Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Nomination was based on a faulty assumption, and has failed.

As per ATT:OFFTOPIC. Yes, there are some online games that were created at Encyclopedia Dramatica, but those games already have a separate category... which hints that this page is a duplicate of that category as far as on-topic content is concerned.

Pinging the usual folks, but everybody is welcome to comment: @Agiletek @Bauerbach @Dominicmgm @GentlemensDame883 @H-Games~Documentation @HelljmprRookie @HeneryVII @Jlaw @Just a 1itt1e bit further @Kuma @Lequinni‎ @RivetVermin @Tad Cipher @The23rdCamper @TheEric132 @Umbire the Phantom @Utini501 @Xemylixa @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

I'm tempted to ponder about its overall impact on net culture (and by extension fandom culture, which is one of this site's purposes last I recall), but then I suppose other sites cover that better than we ever could - which isn't necessarily an argument that we shouldn't, or at least not a very good one.

If we do keep it, I figure we limit the scope to its impact on fandom and the like.

I would argue against it. As pointed out, they HAVE created media. Further, they have proven a profound influence on internet culture, being the Ur Example of the "parody wiki" in many regards. Their own mission statement is that they are a Spiritual Successor to Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary and they are in many ways historic for their influence on internet culture.

I would argue, strictly for their historic value, we should preserve at least a "Useful Notes" page for them if we don't keep anything else, as their impact on the popular culture of the Internet is quite undeniable, as they were to parody wikis what was Something Awful was to forums, with a creative impact that extends beyond their own borders.

Inclined to agree with this, though I'd contest the "parody" designation for reasons unrelated to whether or not this wiki should cover them - it's much more related to "how", but I'll worry about that once we've decided whether or not we keep it.

Worth noting it was successful enough to spawn TWO successors to it's own mission as a repository of internet culture, OhInternet (which failed) and KnowYourMeme (which took off and is still going).

It's also relevant to Uncyclopedia, in many ways a rival/alternative to the idea of a parody wiki.

I find Geth's argument convincing, and would support maintaing the page or a reduced version of it as a Useful Note.

I have no experience with this site, so I'll have to sit this one out.

I think the parody content makes it something worth keeping. Voting against deletion.

In some ways, I feel like Rob made the case to keep the page when he said that some games were created there. I don't know, more than 90% of ED is crap.

There is at least some sense of fiction on a wiki about "drama". I remember visiting the "High Score" page over there years ago, and it's like another fictional world that conflates video games and mass killings. It's probably also satirizing people who think video games cause violence, while at the same time incentivizing others to prove them right.

Refuge in Audacity gets pushed near the limits here, because there are so few any more, especially online. I believe that here, as on the imageboards, there are people legitimately making satire being assisted by people who 100% believe the satire is true. That's a creative work, right? Right? It feels like it is but I'm not sure.

I'd like to see more concrete examples of things that could be considered part of a creative work from people who vote to keep. There are even a few in the page itself.

Encyclopedia Dramatica is an agressive parody of Wikipedia. It is very similar to Uncyclopedia, though having read multiples versions of Uncyclopedia is much closer to the brazilian one, which is much, much more aggressive than the english one.

We can't just begin to delete content because it's extreme. I did not agree to delete Kiwi Farms because they were extreme, I agreed because they were a gossip forum which was only incidentally creative, like Youtube comments.

I cannot, and I will not, agree to delete a content because it's repulsive. We will be undistinguishable of Tv Tropes if this is how we decide content.

@Labster, we already have a category page for the games created there. While it doesn't currently have any content on it, we could move the on-topic content there from here, the way we've done with other category pages.

@HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl, you are the only person talking about extreme content in this thread. The rest of us are discussing whether this is on-topic content.

Ok. I will just say they are on-topic. Extreme vitriol against everything and everyone in a exaggerated way is certainly fictional. I do not think Dramatica is some kind of of hate blog. They may document certain Internet controversies some time but they also have parody articles on conventional subjects like countries, television shows, and videogames.

I'm inclined to side with @HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl on this. On top of a clear reach that extends outside of themselves in terms of creative impact, they are a site for creative content themselves (they parody lots of topics as stated), and as stated before, they were the Ur Example of the a parody wiki that clearly inspired others.

Looking at the discussion, we have no consensus at all yet, although the more recent posts are against the motion. (Which is okay with me - it would just go to show that at least one mod is fallible.)

Let's let this run for a while. Maybe one side can convince the other with a bit of well-argued discussion.

Me, Geth, GD, Horny, LT and Labster have all said we're against deletion - we just have varying reasons for it, though Geth, LT and I seem to also agree on narrowing the focus to whatever is historically pertinent in terms of fandom and Internet culture. Hashing out exactly what that is might warrant a separate discussion.

While I'd like to reiterate that I agree with keeping it for the sake of historical notes at minimum plus whatever creative endeavors and other on-topic material are a direct result of the site, I will say that "Extreme vitriol against everything and everyone in a exaggerated way" is neither a convincing argument for such, nor is it remotely unique to that site. (Except perhaps in how it was expressed, and even then...) One could perhaps argue for it as a sort of "fandom sporking" vehicle.

ED is irreverent and offensive to everyone because their own ethos espouse drama, and making sure you offend everyone you can is guarantee someone is going to get worked up over it and thus provide the drama. They give both Jews and Nazis, blacks and whites, and atheists and Christians all the same scathing offensive parody as a result, just to give a few examples. That is neither a marks against it nor advocacy for them. That said, the two main schools of thought can agree to keep this in some form, we just aren't sure how. Either pruned to a historical article or left as is are the prevailing options.

Personally, I see no harm in just leaving it alone, but also see the arguments for reducing it to a Useful Note, I'm fine with either, and I believe we need to narrow down which one people will be willing to commit to.

Firmly in the Useful Note "camp".

On that note, and while finally cleaning the description according to the template's request (that I put there ages ago 6_9), I have to ask:

While the description that I'm currently editing as I send this message tries to talk around it for much of the text, it does in fact concede that a primary facet of ED - if not arguably its purpose - was the cataloguing of harassment targets. Doesn't that make it a hate blog almost by definition, or at least alarmingly close to one?

As I said before, it stores information about all kind of subjects to attack them in an exaggerated, outlandish away. I added those Bioshock and Street Fighter and Marvel vs Capcom examples to show ED tends to attack subjects of their articles with exaggerated criticism.

...that doesn't actually answer my question, though.

Thus, instead of taking them at their word that they're a parody and satire site, it's reasonable to assume that the entire wiki is trolling the rest of the Internet. If that's the case, then let's be happy that they're keeping the trolling in one place.

This leads to:

...Encyclopedia Dramatica keeps permanent archives of just about everything, providing budding young trolls with a convenient list of 4chan's Acceptable Targets and, often, a cheat sheet on how to effectively harass them.

If it also stored information about actual users to attack them with, and the site as currently described admits as much - however roundabout it does so - does that not meet the definition of a site intended to direct hate and/or harassment?

I'm not just harping on this point for the sake of starting an argument, either - I used to frequent that site ages ago, and what I recall of those experiences about lines up with that. The Other Wiki's coverage of the site (particularly the rebrand) also states outright that the original purpose of the site was monitoring "fascinating personalities" and eventually devolved into "shock for shock's sake" - even assuming we take it for granted that it didn't start as a hate site, that reads like it eventually became adjacent to a hate site, if not one outright.

I believe it's worth mentioning the site does not, by itself, commit an illegal act by explaining HOW someone can troll or harass. It's much like instructions on how to make a homemade gun. The mere knowledge is not, by itself, criminal. Immoral, perhaps, but not criminal. Actual PRODUCTION of something like a pipe gun made in your garage does count as a legal crime for producing an unlicensed and unregulated firearm, but the mere knowledge HOW to make one breaks no laws and is not by itself speech that encourages violence.

Further, their article on swatting, for example, basically calls people who want to try utter idiots who will be relentlessly mocked for the effort while explaining how it works, and if you check their High Score page, while they mockingly reference serial killers as "going for the high score", they also relentlessly mocked one particularly stupid ED user who tried to do so IRL and to this day they still consider him an absolute loser.

So they are edgy, offensive, and even hateful. But none of that is criminal nor makes them legally culpable for encouraging anything they describe. Even their own site ethos make clear the whole wiki is a purposeful exercise in irreverence and you'd be an idiot to take the word on anything. Ergo, their position vis-à-vis both legal and moral precedent makes them callous and amoral, but writing them off as a hate site strikes me as a cheap cop out to dismiss coverage of them out of hand.

But it does warrant deletion? I know it attacks people, it have a screenshot of me under another username on another website calling me a pedophile. But it does contain tropeable material. There is plenty of fiction where the author goes off-topic to deliver rant against something he is opposed to. ED having articles calling internet sub-celebrities this or that doesn't mean we have to delete it.

I'm not arguing for deletion and never have been, if you actually read my above commentary on this from the last couple of weeks - I'm only arguing that it would seemingly fit the definition of a "hate blog".

You weren't arguing for deletion, but I did make that motion on the grounds that the page was off-topic. Discussion in this thread has shown that at least part of the page is on-topic, so that motion died on the vine.

And I intend to move the focus of that page to the on-topic stuff, rather than what I feel is blatant stenography for the site itself. Whether or not it's reduced to a useful note, that much should be done at least.

The question is, then, is where do we draw the line?

If you ask me, let's start with eliminating a few things and narrowing down the scope, shall we?

They write a lot of fiction and archive memes and internet culture as well as have had a notable impact on the same. That makes them a source of media with influence on other media. That we can all agree on.

The problem here, is how do we excise anything they say or do then? By their own definition, they are a modern day version of Ambrose Bierce's ;The Devil Dictionary", which was a parody of useful information. By and large, ED fits this parody definition, as the information they provide is mean-spirited, irreverent, and otherwise antithetical to being a useful source of knowledge aside from certain malcontents. None of that breaks any legal laws to my knowledge, thus it is not illegal to view or discuss.

Finally, the final line seems to be "should we exclude coverage of them as a "hate site"? In my opinion, I would argue no. For once, they are very equal opportunity. Everyone is a potential mockery of scorn and mockery. No race, creed, religion, group, ideology, place, or idea is exempt. Since they are a parody of useful wikis like Wikipedia, which strive to be constructive in mission while objective in tone, this does not elevate them to role of a site that is meant to purposely incite a hate crime, however one defines that. Unlike a site specifically devoted to some like neo-Nazism or the otherwise unironic hatred of any particular group, they have no particular focus and have alternated between mockery and praise, often in the same paragraph on many pages, of many groups and parties they subject to the castigating eye of mockery. I recommend reading their page on the Nazis for a good example.

Ergo, my position is this. Overall, insofar as we can trope the site without referencing anything potentially libelous (at least under the laws of our server hosting), the page should be allowed to stay, but otherwise we make sure our coverage remains specifically objective, with no favoritism nor condemnation.

"should we exclude coverage of them as a "hate site"?

As I've had to say what feels like 50 times within this thread, I was never arguing for exclusion on that basis - only that I feel it likely meets that definition. As the Wikipedia coverage I linked notes (and as you've no doubt noticed), the constant legal battles it's been mired in has asked similar questions. Far from end-arounding into a motion for deletion - my opposition to which I've made more than clear - the only thing I would argue for using that is simply treading carefully within the coverage itself. And however it is we've each arrived at that conclusion, we seem to agree on that much.

With that in mind, I think I'm more than capable of honoring the boundaries regarding libelous material.

Fair enough @Umbire the Phantom, glad to see we can reach concord on the important stuff.

So per the previous nomination and its discussion, the consensus far as I can tell is that we're not deleting this page - the primary question that remains afterward seems to be what tropable content we should focus on. That inevitably means grappling with the fact that it was used to target other people online, which is a not-insignificant part of its impact on Internet culture and fandom, and at minimum begs the question of how much care we should exercise in our coverage of the site, including whether it'd be wise to link to archives of it - there are likely other elephants in the room to be pointed out, which I'll leave to you all on your next trips to the fridge.

Pinging participants in the previous discussion alongside other editors: @Agiletek @Bauerbach @Dominicmgm @GentlemensDame883 @H-Games~Documentation @HelljmprRookie @HeneryVII @Jlaw @Just a 1itt1e bit further @Kuma @Lequinni‎ @RivetVermin @Tad Cipher @The23rdCamper @TheEric132 @Umbire the Phantom @Utini501 @Xemylixa @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

I think the best is to focus on the articles about fictional things they have articles on and examine what humor they make of it, instead of real people(I don't like articles on real people on general, and I only troped what I thought it was clear examples of tropes when I did it). I do know there is links to extremely NSFW, to not say disturbing, and I do not mean porn disturbing but gore.

In the interests of legal liability, I would concur we should avoid discussing any particular IRL person for whom there are uncitable and unproven accusations or allegations, that would definitely put us at legal risk. Otherwise, when covering their other material, such as mockery of more general subjects, fictional topics, and so on, that would be more than acceptable.

Agreeing with GethN7 here, with the comment that I've been lead to believe that the truth of a statement makes no difference in UK libel law so it's best to avoid potentially libellous comments altogether.

Alright, the current page at least seems to not do that, and I've tweaked the description to read more like a proper look at the site's history.

From what I skimmed in the previous discussion, would Useful Notes be the best decision?

Law, I will directly say what I said, it seems I wasn't clear enough: I think we should focus on listing tropes of fiction they have articles from. Tropes. As far I know, useful notes do not have tropes. I added tropes I could find from pages on that site about fiction to prove it had tropeable content. In no moment I even mentioned the idea of transforming the page into useful notes.

That is just me, because I can only speak about my posts.

If that's how you want to be a Troper, that's fine. All The Tropes:There is No One True Way makes it quite clear that there are different ways to be a Troper.

Some of us prefer the analysis part of troping, though. And analysis sometimes means we need to branch out and look at creators and things that only get Useful Notes pages. Nobody has to work on everything. (Unless you're a mod.)

Yeah, I think it would be reasonable to say we can table the debate about this being a Useful Notes page, it's definitely got enough quantification as a work in it's own right to deserve more than that, so long as we bear in mind to avoid the legal reservations as noted above to keep it as is.

"In no moment I even mentioned the idea of transforming the page into useful notes."

Yeah, you didn't, because Jlaw was skimming the previous discussion, which I helpfully linked for context when I started this. I don't think anyone was arguing about the focus beyond that, and the description (hell the page in general but particularly the description) was slated for a rewrite long before that.

@Umbire the Phantom I was merely summarizing why we elected not to make it a Useful Note, based on the prior discussion. I was simply making sure that was no longer in doubt, if there were any. Please do mistake that for me making a unilateral decision, I was merely getting the feel of the room, as it were. If I came across otherwise, I humbly ask your forgiveness.

@HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl Fair point, but I do recommend to just simply continue to work on what you wish and we'll go from there. Some people are still catching up with prior discussions apparently, I suggest we all take a minute to make sure we are all up to speed, if need be, before we continue.

That said, I believe any legal concerns with coverage are generally decided and we can concur on those provisions are reasonable, unless I missed something. If there any other concerns that need addressed, I suggest we put them on the table as soon as possible.

That was more directed at Horn, but sure I guess - you don't really have anything to apologize for with this specifically.