Topic on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

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.