Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
See latest DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 8. Note the closer explicitly does not preclude relisting at AFD if needed.

Contents

Wow

Thats a HUGE amount of references for a mid-importance site Retro Agnostic (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because the page has had a huge amount of issues. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Several were not legit, and didn't even mention the site at all. I've removed those, as well as a few that fail WP:RS completely, some copyvio YouTube links, and one that was some private YouTube video. Someone may want to check the non-online ones to be sure they actually mention ED as well. Collectonian (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcRbsuwe4uw here's a new upload of the youtube video that was made private. you should be able to restore the citation now. also the two Brian Gray Toronto/Ontario paper references were removed with no sufficient justification. --Truthseeq (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
also the sentence in the stub about Bantown and Livejournal was cited with a washington post blog entry that directly linked to ED within the body of the article. someone, i believe, missed the link in some sort of oversight, and removed the source, and then the statement was removed for not having a citation to back it up. it should also be restored. --Truthseeq (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't AFD

I would strongly recommend not AFDing this page for at least a month as it would prove unduly divisive and disruptive, especially after such a strong consensus to recreate it. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreement, concurrence, and they did it anyway. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The AFD is truly sad and showcases WP at it's worst. Broooooooce (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it the tone of the debate there, or the fact that there is an AfD at all? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more articles to link to this

I'm sure we could start, somehow, by including links in the articles 4chan, Anonymous (group) and/or Project Chanology to here. But how should we do it without original research?--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't need more to link here. If relevant articles exist they will be linked as outside connections are documented. MBisanz talk 09:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already tried but they keep getting reverted.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe because there isn't consensus to link from those articles here. Just because its technically possible to link doesn't mean we must. MBisanz talk 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of the places people have been trying to add links are completely inappropriate, too - like List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge‎; ED is not an encyclopedia by any serious definition of the word. krimpet✽ 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And looking at the account adding the links, I'm getting the feeling of a SPA-TROLL at work. MBisanz talk 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

B Class?

Erm, who rated this article as B class? Doesn't seem up to scratch, im my opinion. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem up to scratch to be a B class article. Lacks insufficient information, and is too short, to really be a B class article. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 11:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I rated it B as it had to go through the most rigourous review in Wikipedia history.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but struggles do not a B-Class article make. Downgraded to start, which may be too generous as well. Howa0082 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks more like a stub to me. Very good as stubs go but the amount of actual content is still very limited. Hut 8.5 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Using ED as a WP:SPS about itself

The article now reads, "The websites slogan is "In lulz we trust", a pun of In God We Trust.", and cites the ED main page. Personally I think this should be removed. We could write all we like about what ED says about itself, but due to the fact that it's a wiki, and a somewhat unstable one at that, I don't think we should use ED as a self-published source, because if we did so we could make the article a lot larger, but the quality would be vastly reduced.--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Slogans are on nearly all wikis, and nothing is wrong with self-published sources as long as they are encyclopedic and relevant.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but wikis aren't reliable sources anyway, specifically because anyone can edit them - in theory, the slogan could change. If a site-owner or operator is quoted in a secondary source as confirming that slogan, then we can use that source, but - ignoring the link issue - the site itself can change and should not be considered a reliable source. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Part of the point of this website is that it often attempts humour by this use of patent falsehoods, exaggeration and sarcasm - and it extends this even to self-references. I don't think you can use it as a reliable source for anything, including itself. CIreland (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have commented out the slogan, in the absence of a reliable source to back it. No objection to re-adding it if such a source exists. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-added it with source.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

Please change the template to include revenue and the url of the site. Editprotected {{Infobox Website |name = Encyclopedia Dramatica |logo = [[Image:Ed_logo.png|100px|Official site logo]] |screenshot = [[Image:Ed mainpage.png|280px]] |caption = The main page of as of May 14, 2008. |url = http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page |commercial = Yes |type = [[Satire|Satirical]] [[wiki]] |language = English |registration = Optional |owner = |author = |launch date = |current status = Active |revenue = Ad driven |slogan = In lulz we trust. |alexa = }}

The URL is blacklisted. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to be protected at the moment. And doesn't the blacklist now have the capability of granting special exceptions to allow links to blacklisted sites from particular articles? (It would stir up a huge hornet's nest to allow it in this case, but consistency with other website articles would seem to argue for it. We even link to Stormfront (website) on its article, after all.) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There's the Spam-whitelist, but it doesn't seem to be possible to allow a URL to exist in just one article, sadly. --Conti|✉ 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as references

My addition of another blog to the list of two other major blogs that used ED as a reference was undone on the grounds that blogs can't be used as references (even for themselves?), but isn't that true of the other two as well? (Or maybe the Gothamist network qualifies as a "news site" rather than a "blog", but in that case it probably shouldn't be referred to as a blog in this article.) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are blogs. There are some exceptions, but our verifiability policy is rather strict on blogs. If unsure, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you be taking out the reference to AlterNet? (Personally, I have no problem with using a blog as a reference for the specific fact that ED was referenced in that blog, but I recognize that standards are being applied ultra-strictly in this article due to its controversial nature.) *Dan T.* (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] - Steve, per WP:SPS, some blogs can be used as references when appropriate. No comment on this specific case, but please get your policy right. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Erk, my bad. :S Feel free to undo my edit. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that a blog is a website in a specific format. Most blogs are not reliable sources. But being in a blog format does not preclude a site from being reliable for a given claim. Just as most websites are not reliable sources does not mean no website can be used as a reliable source. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox images

Two things:

  1. Is the screenshot really necessary? We need to have as little fair-use content as possible. On the negative side, it's a bit offensive and the index page itself, I feel is not discussed critically enough.
  2. Is the logo actually fair-use? There may be a case for {{PD-textlogo}} because it's just text in a serif font, and there's nothing special about the logo.

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There can't be two fair-use images in an article this short. I suggest we get rid of the screenshot which is pretty useless anyway. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And it's gone. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The image is legit and in keeping with the standards for articles on websites. Wikipedia, Citizendium, Uncyclopedia, etc etc. Z00r (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but look at the lengths of those 3 articles. They're much longer than this article, and, as raised, in an article this short, 2 images seem to be unnecessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gone again. Please see WP:NFCC#3a. I'm merely enforcing policy. I'll take this to IfD if needed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

link to ed

Currently the arbitration will clarify on whether or not the url can be added to the article. I was made aware after my edit via irc, so until that clarification is made, we should probably not re add the link. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Arbitration motion, in hidden comment. It's blatantly obvious, so anyone adding a URL link, well would be rather blatantly ignoring it, or not reading it. Perhaps ArbCom will overturn that decision, however I find it unlikely. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a content/editorial decision by the Arbitration Committee? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

From the Arbitration Case.

“ 3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ”

And, additionally,

“ 1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ”

. I think that makes it rather clear, at least until they overturn their decision on these remedies. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know if this was anticipated when the remedy was made. It could be an inadvertent content decision.... they are however empowered to do so advertantly, I believe they will clarify shortly and the link will be permitted. They use common sense on these things. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Around here, what's common seems rarely sensible, and what's sensible not very common. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, if they will allow a link. We will soon find out, I am sure. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was upheld with an ED article in mind; see [2]. Sceptre (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That "clarification" is far from definitive. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
An ungodly mess is more like it, with arbitrators going many different contradictory directions that led many of them to vote against the proposal being considered then, leaving everybody to guess whether this ended up meaning that links were flatly banned, were to be treated in accordance with policy like all other content, or to be considered again at such time the ED article appears (which some hoped would be when hell froze over, but apparently it's reached the freezing point now). *Dan T.* (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But still, seven arbitrators out of nine opposed an exception to RFAR/MONGO r. 1 e. 1. for the article. The ban on links to ED applies to this article until AC rule otherwise. Sceptre (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, certainly. There's no reason not to wait for the clarification currently being requested. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The arbitrator comments included "If it is recreated then linking should follow the regular standards and it is always better avoiding exceptions." and "Manifestly, this is making policy" [which ArbCom isn't supposed to do]. At least those comments seemed to indicate that they were voting against a special exception because it was unnecessary; links were to be decided by normal editorial standards, not ArbCom fiat. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree, except that they did, in fact, specifically ban all links to this site by fiat, so I'd like an explicit indication that this is an issue for the community to decide at least, before putting it here. There's no emergency here. We can wait for the clarification requested. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this is silly. Isn't our regular standard to link to websites about which we write? I'd add it myself if I didn't think it'd be removed. WODUP 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Its on the blacklist, Arbcom says no links to it, so we should try to evade with a disabled link. MBisanz talk 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the committee explicitly (or perhaps implicitly? - it's not clear) said a link could be included in this article[3] in its Marcy 2008 request for clarification[4]. Though I can't understand the outcome 100% it looks like a standard external link should be okay. Wikidemo (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Those votes were 1 arb supporting a link and 7 opposing, with 1 abstention. MBisanz talk 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, it's not really clear to me that they were opposing a link in this situation so much as they were opposed to declaring that there should or should not be a link. Which is odd, since they already declared that there shouldn't be one, previously. Regardless, this is why we should wait for further clarification. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The 7 opposes seemed to be all over the map about what their opposition actually meant, ranging from your position that it supported a link ban, through others saying that it meant that ArbCom shouldn't be making policy and normal editorial decisions should apply, as well as still other opinions to the effect that any decision was premature before the ED article existed. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I really think it's best to wait until ArbCom clarifies their position on the link to ED. It's unclear what their decision is, thats why there are Requests for Clarification. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that the arbcom clarification is hard to figure out. Plus, most of them seemed to be reaching the question whether citation links to source material in this article would be okay, not a routine external link to the main page. In voting on and rejecting the proposal some members seemed to assume there was a default that linking was okay for this article and that the proposal was for a restriction on those links; others seemed to assume the default was that no linking was permitted due to their earlier decision and the proposal was an exception to permit links in limited cases. Not sure if we ought to demand a further clarification from them or just do it. Is anyone actually objecting to the link in principle, or are those who are removing it simply doing it to honor the apparent outcome of the Arbcom decision?Wikidemo (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is a dispute resolution body, not a dictator of policy. It can be safely ignored on this issue. Martinp23 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What I wish about the original MONGO ArbCom decision is that it be dead, buried, then dug up, chopped into little pieces, and flushed down the toilet. Unfortunately, this sane and reasonable outcome doesn't seem about to happen, so a clarification in favor of following normal link policy would be a reasonable second choice. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can't really ignore it because other users won't ingore it and will edit war to remove it, citing the rulings as support and why they're exempt from 3RR. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
To be fair I'd readily block anyone who did that. Martinp23 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom is a dispute resolution body, but they can impose any solution which will be considered binding. Don't confuse their refusal to enter into content/policy disputes with a restriction on them entering content/policy disputes - nothing in the arbitration policy precludes them from passing such rulings. Sceptre (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Their own precedent does though. Martinp23 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth is this discussion still ongoing? Of course it should be linked to, it's common sense, it isn't being linked to for the purpose of harrasment, it's an article about encyclopedia dramatica, people will want the URL, and we do i on all other articles about websites. This is what WP:IAR is all about. I can see absolutly no way anyone could justify removing the link, arbcom is irrelevant here, if any of you thought for yourselves for a moment you'd agree.--Phoenix-wiki 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The original ArbCom decision seems to have caused a lot more disputes than it has ever resolved. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I added it because it's the encyclopedic thing to do. I hope it stays (actually, I hope it's removed from th eblacklist and converted into a working link). WODUP 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I tried adding the link and it's been blacklisted, so blocked by spam filter. Can't be added I'm afraid, unless an admin wants to.--Phoenix-wiki 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Great WODUP, that's great, leave it like that people, it's encyclopediodic.--Phoenix-wiki 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And I Sceptre removed again, lets wait for arbcom to say something on the matter. MBisanz talk 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I figured this would have happened much earlier in the day - the article is now fully protected. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I tried to link, but was stopped by the filter. I tried... WODUP 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the advantage in doing something just because ArbCom once said something. Does removing the URL improve the article? Does adding it improve the article? Does keeping the URL do some kind of harm? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is No Deadline, so delaying the insertion of a URL that is patently obvious from the article's context and any one of the multiple references provided is not of pressing concern. Clarification or no, there's no urgency. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree with everyone here. Adding the URL clearly helps the article but in a minor way, the way any WP:EL would - that's why we have a field for it in the infobox. But no urgency. It's funny that we're getting all dramatica ourselves here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to ED? No problem. For example Czech Wikipedia links to ED without any problem and nobody vandalize that external link. --Dezidor (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just popped in to remind everyone that community has a guideline on this, see WP:BADLINKS. Just put the url in plain text instead of a hotlink seems to be its advice. -- Kendrick7talk 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I realize that that guideline says that it is sometimes a reasonable compromise, but I don't think WP:NPOV is something we should ever intentionally subvert. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen, guys, I think it would be to the article's advantage not to be fully protected right now. Can we get an agreement not to reinsert the external link for now so that we can reduce the protection level? -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. WP:EL is policy. WP:BADSITES is a guideline. Both were determined by the community, and community trumps ArbCom so.. Martinp23 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
BADSITES isn't a guideline. Ooops. I was thinking about WP:LINKLOVE Martinp23 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering this page is now semi-protected due to IP vandalism, I'd prefer not to expose the article to sleeper socks. MBisanz talk 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It's actually fully protected. I think semi-protection would be prefereable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"This page", as said by MBisanz, = the talk page here. Martinp23 22:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Advance warning

Just a quick warning that there is likely to be an influx of trolling after this comment was made on Uncyclopedia. I know the two wikis don't exactly hit it off, but it may still attract the idiots. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:42, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

some guy deleted about half the sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.93.132 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They were links to unreliable sources such as blogs and sites which didn't even mention ED. Enforcing Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism. Hut 8.5 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Plea for Harvard style

Collectionian made a good-faith reversion to the embedded-link style of reference rather than the standard Harvard-style that I prefer - mainly because embedded links in references make the source text completely unreadable. Plea to return to a standard and widely-used academic style of referencing? Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe both are permitted per WP:MoS, so the version first in the article is the one used. MBisanz talk 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The method of embedding URL's in the source text, which makes it unreadable, is not recommended, as far as I can see. Peter Damian (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I converted it from {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}. Looks neater, I think. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they are all listed at Wikipedia:CITE#How_to_cite_sources as permissible.MBisanz talk 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2)That is purely wrong, and it is the most widely used method on Wikipedia, particularly in articles of this type. There is nothing wrong with the current style and Harvard style is wholly inappropriate and useless for this type of article. I undid the reflist|2 because it doesn't have enough to warrant it. When it has 20, then you can two column it.Collectonian (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I still haven't found any reference on the style manuals to embedded URLs. There is a recognised difference between putting the name of the work in the ref itself, and Harvard style, yes. But these two methods do not include actually embedding the URL in the text itself, which is barbaric. Peter Damian (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, it is not "barbaric" and it is perfectly fine. Hence the existance of the cite web template, and for in-line citations. There is nothing wrong with the citations being directly in the text, where they belong. I personally find shoving everything to the bottom and forcing people to hunt around to find stuff to be barbaric, ugly, and less than useless. If you really think it doesn't belong, why don't you go argue the dozens and dozens of featured articles using the same style as this article. This is not academia and you can't force those ugly Harvard styles on anyone. If consensus doesn't agree it belongs, we use the regular citation method. Oh, and the link MBisanz gives above supports it just fine, if you read of context.Collectonian (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As a non-cite-dork user, I totally do not understand this issue, beyond Pete wants to use one type of citation, and Collectonian wants another. So that I don't have to go digging (because I am extremely lazy), can these differences be explained, to help further concensus? Howa0082 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the style Peter links [5], which is rarely to never used outside of academia topics. It shoves all the references and stuff to the bottom, then just puts (last name) in the text between the ref tags. So if you want to edit the source, or make a correction, you have to go hunt it down at the bottom of the page and try to match it. My method is the typical and standard method of having the source between the reference tags where it belongs. Collectonian (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Again NO! See C's talk page. It is the use of URLs in references that I object to, because then you have to write a whole paragraph through a briar thicket of URLs. Peter Damian (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, if we cite an online source as a reference for a particular piece of information (as we surely must, if the subject is a website), don't we have to provide the URL? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And, as I said on my talk page, frankly you need to get over it. Its an article about a website. There is no sane reason to dump every last ref with a URL (which will be 90-99% of them) to the bottom just because YOU don't like seeing a URL while you're editing it. Collectonian (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Look I'm the person who rewrote that paragraph. As I commented on your talk page, you appear to be one of the many editors who edit one line at a time, without reading the whole thing. I rewrote the para. Why can't I provide the style of referencing I am comfortable with?? Peter Damian (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your arrogant, and frankly wrong, presumption that I edit "one line at time" is just plain asinine, and mildly insulting, and has no place in this argument. As for why can't you provide the style you are comfortable with: because consensus doesn't agree with you, because the article had an established referencing style, and because your don't to make the other 99% of editors comfortable just for your sake. Collectonian (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict?!?!!!1) Personally, dude, I find it not-at-all difficult to sift through the inline style when I'm editing. And, if I understand this right, Harvard-style doesn't let you name a ref in the code, then just type <ref name=Reference/> to add another citation to that same reference? Howa0082 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What I am objecting to

There is a complete confusion about what I am complaining about here. I have no particular beef about whether the reference, without URL, is located inside the 'ref' tags in the source text. It's when URLs are linked that I go mad. I cannot edit a whole paragraph into a single coherent thought when faced with this. Below is what you now see when you try to edit the article. Who can EDIT their way through, faced with that?


'''Encyclopedia Dramatica''' is a parody of internet encylopedias such as [[Wikipedia]], written on a [[wiki]]<ref name="neva">{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/17/PKG6BKQQA41.DTL&type=printable |title=Sex and the City |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |publisher=[[Hearst Communications]] |date=2006-09-17 |accessdate-2008-05-14 |last=Neva |first=Chonin |pages=p.20 }}</ref><ref name="warrens">{{cite news |title=Privacy |work=Warren's Washington Internet Daily |date=2006-09-12}}</ref>, using apparently comprehensive referencing and linking, but in a satirical and often abusive style. Many of the articles are written in an ironic manner with the express purpose of upsetting those who take it seriously (an activity known on the Internet as [[Troll (Internet)|trolling]]). The content is wide-ranging, covering drama and gossip on other internet forums, Internet subculture, users of web services<ref name="Dee">{{cite web |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=5&oref=slogin |last=Dee |first=Jonathan |title=All the News That's Fit to Print Out |publisher=[[The New York Times]] |work=Magazine |date=2007-07-01 |pages=p. 5, 34}}</ref> and [[Internet meme | online catchphrases]] in a coarse, offensive and frequently obscene manner.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 |last=Davies |first=Shaun |title=Critics point finger at satirical website |work=National Nine News |date=2008-05-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://gawker.com/346385/what-the-hell-are-4chan-ed-something-awful-and-b?mail2=true |last=Douglas |first=Nick |title=What The Hell Are 4chan, ED, Something Awful, And 'b'? |work=[[Gawker.com]] |date=2008-01-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=2 Do: Monday, December 26 |publisher=[[Chicago Tribune]] |work=RedEye Edition |date=2005-12-16 |pages=p. 2}}</ref><ref name="northadams"/>

That is a standard wikipedia format for citing articles. Check any FA. MBisanz talk 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I don't know about my esteemed colleagues here, but I'll open the article itself in a tab and read it there, find what I want to edit, then hit ctrl-F in the edit window and find that text. Much simpler for big articles, and it bypasses all of the referencing. I'll also add that I'm a big fan of <ref name="something">, which cuts down a LOT of the clutter. The value of inline citations with URLs (to document WP:V) trumps ease of editing, in my mind. The alternative is to write the paragraph and then ref it. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(Conflict!) I dunno, man, if you can't hold onto the thought of the line you've been reading while you scan ahead to find the end of the reference, well, I don't know. But that seems a little strange for someone who insists upon academic standards to not be able to, like, remember stuff. Y'know? I swear to god, I'm not trying to flamebait you, it just seems silly to me. Howa0082 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, is this what you want articles to look like, Peter? Because, if so, damn. That's crap. Nothing quite breaks up my ease of reading an article than seeing huge nonsense words floating around the text. Those inlines are SEXY. Howa0082 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No I think you misunderstand. I use endnotes. But I keep the material in there at a minimum. Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be easier to put the cite section (not just specific to here, but in general) in one list-format location, and then just drop refnames throughout the article? Would that be against MOS? I'm wondering based on this comment if that might be better for my articles... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its possible, but most people don't find it generally to be easier. The coding is different. The section on Wikiepedia:Citing sources on In-line cites gives an example of it, but it isn't widely used from what I've seen, likely due to the way you have to do it code wise. Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references has a fuller example. I wouldn't call it easier myself :P Collectonian (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Linking URLs may be common, but I have been editing Wikipedia since 2003, and it's a comparatively new phenomenon. Indeed, providing citations is only relatively recent. All I am saying is that if I make a major edit to an article, it is reasonable for me to choose the style of citation. Reasonableness is all I am asking. And for the record here is Collectonian's profile which does, as I say, consist mostly of articles about lists of things. This is not meant as disparaging, but a list approach easier accomodates the embedded URL approach than the whole-paragraph one. Peter Damian (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone and everyone know that the Kate tool is only useful if an editor doesn't work with a lot of articles. My actual editing history and my user page far better document my extensive work. So stop looking down your nose at me, particularly considering your history here. Collectonian (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? Peter Damian (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You came on with what seemed like a very aggressive revert, you tell me to 'get used to it' or whatever. I apologise if what I said seemed condescending. It was not meant that way: I meant, my style of editing requires going through large chunks of text at a time, and given I rewrote that paragraph, it was unreasonable of you to revert. Peter Damian (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your last account was given an indef block, as is plainly noted on your user page. And, FYI, your link above is to YOUR profile, not mine, and just shows what a very limited editing scope you have. Just as you had on your old account. You edit almost entirely in academic topics, which this is not within the realm of at all. Your comfort with the ugly style preferred there has no relevance here at all, and thus far, not a single editor has supported your desire.Collectonian (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your "apology" has no sincerity when you continue to insult my editing. And no, your rewriting does not mean you have free reign to redo the entire citation of the style without consensus. Collectonian (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies here is yours. On who supports what, of course, you win on a show of hands. Peter Damian (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I must go now. Shall we try to be friends? I haven't reverted your revert, after all.Peter Damian (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I know where mine is, I have it clearly linked from my user page. And while I'm glad you didn't attempt to revert before the page was protected, I'd have to say no, sorry, but after all the insulting on my editing, friends isn't a word I think of while conversing with you at the moment. Collectonian (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh well. But there is this joke about Wikipedia and Pokemon and anime and all that real-world stuff, as you surely know. Farewell. Peter Damian (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, don't know it and don't particularly care. People want to be ignorant and make stupid jokes about stuff, that's on them. *shrug* My editing history really speaks for itself, despite your attempts to minimize and insult it, and your false claims that I mostly work on list stuff (where as the very history you point to shows clearly that I work in a wide range of areas, and on a relatively equal number of articles and lists). The fact that you claim the lists don't require "prose" only goes to show you didn't even look at them, just made some assumptions to devalue my editing. Don't know the Pokeman and Wikipedia joke, but since you do, I'm sure you also know what they say about making assumptions. In the future, I suggest you actually do real looking before trying to pigeonhole an editor's contributions and then dismiss them.Collectonian (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page because there seems to be edit warring over whether or not we can link to ED. This isn't going to be sorted with ArbCom clarification at Wikipedia:RFArb#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, so it is likely that the good faith edit warring would continue. The article is in a stable state, so until the clarification comes, there's no urgent need for the page to be open to edit, but if an edit becomes apparent, please use the {{editprotected}} template. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's protected, please no editing. The last thing we need is drama. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose people already know this, and I meant to mention this earlier, but the talk page has been semi-protected due to a recent vandal wave. Acalamari 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar?

I see we've called ED satirical, abusive, ironical, upsetting, trolling, coarse, offensive and obscene. Could we please call it vulgar too? Wikidemo (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian removed the word "vulgar" from the intro before protection occurred. I'd support its re-addition. MBisanz talk 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should be calling it anything... we should be citing what reliable sources call it. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No I changed 'vulgar' to 'coarse', which was what was meant. Peter Damian (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove it, Peter did. I just put back his rewrite, without the hideous citation redo. I personally suspect the language is still far from being NPOV, even with the sourcing, so suggestions on better phraseology would be good. Collectonian (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hardly NPOV is it? Martinp23 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If the negative in tone comments are from 3rd party RS, as in the NY Times calls this site "a piece of shit", we can say "The NY Times called this website a piece of shit". For simple descriptive material like that, as it's sourced, it's fine to call this shit site vulgar. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Lovely. Martinp23 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Usually you don't have to cite uncontroversial summary adjectives in an article lead if they're supported by the article. I think "vulgar" is a little less rude than to say "offensive" (which is a value judgment) and "obscene" (which is almost certainly technically incorrect). Not a big deal though. I don't think we are compelled to repeat every disparagement made by a notable person or publication. In fact, I don't think there is such a thing as a reliable source that something is a P.O.S. They don't mean that literally, they're just editorializing. And we don't run an editorial insult count on every single thing just because someone writes an editorial about it. Wikidemo (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"it's fine to call this shit site vulgar" "this shit site vulgar" "shit site" -> WP:OR Howa0082 (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, its a shock site, but when taking the moral high-ground 'vulgar', 'offensive', 'obscene' and 'rude' remain OR. Unless of course someone can cite someone else having said that. Ditto "using apparently comprehensive referencing and linking, but in a satirical and often abusive style.[citation needed]," and where the "apparently" only reinforces the OR-ishness. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "vulgar" is too judgmental, not compared to these other words. It just means it uses provocatively lewd language and discusses colorful subjects. Here is one citation for vulgar but just the Myspace article[6]. They also use the word "blunt." I like that one, blunt. Wikidemo (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I like "coarse". If you've got a tv show where everyone says "fuck" and "shit" and "niggers", like The Sopranos, they'll throw a "coarse language" warning up on that on your average tv station. So I think coarse is a much more appropriate word that adequately describes the content. Vulgar and obscene are value judgements, and some people won't find it at all obscene, or find it vulgar. Coarse takes no sides on whether such language is good or bad. So, thusly, I nominate "coarse" at the Kingsmoot. Long live the coarse! Howa0082 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think vulgar is more neutral than coarse. Coarse implies that something is rough, unfinished, low quality...it's also a euphemism. Vulgar is a proud word. Perhaps they can have a google fight. Aw, damn. "Coarse" won. Nevermind then. Wikidemo (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Every adjective represents -- by its very nature -- an evaluation of quality, of value. What "some people" think is not pertinent; either such qualification is cite-able or its not. Myspace is unfortunately not a good source, otherwise "blunt|... <whatever>" (as a direct quote) would be fine. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC) ps: I really don't understand the aversion to direct quotation for evaluative statements anyway.

Yes, and not just adjectives, nouns. But we don't cite every word indivdually here. In the lead section we're sometimes known to summarize... using toned down language to describe strong things is not necessarily accurate or neutral. Sometimes the denial and soft-pedaling itself becomes a POV issue. Perhaps we can look to how other messy sites like fuckedcompany, slashdot, etc., and articles about magazines like Vice. Wikidemo (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See also?

The article has a See also for 'Internet privacy'. What is that doing there? -- Fullstop (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Fortuny incident. Corvus cornixtalk 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Elonka added it with the summary "Adding link to other article which talks about the subject." Can't say that I agree it belongs myself. Collectonian (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I also think it should go. It's this diff. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
A link is by definition superfluous when it can't be worked into the article itself. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Encyclopædiadramatica.org, Encyclopædiadramatica.com, Encyclopediadramatica.org and Encyclopaediadramatica should probably be protected, as well. Corvus cornixtalk 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be bold and say they should be permanently protected at that. Collectonian (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've semi-protected them for now, though if anyone objects, I can unprotect them, though I'm not sure what purpose having them unprotected would serve. Acalamari 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of sleeper trolls... apparently ED has a "slave name". Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've sent the redirects created by the now-banned troll that include the ED web address to WP:RFD. MBisanz talk 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Chebyshev is not a sleeper troll, he is the 3rd sock (or so) of User:Weierstrass, an active and knowledgable editor of mathematics articles who has a tendency to get riled up, act incivilly, and get banned. Z00r (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several more redirects than the above. Corvus cornixtalk 01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I protected all the ones I didn't nom for deletion. MBisanz talk 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good call. Acalamari 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

protection / new information

I don't understand how can I add new information to this article, since its protected, but I wanted to add the information about the stylization of the word Encyclopædia (see for example Pink (singer)). --Have a nice day. Running 01:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

List the content you want on this page, and add the term {{editprotected}} and an admin will come and review the submission. This process is necessary due to editwarring over the content of the page. MBisanz talk 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well then.. --Have a nice day. Running 01:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} please add (sometimes stylized as Encyclopædia Dramatica) to the beginning of this article.

I'm seeing no objections to this... anyone? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I have made the requested change. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

External link required

{{editprotected}}

Official Site external link should be added. This is standard for any article describing a website or organisation with one - there is no justification for treating this site any differently. Exxolon (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is currently under discussion by the arbcom here. The link won't get readded until they decide something. Results shortly. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, this is beyond the Arbcom's remit. The Arbcom's primary responsibility is sanctioning users who damage the project, not formulating policy - that's down to the community. Asking the Arbcom to rule here is inappropiate and an abdication of responsibility by the wider community. Request reinstated. Exxolon (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, not happening. MBisanz talk 02:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The ArbCom's remit is whatever the community says it is. Corvus cornixtalk 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Its not going to happen untill the current ruling is clarified. There are admins willing to block those who blatantly ignore the ruling pre-clarification. I'm count myself lucky I Did not get warned/blocked for inserting the link. Its not going to happen right now. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I would happily insert the link myself if I was permitted to. I'm very disturbed by your assertion about certain admins - admins should not be willing to throw blocks around for good faith attempts to improve articles regardless of their personal feelings about the site. Exxolon (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Woah... I never said an admin would block for personal feeling, I said an admin would block for blatantly ignoring a ruling. I'm always willing to source my assertions. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I should've parsed your comment more carefully. In that instance I would say that a good faith attempt to improve an article should trump a quasi-legal 'ruling' and should not lead to to a block. Exxolon (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
An administrator doing that would be misusing administrative privileges. It is not clear at all that Arbcom has forbidden such a link, and in fact some strong arguments that the ruling permits it. A responsible admin would know that the actual meaning of the Arbcom ruling is unclear, not just its legitimacy. Any admin who uses blocks to favor one position or another is plainly using their privileges to prevail on one side of a legitimate dispute. Blocking for edit warring on the subject, however, is a different matter. Wikidemo (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links, linking to the mainpage of that site would be linking to harassment. MBisanz talk 02:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we have an article for ED, don't we, by definition, have to link to it? I mean, that's like saying 'Here's what ED is like, but we can't show you the place'.HalfShadow 02:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Concur. Not linking opens a can of worms whereby we link or not link to sites based on there attitude towards us. That's a slippery road - we are here to collate content from other sources in an encyclopedic manner and letting another groups opinion of us affect our decisions as to the inclusion or non-inclusion of any information is unacceptable. Exxolon (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Basically, the same we we have articles on child sexual abuse, and don't ahve pictures to show the act. MBisanz talk 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I don't really care one way or the other; I just think it's sort of odd that we have an article for the site, but no link to it. HalfShadow 02:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
While some external links may be permitted by the External link guidelines, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy whatsoever to be included.
Previous consensus, rulings, practice
  • "Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions." See #Support of harassment
  • "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." See #Outing sites as attack sites
ArbCom rulings[7]
2) Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves. (Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Links to attack site
3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. (Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
--Hu12 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much required as it is just silly to refuse to link to it, when all other Web site articles that I know of include links, even to hateful sites like Stormfront. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ED is not an attack site, and the link in this article is not used as such. If you took the time to actually look at the content there, there is a lot of criticism and parody of Wikipedia but it's also a general user-contributed humor site, much of it quite funny though in bad taste (about as bad of taste as a typical blue comedy routine). It's actually a legitimate site - 2,000-something Alexa ranking, big ad buys by Live Nation and other big companies. Most of its articles have nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. I think this is all just posturing over content. We (some of us) don't like the site because it antagonizes Wikipedia. Well, tough luck. There's no policy against that. Wikidemo (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I agree that the link should be included. The sole justification for its omission it is that the website engages in behavior of which we disapprove. It simply isn't our place to bar the inclusion of links to websites of entities that we dislike.
Particularly disconcerting is that it's only because some of this behavior pertains to Wikipedia that this ban has been enacted. So basically, we're punishing them for wronging us. Meanwhile, we link to a Ku Klux Klan website from the relevant article (rightly so).
2. I also agree that the Arbitration Committee's place is to enforce policy, not to create it. Quite frankly, they overstepped their bounds.
3. Anyone who wants to find the site can do so easily, so omitting the link accomplishes nothing other than to create the appearance of spite and anxiety on our part, thereby handing Encyclopedia Dramatica ammunition to use against us.
4. This dispute is exactly what the ED people want. They love to cause disruption, so they're undoubtedly pleased to see us arguing about this. If we could just treat this like any other article, we'd spoil their fun. —David Levy 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

N Edit request declined. This matter is currently under ArbCom consideration at WP:RfAr, and the article is being discussed at WP:AfD. The present discussion may become redundant depending on the outcome of these discussions. Please re-issue this request only after the RfC and the AfD have been completed.  Sandstein  21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the inclusion of this external link seems to be what the edit war that prompted the protection of this page was about, so there's also no consensus to make the requested edit. Please try to establish such a consensus before issuing an {{editprotected}} request.  Sandstein  22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear any good reason we shouldn't be linking in this article... preferably one that seems at all logically consistent with common practice across the entire site or the principles of this project. Neutrality, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Deadline

Why is there a rush to include this link. Why not wait patiently for ArbCom to clarify? I think we all agree on the inclusion, as a matter of content. Now I believe we should just give the elected folks a chance to clarify their own ruling, out of respect. The precedent is that we as a community respect and enforce the remedys, and if need be, we move for clarification. We have done so (sought clarification), now we wait. We ought not turn this issue into a fight or dispute with arbcom. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a spirited discussion. The editors run Wikipedia, not Arbcom. No doubt they will read what we have to say before making up their minds. Wikidemo (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, eventualism is a good idea (other than with WP:BLP issues), and edit-warring is a bad idea. Hopefully if everybody calms down and acts reasonably, the just and sane outcome (i.e., my opinion! :-) ) will prevail in the long run. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps because I got caught up in an IP range block a while ago and unblocking was delayed as no-one wanted to undo a block made by an ArbCom member without their express permission. That kind of mentality, that the ArbCom are some kind of almighty gods we must kowtow to is an anathema to me. Exxolon (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Old history now, and resolved, I hope. You unfortunately edit from a range whose main contributor is a very problematic vandal. The range was hard-blocked after many, many attempts to soft block and address exceptions. Such cases are not left because ArbCom are "some kind of almighty gods", but for a much more basic reason - it's a norm to check with a blocking admin before unblocking, and more so, on a complex block with "history" that not many admins understand fully. You were unblocked shortly, and were (I think) either the first or second beneficiary of IP block exemption a few weeks later, pushed by ArbCom as well, which solved the problem. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Decision

This just in from the ArbCom Clarification request :-

"Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm fairly certain that this matter has already come up for clarification (albeit in a more hypothetical manner), and that we stated fairly clearly at the time that our prohibition on linking to ED was contingent on there not being a legitimate article on the site, and that the existence of such an article was a matter for the community to decide. Kirill (prof) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • To clarify: as far as I'm concerned, at this point, the community can do whatever it wishes regarding the existence of an ED article and the presence of links to ED, whether within that article or elsewhere. Kirill (prof) 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)"

I move that the article be unprotected immediately and normal editing resumed. Exxolon (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting the page and editing as normal seem right to me, but do others want to wait and hear the opinions of more arbitrators? WODUP 03:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer it stay protected pending a fuller view from the arbcom. MBisanz talk 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You know, I'd argue to have it be left protected for the short while. It's bound to attract so many harsh feelings, that perhaps not allowing edit wars to occur at all would be for the best right now. Put the weblink in, however. No reason not to, really. Howa0082 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, lets leave the weblink out per our harassment policy. The front page of that site does harass wikipedians. MBisanz talk 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
When the link isn't added for the purpose of harassing or intimidating a user (as would be a link that's to the site the article is on in accordance with normal style guidelines), it's not against that policy, and BADSITES is not policy. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't link to BADSITES, I linkde to a current WP policy on Harassment, and now I'm linking to a current WP guideline on Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment, now take at look at the Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment#Link_assessment_table, I'd say ED meets all the criteria to be excluded, and that is from a WP Guideline. MBisanz talk 03:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As I understand that policy, the harassment would be linking directly to an article on a certain admin for the purpose of humiliating them. Linking to ED's main page passes by that harassment policy so far, it's like throwing a pencil down a hallway. Howa0082 (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
From the cited guideline: "If a website is in itself notable enough to have its own article, it should be linked from that article." *Dan T.* (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:PROBLEMLINKS states:
sound editorial judgement should be applied to determine whether links are encyclopedic, and whether they're being included for encyclopedic reasons. Links that are included for unencyclopedic purposes should be removed.
In this article, the link is encyclopedic, and the motivation for including it is encyclopedic. Moreover, not including it would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED, both of which are policy, whereas WP:PROBLEMLINKS is simply a guideline. Z00r (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Link the article. We should be neutral here. As long as we are not linking to a specific piece of harassment. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
External links are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy whatsoever to be included.--Hu12 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait? Does policy mandate us, or do we mandate policy? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The homepage is not harassment. There might be some if I click a few links, but everything on the fromt page looks okay. Additionally, if it were harassment, the method listed at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment#In articles is as censored as it should be. WODUP 04:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. (Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
site. I'm sure arbcom was intentional on this wording --Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If arbcom throws the decision of whether or not to have an external link on this article back to the community, citing previous arbcom decisions in order to trump community consensus doesn't make a lot of sense. Further, whatever guideline you cite, WP:NPOV trumps them all. -Chunky Rice (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV?...trump community consensus?... the abcom ruling was ED specific;
Links to ED[8]
1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it.
Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
--Hu12 (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow. just wow. You can't be serious.Z00r (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Fuckin' mindblowing isn't it..
  • Outing sites as attack sites
11) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances. (Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site
16) Numerous pages of the Encyclopedia Dramatica website purport to disclose detailed information concerning the names, geographical locations, ISP's, and personal attributes of various Wikipedia administrators and editors. Any Wikipedian whose conduct assists the ED editors in compiling and publicizing such information has acted contrary to the best interests of the Wikipedia community.Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
--Hu12 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Erm, perhaps you missed my meaning. Everyone here is aware of the ArbCom decision. We are discussing whether it applies to this article, considering current events. Z00r (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, if the clarification of that case is that it's now up to the community whether or not to include a link (which seems likely), then that decision has been superceded. You can't cite to it as an authority. -Chunky Rice (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I had not seen that, so it would take a widespread community consensus that the Arbcom was wrong in that specific matter or the arbcom overruling itself formally (not just some arbs saying they are ok with it). MBisanz talk 05:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a RFAR novice, but clarification at Wikipedia:RFAR#Arbitrator views and discussion (once more arbs comment) would be formal, right? Again, not trying to be a smart ass, just want to be clear. WODUP 05:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If they act, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMONGO will be amended like Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Case_amended_16:13.2C_22_February_2008_.28UTC.29 was in an unrelated case. MBisanz talk 11:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. So this means that we'd have to go back and redo this all as a request to amend a prior decision, not a request for clarification. <sarcasm>Beautiful.</sarcasm> WODUP 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
no. 3 is superseded by the later clarification, and probably a new one soon. #11 either makes no sense, or doesn't apply here, and #12 does not apply to a link to the main page or pages unconnected with the practice. It takes no "widespread" consensus to overcome any Arbcom decision because there is no decision to overcome. Either Arbcom will tell us they're prohibiting it, or they will tell us they are not taking a position. Or they will tell us something else - too early to speculate. Wikidemo (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


OK, I agree I don't understand the Wikipedia bureaucracy, but explain this to me. There is no official policy that link to ED shouldn't be included in article about ED. There is some ArbCom decision (I have to say I hear the word "ArbCom" for the first time) that ED links will be banned. Do we have to listen to this decision for some bureaucratic reasons or can't we just include the link? (possibly with some NSFW warning) --Have a nice day. Running 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. The committee is the final decision and the only part of the policy I see that permits something similar to not following an Arbcom ruling is:

Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales.

So unless Jimbo says we can include links, or the Arbcom formally reverses itself (see my links above), we do need to listen to them. MBisanz talk 15:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, ok. Sorry if it sounded rude. It's his site after all. Just.. still seems a little bureaucratic to me. Thanks for link. --Have a nice day. Running 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well its actually the Wikimedia Foundation's website, just that the English Wikipedia community has given him the title of Founder and the ability of a constitutional monarch to overturn Arbcom actions (although he's never done so thus far). MBisanz talk 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "formally reverse." It's pretty unusual for every arbitrator to weigh in on a clarification, particularly when they all agree. I'm happy to wait for some dissenting opinions, but if none appear after a reasonable amount of time, it's safe to assume that those who have responded speak for ArbCom as a whole. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
To pull my quote from above, the way they would reverse themselves is:

If they act, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMONGO will be amended like Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Case_amended_16:13.2C_22_February_2008_.28UTC.29 was in an unrelated case. MBisanz talk 11:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So until they do that, the decree of no ED links stands. MBisanz talk 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I replied to you above, MSisanz, thanks. FT2 makes a decent point, though, about linking to it: that the link could be gamed. What does everyone think about adding the text encyclopediadramatica.com to the URL field of the infobox without linking to anything? I think this might be a good compromise and, AFAIK, it does not violate the ruling. WODUP 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What practical difference would that make? That it would take someone a few seconds longer to reach the site? For that matter, what practical difference does it make to omit the URL entirely? People know how to use Google. —David Levy 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
...except, of course, for the contested claim that the ArbCom possesses the authority to issue such a decree. —David Levy 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Some people don't want to link to the site because the Arbitration Committee says not to. I think that on Wikipedia, we do something, or not, because it's purely malum in se, never solely because it's malum prohibitum (IAR, right?). The strongest argument that I've seen not to link to ED is that they could game the link, and it's a decent reason to pause and make sure they we're doing the right thing, but anything that they put up is their responsibility. If we link to them and they put something vile on their homepage, I don't think that visitors are going to condemn us, they'd know that ED was responsible for that content. I'm all for adding a working external link, but proposed the text URL as a compromise. We are an encyclopedia, and we should at least give the URL. We do on every other website article. WODUP 23:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
In my eyes, it will be a blow to the credibility of this project if we don't have the link; that said, the site is on meta's spam blacklist, last I checked, so as far as I know the text link is the only easy way to link. My current position is that this is a content decision outside of arbcom's authority; absent a clear declaration from arbcom that their prohibition is still in effect, it's quite clearly dated now that we have an article (never mind they already amended the MONGO remedies, saying the community can resolve the contents of this article on our own). We don't follow rules "because they're rules," here, we follow them because they're a good idea at the time and because they match the circumstances. Circumstances have changed, now, so it's time for the rule to catch up. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Using an URL to bypass the spam filter is inappropriate. Say the word fuck was technically banned on a forum - the moderators won't let you get away with saying shpx. Sceptre (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Failing to include the URL in an encyclopedia article about the web site would be inappropriate. "Fuck" can be banned in a forum. A forum's role is to provide a place for discussion, and the moderators can decide to censor that. The URL cannot be banned from Wikipedia. Wikipedia's role is to provide information, and Wikipedia is not censored. WODUP 03:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The ArbCom seems as deadlocked as the rest of the community on the issue, with one arbitrator saying it's up to the community to decide whether to link and inappropriate for it to be imposed by ArbCom fiat, another arbitrator saying that the link ban should be maintained, and a third saying he agrees with both of them. This seems to result in a "clarification" that's "No Consensus" (pending the other arbitrators commenting, if they ever do). If it ends on such a "hung jury", it basically punts the decision back to us here, with no "argument from authority" to impose one rule on us. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP?

I wasn't aware Encyclopedia Dramatica achieved sentience. Will it shortly take over the USA's nuclear weapons facilities and launch a strike against Russia, sending the Earth into a nuclear holocaust wherein the human survivors must fight the robotic soldiers of SkyNet ED, and send a man back in time to keep Dramatica from killing the mother of John Connor Jimbo Wales, but in reality this man becomes Jimbo's father, cementing the creation of Dramatica's most hated nemesis? Howa0082 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that this is an article which deals with living people, therefore the WP:BLP policy must be maintained in editing the article. BLP says

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages.

In this case the article discusses several living people who are related to ED, and given contentious nature of this article, BLP needs to be respected in dealing with those people. MBisanz talk 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I got to make a Terminator joke, so I'm satisfied. Howa0082 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
yes, that did make me smile. MBisanz talk 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too. :) Acalamari 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The only person who considers ED to be their nemesis are User:MONGO. Jimbo's so busy globe trotting I think he could care less. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think that anyone vilified on ED would dislike it. --clpo13(talk) 20:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
How come nobody ever vilifies me? I feel left out. :( Wikidemo (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You have to become either a bureaucratic fuck, an administrator, diaper fetishist, or a lulzworthy cry-baby-drama-queen to be worthy of an article. It helps if you're all four. Are you already well on your way? Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you tone down the incivilities. Corvus cornixtalk 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Be happy as you are, and that you're not mentioned there, Wikidemo. Acalamari 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that there is nobody else who considers ED their nemesis. Corvus cornixtalk 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
How do I cite web serious fucking business? Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the above statement for you, Corvus. ;) Howa0082 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I almost did that.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
i saw what you did there sceptre, and its not funny. are you allowed to edit my edit summary? the summary i entered said something like 'if you edit a users comments you should remove their sig'. Badmachine (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a banned user not realy a controversial edit. Don't think anyone can selectivly edit someones edit summary. --Hu12 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
something tells me hes not just anyone. i know what i entered in my edit sum. i dont even care that he edited someone elses comment without removing their sig, thats between sceptre and user:neapolitan sixth but why take out my edit sum? Badmachine (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't think editing summaries was possible? Even if he was an was an administrator, it can't be done.--Hu12 (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
his own edit summary "not vandalism, trust me, I know what section of the policy you're referring to " looks like he saw my own complete edit summary. otherwise what the hell is he referring to? Badmachine (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
wp:village pump (technical) says it cant be done, but what he 'did' do still sucks. Badmachine (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like it was WP:TWINKLE related, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#how_did_my_edit_summary_get_truncated.3F. Not anything to sweat over. cheers --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Why is the article even full-protected anyway? It makes it really hard for anyone who's not an admin to, you know, improve the article so it more clearly meets WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Extensive edit warring prior to protection. Use {{editprotected}} to add citations, content, etc. MBisanz talk 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think extensive overstates the case a bit. The URL was inserted once and removed once. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It's quite funny that there is "feel free to edit this article" both in AfD template at the top and stub template at the bottom :) --Have a nice day. Running 21:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the former text. The latter states that users "can help by expanding [the article]," which can be accomplished by proposing changes on this talk page. —David Levy 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection

In a word, don't. I just declined two more requests (yes, two requests were concurrently running at RFPP). There is no way that this article is going to be unprotected before the AFD ends, so please stop asking. Repeated requests are nothing more than an attempt at forum-shopping, which is prohibited by behavioral guidelines established at Canvassing. Horologium (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For those keeping count, there have been five unprotection requests in the last 24 hours, which were declined by three different administrators. Horologium (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That does seem excessive. On the other hand, if we could simply get an agreement to not insert the link for now, I don't see why the article should be protected. As I noted above, there really wasn't even any significant edit warring before the article got locked down (1 edit, 1 revert). I certainly don't see what the AfD has to do with anything. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There may be a hint in all this, that article protection may not be desired. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's never desired. It is, however, sometimes necessary. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, CR. I was trying to formulate a civil response that conveyed the same sentiment, but I think you said it best. Horologium (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unident - That is asinine in the extreme. An article undergoing AFD should NOT be protected as the AFD process can often seriously improve an article. Forcing editors to jump through 'editprotected' hoops smacks of admins on a power trip. Exxolon (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any particular edits in mind, apart from the URL? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I really, really didn't mean that to come off as snarky as it did. I'm serious in that I'm more than willing to make any uncontroversial edits you propose, barring objections from other editors. Do you have anything in mind? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Normally, I might agree, but considering the outright insanity in the AfD, protection on this article I think is greatly needed. There is enough vandalism and foolishness going on there that doesn't need to be brought here. That said, so far, none of the keep votes that I saw provided any additional sources or information to add to the article, so I don't think its really hindering anything. Collectonian (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree (minus the indignation) that protection interferes with the AfD process and would render any decision to delete (which seems unlikely at this point) questionable as to legitimacy and staying power. Inasmuch as protection may be necessary, and came first, I think the AfD nomination coming in the midst of the ArbCom clarification request was a poor call that should have been speedily rejected. An AfD, arbcom case, and edit war at the same time, all in opposition to Wikipedia's coverage of this unruly detractor, really is forum shopping.Wikidemo (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the same could be said of the DRV coming during the arbcom request I think. And even if it was deleted through this AfD and was unprotected, it would still go to DRV. MBisanz talk 04:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise, what about working on a copy in userspace? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - done (i made a new section in this talkpage to make it more visible). --Have a nice day. Running 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page redirect

Resolved. Handled, by Hut 8.5. Anthøny 22:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin change the fully-protected Talk:Encyclopaedia dramatica to redirect here instead of to the main ED article. Makes sense for the redirect to be Talk: -> Talk: instead of Talk: -> mainspace. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:41, May 16, 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hut 8.5 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

good old userspace again

OK, i made a copy of the article (again) to my userspace, so anyone can edit it and (hopefully) add some new sources. Adding the ED link is still banned. Go here - User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica --Have a nice day. Running 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No offence but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica. Per Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages. Inapropriate use of userspace during a content dispute. "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages". This Articles talk page is sufficient to make {{editprotected}} changes.--Hu12 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we just reduce protection to semi-protect with the understanding that any attempt to reinsert the link will lead to full protection sans link? At least, give it a shot, if it doesn't work, no harm done, really. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Or we could semi with the link in place, since it so obviously belongs right there. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will delete it now (give me few seconds), you can speedily close the deletion review... --Have a nice day. Running 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
ok, i deleted the page (or at least the text, the template is still there). i just think WP is not working very good this way (tell me what you want to change and we will change it). That's why Nupedia did not work. But whatever you say. --Have a nice day. Running 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Er, what? Temporary userspace working copies are regular, established practice. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Not when designed to functionally substitute for articles that exist and are protected such as this one. I know Running ment well, and it was well intentioned.--Hu12 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Bullshit. At this point you're just obstructing any progress on the article. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This Articles talk page is sufficient to make {{editprotected}} changes (except for links)--Hu12 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it? I don't think that's for you alone to decide. Most requests so far are stagnating, declined, or both. Apparently any attempt to work on the article is met with reams of poorly quoted, outdated policy and instant deletion nominations. This is supposed to be a wiki, y'know, where people can edit without filling out sixteen forms in triplicate. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, there have been precisely two actual editprotected requests. One was to edit the lead, and was done (by me) after no objections were raised. The other was the External link, which - for at least 5 different reasons I can see, and that are discussed at length above - was declined. There have been no other substantive suggestions or proposals for additional edits. I submit that several admins - myself included - are happy to edit the article as requested, if such requests are uncontroversial or clearly have consensus. There's opposition to removing the protection, so we might as well accomplish something in the interim. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Protected pages don't get edited as often as unprotected ones, this is a no-brainer; how much have we missed because people weren't willing to duke it out in full on the talk page to maybe get half an edit in? When we've made it abundantly clear that it's effectively impossible to edit the article, it's no wonder edits aren't being requested. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, that's how wikipedia works (and also WHY does it work) - people want to actually edit the article - to click on "edit", to click on "save", to see their change in the article. As I said, that's why wikipedia works and Nupedia didn't. (and I don't see quite clearly why this page is fully protected after all...) --Have a nice day. Running 23:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 has misunderstood the cited guideline. The page in question is not being used for anything pertaining to the dispute that led to the page's protection, so it's a perfectly valid, constructive tool. Please see my MfD closure. —David Levy 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits Not pertainng to the dispute can be edited here, there is no misunderstanding it directly applies to Copies of other pages. --Hu12 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The article has been nominated for deletion, so time is of the essence. Collaborative editing via "editprotected" requests is clumsy and particularly impractical in a case such as this. There's no valid reason to prevent users from attempting to improve the article in the simplest and easiest way possible.
The misunderstanding is your belief that the cited guideline section is intended to prohibit this. As I explained in my closure, it's intended to prohibit the use of userspace pages as de facto articles or for the purpose of including disputed content (which Running explicitly advised against).
Rather than attempting to enforce the text as you interpret it, please explain what harm is being caused. —David Levy 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It would infact substitute as the article, where the article exists. full context; "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Similarly, pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages. If you find that your user subpage has become as useful as a normal article or project page, consider moving it into the appropriate namespace or merging it with other similar pages already existing there. ".--Hu12 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
1. You still are misinterpreting that text. As I noted in my MfD closure, it refers to the practice of directing readers to the page as though it's part of the encyclopedia.
2. Again, please explain what harm is being caused. (The benefits already have been explained.) Even if true (which it isn't), "it violates a guideline" doesn't suffice. When rules don't help us to improve or maintain Wikipedia, we ignore them. —David Levy 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no misinterpreting, as the practice of linking is specificly mentioned, however in a seperate statement " One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage, nor should a userspace essay be used as the primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or concept.". IAR would apply in normal situations, however this Whole ED thing is not "normal", including having ArbCom involved. --Hu12 (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
1. I've read the text quoted above, and I don't see how it contradicts anything that I've written. If a page doesn't exist primarily to be accessed by readers (as though it's part of the encyclopedia) it isn't functionally substituting for an article.
If the guideline that you've cited meant what you claim it does, it would prohibit the creation of a userspace draft for the purpose of revising an existing article (something recommended in the content forking guideline), irrespective of whether said article had been protected.
2. Both the article's protection and the ArbCom's involvement pertain strictly to the URL dispute, which has absolutely no connection to the edits being performed to the userspace page.
3. I'm still waiting for you to cite the harm that's being caused. You're fully aware that it's normal for drafts (including revisions of existing articles) to be authored in userspace, and you aren't explaining how the fact that the article is protected (for an entirely unrelated reason) renders this inappropriate. —David Levy 01:20/01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

request for change

{{editprotected}} whats better description than this :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARunning%2FEncyclopedia_Dramatica&diff=212939328&oldid=212935697

adding two more references (i am not very good at making <ref> references) --Have a nice day. Running 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done--Hu12 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, I don't see the Das Trollparadies article there (I have added it in the third paragraph, maybe you just overlooked it, it is in that change link) - yes, it is a trivial mention but I think trivial mentions can be used as references too. --Have a nice day. Running 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Mybad, didn't scroll down the page.. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Typo error. The newsreview should be http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=620760 - in article, there is 2 in the end of link. (thats why i think this way of building an article is stupid) --Have a nice day. Running 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change "Ad driven" to "Ad and donation driven" for greater accuracy. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done WODUP 05:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Right guys, how about we try unprotection? We can make it explicitly clear the site isn't to be linked to, and can do that with a hidden comment, linking here. It might be worth seeing how it goes.... Ryan Postlethwaite 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea, but at this point I cannot be considered an uninvolved admin. (Good luck finding one of those for this article). I suspect that this article is going to need protection for a good long time if it remains here. Horologium (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm still uninvolved :-) I'm just weighing up opinions on this - certainly not going to act without a clear consensus to do so. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully support a reduction in the protection level to semi-protect, with the understanding that any attempt to reinsert the link (for now) will not be allowed and may result in full protection being restored. Hopefully editors will recognize that edit warring will yield nothing on this front and we can have an article that people can work on. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd support reducing to semi-protection for now to allow improvements to be made. If edit-warring resumes, the page can always be re-protected. Acalamari 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There's enough good-faith interest in improving the article that a semi-pp would be warranted. I'll add that enough eyes are fixed on this article to quickly handle shenanigans, and that full-pp is available at need. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Per Acalamari. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can throw support behind a semi-protect. seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine by me. --- RockMFR 05:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree here.--Hu12 (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely. See how it goes, at least. --Kakofonous (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Note - I have added a comment to the url field in the infobox to say it was intentionally omitted, in order to alert anyone coming to this article unaware of the disagreement or arbcom decision.Wikidemo (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

External Link to site

As the ArbCom seems unable or unwilling to make a decision in this case it falls to the community to make the decision (which to be honest is as it should be)

On that basis I move that a standard external link be added to the article as per standard MOS guidelines without delay. I invite other editors to comment here to establish whether my proposal has consensus. If consensus can be acheived, the link should be added or kept off as per the consensus established.

Note to admins - assuming consensus is firmly established and it is for the link to be added I do NOT expect you to remove the link against consensus citing the previous ArbCom decision - the ArbCom is A: seemingly incapable of deciding here and B: in the final analysis not the ultimate authority here - the community is - and the community will decide as to the appropiateness of the link - not the ArbCom and not any single Admin. Of course admins and ArbCom members are as welcome as anyone else to opine and help to establish consensus as long as it is clear their views hold equal weight with any other editor. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So without further ado:-

  • Support external link. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support working external link or non-working plain-text URL. WODUP 16:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support from me and the otters (no, I won't vote multiple times for each otter). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - support a single link to the main page in the infobox, which may be removed on a temporary basis or permanently if needed should ED harass Wikipedians or violate anyone else's privacy, or have blatant copyright infringement, on that page. This is without referencing arbcom. If arbcom officially asks that the link be removed that is a different question (I suggest we discuss the question of interpreting and honoring Arbcom's ruling separately).Wikidemo (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support external link. (Though, the ED site seems to be down at this moment...) *Dan T.* (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment White listing a "fixed" link (Ie. www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Main_Page) is possible to do, however this Wreaks of an attempt at democracy over Arbcom's Wishes. Even linking to the homepage can easily make way for "featured articles" to be viewed, such was the case in "MONGO", which led to the Arbcom ruling. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition.Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica#External_link_required --Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No, this is what the WP:BADLINKS guideline says to do in this case. -- Kendrick7talk 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Either way, Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. (Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
      --Hu12 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That's not the most current Arbcom ruling on that topic, tho. This is: "The community is encouraged to develop a policy compliant with Wikipedia's key policies regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked." And Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment is the result, more or less, and states that we can link (or mention, rather) in this case. --Conti|✉ 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You are confusing a "link" with a "URL address"; they aren't the same thing. Links link to something. I agree that we shouldn't link -- it's not the same thing. -- Kendrick7talk 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for working link per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. Z00r (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think Wikipedia is made worse by not linking to ED, and a link to it is fairly likely to be gamed, as noted in the ArbCom clarification. I don't see how the benefits of linking (helping readers find ED if they want to look at it) outweigh the risks (inadvertently linking to harassment or illegal copyright violations).

    Since we make decisions by discussion and not by voting, I'd like to hear from supporters of linking why the benefits outweigh the risks in this case. In other words, policy citations aside, why is it a Good Idea? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    If there are actual legal risks, then the Foundation will take action. If the risks are merely linking to content that we don't like, then WP:NPOV indicates that that is not a factor we should consider. The web address of a notable website is basic information that should be included in any article. I don't see how you can argue against that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Well, you can talk about costs versus benefits, that's how. I'm not making an IDONTLIKEIT-based argument; I'm certain of that because I do like the website. I just don't see how it adds much to the article, and I do see how it is likely to be used for disruption - more so than any external link I can think of.

    The benefit of linking is very small, because any Internet user can copy/paste the name into Google and click "I'm feeling lucky" if they want to go there. The cost of linking is a consideration, because links to the front page of that site have been used to carry out disruptive, harassing attacks against Wikipedians. The way I see it, the cost-benefit analysis says, "don't link". -GTBacchus(talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    Saying we shouldn't link somewhere because there might just be something illegal or immoral there at some times is pure speculation which shouldn't override the core policy of neutrality. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    I never said, nor would ever say, "immoral". That is absolutely not a consideration. We routinely remove links where the content isn't reasonably assured of being stable and legal.

    I fail to see how omitting a link directly to the website makes our coverage of them biased. Nowhere in the definitions of the words "neutral" or "encyclopedia" is it implied that we have to link to a website in order to be neutral about describing it. There's a significant logical leap there.

    Additionally, it's not "pure speculation" to note that a link which has been used for disruption in the past is apt to be used for disruption. It's a fairly informed prediction. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    The neutrality / bias issue is rather strong. Removing the link is clearly not "routine". Even if that's not the direct intent of individual users who favor banning a link, the perception that generates is that Wikipedia engages in petty retribution against its detractors. That message gets broadcast inside and outside of wikipedia. If links were not so universal, the absence of a link in one article might not stick out. Here a missing link sticks out like a beacon.Wikidemo (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    A reader's perception of why a link is omitted will vary from person to person. I didn't say that removing this particular link was "routine" - nothing is routine about this article - but it is true that we routinely remove broken and/or unreliable links. The link was broken earlier today, although it seems to be working right now. I think one could reasonably argue that the bias issue is significant, and I think one could reasonably argue that it is not. Same with the disruption issue. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Neutrality argues in favor of treating it the same as other Web sites, and in all other cases that I know of (including ones regarded as problematic for many reasons, like Stormfront for racism, YouTube for rampant copyvios, etc.) the link is included. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, neutrality argues for treating all websites equally. We routinely remove copyvio links to YouTube, although of course, our article on YouTube links to the site's main page. I don't see the relevance of Stormfront, because we're absolutely not talking about delinking for moral reasons. We're talking about preventing disruption from being carried out in precisely the way it was previously. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[ecxn] - the benefits are inarguable and hardly worth discussing. It's the reason we have a URL field, which is almost always filled in, for this and similar infoboxes used in several hundred thousand articles. It's a convenience to the user so they can click over and see for themselves (the basis of the WP:EL guideline). That saves 5-10 seconds of user time, not insignificant in an article that takes 10-20 seconds to read. It's a substantial part of the benefit of the article for those who do decide to investigate. Plus, in the case of articles about web services it serves the encyclopedic purpose of identifying and specifying the name of the site we're talking about. The risk of "gaming", i.e. changing the content or address of the landing page, is slight. Even if it happens it is probably less than the benefit on a reader-by-reader basis. It will probably not mar the experience for the reader, who is told in the article text that ED has abusive, offensive content and can confirm that form themselves. The likelihood of this happening is mitigated by: (1) posting a query to get to the right page, and (2) dealing with it if it happens rather than speculating that it could happen. If a problem arises later we can remove the link in the future. Wikidemo (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not "speculating that it could happen" - I'm observing that it has happened, fully intentionally. The benefits are neither "inarguable" nor "hardly worth discussing". Let's at least be open to the possibility that there are reasonable arguments in both directions. I'm not "obviously" wrong, because if it were truly obvious, I think I would see it. Looking fairly at the question, we're weighing a benefit (help readers find the site) versus a cost (high probability of linking directly to harassment of Wikipedians. A reasonable editor might make either call. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the quality and usefulness of this article will be slightly hurt by not including the link. People will find it more difficult to "go to the source", and will have to take our word for it (or our sources words) that what we say is correct. Now, Wikipedia is a gigantic project, so not including one link in one article obviously isn't going to significantly impact the quality of wikipedia as a whole. However, we must reject that line of reasoning, because it could be used to justify pretty much anything. Z00r (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has to take our word for anything. It's not as if omitting the link will make the site difficult to find. I don't think the argument that people will find it more difficult to verify what we say is very convincing. If they can find a Wikipedia article on ED, then they can find ED, too. The argument is not simply that removing the link is only a small loss; you would be absolutely right to reject such an argument. The argument is that removing the link is a small loss, which is outweighed by the benefit of avoiding so-likely-as-to-be-certain disruption to the project. Letting people Google for "encyclopedia dramatica" is less disruptive than linking directly there and having their featured article be about Wikipedia or some Wikipedian(s). -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:HARASS the link would create a harassment risk for users and is also banne by arbcom and is also on the spamblacklist. MBisanz talk 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to expand a bit, but even if this poll agreed to include a hyperlink, the site is still on the spamblacklist, so even an administrator would be unable to save an edit containing the hyperlink. MBisanz talk 22:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per above. People are harassed via myspace - should we avoid linking to it? Or Facebook? Arbcom left this decision to the community to determine, as they do not involve themselves in content issues; as we now have an article, this is a content issue. I believe there is a way around the spam blacklist using a whitelist. The benefit of a link is for encyclopedic completeness - if we have an article on a website, then to not provide its URL defies logic. Neıl 龱 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support plain-text URL per the WP:BADLINKS guideline. With all respect to Hu12, ArbCom is unlikely to overturn the community consensus developed there in response to the MONGO case. -- Kendrick7talk 20:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support plain-text URL (since the site is on the meta blacklist). An article about a website usually contains a link to that website. Additionally, what are we preventing from not mentioning the URL? As people have said above, you can always use Google, so it's not like we're stopping anyone from getting to that site. --Conti|✉ 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support either a plaintext link or a working URL (if the blacklist difficulties can be worked around). Having an article about a web site and then refusing to link to that site only shows off our own lack of neutrality. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is just why FT2 opposed overturning the clarification. Besides, "not censored" only works if the information does not violate any other policies (AC rulings are policy by the definition laid out by Jimbo in 2004). I don't think ArbCom rulings can be overruled by consensus, because otherwise the AC is more useless than it arguable is now. Sceptre (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    I also feel that it fails easily the last three points of the BADLINKS link assessment table (unsurprisingly, as half the reason for the creation of the guideline), may fail the first because it's a wiki, may fail the first because of borderline notability. Sceptre (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. In an encyclopedia article about a website, it is inexcusable to omit the URL of that website. I still have yet to hear a convincing reason why the URL should not be included unless it be for technical restrictions related to the blacklist, in which case that needs to be explained that there is a reason there's no URL. Ford MF (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Clarify, I support a plaintext URL due to blacklist issues, not a live link in the article. In the interests of encyclopedic thoroughness, I can't think of a single reason not to include a website's URL in an article about a website. Ford MF (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - plaintext link due to technical issues [spam blacklist]. As mentioned above people can use Google, or some common sense would tell you that if the website is called 'Encyclopedia Dramatica', then trying 'encyclopediadramatica.com' as the URL can't be far off. Not adding a plain text link will not stop curious people finding the site. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:23, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  1. I believe that inclusion of a link in any form would be a net detriment to the encyclopedia.
  2. I am unconvinced that this discussion can be claimed to represent the "community" but rather I would assert that people likely to have this article watchlisted are a peculiar and unrepresentative subset.
  3. This discussion is predicated on the false premise that ArbCom seems unable or unwilling to make a decision in this case. In the current request for clarification, of the three arbitrators who have commented, two have expressed the opinion that an omission of the link is best course of action.
  4. Given the three points above, I intend to implement ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO in full.
CIreland (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by 'net detriment'? As I mentioned, there is always Google, adding a link will not suddenly make people who have not thought of going to ED think 'ooh, I'll go to ED because there's this link here'. Curious minds always find a way. Yes, ED disparages Wikipedia, but so does Wikipedia Review, and we link there quite freely. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:29, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
By "net detrmient" I meant to imply that I recognise that an addition of the link would be some small improvement to the article when considered in isolation. However, given the possibility of alienating a number of highly valued editors and the very real issue of past, present and likely future harassment, the negatives outweigh the positives overall. CIreland (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) "...so does Wikipedia Review, and we link there quite freely." Do we? I've been under the impression for some time that we generally don't link to WR, and I've seen links there removed on more than one occasion. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Generally I remove them when I see them, if they are linked to a thread there that harasses or outs a person here, then they should certainly be removed. If they link to a technical thread there (like the rules of the forum), its a little less clear. Its not on the spamblacklist afaik, so it is linkable, just strongly discouraged to certain circumstances. MBisanz talk 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with it, but we could fix the second point by starting an RfC on the issue. --Conti|✉ 22:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If you enforce your own view over the concensus of editors, you will be abusing your admin powers. Z00r (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
To whom is this comment addressed? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
CIreland. (or any admin who ignores concensus to push their POV) Z00r (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is almost unanimous community consensus that editors in general and adminsitrators in particular should respect and implement the decisions of the arbitration committee. As it happens, I agree with their decision in this case; if they were later to amend their decision (for example, as the result of a consensus within the community) I would also implement such a hypotheical ruling even if I did not agree with it. CIreland (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can't, by meta's definition, override policy. Sceptre (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That was directed by Z00r, by the way. I believe that ArbCom rulings are on the same level of policy because of what Jimbo said when he set them up (and back then, he could make such decrees) Sceptre (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't put much stock in a legal analysis of jurisdictions and decrees. It sounds a bit lawyer-ish. Consensus can't somehow reject NPOV, because Wikipedia without NPOV isn't Wikipedia; that much is true. It's also true that ArbCom rulings are enforceable, as policy, but it's pretty clear that they're choosing not to play that card in this case. It seems tenuous to me to claim that we can't decide by consensus to do something, when the arbitrators are saying aloud that we have to make this decision as a community. Is the encyclopedia better served by keeping the link, or by removing it?

I tend to agree that we should exclude the link, but I think we need to exclude it for reason-based arguments, not due to some technical point about precedent. That won't hold as well, because an argument about what ArbCom said is just less powerful than an argument about how the quality of the encyclopedia is affected. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Also, I added the text of the URL without a link, as consensus seems to be in favor of a URL being given, though I did not create a link as not to violate the Arbcom ruling.--Urban Rose 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that addition of the URL is a violation of the AC ruling as what you really want to do is link to it (I doubt there is any other legitimate use for the URL) Sceptre (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There is one legitimate use for the URL: letting readers know what the URL of the site is. I agree that we would be better off excluding it, but it is a reasonable thing to include in an article about a website, and would be a no-brainer if it weren't for certain complicating factors, with which you're familiar. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Which we normally do by links. Sceptre (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Um... what? Yes, we normally use links to help readers find websites. What, are we going to (or do we imagine we can) prevent people from finding this one? If we're not going to link, then the URL is one compromise position to take. I think it makes more sense to just exclude it, but I think it's a pretty small difference either way.

As far as I can tell, the reason for not linking is to avoid harassment via the link itself. What reason are you thinking of? Please don't just answer the ArbCom case, because that's not, in itself, a sufficient reason. What reason do you have for excluding the link/URL, in terms of how the encyclopedia is made better or worse? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If the conventional way to do things on Wikipedia is blocked, shut down, and a massive crater made to stop people building a path that way, we don't drive 500 miles around the crater to bypass it. Besides, I'm very concerned about the legality of the site - whereas sites like Stormfront and The Pirate Bay (and arguably Wikipedia itself) might toe the line with legality, ED doesn't have the pleasure of doing so. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the crater, I think it's a semantic hang-up. I just didn't understand the thrust of an earlier comment of yours, but it doesn't matter. Obviously you know we're not going to "hide" the site from someone who wants to find it; your position isn't based on that, and I might as well have known better. Regarding your other point, thanks for mentioning that. It seems that you're saying that ED hosts content that is downright illegal. Are you thinking of copyvios, or of something else? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Why ask a question you know the answer to? Sceptre (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the answer, or I wouldn't ask the question. As far as I know, the ED sysops try to remove illegal content as soon as they know about it. I honestly don't know what illegal content you're thinking of. Also, I can honestly see how it could be very, very useful in this discussion to explain how and why it could be illegal to link to ED. I can see how your explaining that would draw more support to the position that you and I share - namely, that we should do without the link. Would you be willing to make that explanation, in order to make our argument stronger? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I know at least one instance where they've photoshopped minors into pornographic images or otherwise portrayed it as such. Copyright violations. Libel so bad the EFF would be hesitant in defending them. Sceptre (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
And if you think I'm kidding about the EFF bit, the EFF have actually said Jason Fortuny could be liable for the Craigslist controversy. I know it's privacy, but still... it's a scary thing when hyperbole turns out to be fact. Sceptre (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, I'm not going to think you're kidding. I might think you're wrong, but I won't think you're kidding.

What you say seems a bit strange. I've seen ED be very militant about removing anything that could be construed as child pornography. I'm skeptical about any claim that they knowingly and persistently host illegal content. If a lawsuit could be brought against ED, surely someone would do it, right?

I tend to think that we should avoid the link because it's not stable, i.e., we can't guarantee that it will work; and also because it's a tempting piece of bait for easy trolling by those who have used it that way before. If it's true that they're hosting a lot of content that's simply illegal in the US, then I think the argument for linking becomes altogether weaker, and the legal issue might become the strongest argument for removal of the link.

I wonder, would it make sense to apply something like a YouTube standard? I mean, at any given moment, YouTube could be - almost certainly is - hosting a lot of illegal content, but YouTube takes illegal material down if it's flagged and brought to their attention. We go ahead and link to the main page of YouTube, but we don't generally link to videos there, and certainly not to videos that we know to have illegal content. Is ED in a position similar to YouTube regarding illegal content, or are they further afield of the law? Will it really just come down to copyright violations? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think YT is a worse offender with copyright than ED, it's really used as insurance (we don't link to YT anyway unless it's to videos that we know have been uploaded by and/or with permission of the copyright holder. Sceptre (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support 1/2 way My opinion is support an unlinked url, but not allow a direct link to the site. --Cube lurker (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, assuming the article passes its current AFD nomination (as it looks likely to). I don't deny that ED is a 'BADSITE' and hosts harassment of Wikipedia editors, but that's outweighed by the clear and obvious value of the link in this article (which will hopefully be recognised by ArbCom). I don't think it should be linked to from any other article. Terraxos (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Hiding the URL is pointless; anyone with a couple of brain cells to knock together can Google it anyway. Shii (tock) 01:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question - What do supporters of linking think about the possibility that the content at ED is illegal due to copyright and possible other problems? Would you still want to maintain a link to it in that case? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The link should be to the court case convicting ED of violations, not opinions of non lawyers.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Does that argument imply that we should go ahead and link to any copyright violation that hasn't been the subject of a court conviction? We regularly delink copyright violations without writs from a judge. Am I missing something? This is an honest question. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • My view, we're responsible for violations on our site, not the sites of others, linked to or not. Note as implied by my comment, i'm not a liscenced lawyer, anyone with a liscence to practice law is free to completely invalidate my opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • There are deep and subtle legal issues involved here that are not present in the type of sites that are routinely delinked - free speech, parody, satire, hate speech, obscenity laws, etc etc are all complicated issues that editors here are not qualified to pass legal judgement on. Z00r (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Then bounce the issue to Wikimedia legal counsel, the proper place to decide such things. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Right, exactly. We should link to it unless there is overwhelming legal evidence to the contrary (eg: court case conviction), or direction to unlink from Wikimedia's legal team. Z00r (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I have no problem supporting Foundation legal council as opposed to a group of editors elected to arbcom in this matter.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Oppose per WP:PROBLEMLINKS. I have no strong opinion about the Wikipedia critiques. But ED is a site which openly provides illegal information, such as child pornography. We should not be linking to such a site. --Elonka 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, what? ED hosts child pornography? As far as I know, which is pretty far, they absolutely do not. They're pretty militant about deleting any child porn that gets posted there and banning anyone who posts it. Let's not base our decision on fiction. If there were child porn on ED, then we'd be in a whole different ballpark, but there isn't. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    It might even be considered libelous to accuse them of hosting child porn if this is false; those here who are bandying about intimations of illegality should try to refrain from committing any themselves. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I know child porn when I see it. It's disgusting, it's pornographic, and it involves children. I won't link to it here, but if anyone wants me to send them the links off-wiki, I am available via email and IMs. You may also wish to review the international definitions of child pornography.[9] If ED would like to remove any images from their site which exploit children, I may reconsider my opinion, but as long as they host those images, my oppose stands. I will also be contacting law enforcement. --Elonka 02:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I've emailed you. If there is any of that on ED, I'd like to see it removed quickly. I'm confident that the people running the site are also committed to keeping such material off of their site, and if they know about it, they'll delete it with prejudice. The maintenance of such content would certainly be a compelling argument against linking there, even in an article about them. We've got an article about child pornography, but we don't use the occasion to link to it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    If there's child porn on there forget noting it to wiki admins and alert the FBI. I fully support looooong prison terms for that sort of behavior.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    The FBI will go after whoever posted it, not a site admin who deletes it as soon as they see it. ED makes it pretty clear to users that they'll cooperate with law enforcement if it comes to that. If you really hate child pornography, you might like ED, on a certain level. They helped get one pedophile arrested. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Good to hear. And that's what I meant, tell the FBI that some lowlife posted it and let them arrest that degenerate. And leave the commonfolk (i.e. wiki admins) out of these legal matters.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Switching to neutral, since the problematic images have been removed. --Elonka 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support for many reasons listed above. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Legal issues are not relevant to this discussion Legal problems are an issue for the Foundation and their general counsel. Non-experts should not speculate about possible legal problems. It's essentially the same as a legal threat: Do what I want or Wikipedia will face legal challenges. -Chunky Rice (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Is it essentially the same as a legal threat when we remove links to copyright violations in the form of, say, song lyrics? At what point does a suggestion that we decide not to link to illegal material become essentially the same as a legal threat? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    We have a policy agaisnt that, so, no, it's not the same. Wikipedia editors have the ability to act within our own policies, but we should not engage in speculation about what is legal and what is illegal. -Chunky Rice (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, at what point does it cross from obviously illegal to speculation? Is it when you see copyright images being used without permission? Is it when you see child pornography? Is it somewhere in between those two? Besides, where did our policies come from in the first place? We just wrote down the things we were doing that seemed to be good ideas. That doesn't preclude our having any more good ideas. Your contention that we're only permitted to act within pre-existing policy would seem to imply otherwise. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support working external link. English Wikipedia should not be censored. --Dezidor (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Having an article about a website and not linking to said website is just ridiculous. It would be a matter of concern if ED had illegal things, but they don't. Do you think their host would allow them to keep running if that was the case? They have had to be squeaky clean in order to dodge Co$ lawyers from shutting them down. --Macdaddy5539 (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PROBLEMLINKS and ArbCom. No value to the link so omit it. Lot's of harrassment and banned users came from there. No need to give them information about click throughs to their site. No need to give it an extra Google boost. No link is necessary. --DHeyward (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • ED is already the first response from Google to Encyclopedia Dramatica. As well, I was fairly under the impression that something in Wikipedia source code prevented outbound links to other sites from impacting click-through numbers or something like that. So basically, we can safely put the link in and nothing will happen. (Hey, if you were really thinking through your irrational hatred of this site, you'd WANT the link up. Imagine more and more people going to ED. They have stability problems already, right? A few thousand more accesses a day would toast their servers, so buck up and support the link addition.) Howa0082 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I have no hatred of the site. It's actually somewhat amusing. It just isn't encyclopedic and it's a troll magnet. Nor do I have a desire to crash their site. And I do believe that Wikipedia sounds out the referring site when you click on a link inside WP as I've been directed to special "Welcome pages" on other sites so the info is available. The only thing irrational here is the desire for ED trolls to disrupt wikipedia. --DHeyward (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I suppose I misread the tone of your statement and reacted with the patented Wikipedia Snap Judgement. My point about the Google ranking still stands, however. Howa0082 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support If we have an article about a website then we have to give a link to it. If we do not feel its necessary to have a a link of the website then it should not be necessary to have it as an article. One comes with the other. I suspect common sense is not prevailing here due to the external personal battles of various editors who are personally and emotionally involved with the subject of this article. These editors should recuse themselves as its probably disruptive to this article's improvement.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It's Already linked. see Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica#Whitelisted--Hu12 (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion mooted

This discussion has been mooted by the clarification's archiving clerk saying remedy 1 of MONGO is still in effect, and Jimbo has clarified that consensus cannot override ArbCom. Use of the URL is lawyering around the ruling and bypassing the spam blacklist, and is inappropriate behaviour. Sceptre (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You're conveniently ignoring the "unless the community decides ED warrants an article" part. —David Levy 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Use of the URL provides the relevant information, does not violate any ArbCom ruling, and is appropriate for an encyclopedia with an article on the subject. Removing the text URL three times in one day where it was added three times by two different people per consensus on this talk page is inappropriate. WODUP 18:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. It violates remedy #1 of MONGO. And don't say "it's an URL not a link!", you're not fooling anyone. Sceptre (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't say that a plain-text URL is a link. You say that I'm not fooling anyone like I'm trying to fool someone. AGF? WODUP 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, did you actually read the diff you linked to? It says exactly the opposite of what you say. Z00r (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I, too, read exactly the opposite in these comments from Rlevse. To paraphrase: If there's consensus to have an article on ED, we can link to it. (That's what I read from Rlevse's comments, not from the Arbcom clarification in general.) --Conti|✉ 19:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, the URL is not a link. MONGO says nothing about text-based URLs, and your only argument against having the URL is that users who want it there are all part of a conspiracy to restore the external link to the site. I don't care if the article has a link or not, but not even having the URL is just censorship, and you're the only one I've heard who doesn't want the URL there. Please stop being disruptive by using a false argument to support your unilaterally going against consensus by removing that URL.--Urban Rose 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, you and I, on that diff, are reading entirely different things. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Then why would he say "remedy 1 is still in effect" knowing that a community consensus would invalidate that statement? Sceptre (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, let's make this as clear as possible: "Remedy one of the original ruling, yes, I'd say so. ED links removable unless the community decides ED warrants an article, which I personally think it does not warrant one."[10] (Emphasis mine) Do you see our point now? --Conti|✉ 19:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For people claiming ArbCom's decision applies to the URL and/or stands regardless of the later amendment to the MONGO case, please see: WT:RfArb#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. -- Kendrick7talk 19:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it applies to the URL. Do you really think the AC would say that the URL is fine, but putting square brackets around it is not? Sceptre (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes.--Urban Rose 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre - it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Kirills clarified the arbitrators finding here - ArbCom aren't stopping a link provided there's consensus to add it in, which of course there clearly is. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Aw... now Sceptre is the official dead-horse-beater? When did I get evicted from that traditional role of mine? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I read the above ArbCom-related links makes it seem that an article about ED can be created if the community so desires, but a link is prohibited. My first thought is that any link (active or text) should be kept from the page, but when I think about what Google does with alleged phishing sites, I can't see the harm in a text link. I doubt most computer users will bother copying and pasting it if they can't click it easily. --clpo13(talk) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill states: "The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.". Therefore I'd suggest that the current comment next to the text link is incorrect. All that seems to be preventing us from having a real link is the spam blacklist. Martinp23 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal clarification

First, while I am not an arb, I am an arb clerk and Ryan is an arb clerk helper. Not that that means anything except that we deal with this stuff more than most users. That being said, let me clarify and expound on my comment that was linked to.

It seems to me the arbs are clearly saying that it is up to the community to decide if there should be an ED article. The community needs to decide that first, as if there is not one, all else is moot as the ruling clearly says no links if there isn't an article. I do not see there being an article trumping arb rulings as they said the community can decide if there should be one. The external links are dependent upon the article being there; no article = no links (prob due to notability, then there's the harm issue). Note the amended remedy was even clearer "- It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above):" I have to agree that Sceptre is selectively using bits of the case here. Sceptre please look at the whole picture. If further input from the arbs or arb clerks is needed, let us know. Just for the record, my own personal vote would be no ED article. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Whitelisted

I've whitelisted this specific link, http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page , for use on this article only. Whitelisted per arbcom ruling allowing for consensus in this matter for this articles content. clearly there is consensus for the link. so here it is. The the general blacklisting of the sites link will not be lifted per arbcom, however variations other than the format above, will not work or be linkable. --Hu12 (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Neıl 龱 11:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Bio of a living person?

Why is one of the categories on this article's talk page "Biographies of living people"? This article is not a bio of a living person.--Urban Rose 19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The website itself has numerous "biographies" of real people. --clpo13(talk) 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So does the Dictionary of National Biography, but you don't see us putting up BLP notices there. Z00r (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I just provided a reason why it might. I certainly don't care either way. --clpo13(talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, BLP has become somewhat of a "trump card" for deleting things, whether or not they are actually biographical. If an editor claims "BLP" and there is even the most tenuous connection, everyone else pretty much has to shut up. (similar to how the phrases "national security", "terrorism", and "for the children" function in US politics). Z00r (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[deindent] Link removed with this edit. Good call in my opinion. Yes ED has some 'biographies', but our article is not a biography of a living person unless ED has achieved sentience, and even then it would fail the 'people' bit. Also, I agree about BLP being used as a filibuster. It is extremely important that we do no harm on actual biographies, but to call 'BLP! BLP!' on an article explicitly about a website seems illogical. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:28, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

Deletion history template added

In the light of the closing of the last AFD, it looks like this article is staying for good. For posterity's sake, I've added a template at the top of this Talk page containing all its previous AFDs, and if I haven't missed any, all 17(!) previous DRVs. There's something ironic about the fact that Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated to documenting internet drama, has caused such vast amounts of drama here on Wikipedia... let us hope we now have an end to it. Terraxos (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't get the top entry (the most recent) to display properly, maybe it's my browser? Other than that, well done. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia dramatica redirect

Encyclopedia dramatica is fully protected. It is a very likely typo so it should be redirected here. Not much more to say :) --Have a nice day. Running 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I've also redirected the talk page. In the absence of any reason for editing that page, I've left the protection in place. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Challanged sources

I've moved this information from the article to the talk and request verification in the form of sources. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Material

Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Owner might be available via WHOIS, but wouldn't that be OR? I'm unclear as to the Author field, as - as far as I am aware - this site has many authors (being a wiki-style site). Does ED have a Jimbo Wales-esque founder or lead admin? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I already checked, I was going to play the whois, and cite a dated whois. You are however correct, a whois may be borderline gray area OR. The whois reports private registration, so thats a non starter. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My 2c. A whois is "source-based research," not "original research." OR also has no gray areas that might be relevant here; the threshold is "did someone else say it first," the answer to which can only be "yes" or "no." -- Fullstop (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
All sources I could find are blogs and (interestingly) Wikipedia talk / policy / dispute pages. The apparent founder is a (former?) Wikipedian who also goes by vinylgirl online. There is speculation that the apparent owner (who, according to stories, bought it from the founder) is a pseudonym, apocryphal, etc. It is the name of a well known academic. Normally, when someone starts a website this successful they are open about it, and if they wanted publicity they could certainly have it. Because credit for sponsoring a notorious website is a potential BLP issue we should be careful about unverified information like this (in my judgment). We could infer from this that they may intend to remain private, in which case we should respect their wishes. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, respect their wished yes. However, if a few independent, reliable sources can be found, it can be included here at the communities desire. But yes, in a void where sources can not be found, we should not list any founders, et cetera. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

original research concerns

"This popularity among the users of imageboard communities led NBC to display screenshots of Encyclopedia Dramatica and state its use as a planning hub in a televised report on Project Chanology."

Which reliable third-party source published on this topic? It didn't have a citation, so I'm placing it on the talk page for now.J Readings (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This could probably be cited to the broadcast itself, as I presume NBC news would be considered a reliable source. Tracking down the broadcast (airdate, producer, etc) might be trickier. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that there are two issues here. First, how is one supposed to verify vague references to a TV channel with nothing else to back it up? If I wanted to verify the information, the current sentence doesn't help me. Second, the sentence reads "the popularity among users of imageboard communities led NBC..." Really? Did NBC (or another reliable third-party source) literally say that or was that assertion the product of descriptive inference (read: original synthesis)? The point is -- assuming NBC even used ED -- it's original speculation to attribute motives that haven't been previously sourced. J Readings (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
TV programs can be cited for a variety of purposes - we even have a template for that sort of thing, {{cite episode}}. If you have the airdate, producers, reporter (for news), and network (publisher), then I don't see a problem with sourcing that statement to a television program. Some networks also have transcripts online - I know CNN has done this in the past, and NBC might - so citing the transcript might work, as well - and it would provide a link for Verification. But if we don't know when this was broadcast, I don't know that we can use it - which is a different problem than that fact being original research. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the Chanology Material for the time being. NBC is a reliable source. However, the statement that "this popularity among users" is what lead NBC to restore screenshots is OR, SYNTH, or pure speculation. We don't know why NBC displayed screenshots. Accepting the validity of the citation on good faith, until proven otherwise, we can simply say that ED was used as a planning hub for PC, and cite it to NBC. We may decide, though, that simply referencing the network is not even a cite. We could also reference it to a video, blog, etc., that displays the Chanology campaign on ED. A primary source used this way isn't an OR problem, but without RS coverage it's hard to argue that it's relevant. If people agree that this isn't good enough to be a real source maybe we should go ahead and delete it again. Regarding the mention of the pedophile conviction - it's not a BLP question if he's convicted. It's cited to a specific program. I've restored the mention but for the sake of caution omitted the name (which isn't relevant to the story anyway if the perpetrator isn't himself notable). My understanding from the edit summaries, btw, is that pedophilia is a sexual preference / tendency / fetish that, though offensive to many, is not itself a crime. It is only when people act on that tendency that there is actual child sexual abuse. So the person was convicted for what he did (abuse), not what he thought (pedophilia). That's just a language clarification, nothing controversial. Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, television programs are used. You'll get no argument from me on that point. But the information should be no less well-documented and readily verifiable than anything else we cite. Unfortunately, that's not the case here. Also, see my point about attributing motives to others that were not explicitly stated elsewhere. That is original research. We cannot speculate as to why NBC (we're talking about mere screenshots here, correct? That means, I take it, that NBC didn't even elaborate on the ED) decides to use something versus something else. Nobody interviewed NBC to elicit what they were thinking, correct? Frankly, the insistence on mentioning the use of screenshots in the article smacks a little bit of desperation, but that's far less of an issue for me than the other two problems with that sentence. J Readings (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Accepting the validity of the citation on good faith, until proven otherwise, Actually, Wikidemo, it's not a citation. It's a vague, unreferenced assertion with no way to verify it in its current form. Technically, it should be removed now because the burden always falls on editors adding material to the page, not those removing it. Anyway, I say "technically" because I'm happy to wait a bit to see if a proper reference surfaces. If not, it should really be placed on the talk page. I agree with your other comments. J Readings (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you on all counts - no strong opinion on the NBC thing and I didn't realize until after I restored it how vague the reference was. Wikidemo (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the boat I'm in; unless NBC actually said that, it is OR. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcRbsuwe4uw Here is the NBC broadcast in question. I added it to this talk page ages ago, but my comment was removed. There are many other good, cited sources which were removed from the article with no justification. I am trying to AGF but there seems to be a campaign among certain members of Wikipedia with POV bias to dilute this article's sourcing base until they can AfD it for lack of citations. --Truthseeq (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, without getting into what happened in the past, if you have any more sources that were removed would you mind adding them or posting them here so we can restore them? - Wikidemo (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just watched it....two things come to mind. First, it's a youtube reposting of a news broadcast so it's probably copyright infringement. We can't link to it for that reason. But we can reference it. Yet, it doesn't identify the date, author, etc. How to get around that? Now we're in the realm of something verifiable but unciteable. Maybe a hidden comment in the citation with the Youtube file number and date? Second, all the websites flashed up on the screen very quickly and were not identified by the reporter as ED. Did the logo appear somewhere? The fact that it's not mentioned by name suggests it's not all that relevant that ED happened to be one of the various sites Anonymous used. Wikidemo (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for posting the link. I watched and re-watched the youtube video. I agree with Wikidemo; we can't use the link because of copyright infringement, because youtube is generally not citeable, and because -- well, the most obvious reason -- ED was neither mentioned nor shown on the video. I didn't see an ED logo on those pages, either. Under the circumstances, it doesn't make much sense to keep that vague, unsourced sentence in the article. J Readings (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no problem using YouTube as a link or citation if what's being linked to is not a copyvio. That's a big IF, of course, but there's no blanket ban on YouTube, although I think a lot of Wikipedians think there is (including myself, until very recently). Ford MF (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the link. That little section in WP:EXTERNAL will be useful in editing someone's biography (we were wondering if we could have linked to his uploaded video on YouTube. Looks like we can.) That said, in this case, there's still seems to be little (any?) reason to cite this source for the claims made. J Readings (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, no, a link to YouTube is totally inappropriate in this context. I was giving a general heads up. Ford MF (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris Forcand

The last sentence of this article currently reads

Anonymous had been shown in other broadcasts to use ED as a planning hub in other operations including one that led to the arrest of Canadian pedophile Chris Forcand.[1]

I have changed pedophile to child abuser in the assumption that "pedophile" was used synonymously with "child abuser", something I consider to be a breach of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Mr. Forcand should be listed for his crime, not for his paraphilia. (Дҭї) 14:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed this entire sentence from the article because it was poorly sourced and a BLP concern. We don't know the exact date, when it was broadcast, if "Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction" was the name of the program or the lead, etc. In short, how are we supposed to verify this material?

Anonymous had been shown in other broadcasts to use ED as a planning hub in other operations including one that led to the arrest of Canadian child abuser Chris Forcand.[2]

Also, because we're talking about highly inflammatory material, it should be sourced properly or not at all. WP:RS and WP:BLP are clear about this. J Readings (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction. Global Television Network.
  2. ^ Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction. Global Television Network.

User:Wikidemo adds back the poorly sourced material without a time it was broadcast, the name of the show, the name of the producer, etc. making it virtually impossible for me or any third-party to go to the library and verify the information presented. That conflicts with WP:V. Per WP:ETIQUETTE, I'll wait a little bit for the relevant additional information to be added so I (anyone else) can verify the assertion. If nothing is forthcoming, I'll take it that no one actually has that relevant information and we can remove it until it can be sourced properly. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just youtube Forcand, anonymous and so on and you will see the videos if your so worried about proof...ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone posted the source. It's perfectly available, just a copyright infringement. This is discussed in the section immediately below. Wikidemo (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars and page protection

We've seen today three attempts to remove the link and three reversions of those attempts. Can we please stop edit warring and work out a consensus about what to do here on the talk page before making further changes of this nature? I'd protect the page in the wrong version, but it's already protected. Why don't we pretend I did that and act as we normally act on protected pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Every version is "The Wrong Version" for somebody. And I'm inclined to believe, by now, that anybody who insists on changing any decently-long established status quo for this article -- creating it when it's been deleted, deleting it when it's been created, adding, dropping, making live, or making dead the link -- is doing it for the drama, because that's all it accomplishes. Letting this article sit in a stable state of some sort -- with or without a link -- or letting it be peacefully deleted, for that matter -- produces minuscule drama compared to what takes place whenever there's a big fight over whether to leave it that way or change it somehow. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My revert

Economics Guy, the reason I reverted the link to the main page is that they sometimes have deeply offensive material on it. For example, not long ago they featured an article that called a young teenage girl who had killed herself a slut, accompanied by her photograph; as I recall, she was thirteen or thereabouts. Putting aside all the other issues with the site, I see no reason we should link directly to that kind of material. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. I recently saw an article about a 3 year old girl who disappeared, and it was very sick, with lots of obscene stuff. Ashton1983 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I do agree in principle to that - I personally wouldn't want the page linking to, and I thought the MONGO case still banned the link. The arbitrators later clarified and said that linking to the article is acceptable if there's consensus to do so. It's unfortunate, but there was consensus a little way up the page to put in a text URL to the page - I'm not sure I saw consensus for a direct link though. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that it's been archived - the discussion is here. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Do we need the link? Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Ashton1983 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This might be a stupid question, but what are the disadvantages? --Conti|✉ 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
So "stupid" nobody's willing to answer it, apparently. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would feel happier with a text URL, but I've seen no consensus for live links. I believe we have our priorities as a project, and as a group of human beings, somewhat confused if we're banning links to YouTube that might be copyvios, but allowing links that call dead children sluts and whores. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
A text URL. You mean one that isn't clickable? If so, I agree. Ashton1983 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
While I agree in principle, I know the link was whitelisted very specifically for the purpose of linking to the main page (and only the main page) of ED from this article (and only from this article). I had presumed that there was consensus for the link on that basis, and it has been discussed at length on this page. Edit The discussion was archived, and culminated in the whitelisting announced Here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be consensus for a live link i.e. a clickable one. I think people are willing to agree to a text-only URL as a compromise. That's the way we've often handled very controversial sites. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If you read the archive, I think you'll find quite a few who agree. I also know that it was stable for a few days, so I think everyone figured it was a dead issue. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I had thought it was more or less done with, yeah. But this is a wiki, latecomers are inevitable. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin it's okay... judging from this there is still only a fragile if any consensus for a direct link. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's remove encyclopedic material from Wikipedia just this once, for the children. (Дҭї) 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the link going away as a result of a debate. I have a problem with this solution. SlimVirgin has bothered to explain/discuss the revert - that makes the difference. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
...and it's been reverted again. Do we need to have another straw poll or !vote or fistfight to determine consensus on this issue? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a debate? (Дҭї) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
One person not agreeing does not equate to no consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that. You removed the link with the message "I think everyone's happy with that on the talk page", and I challenged that. I'm not sure there is even a consensus, but certainly not everyone is in 100% agreement with each other. (Дҭї) 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you reverted because you weren't happy with it. Have you even bothered reading what people are putting here? Everyone seems happy with a dead link. The original consensus was for a dead link, there's clearly no consensus for a direct link at this stage, yet you go and revert? Something smells funny with that. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the archives? Or SlimVirgin and those who agreed with him? Consensus can change, and issues can be revisited. On a personal level, I do not feel strongly either way, but I do feel strongly about process. (Дҭї) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I support Slim's opening statement and agree that we should not link to the main page of ED. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Should put a live link with a warning that there is very mature, obscene content on the website. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tally so far

Per the essay yes, voting is a substitute for discussion the tally up through Dragon696 is as follows. - Wikidemo (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Dead link - 3
  • Dead link as compromise but prefer no link - 2
  • Dead link as compromise, no leaning stated - 4
  • Live link - 10
Eh, the people arguing for a dead link either seem to be arguing for censorship (protecting our readers from content they might find offensive) or just not including the link because they don't like the site. These are clearly contrary to policy regardless of how many people support it. --Rividian (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The updated tally (through AnotherSolipsist) seems to be 15 for a live link, 9 for a dead link (often as a compromise). Interesting how it's gone from a neck-in-neck race to more of a margin for a live link lately... perhaps it's a close-to-even divide among those with a heavy emotional investment in the issue (who tend to be the first to respond), but heavily for a live link among less-involved parties (who straggle in slowly over time). This latter group knows less about the specific issues in this case, but probably better represents the views of the Wikipedia community as a whole. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

LA Times source: legit?

So... what is the status of this supposed coverage: [11]? I think it is fake since the date does not match with the right day of the week (23rd May was a Friday, not a thursday), and since I can't seem to find any reference to it at the LA times site. I'm not 100% sure, however. Z00r (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fake to me. The day/date, how the text looks compared to the paper's title, and how column 1 ends near the bottom of the image, but column 2 does not. Also, aren't newspaper titles usually printed in large print centered at the top only on the front page? The setup of the articles doesn't look like a front page, and I'm not sure if WP/ED is something that's significant enough to make it to the front page of the LA Times. WODUP 07:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I no longer have my copy from Thursday, but looking at today's instead: only the first page of the whole paper has the paper name in big lettering like that, and I think I and a few thousand other Wikipedia editors would have noticed a front-page story about Wikipedia. Also, the front page has the date centered and a copyright notice, page count, and edition marker on the left side under the line where the image has nothing. So, from seeing quite a few shops in my time, and looking at the pixels, I have to conclude: fake. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't actually say it is the LA Times. Ty 07:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a shoop. I can tell from the pixels and having seen quite a few in my time. Also, the tone of the article is fawning towards ED, painting WP in an unsavory light for no real reason other than to provide sourcing for this page. Howa0082 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - the font doesn't have any print artifacts you would expect from an actual hardcopy. The Los Angeles times also includes Bylines on articles, which this lacks. The notable exception would be editorials (in some papers, maybe not LA Times) which have a primary editorial that is assumed to be written by either the editor in chief or collectively by the editorial staff. If this were such an article (possible), then it would be useless as a ref anyway. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks fake to me - there are creases in the paper that don't seem to have affected the letters printed on them at all. Exxolon (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If that's from a major newspaper, they need better writers and editors. The writing is garbage and entirely wrong in terms of newspaper article writing. Any editor that would allow a writer to emphasize a word with *asterisks* around it needs to be shot on sight. They also don't break up paragraphs with line breaks. The layout is wrong - there's no indication that there's another headline starting in the next column, and most broadsheets will divide their articles with a hairline when they're running stuff side by side like that. Utter fake. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolute fake, and not a good one either. It's clearly in a raster times font that is not anything like the right weight for the font as it actually appears on paper. I'm actually surprised anyone thought that it might be real. --Random832 (contribs) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

When featured article is an attack

So what to do when, as today, the featured article on the main page is a personal attack? That changes the arguments because a dead link dead is not just a cure for a "what if" problem (which is more like censorship), but a reaction to an actual present attack on a Wikipedian? The image of LL is a likely copyvio too (though not the kind Wikipedia is liable for) because ED has uploaded it without following the attribution requirements of the GNU licenses.

I think it's too silly and juvenile to take very seriously, but it is still wrong in so many ways...I can understand someone taking offense. I've modified the link to point to ED's "about" page, which I think can satisfy WP:EL because it is an official landing page too. I'm just offering this as a possible short-term solution, and won't edit war over this, but I hope we can leave it there until we decide, or at least until ED changes its featured article to something that is not a personal attack. Wikidemo (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that...spam filter won't allow it. I see User:TenPoundHammer was trying to do the exact same thing at the same time. Well, take that as a suggestion then, please.Wikidemo (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've sorted it out now, so the brackets are gone.--Kip Kip 19:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Is that a new Reality TV series, When Websites Attack? No, seriously... I'd agree that "silly and juvenile" about describes it, so it's probably best not to give them any more attention by getting into yet another battle over them. Ignore them (aside from treating their site exactly like any other site with an article) and maybe they'll eventually go away. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously. There are probably are a lot of people who like me saw this talkpage thread and immediately said, Oh, really? Who are they attacking? And checked ED to see. Making an issue out of this stuff only gives them more traffic. Best just to ignore it. Ford MF (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The "featured article" issue is my only real concern. I can change the link to permanetly link to the about page ( http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About ), If those who are in favor of live linking agree to having that as the link. I think that is a suitable compromise and trade off for the main page. see related--Hu12 (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And what happens when ED starts adding objectionable content to that page?
Any special treatment sends the message that their attacks are succeeding, thereby encouraging further attacks. As Dan said, the best thing is to not engage them. We should just leave the standard link and ignore their shenanigans. —David Levy 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I like the About link idea, would probably give a better description of what they are than a mainpage link, same could go for uncyclopedia maybe. MBisanz talk 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point--Hu12 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the link is to lead to the website's front page. It's our article's purpose to be informative. —David Levy 08:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And today when I clicked on their featured article, the first link in it I clicked tried to hose my machine with some sort of viral code. Thank you Wikipedia for pointing me right at their main page :( MBisanz talk 08:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to call you a liar right here and now. There are no links to any such content in the current featured article. If such a link was present, it must have been removed as vandalism, because there is no such link now. Snarfies (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And it would have been better if you'd gone from the about page to the main page to the featured article?
We also link to the Ku Klux Klan, but we don't recommend that you follow their advice. —David Levy 08:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If your browser can infect your system with viral code without giving you any sort of warning asking if you're sure that's what you really want, you really need to get a better browser. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but it does raise a fair point - many of the links on the spam blacklist are there because they do precisely that (attempt to infect with viruses). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If linking to the site is resulting in the loading of virial exploit code, consensus or any argument for its inclusion is absolutly void immediatly, article or not. Any one care to confirm any exploit and virus data files?--Hu12 (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that linking to (or visiting) the main page of ED doesn't trigger some harmful exploit code. If it does, there probably shouldn't be a link, tho. --Conti|✉ 13:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if visiting the ED main page were to execute harmful code, the link would have to go. But the fact (assuming that it's true) that ED linked to harmful code from a page that was linked from the main page is grounds for nothing (beyond a possible statement in our article that the site links to harmful code). Otherwise, we couldn't link to Google. —David Levy 00:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no exploit code on ED. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Same problem I had with this website...made the idiotic MONGO article their mainpage deal one day...maybe we can ask Sherrod to take it down. Makes one wonder what mental problems one would have to have to be involved in such a place. Truly sad state of affairs when anyone would waste their time on such a website.--MONGO 17:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic and keep a NPOV while discussing the merits of a live versus dead link. --Kevman459 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
fwiw, fyi, etc, Sherrod is not Aussieintn. I don't know (or care) why you'd think so but talk pages aren't for rumor mongering. You probably want to calm down the rhetoric. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Hum...too much knowledge is not really good in some areas.--MONGO 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

...see, it's not all attacks on Wikipedians. Today's featured article is a current event, the [[Dongcopter]]. ED covers some of these things so we don't have to. Wikidemo (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Founder/Owner tags in infobox

These keep being replaced from blank to misinformation. The latest included URLs as references that do not contain the information supposedly being referenced. I have removed it several times, and may have gone over 3RR. Per BLP: It is misinformation, it is not sourced, from personal knowledge it is just plain wrong, and it is about living people. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

the fact of Founder/Owner is not misinformation or poorly sourced. this is black and white issue, and clear cut. apparently you're either illiterate or bias in regards this article's notability. the site clearly states who owns, runs, created and works on the wiki site. Apelike (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
{{fact}} SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I agree with SchmuckyTheCat. I looked at the "About" page on ED, too. The two people added to the infobox by Apelike are not mentioned at all on that ED page. Everybody here (hopefully) appreciates editors wanting to improve the page, but we need new information that is both verifiable and reliable. If you find anything, Apelike, please post it on the talk page. I'm sure lots of people would appreciate the effort. J Readings (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Searching for "Sherryl" on ED gives no results. Apelike, please, you need to provide a reliable source for these persons being the founder and the owner, since they aren't even mentioned on ED itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the Owner/Author parameters to be optional in the infobox so the article doesn't look ugly without them. --Random832 (contribs) 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

From non-reliable source: me. ED itself is incorporated. It is not a basement enterprise. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Normally, the content on an organization's own website is a reliable source of simple factual information about the organization. That's even true here, with some qualifications. ED is almost completely not serious, but a few pages (about, its self-entry, the disclaimers page) are edit locked and are in a more serious tone. The "about" page credits its creation to "girlvinyl", and the self-entry (the "Encyclopedia Dramatica" page on ED) repeats this. girlvinyl is rather clearly Sherrod Degrippo (see http://www.linkedin.com/in/sherrod) and that was the original name on the domain registration, although there is no obvious proof that is her real name. Girlvinyl seems to enjoy playing with her identity but is not making effort to hide it. The self-entry page, and other pages on and off ED claim that there is a "Joseph Evers", and sometimes that he owns the site. There is a LinkedIN entry that supports this[12], but Joseph Evers seems to be a pseudonym and alternate personna for someone else. This is 90% original research...which is usually okay for company ownership information, but best to be cautious here lest we allow misinformation to creep in. I've updated the fields as best I can given the above. Wikidemo (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. The owner is more likely Edrama LLC, and girlvinyl/Sherrod Degrippo lists herself the CEO of that. An interesting Wikipedia Review discussion thread on the subject, here. I'd put about 90% certainty on this, which isn't good enough to be in an article. Sooner or later a reliable source is going to do a more serious profile on them and either report its history, management and ownership, or at least report that the company is being playfully or strategically ambiguous about the same and we can report that - ED is quite an interesting operation and it's surprising it hasn't been covered yet. Wikidemo (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Both owner and founder have been added and sourced from ED pages. On the owner, I listed the date of fully protected versions of those ED pages (because a fully protected version is most probably a non-vandalized version) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Tarantino's analysis on WR is more wrong than it is right, and either way it disagrees with any edit to the WP page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I have to say that I'm not entirely comfortable with using ED as a source, even for information about itself. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
heh, me neither. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course they do it on purpose. Ah, the postmodern condition. Wikidemo (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please don't replace the founder's nickname for the RL person name, unless you can find a reliable source showing that link, or you find a reliable source linking directly the person name to the founder role. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you can see "Joseph Evers" being used as a pseudonym for trolling: [13]

You can google "lolcommawhat" for another example. Shii (tock) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed for ED being a 'parody'

What's the source for Encyclopaedia Dramatica being a parody of Internet encyclopedias? I can't find this confirmed anywhere, the reference given to the New York Times seems only to say that it is a "snarky Wikipedia anti-fansite". I am sure that everyone agrees that an anti-fansite is not the same thing as a parody. For example, the site microsoftsucks.org is a Microsoft anti-fansite, however it is not a parody of microsoft.com. Say nesh (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When you search for "Encyclopedia Dramatica" on Google, the link to ED appears with the caption: "the articles in this parody of an encyclopedia explain things in a funny and not necessarily correct way."--Urban Rose 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should be using Encyclopedia Dramatica itself as a source here. It certainly doesn't pass most usual tests on authority. We need a citation from a reliable source for this claim. I'll add a fact tag if noone has any objections. Say nesh (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Say nesh. Snarky basically means rude and sarcastic, or snide. The NYT article briefly describes ED as a "snarky Wikipedia anti-fansite". Other sources briefly describe ED as a "satirical website". Satire, of course, is defined "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc". Consulting dictionary.com for the definition of "parody", it reads "a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing". Based on these overlapping definitions, the current sentence is faithful to the source: snarky=satirical=parody. What I originally objected to was the idea that we could use NYT's citation to support a completely different definition of what ED was about ("internet culture and drama") and then continue citing the NYT for support. If anything, we should probably edit the sentence to read "parody of Wikipedia" rather than "parody of online encyclopedias" considering that the sources mentioned so far only identify Wikipedia (singular). J Readings (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we use attribution on the body of the article (not on the lead), using a wording that expresses something along the general lines of "ED defines itself as a parody of Wikipedia, and the media/NYT defines it as xxxxx" and then making an inline ref to ED's About page and NYT's article on the adequate places.
For the lead, it should be ok to leave a wording that does not exactly, totally and uber-accurately represents what the sources say. The lead is an introduction to the article and a summary, after all, so we don't need to enter all the details there as long as we later extend it a bit. (Unfortunately, I can't do it myself right now). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)