Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica

From Conservapedia

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

Contents 1 Delete 2 According to one person 3 Spelling Errors 4 Wikilink 5 Nasty pornographic website 6 A Second Look 7 Oh Internet 8 Why is this even here?

Delete

If Encyclopedia Dramatica is salted, why not this spelling either. I doubt the article is accurate in how conservatives like to edit it, when its competition, Uncyclopedia is known to be more conservative. --WikiLeon 20:54, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Both sites are satirical and don't try to offend any group more than another, except furries, which ED hates. ED is also a troll site that has posted porn onto CP, that's why we shouldn't give them a praise page. FillmoreMan 22:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

So should the salted page be redirected here instead? --WikiLeon 17:54, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

This page should be deleted, ED is not notable whatsoever. --Richardhead 17:42, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Not necessarily. ^[1]JonM 21:14, 11 January 2012 (EST)

According to one person

According to one person, the site's take on evolution had a greater "depth" than that on competitor site Uncyclopedia. What on earth sort of validity is "according to one person" meant to give? Which one person? And if both ED and Uncyclo are spoof/satirical sites anyway, what does it matter which has the deeper 'take' on evolution? They are scarcely sites to visit for serious presentation of facts/theories/ideologies. Pachyderm 07:12, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Bumping. I think that this issue should be revolved. Who's this "one person"? This sentence was inserted by an user named "Crippes". Is User:Crippes this one person, or was he referring to someone else. Crippes has been inactive since 2007, so I doubt we could obtain his opinion. If the sentence won't be sourced, then it should be removed. --Michaeldsuarez 01:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Spelling Errors

Sorry Conservative, I'm sure those errors would have been fixed sooner, only... the article was apparently locked and then forgotten about for a while ^_^". Ah well, it happens... Do you think by now the article could/should be unlocked? Feebasfactor 21:17, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't care either way. My gut tells me that the dramatica people would come here to bully if the article was unlocked. But again, I don't care either way. It seems to me as if the site has noticeably less biting satire when liberal sacred cows like the evolutionary position are written about. Considering such follies as Nebraska man and Flipperpithecus the absence of biting satire in regards to liberal sacred cows was quite telling in regards to the website. Conservative 21:24, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I hadn't thought of that... but I see that has happened in the past. Very well, go with your gut Conservative. I don't mind either. And I'm not entirely surprised that the site does seem liberal... Feebasfactor 21:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservative, if you take a look at ED's articles on theamazingatheist or Keith Olbermann, it's abundantly clear that the sort of values you're talking about receive no favouritism. I may be way off the mark here, but my hunch is that the 'sacred cows' you're referring to aren't actually all that sacred. FranL 14:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Wikilink

Can someone of power pleae wikilink DeviantART to remove it from the "orphaned pages" list? Thanks. WesleyS^Hello! 10:57, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I added that link. DeviantArt isn't an orphaned page anymore. --Michaeldsuarez 12:27, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Nasty pornographic website

This article is written in a way that is sympathetic towards the site, even so much to compare it's purpose for existance to that of Conservapedia, and it hardly touches on the fact that the site is full of nasty porn. To compare such a disgraceful pornographic website to the family friendly Conservapedia is belittling. DMorris 21:25, 22 January 2010 (EST)

I'm not entirely sure we need this article at all, just going on your take on it--we don't have articles for Playboy or Penthouse or Debbie Does Dallas. Why this? AlexWD 21:36, 22 January 2010 (EST)

Exactly. DMorris 22:43, 22 January 2010 (EST)

I know you don't have articles for porn sites, but I read Wikipedia as well as Conservapedia (I don't see any bias at all in Wikipedia), their article on Encyclopedia Dramatica calls it a "satirical wiki", not a porn site. And, from being part of Dramatica, I believe it. However, Wikipedia's article on Redtube.com calls it a porn site (which is correct). I don't go to Redtube.com because it's pornographic. No source will tell you that Dramatica is totally porno. Plus, Dramatica's been mentioned on MSNBC, Wired Magazine, the NY Times (magazine version), the Guardian, and so on. And you say it's not notable? Star651 13:28, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

I think that it could indeed be considered a pornographic website. Many even seemingly innocuous pages have pornographic pictures and animations, including its article on Conservapedia. I also cannot understand why Conservapedia seems to be leaning in favor of ED when ED's article on Conservapedia is filled with so much hate for it. I realize that they are notable, but I don't see why this article has put ED in a favorable light. ArtemisF 11:11, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

A Second Look

I believe ED has been put in an unfair light here. There is not a "liberal bias" on ED. If you need proof, simply read their entry on liberals, PETA, Al Gore, global warming, etc... the list is endless. ED simply mocks all people regardless of their background. If you don't believe it is notable, check the list of citations on Wikipedia's ED article. It has more news references than most other similar articles.

Also, the very same people who run and read ED are the people who initiated the "Climategate" scandal by hacking those email accounts. This was a serious blow to the progressive agenda, and those actions should be documented, if not lauded.--Flywire 15:38, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

From our perspective, mainly a Christian and Conservative one Flywire, it is smutty. Comparing our take on things to the liberal and very secular Wikipedia is Apples and Oranges. Personally I enjoy some of what I have read there. But our mission as a family-friendly encyclopedic source doesn't jibe with describing it as other than a smutty site. I don't know if you have kids, but it is highly doubtful the majority of parents would relish their 11-year-olds perusing that site! We have our view of ED, and users can, and should, formulate their own opinions once they are mature enough to do so.

Additionally, there is credible evidence that the emails that hung East Anglia were not hacked at all, but supplied by someone who had access. Even if that was not the case, justifying something that CP (and most citizens, according to polls) happens to believe based upon immoral actions, doesn't excuse it, make it right. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:47, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

I do agree that 11-year-olds should not visit that site (although I know some do already). I am not arguing that it should be presented as a kid-friendly website, I am instead arguing that its current description is one of a left-wing porn site, which is simply not true. Could there not be at least a mention of its conservative points, perhaps with a disclaimer to readers warning of potentially offensive material?

Also, I think you should establish a difference between "immoral" and "illegal". If there was a hack to obtain those emails, then certainly something illegal was done. However, the purpose of that alleged hack (the exposure of a much-larger agenda to silence certain members of the scientific community who disagreed with the "official" view) could easily be argued for ethically.

In short, I do agree with you. I just think that if the goal is to keep families away from the site, it could be done with a warning of explicit content, rather than a blanket condemnation. I feel that failing to acknowledge ANY of ED's conservative points is doing a disservice to someone who might be willing to tolerate that content in search of humorous conservative commentary in some of their articles. --Flywire 16:54, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

I wouldn't call it a porn site. I would call it a comedy site, but it's just full of words that I can't say here. Star651 09:04, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

Oh Internet

Encycloædia Dramatica was recently turned into Oh Internet, which is highly censored in content and similar to Know Your Meme. It might be best to create an Oh Internet article and merge parts of this one into it.Onomatopoeia 22:57, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Why is this even here?

Why is this still here? It may have been mentioned once or twice on some tv channel, but I'd hardly call this noteworthy. It's just a ridiculous website run by some crazy people which is considered amusing by some people. Nobody needs this, so can't we just delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GTac (talk)

I agree. I deleted the article. Conservative 20:39, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Why? Cheese isn't noteworthy, and neither are the hundreds of articles that are tiny and have no links, but they were never deleted. This is supposed to be an alternative to Wikipedia with a conservative viewpoint, so it should have some mentions of rather obscure website. Either way, Enyclopedia Dramatica's parent site, 4chan, is very well known. DynaboyJ 22:11, 11 January 2012 (EST)

I'm sure the reading audience will find it more interesting to read about the history and varieties of cheese than they would the silly ravings of a bunch of nobodies on an obscure website who want a little more attention than they deserve. Karajou 22:40, 11 January 2012 (EST)

I disagree here. Encyclopedia Dramatica has gotten its media attention through its parent website and is well-known in circles of the Internet. Your argument doesn't explain the hundreds of articles I mentioned with one line and no notability aside from a dictionary definition. As a competing online encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica earns an article. Much like Conservapedia is shown through a conservative viewpoint, Encyclopedia Dramatica is shown through an Internet troll's. DynaboyJ 22:59, 11 January 2012 (EST)

You said it yourself: it is a site shown through the viewpoint of the internet troll; it most certainly is not a competing online encyclopedia except in one article we should have but don't: trash. Karajou 23:03, 11 January 2012 (EST)

The Internet troll has become a cultural icon, nearly, far past annoyance. Besides, it is a competing encyclopedia that has gotten plenty of attention. If it is to be completely berated in an article, I don't care, but it's still noteworthy enough. DynaboyJ 23:08, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Karajou? Hello? DynaboyJ 23:47, 11 January 2012 (EST)