Everyday they are ggetting flooded by Ebaum. WHY? We don't know, according to them they wont stop until all Emos are gone. This is Too much! Somebody needs to get rid of Ebaum, or get them to keep on they're own site. The closest thing emoforums have done is call them a foul word and ban them, Most of the ones Banned are hackers and change they're IPs, GET RID OF EBAUM! This is Insane! Please do something to fix this! They really are pissing people off rather than making everything funny.

This is getting out of hand

I'm losing my patience. There are statements in this article which are clearly not neutral, and people keep reverting any edits removing such statements, calling them abusive. Claiming that statements are factual is not justification for including them; despite the fact that many people are not fond of Eric Bauman, it's not acceptable on Wikipedia to tell people right off the bat that all of the site's content is rebranded. If eBaum's World was not as popular as it is, then surely this article would be more balanced. Wikipedia policy clearly states that articles must represent information fairly, and this is no exception. Something DOES need to be done. 67.164.214.150 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So, by removing valid information that is backed by evidence, we are able to preserve Wikipedia's neutrality... So long as we only remove information that the subject in question would rather not be said? Wikipedia is meant to present facts, information presented in an unbiased fashion. A great deal of the information presented in, say, the controversies section should not be volunteered for deletion simply because they paint EBaum's World in a negative light. If you feel the entries in question need to be edited for sake of NPOV, then reword the article. Don't remove information outright unless you are prepared to cite valid evidence to counter said information here.
There is no imaginary 'scale of neutrality', Mgunit. The good that can be said of Ebaums is little. Should we go and edit such things as articles about genocidal dictators or massacres since they clearly show the people and instances in a negitive light? It doesn't need to be balanced. Only true. --Tiler 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Mess

I'm lost on this "safety not guaranteed" vanadalism. Are they threatening our safety because we are keeping the article limited to actual facts and verifiable information? I hate ebaum as much as the next guy, but these YTMND guys are just as bad, if not worse. I had no clue what YTMND was before this, but their actions here has made me not like them and not want to know them. Threatening safety? yuck. 66.227.204.145 14:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC) --DariusMDeV

You sounded just like Eric and Neal Bauman, except you aren't a high-school dropout who mooches off his kid. --150.216.151.144 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Holy sock drawer, Batman! This is ridiculous. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

They're not threatening safety, they're putting about an Internet fad which contains the words 'safety not guaranteed'.

I find it amusing that you claim that you 'had no clue what YTMND was before this' and yet your utter ignorance about the 'push it to the limit' fad suggest you don't know anything about it even now. It's harmless, and relates to an old ytmnd site that featured a want ad asking for people to travel back in time. The ad goes on to elaborate that the volunteers would be payed upon return and that they would be required to bring their own weapons. Safety was not guaranteed because the person who took out the add claimed to have only done it once before.

Concern over revision/s

I was under an impression that for some time this article had removed the Corporation Template. It seems like someone's knocked this article back some months, well before the split and re-merge of the controversy article. While I personally advocate that the controversy section inform users and potential financiers or backers of eBaum's World, there seemed to be some consensus that it be trimmed. I have long since left the edit war so I don't want to be doing that all over again. Someone more experienced with time on their hands can bring it back to where reason left off. Bilious 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I think there should be some change with the contreversies part of the article. It is very hard to follow and is very biased. I would recommend some kind of sub-categories to improve clarity. --Mushroom King 08:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

...Or maybe they're just assholes

I have no particular attachment to either EBaum's World or Something Aweful, but maybe this case of "POV" is simply that the website in question is one which generates more criticism than respect. In that case, it's not POV, it's just unfortunate fact. --66.229.183.101 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wanlorn- It's true. Ebaum steals.

  • My problem is that there is some POV here and people aren't going to do a thing about it simply because they hate eBaum. Well, I don't really approve of his actions, either, but going out of the way to see how much we can say that he rebranded everything and that all of his actions have got to be "theft" isn't neutral; it's not the Wikipedia way, and not what Jimbo Wales would want. If this is OK, so should the defacing of the article on Osama bin Laden be. 67.164.214.150 06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's theft in a moral sense at the very least as he wasn't given permission by the creators and is unfairly earning money off other people's hard work without giving them credit to boot. Too much of this goes on on the Internet. Bauman is being singled out because he's hands down the most popular "thief" and has an abysmal reputation when it comes to public relations. I agree that the article takes liberties with NPOV and needs to be rewritten to accomodate Wikipedian standards. --Antrophica 16:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Label

I am an external observer on this one, but obviously, this is a NPOV article, if only for lines such as "It is undertermined as to whether or not Bauman was making an anti-Semitic remark, or if he is himself Jewish and improperly invoking a reference sure to be lost on YTMND's users." My initial reaction is that Bauman sounds scummy, but this article comes across more just as a indictment of Bauman than anything. — WCityMike (T | C) 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This IS biased

There is no way that this article could possibly be neutral. If you look at it, there is an imbalance between the positive things about the website and the criticism that has been received. There is a link to a mirror of someone who was banned from the online forums for asking content to be removed, which is blatantly an effort to make people think that he is bad. The link to a parody of him is listed three different times, as well as a rebranded image, and most of the trivia is negative. It also claims that Bauman's taking content from other websites is theft, and in the beginning claims that everything on the website was stolen.

Ebaumsworld.com is one of the most visited websites on the Internet. There can be more said about the website itself than just the people who hate it. Somebody has got to do something about this, as the way that he is portrayed is very unprofessional, and despite whether or not it is true, this isn't the Wikipedia way.

  • I did some editing, but more can be done. People should, as you said, add some more info. Oklonia 06:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good luck thinking of some positive things about eBaum's world.--72.49.62.205
  • Thanks. We can't have the page this way.
  • The idea that this article must shed a light of good favour onto Eric Bauman and his site is a little narrow. If one weighs up his 'good' deeds (namely uh ... making a website with funny things) versus his 'bad' deeds (namely, appropriating those things) one would come to the conclusion that in fact he deserves all the scorn that can be heaped upon him. You dispute that it is theft, but what else is it if Ebaum takes this content then 'brands' and serves it for his own lucrative gain? The negativity did not spring up out and imagine itself into existence! It was brought about by a sustained effort by the site to sully itself by misdeed! I challenge you, if you will, to add whatever positivity you can to the article. Bilious 16:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Although I found the soundboards quite amusing, I do think it has some morbid humor. The fact is, Bauman goes to extreme lengths to amuse himself, and others, and does crazy things just to get a laugh. So, not surprisingly, this article may not balance out, because there are not many good things to say about the site because of its content, which unfortunately, is bad. They have made fun of Sikhs www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/dirtyturban.html and receive tons of hate mail monthly. They have also featured a boy getting an erection www.ebaumsworld.com/bonerized.html, which is also very, very innappropriate. The site has also demeaned and made fun of people with Epilepsy www.ebaumsworld.com/epilepsy.shtml, and the overweight population. So while the site provokes laughs, it is very offensive to anyone, whether they be a religious minority, or a pre-teen boy, I am not surprised if this article has broken the NPOV policy. And if it is POV, someone did it very slyly, because it is sure organized to look as if it isn't. I'm quite sure this man has offended every minority and every person in some way, or would, if that person ever came across it. Эйрон Кинни 07:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes, there's only so many positive things you can say about something. You can't expect to come up with as much good as bad for, say, Adolf Hitler. I'm not comparing Bauman to Hitler; I'm just using that as an extreme example of the facts dictating a negative POV. Chiphead 02:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I can think of plenty of good things that Hitler did. Eric Bauman is another story. 68.206.21.37 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The man is a thief, plain and simple. Klosterdev 23:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, Godwin's law! ;) This all really depends on your perspective. eBaum's World has brought hilarity and delight to Internet users in a single place - the positive being convenience, the negative being the whole... alleged theft thing. Evergreen98 01:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't be serious. Bringing "hilarity and delight to Internet users in a single place" is not an excuse for rebranding other people's creative works. Permit me an example: what would you think if someone collected all the greatest paintings in the world, the Mona Lisa, Monet's, Rembrandts, etc; put them in their private museum; scratched out the artists names, and painted their own over the top; then charged admission or presented advertising right next to the paintings; and made their living by doing this? And when the original artist asked the paintings to be taken down, was summarily ignored, insulted, and flamed? Would you still think it is alright, because everything is in a single place? 67.103.171.2 04:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That came off fairly inaccurately - I was trying to maintain neutrality. I definitely do NOT agree with the theft of copyrighted work and I'm personally against the entire eBaum's World concept. You don't need to preach to me here - it's hard to walk the line here. 24.43.3.150 04:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

"Ebaum's world forum registration was still disabled 4 days after users from Something Awful invaded it to mass request their original work be removed from the site, after emails from the owner of Something Awful were ignored. The original content was never removed and eBaum inserted malicious code into the main eBaum's page to cause DDoS attacks on Something Awful's forums. Registration on the forums has since been opened again." -If I remember correct the majority of the users who invaded were there in an attempt to take down the forums, and post spam, and the regular "forum invasion" pictures. Also, forum registration remains closed.

Ebaum in general is a bloated, putrid scab on the surface of internet humor. The man needs to feel what it is like for some of his rare "originial" content to be stolen. I seriously hope he learns his lesson and stops acting in this manner.

I don't see anything wrong with documenting criticism of Ebaum's World on the Ebaum's World encyclopedia entry, as long as such criticism is simply reported rather than stated as fact. ChaseVenters 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This is entirely insane. SA started a fight with EBW today by invading, which they have done to a number of other forums / blogs / online jounals, and now they are vandalzing the wikipedia entry. The link at the bottom (Crediting Somethingawful as a source for "A lot of ebaumsworld material") is entirely opinion and false. Out of the thousands of files on EBW, maybe .0000001% originated from SA. The article makes frequent claims to "Some people" this is far too vague, if they are going to post it in this place they need to have sources for these claims, with proof of copyright. In the sections talking about the content and it's sources "all of which is from other websites) is false, as EBW licenses the majority of its content. Also the line about the forum "other great subforums" is also opinion and should be changed to reflect a neutral point of view. Also I would like to see a source for Baumans claim that "most everything on the internet is public domain"

Though this isnt the place for this, I find it very hypocritical that SA admins cry foul to their site being taken down, after hosting an invasion which caused a loss of service for ebw forums. In the end, wikipedia admins, please make this article more neutral, thank you - MG

Ebaums is nothing but a thief. Perhaps his site currently wouldn't be overrun by goons if he hadn't decided to steal other people's hard work and remove the watermarks, just like he does with everything else on his site. Don't pretend Ebaums is innocent here, because he deserves every bit of what he's dealing with right now. Do not compare Somethingawful to Ebaums-- Somethingawful produces entirely original material, whereas Ebaums steals everything it can. Jtrainor 02:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting this page, and on behalf of SA I apologize for the few bad apples who thought it would be hilarious to vandalize the entry. -MrPhaethon

It's not neutral at all now - anon

This article doesn't exactly sound neutral to me, I get the feeling that it is condemning eBaum's World and saying he is nothing but a thief. I'm sure there is truth to that, but it should be presented in a more matter-of-fact manner. -Eszett posting as 65.170.120.116 13:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of "thief", really. I put in his side of the argument; does that make things more neutral?DS 17:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm pretty sure that material on the internet isn't automatically public domain, some smartey legal person should post a refutation of eBaum's claim that it is. RMG 20:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone point out where eBaum ever claimed that everything on the net is public domain, or even everything on his site? I'm not sure a public statement has been let out on this matter?

Someone should put this guy behind bars, where he belongs. [maestro] 10:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

RMG, you're correct that material on the internet isn't automatically public domain. In fact, nothing is public domain except a) items that are specifically intended by the creator to be public domain, and marked as such; and b) items that have existed for so long that copyright has run out. When exactly copyright runs out depends on the country of origin and the date of creation, but in any event we're talking 75 years or more, so anything created on the Net will automatically be under copyright unless the creator specified that it would be public domain.

- User:watsondog 13:20, 31 August 2005

I can get in touch with azuretek if you would like, although I generally don't like talking to him, and there really isn't much more to say about his (factually incorrect) opinions on copyright law. --69.229.234.154 21:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This page got a link on the Something Awful Forums so it might be getting some vandalism. The last couple seem to be ok, it a little on the biased side. Personally I think there is pretty overwhelming proof he profits from stealing other people's copyrighted works and that should be left in.

Guys we're not a court, we're an encyclopedia. Try to document accusations made by others, rather than accusing Bauman directly in the article. --Weevil 21:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm willing to get a quote straigt from azure, but the total jackass he's made of himself is archived somewhere on SA's forums anyways, so I don't really see the point. --69.229.234.154 21:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, not everyone has a forums account. You should post a screenshot of what he posted. -- Wells
This is a screenshot of a quote from ebaumsworld.com programmer azuretek: Image:Azuretek.png It can be found at archives.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?postid=295777384&highlight=#post295777384 if you have an account. The thread he was replying to regarded the film mentioned here: emptv.com/ebw.html (mirror of thread on ebaums forums which they opted to delete instead of complying or responding to the legal request) The film still hasn't been removed from www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/schfiftyfive.html Quadpus 01:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to do much work to see examples of blatent copyright infringement. For example, I guarantee that Sega, Inc. didn't give permission for him to use their products in the promotion of his website: www.ebaumsworld.com/monkeyball.html CrazyLittle 06:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

(just a little note, you guys should probibly check that link /monkeyball.html... they know you guys are looking at it..)

To make that worse game download levels from Sega's servers, I reccomend contacting Sega and complaining 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ebaum regulalrly chops up images and removes copyright watermarks in order to hide the true owners of an image. This has happen many times. Someone could probably show proof by going into the internet archive and pulling an image from the stolen site with the original watermark in-tact before it was posted on ebaumsworld. I don't have the time to do this, but maybe someone else could. -- Bondgamer

This article has neutrality issues alright -- it's too pro-eBaum's world sided. It's ironic that you're all so NPOV obcessed that you manage to hold a POV by removing the references to content being stolen. Bauman steals all of his content and rebrands it, he doesn't "take it", since he refuses to take down media even when he's notified. And now, I'm going to be completely ignored just because I didn't bother logging in. Damn you, wikibots and your elitist, Mr. Spock attitude. ~ 213.146.205.95 18:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that even though some strides have been made to make this article neutral, it is still filled with misconceptions, and in some places outright lies. The decompiling of flash part.... I havent seen this, nor has any real proof of this been posted. Also why are the claims of theft allowed to be posted if they are not proven to be fact? Until Bauman is convicted of stealing content (dont give me the "The victims are too small" excuse, what about viacom. What about lawyers that will work for a small fee up front, and for a percentage of the take?)

"Also why are the claims of theft allowed to be posted if they are not proven to be fact?"
Do you honestly believe that eBaum creates every single image, flash and video on his site?
The point is that most, if not all of eBaums content is stolen, and denying that only shows your ignorance. You can argue it's not illegal, you can say whatever you want but in the end it is all stolen content and on the wikipage it should say that.
They have been proven to be fact when photoshops made by SA members have shown up at eBaums and the members confessed they did not give Eric Bauman the right to host those images. Gasic 04:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, and while we're at it, while SA is commendable in the sense that they use their resources to collect funds for charity, and positive in the sense that they create their own content, you could also put down some negative sides on their part such as the fact that each day they harass some inept or crazy person on the internet by providing a lot of traffic to their websites consisting of people who will hostilely contact them with their awful site listings. Not to mention, that even when somebody requests their site to be removed, something awful will not do so, even though they're profiting off of people who like looking at those terrible websites. What other site does that sound like? So in a sense, something awful is not exempt from these exploiting other people to make profit crimes that they're accusing ebaumsworld of. And since the issue of money is brought up over the principle of the thing, it seems to me like all this is is jealously on their part. Which isn't to say I excuse ebaumsworld, but this is all ridiculous. And while we're at it, let's not forget that members of a firearm forum on somethingawful did give information to what, an obviously autistic person in L.A. about how to purchase shotgun ammo larger than birdshot, which he then proceeded to buy and use to kill two people and wound another in his neighborhood, then commit suicide? The somethingawful community is hardly a saintly group of individuals who are being exploited.

I assume you're talking about the ALODs? Your argument is ridiculous. Somethingawful does not profit off of people visiting other sites. Somethingawful is primarily a site that promotes comedy, the ALOD is there to highlight ridiculous sites. I don't know where you're getting this information from, but it's wrong, how can somethingawful profit off of people visiting their ALODs? Is there proof that someone actually used the forums for advice on how to kill people? Somethingawful is not angry at ebaums because they're "exploiting people for profit". They're angry because ebaums steals content, removes any exisiting credits or watermarks and then slaps their own on it. They gain thousands from stolen content. Would it be fair if you were an artist and I stole your work and wrote my name on it and proceeded to sell it for $500,000? Gasic 02:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay I suppose it was a bit of a tenuous argument, but the point I was trying to make was that it was one of the features of the website, that attracts some people to visit, and in turn SA collects ad revenue. Just as the features on ebaumsworld attract visitors to that site and in turn the site collects ad revenue. Now I suppose if SA somehow contacted each alod member and cut them a 5 or 10 dollar check for their troubles they would be beyond reproach, or if they removed the alod sites at the owner's requests, which is something they accuse ebaum of not doing themselves. It's not the same degree as to what they say ebaum is doing, but it seems almost the same in spirit. As for the case of the murderer, to be honest he did go to other firearms forums and could have carried out his deeds without SA, however, he did acquire the neccesary information on how to acquire larger shotgun rounds from SA's forums themselves. He was forum user forbiddenforum who was permabanned on 11/02/05. If you are able to look it up in SA's records it will say he murdered two then himself. I'm having trouble finding the news articles related to the incident, but rest assured even without me being able to locate them due to my own ineptness with search engines they're out there somewhere.
  • I have made some changes in terminology(for instance, replacing the term "point out" with "alledge") that I feel greatly increase the neutrality of the article in general. I have also deleted a couple of blatantly biased statements in an effort to further "neutralize" the entry. I would finally like to point out that most of the content on the page that would make it biased is under the "Controversy" heading, which is meant to display the opinions of those in conflict, as well as the information that supports those opinions. Since the the amount of information in support of eBaum's's critics is substantially larger than the amount of information in support of eBaum's, it makes a certain degree of sense that more of the entry would then be devoted to opinions in opposition to eBaum's. Ranmoth 01:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in protected article...

"In the forum there are areas to post pictures, videos, and high scores for games (among other great subforums)"

I personally feel the word "great" should be removed. It's a classic opinion, not a fact. -GregNorc (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I like how the page has been protected in a form that removes any and all criticism of Ebaums. Jtrainor 02:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You will note from Wikipedia policy that page protection does not endorse the present version of the article: if you don't like what is written there, discuss it here, and don't accuse of favouritism in Wikipedia where none exists. -- Francshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000 00:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, fine. I suggest that when the page is unprotected, a section entitled "Criticism of Ebaums" be added, where his theft of other people's work can be documented. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who have had stuff stolen by him that would LOVE to speak up. Jtrainor 02:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Its not a tool for getting even. Its an encyclopedia. It is enough to acknowledge that Ebaum stole content; its not necessary to document every instance. -- Bubbachuck 02:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
However, if the article claims that eBaumsworld has appropriated material, it is almost a requirement that there be an external link documenting this or citing an external source, so that the article maintains a NPOV. If the article is going to make a controversial claim, then it ought to cite a source. --Zippy 05:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a quote from a forums complaining about eBaum's: "The well and very often made point is that they're not just hosting other people's intellectual property, they're doing it without their consent, whilst making money by doing so, and finally they often even have the audacity to imply it was their own material."

Not quite NPOV enough, I think - can anyone reword it? DS 19:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ebaums is known for hosting other people's intellectual property without their consent, while making money by doing so, and claiming it is their own material."

That's a bit better. Jtrainor 21:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Known by who for stealing content?

How about:

eBaum's World hosts other people's intellectual property without their consent, while making money by doing so, and without providing the proper credit to the orignal creator.

Really, why? Call a spade a spade. This is copyright theft by any normal definition; if they did it to a record company they'd have a lawsuit in seconds. Rsynnott 11:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Something funny

Ok, this will contribute absolutely nothing towards improving the page, but it's so brilliantly funny, I just got to post this link www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=276616, though I must warn it may not be safe for work (I think it is, but others may disagree). Cheers!--Vertigo200 14:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget, it's all in the name of good humor.

And Neil keeps on delivering quality music. You can download the MP3 at www.ebaumsworldsucks.com/ --BodyTag 13:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Very funny! I guess there is an internet war going on between ytmnd and ebaums. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.-- Mimbster 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested addition

I suggest adding the following as a new (additional) second paragraph:

As of early 2005, the site was getting 1 million hits a day, had more than 50,000 registered members, and was ranked as one of the top 500 sites by Alexa, a company that tracks websites. Its loyalists are mostly 18- to 34-year-old males in the United States.

And this as a link:

www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050205/BUSINESS/502050313&SearchID=73198753940248 Class clown now nets 1 million hits a day: eBaumsworld.com goes from prank to profit, Amy Wu, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, February 5, 2005


-I agree that this should be added. It will make the page seem less biased. ~Jade -I agree that this should be added, it is important, for those finding out about all this controversy to realise why it is that so many people care, though the financial information helps that. ~Garg

Also, shouldn't the "as of November 2005" be updated?

Retaliation from Something Awful

I think this should be added

"On November the 4th, Lowtax of somethingawful.com made a post requesting a massive forum invasion on eBaumsworld, stating that he had crossed the line by using malicous javascript to make requests to Somethingawful.com's servers which eventually caused some bother (fixed).

The forum invasion went ahead, within an hour ebaumsworld forums were near crippled as 2000+ goons mass registered and flooded the forums with large scale spam and such, bringing the forum server to crippled state. The mods couldn't clean up the mess as fast as it was being made, so they disabled registration and banned all users involved in the attack, but not before the forum server went down. As of 4 days later, registration is still disabled.

This is not the first time Somethingawful has gotten mad with eBaumsworld. They have constantly complained about the content made my by "Goons" being stolen from the site and had the now infamous ebaumsworld watermark pasted over the somethingawful.com URL. Infact it was such a routine thing that one time someone forgot that there was a transparant somethingawful grenade still on the image when it was posted on ebaumsworld, a clear indication of the blatant theft.

As a way of spreading the message, www.ebaumsworldsucks.com www.ebaumsworldsucks.com was created and is being spread as far as possible, even in ebaumsworld's chat room."

Note - this section was just blanked by an anonymous user. I reinstated the section, not because I agree with it, but because I do not feel that discussion should be deleted without, well, discussion. --Zippy 06:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

--Your facts are skewed. Lowtax sponsored the invasion BEFORE any accusations of "malicious code" were brought up.

Yes, but to be fair Lowtax sponsored the invasion after eBaums repeatedly ignored requests by Lowtax to remove the copyrighted material. This invasion was in response to the many cases of stolen content. All removal requests were ignored.
I think it's your facts that are skewed. The images in question were actually 4 years old. A forum member brought it to the attention of GBS and Lowtax, and Lowtax sent the word to invade less than 3 hours. Certainly not a reasonable period for Ebaum to remove the offending (and forgotten) images.
Furthermore this garbage about goons "mass requesting" the images be removed on their forums is ridiculous. There was little requesting and more outright unfunny idiocy that goons can't seem to stop doing, plus several members (like GBSTV faggot Putnam) took it upon themselves and others to DDOS Ebaums by posting scripts to do it. This article is heavily biased. --Diafel 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Using inflammatory words such as garbage and unfunny idiocy, and calling other people names (GBSTV faggot), leads one to believe that you, in fact, are the one with the bias issue; there is no need for such trollish commentary on Wikipedia. --67.103.171.2 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Added info under Something Awful about Bauman's newest legal threats towards ebaumsworldsucks.com forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1772456&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 Xombie 22:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring to bring closer to NPOV

I just did a fairly major restructuring of the article (with very little rewriting) in order to make the article more balanced. I moved the criticisms into their own section (they were scattered throughout the article before) and also gave the Viacom dispute its own section. I did some rewriting of the text only to make it clearer and easier to read -- I've tried not to change the content of the criticisms or the description of the site too much.

I think the article is improved now, but it needs a long way to go. I would very much like some citations to external sources describing the site, the criticisms, and the Viacom deal. If people post cites here, I can put them into the main article. --Zippy 06:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest changing "Critics of the site say that all of the content" be changed to "Critics have pointed out that almost all of the content". There is no debate to be made about the content of Ebaums-- 99.99% of it is stolen from other sources. This is easily verifiable.
To me, the two statements say nearly the same thing, "critics (say / have pointed out) (all / almost all) of the content ..." --Zippy 07:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, if it's the same to you, then humor me ._. Jtrainor 07:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I see the distinction now. In the existing sentence, Critics say it's stolen, in your version, they point out the fact that it's stolen. I am not comfortable putting in the second version, if only because I can't link to something that supports the claim that the content is in fact stolen. This claim is in disputed (by Bauman), and Wikipedia is not the place to settle this dispute. The best we can do is to document the dispute and provide the best evidence to readers.
That said, I think readers will have little problem understanding the dispute if there's sufficient evidence supporting the argument. --Zippy 16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
How about the GI Joe PSA's, made by Fensler Films? Fensler took them down from his own site after receiving a request from Hasbro, but the rebranded versions (and isn't there something about how the procedure for adding a watermark image to a video file lowers the quality?) - described as "our Public Service Announcements" are still up on [www.ebaumsworld.com/gijoe.html eBaum's], along with a link to their own cease-and-desist notice from Hasbro (which eBaum's is openly ignoring). Saying "we want to thank Fensler Films for creating these" on the one hand, and describing them as "ours" on the other... I'm also trying to get Jonti Picking to go on the record about his own complaints. DS 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Corporate Information

Should we include a part about the corporate information regarding Ebaum's World? I mean, a small comparison with similar sites, Newgrounds, Somethingawful, Miniclip... shows no equivalent and, quite honestly, I don't see the point of having it here.--Vertigo200 01:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Section about dispute between SA and eBW?

It occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to have a section summarizing the evident dispute between eBW and SA. There appears to be a lot of misinformation floating about from both sides. Does someone with to draft a section here? A good place to start would probably be when the image in question was first created. I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the issue. 07:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's fairly simple. Ebaums World stole images and flash animations from Somethingawful, removed the watermarks, replaced them with their own, then added a script to their front page to attempt to DDoS Somethingawful. That's pretty much why there's a dispute. Jtrainor 21:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

'Pursuit Force' advert stolen by eBaum's

This MUST be added.

www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/copisinsane.html

This video here is an advert for a game on the PSP called 'Pursuit Force'. However, eBaum has edited it by removing the title at the end, and slapping on his logo on the bottom. This elaborates on the fact that eBaum's World steals most of 'their' work. The company (bigbig, I believe) should really file a lawsuit or something. The URL to the orignal with ending credits here posted here:

gameads.gamepressure.com/tv_game_commercial.asp?ID=3188

Verify/NPOV/Cleanup

What is the source on the employee count and owning an office building? And is the office building owned by the corporation or one of the directors/founders/owners? And what does "own" mean in this sense? Including the purchase price of the building offers indications about the corporation's revenue, but if depending on the payment structure, that could be very misleading, especially if the company isn't the one purchasing the property.

All the references to the founder as the operator of the site and sole contributor seem to contradict the 20 employees count. Additionally, it seems that the vast majority of stories (which aren't even encyclopedic to begin with) have real NPOV issues and were likely written by the site's owner. Dbchip 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 1

I DONT REALLY KNOW WHERE TO PUT THIS, HOPEFULLY SOMEONE CAN HELP ME OUT: eBaums world also needs to maintain a level of proffesionalism when dealing with their problems. I was trying to spread the word about the illegal actions of the site in their forums, and this is what i recieve from an admin: jamiemillar.com/jamiedump/banned.JPG

/\---professionalism? they're all volunteers, and what you all were doing was technically illegal. so why are you complaining?

Is that the kind of people who run those forums? That could be used as evidence as to what's wrong with the site. I don't think there is a POV problem in the article. Parts of it aren't written very well, but it just needs cleanup, and maybe a few more sources cited. eBaumsWorldsucks.com has quotes from many people whose work was published there without credit and without their permisson (as well as ignored requests to have them removed), and maybe links to the Something Awful updates explaining what happened. Chiphead 18:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding more unverified information is not the solution to fixing this article. Dbchip 19:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Current Protection

The site is currently under semi-protection due to rash vandalism due to the "attack" or "raid" on eBaums World. This is a good time to remind all that Wikipedia is not intended as a resource to "recruit people" to "attack" a website. If you have a meaningful edit to add to this article, check back later and the restriction should have been removed. Thank you. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 07:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Attention all people from YTMND, 4chan, SA, LUE, LL, AP, eBaum's, etc. Do NOT recruit soldiers here. If you want to do something to the Wiki, then go to my talk page and give me updates. If you guys somehow break the Internet, I'll write your article. - CorbinSimpson 08:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (PS: 402!)

Something Awful has absolutely nothing to do with this current circumstance. Neither SA nor the SA forums are involved in any way with this illegal action. To imply such without facts is not only irresponsible, but grossly misinformed. BallSack 14:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Something Awful was involved. It was posted on the forums and stayed there almost the entire night. No doubt many of the invaders were from Something Awful. Proof of the involvement can be found in the "Ebaums World Raid" thread currently in the Something Awful gassed topic something awful forum.
Just to be clear, the thread was informing goons of the invasion, not recruiting. A massive majority of the responses assumed that it was a call to arms and mocked it as such. Even when the poster clarified his position, goons still attacked the thread as a call for a forum invasion, and the thread was gassed because such calls are against forum rules. SomethingAwful was not involved.
Something Awful has been stolen from by eBaum's, therefore Something Awful is inherently involved in the situation regardless of the number of users from Something Awful that are invading (assuming that there is at least 1 invader from Something Awful, something that we can generally agree is true.) and to say otherwise is to say that YTMND is not involved (even though not all of YTMND users are part of the invasion)
Just to say that 4chan is an anonymous imageboard without registration; while there may have been recruiting in the Random board it was not sanctioned at all by the moderators. 4chan does not support or condone forum invasions or DDoS attacks. That having been said... a good number of /b/tards were part of the raid, although YTMND and 4chan share some userbase.66.31.101.67 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Anonymous 4channer

Sign your comments, please. If you have anything at all that is verafiable, then put it on User:CorbinSimpson/eBaum with a link and a signature. If there's enough information, I will compile it into a new article. - CorbinSimpson 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I really love seeing how Wikipedia [admins or whatever] give up and remove an entire section about a relatively remarkable event ("YTMND war"). If you consider this a "tool to recruit", then why won't you remove anything related to "crime" or "bad"? Since after all, providing neutral pov information just for the sake of being an encyclopedia may propagate recruits, so dicussing about pinging a server cluster is by far worse than a terror attack. Yeah, right. --84.249.252.211 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Request to change statement about forum hacking

I'd like to add that the following statement needs to be changed: "However, this did not stop the forum hacking which eventually redirected the forum to YTMND or porn or some points."

The forum was redirected to YTMND *only* during this time. I and several others who were viewing the forums at the time in question were able to verify this on a 5 minute window for about 6 increments of every 5 minutes. After about 30 minutes, the forums, as a whole, appeared to be deleted the hour and a half or so that it took for the forums to come back up appeared to be a restore from a backup. Just prior to the redirects there were two topics whose titles were changed, one demoting ebaumsworld and the other promoting YTMND. The grammar here should be fixed as well. Just change it so that there is a period after YTMND. Thanks.

It should also be noted that some of the attacks are the most organized many have ever seen any Internet group perform.

Other things to make this complete are the following: prankradio called Kelli Rinaudo's (his GF/co-worker, see: www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050205/BUSINESS/502050313&SearchID=73198753940248 ) cell phone and got information that said her voicemail was full after someone did a google search and posted Eric Bauman's home information. The prank radio goons then proceeded to order Eric Bauman some pizza while some IRC users in #ebaum on ytmnd.com planned sending flowers to him with an apology for hacking/deleting the forums.
I registered an account to correct the line above and am finding out now that new users cannot fix this page. Can someone at least remove the "or some points" part? That makes this page look very unprofessional. It looks as if whoever was updating it just stopped midsentence.

Ebaum removed from friends

I just had a looksee over at fark.com and noticed that the link to ebaumsworld under the 'site friends' side tab had indeed been removed. Possibly retalitory? A big coincidence because according to the artilce users of YTMND were recuiting users of various websites, one of them being fark. --guest--

I e-mailed Fark's admin Drew to ask him why ebaumsworld was a friend on Sunday, in light of the events and the fact that fark.com is a banned word on ebaumsworld (as reported in this article). He said didn't realize that last part. I think you're right and it was removed as of Monday morning. No idea how many others e-mailed him, possibly a few. I think this might be worth editing the article about. Stevemcl 16:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: eBaums world still has Fark as under "Great Sites" on their frontpage. 68.84.210.75 05:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Luelinks?

doesnt exist foo

This is Wikipedia, not Whatever-you-want-reported-pedia, so "secret" websites such as LUELinks, WDMA and GSD do indeed exist, and we can make articles about them if they are verifiable and notable. Ashibaka tock 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ADD LUELINKS!!!! They deserve credit.

Warning Message

Any chance we can rephrase or remove the 'no recruit' warning message. It sounds really rude and snarky--Virulent 78 02:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that it is needed (or useful) right now. Removing. Ashibaka tock 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Article on eBaums invasion

I found an article earlier detailing the attacks on the eBaums site as they happened. Would the link to mk.pupiljuice.com/raidnews/ that article be appropriate for addition to this Wikipedia article under the External Links Section? CeeWhy 04:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

LUEbaumsLAND

In response to the accusations that Eric Bauman steals content from other sites, a user at LUElinks put forward the idea to create a site which completely mimic's eBaum'sWorld except it gives credit to the authors of the content.

From the user "PillarOWang": someone should make a site with all of the ebaum's material, putting new watermark over the old one, and start getting ad revenue for it. Since the guy stated that he believe everything on the internet should be of the free domain, then thre's no reason for him to take any action.

The idea was received extremely well by the community and within minutes, the user "Jezterman Exe" annoucned that he has applied for the site www.luebaumsland.com and he will attempt to follow-through on the idea.

Eric Bauman Responds

There is now an official response from Bauman on his web site. www.ebaumsworld.com/response-01-10-05.html The Wikipedia article has been updated to reflect his response and views on how he uses the content on his site. He gives a link to a definition of Cyberterrorism from a non-government site www.crime-research.org/library/Cyberterrorism.html whose definition of "cyberterrorism" differs greatly from the Wikipedia article. While Eric Bauman neither mentions YTMND nor Lindsay Lohan, he does provide a vague link to the animation in question (albeit his own watermarked one).

His claim of vandalism is technically true but without merit - the vandalism consisted of two pieces of paper being taped (scotch tape) onto the front door of his 'corporate HQ'. There are pictures if you can find them but the ytmnd that showed this was deleted (the image is here: img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ebaumshouse5wt.jpg). FireballX301 01:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As an addition to the above, the vandals were two users from LUELinks who decided to do this. Kyre Elsion 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maker of the animation sends C&D, apparently

"I am now sending a formal cease and desist letter via certified mail."

from ytmnd.com/sites/profile/190419, comments section. Maybe this should be added to the article when unprotected? Tokakeke 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should be added

Please sign your comments, lol. Ebaums sent a "cease and desist" (not saying what it was asking Max to cease and desist) and Max wrote back. See it here: ytmnd.com/news/?news_id=17 Tokakeke 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This information has been added. I am trying to get as much information from the YTMND user as I can. All information I got so far is now in the article under "YTMND" at the bottom. Supposedly lots of other people are now doing the same (sending C&D letters to get that ugly watermark off of their copyrighted works) but since there's no hard evidence or even a testimony I'm not including any other information. --Tokachu 20:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish cup?

Is this genuinely an anti-semitic remark? I think someone knowledgeable in Jewish idiomatic language ought to weigh in on this. --24.98.104.114 22:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

After some google searching and sifting, I found www.evangelist.org/archive/htm2/0426riit.htm this article, which seems to indicate that it's an expression for someone's "head for business". I think it's quite likely that this is not an anti-semitic remark, but merely an expression used by one Jewish man criticizing another, albeit one unfamiliar to many readers. --24.98.104.114 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been wondering what that meant. Didn't stop us from taking the piss about it though. I wouldn't have suspected antisemitism or anything though, them both being jewish. assuming max is, that is. --ReidComyn 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This article has lost it's Yiddish cup. - Ferret 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed a falsehood

As of late January 11, 2006 Eric Bauman agreed to remove the image after receiving a cease-and-desist letter via certified mail claiming he had, in fact, violated U.S. Copyright Law.

I removed that part. I work at eBaum's world, and we recieved no such letter. We recieved an email last night, verified that it was the original creator, and the image was removed then. We have since been in communication with the original creator.

I wont touch the rest of the article, even though there is an extreme bias towards anti-ebaumsworld people. (unsigned comment: 23:49, 11 January 2006 User:Mgunit )

Your own bias would make this edit rather suspect, especially when considering allegations against those who work at eBaum's. Xombie 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree, it is your own bias that makes this edit suspect. For instance, I notice that you have a version of the main eBaum's article on your user page. I found this quote particularly enlightening: "This section of the site houses several of the internets best known flash movies. Of the most popular, "Banana Phone", "End of World", "Peanut Butter Jelly Time", and "Everyone Has More Sex Than Me". It is updated almost weekly due to the plethora of flash animations available on the net." --67.103.171.2 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much every Flash animation (and picture) is from somewhere else. Clear Channel has to pay royalties; why doesn't eBaum's World? I would feel really sorry if someone filed a DMCA complaint against eBaum's World, since their lack of accountability logs would probably make you liable for losses. Also, cocks. --Tokachu 00:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AUTO. I really don't think it's appropriate for someone involved in this matter to be editing this page, especially because of its controversial nature. --Cyde Weys votetalk 05:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree, the edits on this article should be reserved for the casual observer, who, as individuals, maintain the cappacity to be deterred and reasoned with by other observers. In this case, (especialy in cases as sensitive as this) you, as an employee of Mr. Baum, should be able to appreciate just how serious these accusations are, and should be wary of the immage you project about your employer by attempting to edit the article. Wikipedia does not represent a definitive play-by-play of these messy affairs, and would be better served to simply abstain from further edits of this article untill the nonsence is settled.

However, I do agree in regards to the general bias present in the article. There are several mentions of the various confrontations between Ebaum's and it's supposed victims in the main article, these should be integrated approrpriately into the controversy section.

I am the one who added that information, since according to the content owner (SpliceVW) he did, in fact, send a C&D. If you haven't gotten it yet, you'll get it soon. In related news, I've seen firsthand the total disregard for respecting the original artists' content on eBaum's World. Your (eBaum's World) disregard for U.S. copyright law (and credit in general) is made incredibly prevalent by your "Legal" page. --150.216.5.102 21:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I did not edit any other parts of this article (however filled with falsehoods it may be). Until you guys can verify that these things are happening I think a LOT of things should be changed in this article. Off the top of my head here is one that you can experience for yourself. Fark.com, and somethingawful.com (in the trivia section) are NOT word censored on the ebaum's world forums. Mgunit 03:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to verify that, your company isn't letting anyone on to the forums. I registered just before this all happened, and my account was banned for no reason. Face it - your company sucks. 03:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You sound like a very neutral source on this. Mgunit 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not. I'm not editing the article either. 05:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Before some threads were deleted there was in fact proof that the words "somethingawful" were censored. In a thread where someone tried typing out www.somethingawful.com it came out as www.**************.com - In that same thread Mgunit asked the author of the thread to type a complaint letter with his penis. Gasic 03:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
As was posted above, the C&D letter and its date was verified by the sender. Xombie 04:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Certified mail is easily verifiable, can he prove that he sent it? If so then the part should definitely be part of the article. Mgunit 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
A link is provided in the article with the original source for this information, and is already part of the article. Therefore there is absolutely no valid reason to remove it. Xombie 21:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Mgunit has earned himself a bit of noteriaty for pulling off shit like this: [www.ebaumsworldsucks.com/ebw.html] Effectivly, he's not just an odious talking head for Ebaumsworld, but is a genuine ass about doing it too.
I have since apologized about that incident.Mgunit 21:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Trying to cover your ass like that isn't going to convince anyone.
Mgunit has also posted picture of his testicles on the internet, anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
A: They weren't my balls. B: You guys paid 25 dollars to ebaum C: You guys saved a picture of testicles to your hard drive. D: What does this have to do with anything? Mgunit 21:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a ytmnd showing the ebaums thread. Wait, so you go around posting pictures of someone else's testicles? That's weird. As a moderator of the eBaum's world forums and somehow who has displayed callous disregard of people wanting their work taken off eBaum's world you have shown that you are highly biased and of course to you this article is POV. Simply because it doesn't make your favourite site look that good.

Chronologic order?

The Controversy section of this article is in a very strange order. I'll go ahead and put in in chronological order (at some point in the near future) if that's OK with everyone. -- gtdp (talk)(contribs) 15:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ebaums' Legal Section

One notable aspect of this that the article is lacking is the legal section of the ebaumsworld, where ebaum apparently openly acts against the will of the authors... such postings as “The makers of the Smurfs/G.I. Joe/whatever want their cartoons taken off our site... come see the cartoons by clicking here!” ad nauseum fill this section, and it seems to have the connotation of rebelliousness and sarcasm against the authors if I am reading it correctly. This page clarifies ebaum's position on the controversy.

136.165.84.139 17:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


It appears that the legal section of EBaums has been deleted. Tetrahedron93 18:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

eBaum's World fought for Fensler Films on that one! Fensler films recieved a cease and desist, then removed their hilarious series. eBaum posted them, and credited fensler films. He recieved a cease and desist from the creators of Gi Joe, and he fought their attempts at censorship.Mgunit 15:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Too detailed

I wouldn't exactly refer to this haggle with Ebaumsworld and smaller troll communities as a Watergate Scandal. This information is delving into specifics which simply aren't that important. This whole thing could be dissolved down into one paragraph, without having to promote sites such as YTMND, and pay-sites like Something Awful as e-patriarchs of some sort. Don't get my wrong, I have nothing against any of them, but this site has been around for AGES and the site seems for the most part (minus the forums) to be running smoothly as ever. I think if we DO want to discuss details so granularly, we make up an article like "Ebaumsworld content incident" or something. This preserves the main ebaumsworld (minus a small paragraph, and a link to it) and may help remove some of the controversial stuff out of the area. Just an idea.

Gods Speed --Depakote 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

But the whole site is based around mounds of content theft, if you tone it down you end up toning down one of biggest issues the majority of people have with the site. - Ferret 18:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You may be right.. but this is more of a matter of content presentation. A simple sentence leading to a larger article on on the ebaum controversy will still be noticed by article readers in the long run. For Instance, Many people state that Microsoft is a monopoly, people are ticked, yatta yatta, but STILL, it doesn't have to take up >50% the article. Hehe. --Depakote
I'd argue that the article isn't detailed enough, not listing examples of eBaum's World's content theft. The Something Awful Forums are apparently putting together such a list, which might benefit Wikipedia, since at this point we're documenting the Baumans' alleged crimes without providing subtantial enough evidence. --Antrophica 01:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, any idea where the thread is, if any on SA? - Ferret 05:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The thread is in GBS, or you can just click on the link I provided.forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=61d94d04635d027064831bf7b72b4cff&threadid=1773319&pagenumber=1 Gasic 08:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ebaumsworld with a corporate template?

I like where you are going with the Ebaumsworld corporate template, and I am interested in anyone familiar with Ebaumsworld/Somethingawful and sites in particular to help me give SA a corporate template as well - as it seems they have alot of shopping oppurtunities, especially selling shirts and such with all the famdom/fanboys they are creating. Heh. But seriously, in all fairness, it's important to bring light unto the fact that this site is a corporation, and makes money. So does Something Awful. Something Awful Corporate Template.

Infobox Company

The data seems mostly bogus and should be removed or sources cited:

  • It lists the company as being founded in 1998 and the sole product being ebaumsworld.com. However, according to the domain's registrar, the domain was registered on 15-Nov-01.
  • It lists the revenue as $6000+ a day. Do companies that aren't publicly traded or owned usually release revenue figures? And does any reputable company release figures on a "per day" basis? Traditional methods are by quarter or fiscal year.
  • 20 employees? That is a highly unlikely figure for a web site that appears to be a father/son garage business. Sources, anyone?

Dbchip 18:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think moderators fall under the employees header, and he probably has content finders. As for how much money the guy gets, maybe it's a calculated estimate from the average ad revenue cross referenced with hits, but I cannot see it being far off that. - Ferret 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I understand your point... but it is vital for our information to be sourced here. I think Dbchip gave a good point, eBaumsworld derserves just as much privacy as somethingawful or ytmnd on profits. Unless there is cited information of this site making that much, I don't see why would want to put that revenue in there. And for that matter, the employees, and founded list. Am I saying your wrong? No. Am I saying you need sources? Yup.--Depakote 13:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I was not giving forward reasons why the information should stay, I was citing reasons why this may have come to be placed in the article in the first place. I do agree that sources are needed. - Ferret 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I did unstand, cardinal rule: Have sources first. If you don't have the sources, then no, there is no reason why you would want a corporate template. Let's focus on the quality of our information... But hey, You can always sandbox. --Depakote 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Websites involved?

"YTMND users have persuaded others from Newgrounds, 4chan, adult swim, KNova, Fark, D-Day, GameFAQs (mainly the notorious private community LUE and its independent sister community LUElinks), to help with the raid, although no direct link can be made from the other web communities to the attack as of yet. Other web communities have been rumored to be in the raid; these include Genmay, Interflop, MySpace, Gamespy, IGN and Gaia Online."

Can someone please provide a link to these "rumors"? Especially the last list, as I don't think a few of those are capable of such a thing (IE MySpace, "Gaia Online", "adult swim", etc) --Snafuu 23:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My proposition would be instead of giving out com 'credit' for this, instead we can simply state that "other smaller communities" joined together. I look on Google News about all this and I see one topic that is actually related,www.theinquirer.net/?article=28898. So far all I see in this whole conspiracy issue is basically only noticed on: 1) The ytmnd, SA forums/community and 2) the blogs of the people who are in the community. So, sources would be nice. Also, notability. Sure, this is ground-breaking for people who are stuck up in their own culture at SA forums, but do real people care? And if they do, how much? How specific do we need to get? --Depakote 21:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Conversation between ALTF4 and eBaum

First a disclaimer: I'm coming to this situation pretty neutral, because I am not a regular visitor of any of the sites involved.

I'm in agreement that the article is pretty biased against eBaum (I think that much is obvious just from the article content). However, I've read through the (IRC?) chat transcript of the conversation between ALTF4 (owner of the ebaumsworldsucks domain), and I do think that helps erase some of the bias. While Eric Bauman requested the discussion remain private, I think the transcript paints him in a positive light. Mainly because he kept his cool and remained serious while ALTF4 was pretty unprofessional and made some rather unfortunate comments (Such as saying he'd take down the site if Eric paid him one million dollars).

I'm trying to look at this without judging either side in the overall debate, but from the perspective of somebody who only knows what is going on from what is available for reading in the media, I think the chat transcript goes a way towards reducing the anti-ebaum bias a bit.

Honestly, I'm rather surprised that ALTF4 would post the transcript considering how it hurts his cause by portraying him (himself) in a bad light.

- Guspaz 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting note in the conversation is ebaum's shameless lying about what he says about weebl. The truth is weebl is not working on a project with ebaum. Ebaum made this up. Weebl does not want his work on ebaum's site and Weebl was not emailed by ebaum after the conversation. This can be verified on Weebl's forums. Ebaum knew the conversation would be public and that's why he made lies within the conversation to make himself look good at Weebl's expense.

Ebaum did not swear or make himself look like a jerk in this conversation as he has in the past. He took his time and remained calm, but since ebaum knew this conversation would be public, he made sure not to admit to any stealing even when it was true and went as far as lying about certain people like Weebl.

Agreed. Altf4 is a pretty big jerk, if that conversation is indeed true (it is HIM that publicizes on his site). But that isn't the point, heh, is this conversation notable? If so, is it relevant enough to the ebaumsworld website to be posted on THIS very article? I'm not going to fight it/force it.. I just want what's best. --Depakote 01:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You must understand that Altf4 had already posted most of the transcript in a thread at somethingawful before Eric Bauman asked him to keep it private. Also note that Altf4 never agreed to keep it private. Also note that Altf4 was trying to be funny in most of the transcript, he was probably letting his emotions get in the way of actually achieving something. You must realise though, that it's biased against eBaum only because 90% of the article is about things eBaum has done wrong, I can't see what else that would be to eBaum, there's only so much you can write about how it's a catalogue of funny things. The transcript was made in AIM by the way. Altf4 does not host the ebaumsworldsucks domain by the way. I don't see how Altf4 hurts his cause? He happened to be angry at eBaum and expressed it, mostly to amuse people at the same time. To understand the circumstances of the transcript you really do have to read the thread at SA that it was posted in. The only way one would see him in a bad light is if you took his jabs a bit too seriously. Ebaum was professional yes, but only because he could see that ebaumsworldsucks.com was having an impact on the internet and eBaum was trying to control the damage. Here's a link to the thread.forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=a47b1e5504cb8046784d9cc6261edb21&threadid=1772456&pagenumber=1 Gasic 09:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The context of Neil's response was that Bauman had already attempted to go behind his back to get the site removed and Eric had threatened baseless legal action. Then in that subsequent chat, Bauman continued to patronize him.Xombie 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lohan Animation

As fascinating as the entire Lohan animation debate between eBaum and Something Awful is, I have to ask -- does the creator of the flash animation have permission to redistribute the images of her in the first place? Redistributing a copyrighted photograph of someone is a much more serious offense that redistributing a parody of it. The photographs likely have a commercial value and the owner could easily demonstrate the costs associated with originally producing it and the financial impact of the loss. If the whole controversy wasn't stupid enough to begin with, I think the fact that the original flash animation was likely a copyright violation negates any claim by the "author" of the animation and should result in the whole section being deleted from the article. This article is a mess enough and towards the end, it reads more like a Livejournal than a Wikipedia article. Dbchip 07:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The animation debate is between eBaum and YTMND. Something Awful happens to be interested in it. Also, I believe parody is protected under the first amendment? I'm not too versed on American laws and what not. Gasic 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, not explicitly under the first amendment, but it is protected. The original material in the parody is the intellectual property of YTMND, and ebaums violated their copyright. Jeremy Nimmo 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Verbose controversy details unnecessary

I'm not even convinced that any of the sub-sections inside the "Controversy" section are even necessary or relevant to this article. I think stating that there are in fact rebranding and media misappropriation concerns would be sufficient, without having to enumerate every single recent instance. Just being true doesn't make it encyclopaedic, or interesting to someone wanting to read the article. -- Bovineone 09:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not really an encyclopedia if you decide to toss out the "unneccessary" information. Personally, I feel this is a more centralised way to keep up on the "internet drama", as opposed to manually scrolling through hundreds of pages at different sites in order to find the latest developments. Gasic 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Intellectual property rights on the internet is an incredibly important issue, and being too lazy to read through all the detail does not make those details irrelevant. The various instances are very separate and each one highlights a particular part of the issue. Not to mention that the actions of Ebaum's World, as a popular site, are significant to internet history.Xombie 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a daily gossip column of Internet drama. I concur with Bovineone that a short summary of controversy should be written and all the mundane details and monotonous allegations removed. Please see Wikipedia:NOT, specifically Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, both of which dictate that all of this first-hand reporting should be removed immediately. Deleting the cruft will significantly improve the usefulness and readability of this article. Dbchip 01:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it would be possible to fairly condense the Controversy Section into "a short summary". It would be possible to shorten it, surely, but "a short summary" seems like a bit of a stretch. As much as most of us dislike clutter, we ought not to dismiss relevant details as clutter or cruft just because there's too much of it. There are better ways to trim this article down without simply contorting it into "a short summary". A larger problem with the article is its lack of neutrality. --Antrophica 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You're out of your mind if you think this can be summed up in a "short summary." As has been pointed out above in a similar discussion, the simple fact of the matter is that ebaumsworld.com exists largely (almost entirely in fact) as a repository of stolen content that generates page impression based ad revenue for the Baumans, and any worthwhile and complete entry must necessarily therefore include a section detailing the controversy surrounding their practices. Supposing it were even possible to write a short summary (why don't you try writing one and posting it to the talk page if you're so sure it's doable), I think you'd find many asking for "evidence" to back up the claims. Sort of a catch 22, no? I think the article is fairly well written as is. My nitpicks are mostly stylistic...I think this is as close to NPOV as an article about ebaumsworld.com can really get. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.239.90.81 (talk • contribs) .
Above post was made from a terminal at the UCSD library. Should be signed me. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 08:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Shortening the controversy section would be like saying that one must shorten the legal section of Napster. Intellectual property rights of original content is a major deal on the internet, and is relevant data to be putting into an encyclopedia. I'm not sure exactly what "usefulness" or "readability" it would increase if you downplayed the major issues surrounding the site.Xombie 04:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected article

Due to a huge amount of vandalism recently by unregistered users (Many random IPs vandalizing), I've semi-protected the article. This page was semi-protected before, which was effective in stopping the vandalism, but it has become a problem once again. I suggest we leave this page semi-protected until the feud between these groups ends. Guspaz 06:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Good idea, Guspaz. --Depakote 16:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you did it correctly? Some random IP just made a vandal edit to the page. VegaDark 22:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It was vandalized again. To semiprotect a page, an admin has to do it. It isn't enough to add the protection notice template. --waffle iron 00:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
My bad, I assumed that users qualified to edit a page after semi-protection were able to semi-protect an article. I'll fill out a request for semiprotection. Guspaz 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

reverted vanda

Unless version by 144.139.33.216 was correct . . . .Mikereichold 14:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful

Simple corrections in terminology can be enough to render an otherwise biased comment completely neutral. Thus, I feel it would benefit everyone to simply check the words, facts, links, and everything else they use several times before they post it, in this entry especially. I think that would greatly aid this article in the pursuit of neutrality. Be careful, be respectful, be honest, and do not simply post your opinions. This has been a public service announcement. ;-)


What is neutrality?

Neutrality doesn't involving balancing the good things that can be said with the bad things to make a mostly-even picture; neutrality involves presenting all aspects of the situation, good and bad, without resorting to opinion. If ebaumsworld.com has done many "bad" things in the past, things which will make them judged negatively, it's not "biased" to put them in the article. By the definition of neutrality people are asking for in this article, we'll have to go through every Wikipedia article and fix it so that not too many good or bad things are presented. "Hey, there's too much about Gandhi's admirable qualities! We'd better not mention those and devote half the page to the time he accidentally tripped an old lady!" "What about all the GOOD things Hitler did?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.165.206.102 (talk • contribs) .

You have a valid point and I agree with you, but, you see, this is still very much an ongoing, highly controversial topic, much of which has yet to be determined for absolute fact. For example, is Bauman actually breaking the law? Can he hence be charged in court? Aren't some of the creators of the material breaking the law themselves by making use of copyrighted images, or is parody actually fair use? None of this has been fully verified. --Antrophica 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with most recent edits

I strongly disagree with the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBaum%27s_World&oldid=36362547 edits made by User:Jeffthejiff -- "legal page seems to show him honouring cease and desist letters; npov/other adjustments." Did you just completely miss www.ebaumsworld.com/legal.html the legal issues page? The comments on the first C&D alone should be enough of an argument for the edits you made to be reverted. It's hubris, plain and simple. Suggest that User:Jeffthejiff not be allowed to make future edits here; this is either an egregious mistake or willful ignorance, neither of which this article needs right now. 4/9 of the C&D letters have links to the material still hosted on eBaum's World. I would revert the edits myself, but it should be discussed first.

Also, RE: names of SA, YTMND et al being censored at the eBaum's forums, I thought there was a good deal of proof that it was at least at one point indeed true (if not now).

Edit: HUGE problem with the edits by User:Jeffthejiff, the e-mails sent by Neil Bauman to Max of YTMND were not cease and desist letters. Go read them. As noted by Max in his response, "[y]ou sent a cease and desist but never explain what it is you want me to cease or desist doing?" I'm changing this right now. Still combing through User:Jeffthejiff's edits. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i didnt think i made any drastic changes; i tried to be as delicate as possible. But the legal issues page says things like "Fox started demending that we take the video down. So we did.", which does not suggest to me that they ignore them. With the orignal comment, it was stated that he ignores all of them, something which simply isnt true, as the link does not accurately back it up. I just tried to balance it out a bit by showing that he has taken things down when asked. I hate ebaum's world as much as the next guy, but this is NPOV, pure and simple.
PS, i did not change the wording of the cease and desist letters bit, i simply moved them around to put it in chronological order and deleted bits that repeated on itself. Check the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBaum%27s_World&diff=36362547&oldid=36266713 diff.

-- jeffthejiff (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- the diff says you're right, you didn't make the C&D edit. I'm going to try to reword the section we disagree on a bit though. I still don't agree with the way it's currently written. I'll post to the talk page before updating the main page. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. I thought about posting to the talk page before i made my edit, but i didnt deem it drastic enough. Sorry again. I dont think the legal issues page bit should be included in the YTMND section anyway, as it isnt really relevant to the particular case. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Iggy_Koopa, please read Max's reply to Neil Bauman. The e-mails Bauman sent weren't C&D letters -- they neither asked that Max cease nor desist in doing anything. At best, Bauman erroneously inferred that the notes posted to his office were endorsed by Max. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then. I'll revert my edit if it isn't reverted already. — Iggy Koopa 01:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cutting the fat

I feel that far too much of this article is POV. I have made an attempt to spruce the page up. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBaum%27s_World&oldid=36583173. I eliminated and restarted writing the controversy page as I was under belief that 90% of it is going into details that aren't very notable. If you wanted to say... Use google hits as an example, the vocal of the Bauman letters and the Flash are 2 humorous items directed toward the site. Before this, over 70% of the material on this site wasn't citing for the most part, and were being very POV in terms of "material being stolen from sites". We get the point, it is a controversy the some of the material on the site is stolen, and there has been some incidents. I am sure me and other NPOV editors will mention that some believe this, but the general "About eBaumsworld" section does not require critic too. I am not trying to erase history, if you believe that the ebaumsworld material theft situation is so important, why not make an entire article dedicated to it? eBaum's World Controversy is an article solely dedicated to information on eBaumsworld allegations. --Depakote 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This works for me. Good thinking. --Antrophica 15:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, except many of the sentences in the current article lack connectors. Every sentance seems to be about a different topic with no relation to the sentance before of after it. Guspaz 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing NPOV warning?

After Depakote's excellentn work towards restoring NPOV, it looks to me like he's succeeded. I don't see anything in the article that would seem to violate NPOV anymore. I do think that it is time we removed the NPOV warning at the top of the page. Anybody disagree?

The "verified facts" warning needs to stay, unfortunately; none of the History section is sourced.

Legal page down as of 1/27/06 11:50 Pacific

Just wanted to document on the talk page here that as of right now, ebaumsworld.com/legal.html leads to a 404. It could simply be getting an update or something, but also, the link to the legal page has fallen off of the front page -- therefore, it's worth noting here in my opinion. It's also possible the page has moved. Would be nice if somebody else could just chime in to verify. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is down. ROJO 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Try checking web.archive.org web.archive.org for past archives. It appears Eric Bauman and his dad are trying to get rid of any evidence for copy-infringment lawsuits for their upcoming pilot. --Tokachu 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
In view of this apparent cover-up, is it at all appropriate that most information on the subject has been removed from here? Most of that information was NOT NPOV; rather it was verifiable fact. Rsynnott 11:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Ebaum still links to his legal page on the GI Joe page www.ebaumsworld.com/gijoe.html. He's also removed Fark from his "Links" area on most pages. --Tokachu 18:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
He links, yeah, but it's 404ing for me right now. Somebody else try? www.ebaumsworld.com/legal-hasbro.html Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've saved a PDF of the page from archive.org, but unfortunately the scans of the jpgs (the actual letters themselves) aren't available. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cut out some info here that has been claimed to be incorrect. Please do not add anything further to this article without a credible cited source for it, particularly claims about controversies or illegal actions; uncited changes may be reverted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a sandbox where we can all work on edits or something? I'm not happy with the decision you reached on the AfD page -- merge means merge, not hand off to some admin to chop up how he she likes. Example: if you're going to mention the "laserfart" video, you should probably mention everything at ebaumsworldsucks.com. A simple list or something, with a sentence or two describing the process the author took to have the content removed, linked to ebaumsworldsucks.com. Additionally, you should probably e-mail AltF4 to see if he has a more up-to-date list, as he had a rather lengthy thread going at Something Awful where he recruited goons to track down authors whose content is being hosted without consent at eBaum's (methodology was to go to eBaum's, select a random Flash video or chop, Google for it, and try to contact the author). I believe it should be further mentioned that the submission page itself is controversial, as it's no more verifiable than, say, an "ARE YOU 18+" link on a pr0n site. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going to start editing the page and merging stuff from the controversy section back in tomorrow evening unless you respond that you want the article left untouched. Others are already editing the page. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 05:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Article Content

So, what happened to all the content on the controversy article? I thought the vote was to merge the two, not to just redirect the controversy article back to the main eBaum's World article? There is still a link to the controversy article in the main article, too. 209.51.77.64 16:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its looking a bit like someone decided to go ahead and stealth-delete it under cover of a merge. I see almost none of the information. --Talain 22:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Mindspillage, apparently the admin in charge of the AfD, states her decision here. Apparently she will be merging in "verifiable information" from the controversy article due to "serious complaints to Wikipedia about the unsourced statements in this article." Personally, I think this was a poor decision. I am also interested to know which "unsourced statements" people are complaining about. They should do so on the talk page. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the Keeps outnumbered the Merges makes this decision even more suspect in my opinion. Unless I am confused about how the discussion over keeping/merging/deleting takes place... 209.51.77.64 02:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe the reason that the admin decided to merge is because some users felt that the separate controversy article was a POV fork. I don't feel that's accurate, and am pretty neutral on having a separate controversy article vs throwing it into the main article. Just to restate what was argued very well by an anonymous user above, NPOV does not mean No POV, nor does it mean balancing the good with the bad. I also don't like the fact that User:Mindspillage seems to be a bit remiss in her duties as far as this article is concerned. Given Bauman's attempt to assert trademark over ebaumsworldsucks.com, the recent disappearance of the "legal" page, and Mgunit's "contributions" to the article and arguments on the talk page, I wouldn't be surprised to find that eBaum's World have complained to WP. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do I feel that the Admin sold out to Ebaums by keeping vaulable information from the public? This stuff is important, and witholding just is wrong.--143.200.225.101 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Merged. I counted, and the Keeps outweighed the Merges. Something stinks. --Antrophica 10:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It'd be fine if the Merge had been what happened, but it didn't. Somebody seems to be using "Verifiable" as an excuse to delete information they don't want around. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.--Talain 11:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the controversy section of the article has been expanded a little, but most of the content from the seperate controversy article is still gone. I smell a rat. 209.51.77.64 17:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If you guys aren't happy with the way User:Mindspillage is handling this, please leave constructive feedback on her talk page at User_talk:Mindspillage#eBaum.27s_World_AfD_merge Alwarren@ucsd.edu 18:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, intended to merge, but didn't have time to: soliciting help on that. But it was more important that the uncited information be off the page than the merge be properly carried out. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
(Note: I don't really know much about the site, and don't care about it. Just about complaints about untrue material appearing on Wikipedia.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem some of us have is that the Keeps outweighed the Merges. Could be I'm missing something. As well, the article might not have conformed entirely to a neutral point of view, but the vast majority, if not all of the information in it, was factual, and sources were cited. --Antrophica 07:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

"The expected duration of this show= 3 weeks."

I'm not sure what this means; could someone fix it or figure it out? --ShadowPuppet 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is is a prediction, or did they actually say that? Throw me a bone here. --ShadowPuppet 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempt at controversy AfD merge

I've made an attempt at merging back in some of the material from the controversy article with citations. I'm beginning to agree that the old controversy section was a bit verbose, but still feel strongly that all of the information needs to make it over. I'll probably take another stab at this tonight. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Good on you. 209.51.77.64 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Disagreement with merge

So, there has been an agreement to merge the controversy article with the main article for ebaumsworld? This is a bit too soon in the game, the POV fork in the road was only a temporary means to ensure quality of the main article for however long this troll war with ebaumsworld will last.. I think the merging eventually was a good idea, but a bit too soon in the game. I think this will only be more trouble in the long run (i.e. more edit wars, etc). Gods Speed' --Depakote 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no agreement to merge. The keeps outweighed the merges in the deletion poll. The reason for the merge has yet to be explained. --Antrophica 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuing with the AfD merge

Anybody have any particularly strong opinions about what-all else needs to be merged in? I've been in contact with ebaumsworldsucks, and they'll be notifying me when they have updates ready. I'm not sure how best to merge in the SA and YTMND content, or if it should even really be elaborated on. I thought I had a good amount of work sitting in front of me, but as it turns out I'm actually mostly-happy with the controversy section in its present form. I do think eBaum pulling from Sega's servers and the invisitraffic attack on SA need to be added, as they're particularly underhanded tactics. Neil Bauman likes to carry on about how eBaum's World won't stoop to things like DDoS... Maybe add Lohan too in order to show that eBaum's World will even attempt to appropriate high profile stuff? Alwarren@ucsd.edu 01:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The last bit in the controversy section was totally loaded, so I reworded it. I also removed mention of Super Monkey Ball and Judge Judy specifically, instead linking to the CourtTV article after the Viacom Wiki link. I'd like to do the same for 20th Century Fox and Sega. In the case of Fox, I would have liked to link to the eBaum's C&D letter. Seeing as how that's not possible, I'm not sure how to cite. I'd like to do something similar for the Sega reference, but don't know of any articles. I'm definitely not done editing yet. Probably a few more rounds before I'm done... Alwarren@ucsd.edu 03:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unbalance

If we are going to describe the ebaumsworld controversy with such depth (as we are seeming to now), we may as well give it it's own article. We are back where we were before, >50% of this article is controversy, in far too much depth, IMHO. --Depakote 11:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Which was the consensus of the discussion over whether or not to merge the two articles. And yet, they were merged... 209.51.77.64 04:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
For a bit more of an idea of what I'm speaking about, Wikipedia:Vanity is a good place to start. ~~----

Quality of the writing

Greetings.

I've made a modification to several sections of the article. I found many of the sentences contained examples of bad grammar, improper spelling, words used improperly, that sort of thing.

Some of my changes required me to entirely re-word sentences, please note that as I did so, I took great care not to alter the POV/NPOV of any statement.

I also added a bit of clarification to the section on soundboards, and I also added a reference.

I rolled up the "bandwidth leeching" allegation into the paragraph on ebaumsworldsucks.com since that topic is covered there. Again, I took effort not to impose or alter the POV/NPOV of any portion of the article.

I believe the changes I made improve the article in each case. BoyliciousDarian 21:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Video rebranding

Image:IpecacVideoComparison.jpg
Screenshot of Google Video

I added a small snippet exhibiting proof that eBaum's World not only rebrands their videos, but removes the original credits as well. If you search Google Video for "ipecac" video.google.com/videosearch?q=ipecac you'll find two videos: one from ebaumsworld.com (clipped, lower quality), and another from stileproject.com (not clipped). Here's an image comparing the two videos:

This was originally found on [ebaumsworldsucks.com/ eBaumsWorldSucks.com].

Naming

I think that typing "Eric Bauman" in search shouldn't re-direct to this page, just like typing in "Leonardo DaVinci" doesn't redirect to the "Mona Lisa". To be frank, Eric Bauman is not eBaum's World, therefore, an Eric Bauman page should be created, highlighting his life, etc. --Mofomojo 04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Yea... no. DaVinci has done quite a few other things in his life besides the Mona Lisa. There is NO OTHER REASON to search for Eric Baumen's name other than it's pertinence to eBaumsworld.

Not sure I would have phrased it quite the same way, but the above poster is right...there really is no other reason to search for "Eric Bauman." Alwarren@ucsd.edu 10:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Post from ebaumsworld staffer on sa forums

I find it funny that this so called "Staff Member" (Azuretek) Is in actuality Legalcondom, aka Abi. Not only is he an admin on the ebaumsworld sucks site, he works for abum. The very fact that someone competing with eric has such "strong" views makes them suspect. I think that this reference should be removed on those grounds. Secondly, the quote from me was over a year ago, and I was not a staff member at that time, so my opinion represented only my (looking back entirely wrong) opinion at the time. This is an article on eBaum's World, and I don't feel that my opinion at the time has any releveance to this article.

Also, that person wasn't the saint that they were painted up to be. They have over 20 accounts registered to their ip address, most of which have been used for spam.

Also, I made some edits earlier without being logged in, my apologies. Mgunit

I find it funny that you're an employee of eBaum's World disputing the "neutral point of view" of this article, despite the fact that there are well over a dozen links. Just because an article puts your employer in a bad light doesn't mean it's biased. If the article said "EBAUMS WORLD STEALS" with absolutely zero citations, then it would be biased. But it's not. Perhaps you should stop typing with your penis, get your testicles off the keyboard, and learn that just because you disagree with facts doesn't mean they're not true. That's called revisionism -- which is exactly what your friends at eBaum's World did when they erased the "Legal" section. web.archive.org/web/20050303004436/www.ebaumsworld.com/grapefall-legal.html --Tokachu 05:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Why the bloody hell is this flagged again? Alwarren@ucsd.edu 07:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is seriously upsetting. I'm going to make an effort in the next couple of days to clean up the controversy section again, as I feel I did a pretty good job the first time around. I agree it got a bit messy, but this article shouldn't be flagged for NPOV or Verify or anything like that. Also, mgunit, you really need to stop making edits. If you have an issue, take it to the talk page. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 07:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I am no more biased than the average eBaum's World hater. More than half of this article is about "Controversy", when a very small number of people hate it compared to the million+ that visit it a day. Also, the ONLY edits I made to this article today were the ones about the forum, and for this edit I provided a source. This article is not neutral, and it will probably never be neutral. As far as bringing it up on the talk page, everything I suggested goes ignored. I will continue to edit out the blatant falsehoods (such as our forum word censors "Somethingawful.com"), as they are a lie. As for the links... original research on a site called "ebaumsworldsucks.com" ran by an administrator from a competitors site "Abum.com" is HARDLY a source. Hell even the opening sentence of this article is entirely full of shit. It just goes to show you WHO is really editing this article. (featuring entertainment media such as videos, Flash cartoons and web games, all of which are rebranded with the eBaum's logo.) The majority of games and flash cartoons are not rebranded, and the ones that have been rebranded have been done so with the authors permission. Go to www.ebaumsworld.com/arcade-games.html click around 5 of the games and see if ALL of them are rebranded. With people stating obvious falsehoods in the first paragraph, it's easy to see that this article is filled with falsehoods.Mgunit 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
All you're doing is whining. If Ebaum's World does not want to be associated with rebranding and controversy it shouldn't have started controversy by rebranding. If you ACTUALLY wanted an NPOV on this article and not simply a to abuse Wikipedia in order to clear your company's name, you wouldn't be editing the article at all. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your detractors treating it like one is not justification for you using it as one to counter them. Xombie 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not abusing wikipedia, I am attempting to get the problems that the detractors added fixed. According to the article on verifiability, anything that does not come from a reputable news source shouldn't be in the article. That's where my problem comes in, it's Wikipedia policy, and it's being ignored in this article. This is not whining, I have already pointed out 2 obvious messups in this article that have been up for weeks that could have been easily fact checked (all content rebranded, forum word censors), and could easily show more. If these small lies stayed in, then what else are we missing? Mgunit 18:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
How is eBaum's World Sucks not a reputable news source in this case? The site is being used to source comments from content creators regarding the rebranding controversy. Last time I checked, CNN had yet to set up a department of internet drama. Furthermore, it's trivial to send an e-mail to those content creators listed on the page to verify. Sure, the site has an agenda. However, this doesn't make the bits of history it reports any less true.

The fact that one of the admins works for a site that is in direct competition with ebaum's world should be proof enough of the slant. Mgunit 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought you said I was fired from abum.com for fraud, get your story straight. LegalCondom 6:39, February 16 2006 (UTC)
When did I ever say that? Are you saying that I am lying about you working for abum.com, or just dodging it?Mgunit 14:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Grudges against the administrator of a source are not proof that a source is invalid. Xombie 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The source is not an article in a reputable source. It says that it has to be to included.... Mgunit 14:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I see the basic elements of this argument frequently from your group: "more than half of this article is about "Controversy", when a very small number of people hate it compared to the million+ that visit it a day." Guess what? That doesn't matter. At all. You're honestly arguing that because you have so many "fans," any controversy isn't worth mentioning? That's outright fallacious. Anyway, as you're an employee of eBaum's World, I believe that any edits you make to the article are in violation of WP:AUTO. I would say the same of any edits made by Legalcondom, given that his site is sourced in the article.

Actually I think that controversy is worth mentioning, however definitely not as half of the article. Read up on neutral point of view in the article, especially the section on "Undue weight". I think that if eBaum's world dislikers should get half of the current article, then the parts that relate to proven fact about the site should be expanded to make the contoversy section what what it is, a minority view of the site. Half of the people on the internet are not anti-ebaumsworld, therefore why does it deserve half of the article? Mgunit 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely no neutral benefit to adding insiginificant information simply to drown out the controversy section. Xombie 23:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Then why allow the controversy section undue weight?Mgunit 14:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There is also no neutral benefit to editing out relevant information in the controversy section simply to make it appear smaller. Xombie 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your argument that this article is not neutral. A few loaded sentences have managed to creep in since I re-wrote the controversy section, but those are easily edited out.

I do agree that the first sentence is loaded as currently worded, and will make the edit myself. Can we agree that the site is controversial? I would say that's pretty difficult to dispute. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC) <- Oops, wasn't logged in.
I agree that the site is controversial. I'm not seeking the removal of that section. Mgunit 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious to know if the ipecac video (shown above) was rebranded with permission from stileproject.com. Get back to us on that. Also, I'm removing the azuretek comments since they really can't be verified. But the evidence of unauthorized rebranding remains. --Tokachu 17:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Mgunit, you need to be blocked from editing this article by an admin. Even if (hypothetically) you were right and everyone else is wrong about eBaum, it's still not appropriate for you to be making edits to the article, because you work there! Much less starting an edit war, which is what you have done. That's against the spirit of wikipedia. So quit it. --BoyliciousDarian 09:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, the only edits I have made were to factual based errors, and changed the slant of the story in no way. I removed nothing from the controversy section. My edit was to remove two URL's that were supposedly blocked which I provided proof to them NOT being blocked. If you are talking about me placing the warning at the top, then no, I will not stop. Wikipedia is not a place to lie about and slander other people. If you are going to pass everything in this article off as truth, then I will at least keep a warning at the top that everything in the article isn't verified... at least until it is.Mgunit 14:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Rebranding has been done WITH THE AUTHORS PERMISSION?? I laugh at that. How about House of Cosbys and Laserfart for example. BOTH OF THESE WERE STOLEN. I know the creators of these videos personally, and both were taken and rebranded against their wishes, and without consultation. In fact, their nemaes were REMOVED from the credits!! You obviously have a vested interest in the website, so you are clearly amoung the most biased amoung us.
By your own arguments, you should not even be allowed to edit in more controversy, let alone have input regarding NPOV. You have shown your bias not only here but on Ebaum's World forums and other website forums. Wikipedia is not a place to defend one's self against criticism. It is not a soap box. You come from such a bias that there is absolutely no argument you could use to justify you editing this article. Xombie 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be different if I were changing the article in any way shape or form to change the slant. I am merely adding something that is a fact. The neutrality of this article is disputed. The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. Most of the things in the controversy section are hearsay and speculative. Mgunit 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
For the record we don't block people from articles simply because of where they work. We do ask them to (along with everyone else) to follow WP:NPOV.Geni 04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
But it in this case it violates WP:AUTO if he directly edits the article. --waffle iron 05:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily.Geni 05:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mgunit, please specify exactly what you consider "hearsay" or "speculative" in the article before flagging the entire article itself. Thank you. --Tokachu 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebranding

SA Goon PovRayMan made img116.imageshack.us/img116/2885/ebaumsteal7nl.gif this animated gif from the original Worth1000 version of an image and the rebranded-with-the-EBaum's-logo version of that same image. Both PovRayMan and Jaxomlotus (who owns Worth1000) have given their explicit permission for the image to be used in the article. What do you think? DS 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link on eBaum's World as well as a link on Worth1000? If you can cite where the images were used, then that can be added to the "Controversy" section. You'd have to make an image showing the images side-by-side (not an animated GIF) so it can be added to the eBaum's World article in the event Eric and Neil Bauman erase their tracks in the same way they erased their "Legal" section amid all the controversy. --Tokachu 23:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't add the arrows. We can put the description in a caption. See my addition (the ipecac video with the Patrick Swayze impersonator) for an example of what would work here. --Tokachu 23:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
We would need more than permission to use it on wikipedia. There is the problem of reuse.Geni 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Attack of The Show 2/24/06

My girlfriend just called to tell me that apparently Kevin Pereira is really grilling some dude from eBaum's World on Attack of The Show right now. If anybody has this capped, it seems like something that could be quoted in the article... Alwarren@ucsd.edu 00:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Linkage -- www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/index.html Alwarren@ucsd.edu 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The guy from eBaum's World actually got caught taking clips from TechTV (now G4). He also lied about Weebl (and YTMND, and Something Awful, and Worth1000) and the interviewer even mentioned what the eBaum's World article on Wikipedia claimed. But I'm surprized they didn't mention "Web Junk 20" or that other video show on Bravo.
The most interesting thing was how Michael Parker claimed that "(there) aren't any written rules or regulations" on the Internet, which is absolutely, completely false. So it's safe to assume Parker doesn't know too much about copyright law. --Tokachu 02:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
User:tokachu is referring to this: www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/features/53410/Ebaums_Worlds_Michael_Parker.html

I know we have to be very careful about rights on G4...
The internet is not TV. You can't compare them. The internet is still brand new. There aren't any written rules or regulations. We're trying to do our due diligence and do the things that we feel are right by not taking other people's material without crediting them or contacting them first. We try to...we contact all these people. Like if we something we like, like a game, we don't just put it on our site. We contact these people. And if you notice with all our new flash games, we have our own intro in them, and it's done by the creators and we pay them for that.

Of course, Mr. Michael Parker is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, 1000 times wrong. www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm

"[c]opyright itself does not depend on official procedures. A created work is considered protected by copyright as soon as it exists."

What a tool. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This article IS neutral

The article is neutral. If there is a problem with this, either add more content which would diloute the facts which some find controversial. But his article does not cantain anything other than facts and is completley fair. Saying this article is negative is like an article about Adolf Hitler saying it is too negative about the man. 67.187.110.81 4:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • You don't realise that an article about Adolf Hitler actually COULD be too negative? And again, Godwin's Law. I think this article is far from neutral, allegations from SA forum regulars are treated as absolute fact, which they obviously aren't. I dislike how many Wikipedia articles just throw in the word "alleged" to make things sound "unbiased" but I think this article could actually need a few instances of the word... Mackan 03:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your concern, Mackan. Earlier revisions of the eBaum's World article were far more biased and lacked the ad nauseum citations that have been added to this version. Many irrelevant parts of the article were removed, and to this day we are still removing unverifiable information. If you have a dispute over any fact presented in the articlce, please select a specific fact to dispute, and dispute it on the talk page. We are already having trouble with vandals and eBaum's World employees removing information and adding nonsense to the article. --Tokachu 17:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Tokachu, I think a larger problem is the Something Awful-users slanting this article. Why did you entirely revert my changes? The quote was incorrect, Bauman said they'd been talking about doing a project, not that they were doing a project. Including both quotes from Weebl is superfluous and also the language is too strong. Yes, Weebl is an influential flash artist but just producing his quote that Eric Bauman is "a fucking liar" (or something along those lines) is unfair when you're not saying WHY he said it. Which shouldn't be included in the article because it would be too big and also irrelevant. Anybody could say anything about Bauman but it doesn't mean it's factual and belongs in the article. Also there is no Wikipedia policy which says I have to discuss any small change I intend to make on the talk page before hand. Also, you are mistaken about the source files, NO major flash page asks people to send in the .fla-file. I would like to add I am irritated by your behaviour. If anything, your reverts and not my changes should have been disputed beforehand. --Mackan 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Whoa, cool it. Firstly, I agree that the language from Weebl may be loaded and should perhaps be replaced with a summary. I'll try to make that edit myself. However, I disagree with your argument regarding source files, particularly in the case of eBaum's World. Have you actually read the "upload agreement"? If not, I suggest that you do so. Edit: unless I've missed something, this discussion should be at the bottom of the page. Moving it. Edit 2: sorry, not quite chronological, but better than up top... Alwarren@ucsd.edu 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I have not read the upload agreement, but I have not made any comment on it! If there are any problems with it they should be addressed but as I've already stated, no major flash site asks for source-file, so that cannot be one of the problems. I have myself uploaded flash on several pages and even when I've sold my flash I have never been asked to send a source file. I am irritated that something so obviously untrue is left untouched on the page. Mackan 13:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Indeed you haven't made any comment on the upload agreement. Nor did I claim that you did. I'm having difficulty here understanding what you think is "untrue." The article doesn't claim that anybody else asks for source files -- rather, the argument is that the eBaum's World upload page is easily abused. As I've argued below, just because this is the "industry standard" practice doesn't mean that it's not potentially problematic. In other words, your statement that "[i]f there are any problems with it they should be addressed" is exactly the argument the article makes. If you feel this should be clarified, well, that's different, and I'm fine with it. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Tried to clean things up a bit. My edit description for the controversy section got autocompleted to the last time I edited it, I think. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 01:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't possibly see how this article is neutral. I see nothing wrong with presenting negative facts about Eric Bauman, but I feel that the article is condemning him, and it is definitely not in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Of course, we should present facts, but for instance, you can't say at the beginning of Adolf Hitler's article that he was responsible for the shameless genocide of millions of innocent Jews despite the fact that we all know it's true.Stating that every last thing on eBaum's World is rebranded is not really fact; I'm sure that there is at least a microscopic amount of original content. More importantly, however, it gives me the impression that Eric Bauman is a dishonest man even before I've had the chance to read everything else. Wikipedia does not permit that. We could at least change it to "the site is highly controversial due to many claims that almost all of the content is rebranded with the eBaum's world logo" instead. The article states that the "Forum Fun" images are rebranded, even though it specifically clarifies that much of the site's content has already been taken from other websites. Then, it proceeds to say a third time and right after it has already been said a second time that much of the content has been allegedly (using this word for legal reasons) stolen. Right now, I am seriously considering a request for arbitration, because I am not the first person to believe that this article's content is biased. Something does need to be done. I don't personally approve of Bauman's actions and neither do many others. However, we still need to follow Wikipedia's rules. We can write an entire manifesto about how the site is controversial, but what we can't do is take every chance that we get to persuade people that Eric Bauman is a thief. 67.164.214.150 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • -sigh- One reason NOT to join SomethingAwful, and communities of the like. They band together with their own self-righteous POV thinking everything they believe is automatically fact because they think it. Fanboy-ism and Groupies suck. Period. --Depakote 09:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is hard for this

The thing about this neutrality issue is that it simply is very hard to achieve with a site like eBaumsWorld. The only good thing about it is it has the crop of flash animation. Aside from that, there simply isn't much you can say about eBaumsWorld without be slightly critical, controverseys are rife and animators are annoyed they are not credited for their work and the submission method is EXTREMELY flawed. A link to that report on the raid that began on January 8th should be put in the article. 09:55, 28 February 2006 (GMT)

To the people asking me for proof of this articles slant

"there is a section called "Moron Mail" for submissions that do not meet Bauman's standards."

Moron mail has been removed for the time being.


"Every Friday, Bauman selects some of the forum content for display on the site's main page."

Speculation


"He claims to honor all requests to remove unauthorized material. [3] However, this is contested by content creators. In particular, web artist and animator Weebl (of Badger Badger Badger fame) had his animations removed from eBaum's World during January 2006, but it took more than a year of requesting that it be done. [4] Bauman formerly claimed to have been working with Weebl [5], though Weebl's statements run contrary to Bauman's. [6]"

There is no proof that it took weebl "years of trying" when in fact the animations were removed when the first email was recieved.


"The "submission page" itself is controversial in that it does not require any information that could be considered uniquely identifying of original authorship be attached with the upload. [7] Examples of such proof would be source files (such as Photoshop .psd files, or Flash .fla files with their original layers and edit history intact)."

How is the controversial? This is the industry standard. Most flash developers would never give up their source file.


"Although eBaum's World representatives have claimed that the site researches all uploads before posting, critics assert that the upload mechanism allows Bauman's site to "hide behind" a submission process whereby anonymous users can upload content they did not create."

Our media management department does it's due diligence. 99% of the time the person who uploaded the file WAS the original creator, when someone else does it we remove the files as soon as everything is cleared.


"Critics further assert that the language of the upload agreement casts significant doubt on the ability of users submitting content to meet all criteria. Notably,


   I hereby represent that I have obtained copies of release and consent forms from all individuals portrayed and performing in the Material which would allow me to grant to eBaum all rights set forth herein."


How is this controversial, or relevant? It is on the main site for everyone to read. We dont hide our agreement in a javascript pop up, it's there to read it as soon as the page loads.


"An example of material for which the above is doubtful is the Tiger Woods movie.[8]"

How is this proven? Purely speculative.

"The video "Laserfart," created for the Channel101 website, remains in the eBaum's World video section despite requests from the owner for its immediate removal.[11] This is notable because the video attracts a high volume of user hits, which translate into Internet advertisement revenue for eBaum's World."

No proof

"Additionally, the credits that were originally part of the video were cut out of the eBaum's World version and replaced by an eBaum's World watermark at the bottom of the video. A search for "ipecac" on Google Video shows two videos: one from stileproject.com, and a "rewatermarked" version removing any mention of stileproject.com and replacing it with credits for ebaumsworld.com [12] (notice the clipping of the ebaumsworld.com version). This is an example of the "rebranding" commonly practiced by eBaum's World."

Where is the proof that we didn't get the video from stile project with permission? Since there is none, how is this worthy of mention without that proof?

"There are numerous other examples of stolen and rebranded content, including features such as "Disturbing Album Covers" [14] which involve rebranded content from other sources. [15] [16] [17] The fact that a Google search for "album covers" returns these sources discredits the claim that any credible research is performed by site editors."

Proof that the other site has recieved permission to post the copyrighted album covers, and proof that ebaumsworld did not?

"On February 23, 2006, an eBaum's World representative appeared on G4's Attack of the Show, during which Kevin Pereira asked him explicit questions about stealing. [20] Michael Parker, the individual representing eBaum's World, claimed that "[there] aren't any written rules or regulations [on the internet]", although copyright laws are not any different on the Internet than anywhere else. [21]"

Speculation, and out of context, he could have been speaking about the techTV video clip, and meant there are no rules against displaying it as a parody.

"The URLs www.newgrounds.com, www.albinoblacksheep.com, www.fark.com, and somaforum.com are censored from the eBaum's World Forums."

For the love of God stop changing this section without researching (and while you're at it research the rest of the article as well) I am head moderator of the forums, I know exactly what is word censored and what isn't, www.fark.com is NOT word censored, and never has been.

"NaziFAQs - A blog which serves as another point of anti-eBaum's information."

Hardly a reputable source, or worth mentioning.


And I still contest that everything on Ebaumsworldsucks is not reputable due to it being original research, and obviously done by biased people.


Though I'm sure that the SA fanboys would come running in to redo the article should any of this be fixed. Mgunit 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm taking the time to respond to you again. It's pointless -- you refuse to listen. Which makes sense. You have a vested interest in the way the site you work for is presented in the Wikipedia. I really don't care about the crap you list first (Moron Mail etc) and am willing to change it for you, so let's skip right to the controversy section. I think this here:
'''"Every Friday, Bauman selects some of the forum content for display on the site's main page."'''

Speculation
pretty well highlights the ridiculous nature of your post
Anyway, I'll address your arguments one by one in bullet form so as to avoid the formatting mess that resulted last time around. Please do the same in your reply.
  • The current wording is "more than a year." The only thing I would say regarding this is that the comment should be sourced.
  • How is lack of any true proof of authorship not controversial? Just because it's the "industry standard" doesn't make it correct, so don't throw me that straw man. Or are you honestly arguing that all "industry standards" are unquestionable? The only reason this kind of argument isn't leveled at, say, Newgrounds, is because that site doesn't have the history that yours does. Whether or not "most Flash developers" would "give up" their source files is immaterial to the argument that your upload agreement does not actually prove anything.
  • The eBaum's World media management department took a solid knock to the face on Attack of The Show on 2/24. All your man had to say was that "[t]he internet is still brand new. There aren't any written rules or regulations." Please see WIPO on copyright and the Berne Convention to understand why Michael Parker is wrong. www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm
  • Regarding the argument about the language of the upload agreement, please make an effort at comprehension. The article doesn't make any statements regarding "hidden" agreements. The argument is instead that it is unlikely that users who have submitted video clips and photos would be able to produce the "release and consent forms" mentioned in the upload agreement upon request.
  • Regarding the Tiger Woods argument, I welcome you to produce a "release and consent form" signed by Tiger Woods. In fact, I'd settle for something from a network executive. While you're at it, why don't you do the same for Kevin Pereira's switcher parody and the TechTV Call For Help clip.
  • I agree that "Laserfart" needs to be sourced with a comment from the author rather than just a comparison in order to be completely solid. However, it remains true that the eBaum's World version drops the credits present in the original.
  • The Stile Project argument also needs to be sourced in the way described above. While we're waiting for that, however, why don't you instead produce proof that you did obtain permission from Stile Project. I have this feeling that you'd dispute even a statement from a Stile Project representative...
  • I'm not familiar with the album covers -- if you check the history, you'll see they're a relatively recent addition. I'll check these out later.
  • As for the TechTV clip, what the hell are you talking about? That isn't parody at all. Like, at all-at all. In fact, I'm not sure hosting that clip could be further away from parody. The clip that aired on Attack of The Show was the original work. Do you have even the slightest idea of what constitutes parody? Also, I disagree that anything in that block of text is either "speculation" or "out of context." Come on, man. We're talking about direct quotations from an interview here. How could there possibly be any speculation involved?
  • I'm willing to remove the "fark.com" censor tidbit if you insist it isn't true, no problem. I'd like someone to verify this, though. I take it also, then, that you don't dispute that the other sites are censored?
  • The NaziFAQs link seems to have been reverted. I've never even heard of the place. I'll check it out to evaluate for inclusion in the article.
  • Your arguments regarding eBaum's World Sucks, while understandable given that you too are biased, are pretty weak. The site is not an original analysis. Instead, it lists quotes from content creators regarding works that have been posted to eBaum's World without permission. It is trivial to verify this -- all that is necessary is to e-mail the folks listed on the eBaum's World Sucks pages. If eBaum's World Sucks didn't source their quotes, then sure, it would be ridiculous to source a site called eBaum's World Sucks in the article. But they do source the quotes, so there's no problem. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
If anyone wants to see proof that the Laserfart Video was stolen COMPLETELY without the authors permission, just search through the Channel 101 forums. You will find a detailed story about the creator's failed attepts at getting the video off of ebaumsworld. His email was never responded to, and the video remains there today. Also, it would not be very hard for anyone to simply email the creator of the show and ask him personally, just check out the site for all the info. You will find your absolute proof that it is just one of very many stolen videos that remain on ebaumsworld.
A link would be much appreciated. I'm not familiar with that forum and don't have time to dig up the thread. Fixed formatting for your reply, BTW. Thanks! Alwarren@ucsd.edu 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
So by your argument if I create a site (for example, www.googlesucks.com) and add several pages of complaints it is a reliable source? Research should be done by unbiased people, of which Abi (Who works for a competing humor site) or ALTF4 are not, nor is the person who registered the domain who runs a humor site as well. I could make a page saying that mars has a pizza hutt, add 40 sources, and it sure as hell wouldnt be true. Your attitude is that eBaum's World is guilty until proven innocent, I think the accuser has the burden of proof. I may be biased, but no more than you are, blindly fighting for the article to remain as is without proof of the accusations. Mgunit 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Blindly fighting what now? Did you once again not read what I wrote? Because if you had read what I wrote, then you would have clearly seen that I agree there are still some bits of this article that require citation. I've removed tons of garbage from this article, so that's definitely not an appropriate place to criticize me. I should add, by the way, that this article has by far the most citations I've ever seen in a Wiki article. Regarding eBaum's World Sucks, in this situation, it really doesn't matter who does the research -- their quotes page lets others speak for them. If the page were just an 8,000 word rant by AltF4, then sure, it wouldn't be suitable to cite. But that's not what the site is at all. You need to stop purposefully confusing this. It would be trivial to contact the authors listed on the eBaum's World Sucks page to confirm their stories. To me, this is sufficient for inclusion in the article based on Wikipedia:No_original_research. Would it be better to somehow source the e-mail exchanges that took place between eBaum's World and these content creators? Of course. But that isn't a very reasonable goal. I would say go ahead and challenge eBaum's World Sucks to ask the folks listed on their site to furnish takedown requests, but I get the distinct impression that even if they did do that, you'd just say "those are fake, nyah." After all, you did just argue that a simple conclusion reached from a direct quotation from an interview was speculation. One problem I have with your group is that the best you can ever do is say something like "oh yeah? Well that's wrong, so there. We don't do that. Those people saying bad stuff about us are all a bunch of liars. What now?" Sure, you can say there's a "Pizza Hutt" on Mars, and sure, that wouldn't make it true. But that isn't an accurate analogy. An accurate analogy would be to say that a you had a conversation with a Martian, and that he told you there's a "Pizza Hutt" on Mars. Your argument regarding Google is too vague to address completely, but yes, a site aggregating complaints about Google could be considered a "reliable source." There's something to the fact that so many different people recount the same basic experience in dealing with eBaum's World. eBaum's World is definitely not guilty until proven innocent. If I felt that way, I wouldn't have bothered to remove unsourced information. Complaining the way you are isn't productive at all. If you have something to contribute, then please do so. But don't waste my time with petty tantrums. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Petty tantrums eh? Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I have no problem with critisisms people can bring up that are backed by definite fact. I am quoting wikipedia here
Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.
At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
That pretty much sums up my feelings on this, it's against wikipedia policy. Mgunit 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Mgunit, if eBaum's World were "guilty until proven innocent", adding all the citations wouldn't be necessary. The audacity you displayed when you called an interview recorded on video (with an eBaum's World employee, of all people) "speculation" does not help your case in any way. You still haven't addressed the blatent copyright infringment evident in the TechTV clip, or in the other television clips placed on the site.
You have also called the GI Joe cease-and-desist letters "censorship". That's not censorship; that's defending one's intellectual property. In fact, it's almost ironic that eBaum's World removed its "Legal" section when the Wikipedia article started to get more attention. Granted, it's their privilege to show or not show such information, but that still doesn't make Eric and Neil Bauman look any better.
I would recommend you read more about United States copyright law, specifically, the Copyright Term Extension Act, the NET Act, and (most importantly) the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. I'm sure R. Kelly www.mgunit.com/iwish.mp3, Lil Jon and Ice Cube www.mgunit.com/jon.mp3, and Kanye West www.mgunit.com/slowjamz.mp3 would appreciate it. Unless, of course, you have a license for that music. --Tokachu 01:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
In fact I do own the CD's those songs are contained on. Thank you for your internet detective work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgunit (talk • contribs).
Yes, but do you have a license to distribute that music? This is what I mean when I refer to your lack of knowledge about copyright laws. If you were to purchase a copy of Windows XP and put it on your web site, saying "In fact I do own the Windows XP CD that program is contained on" will not save you from being sued to high heaven by Microsoft. --Tokachu 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm such a nice guy, I've removed all unverifiable testimonials in the "Controversy" section. Wikipedia readers can see the eBaum's World employee explain himself on video with the link I provided. If you'd like, Mgunit, I can interview a lawyer who specializes in copyrights if you really, really, really want a reliable testimony. --Tokachu 18:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

ebaumsworldsucks.com

This is strange. EBaum's World Sucks dot comebaumsworldsucks.com seems to have been taken down. Seeing as this page links to this site, which seems to have been taken down, the article should be changed to reflect this. CeeWhy 23:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The correct site is www.ebaumsworldsucks.com, not just ebaumsworldsucks.com. That has been fixed. --Tokachu 00:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait. They seemed to have changed the URL to www.ebaumsworldsucks.net, not dot com. I wonder why they changed the name? CeeWhy 06:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently there are some hosting problems; in the meantime, it's mirrored in a bunch of places. DS 21:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This Discussion Page is Too Damn Long...

Would someone kindly archive it for ease of reading? Thank YouAngrynight 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)