Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:20, 9 July 2005

Attack removed

I removed this attack from the bottom of this article. Nomination for Vfd should have been enough, without this vandalism of the article. Someone may want to take note and action. I haven't the time right now to judge wether other vandalism has occured, so someone may want to compare historys. I have no dog in this hunt, but if arty's on websites are wikipedia topics, this one deserves fair consideration since it was Wikispawned, if for no other reason. I also wonder whether this is an 'Advert', but I'm too new to have a handle on all the wiki policies extant on this stuff. Fabartus 01:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What should have been here instead of in Article

The site uses MediaWiki software to mimic Misplaced Pages conventions, such as this disclaimer template:

According to the founders of Encyclopædia Dramatica, the mission of Encyclopædia Dramatica is to provide the ultimate compendium of Internet parody and humor. However, it frequently deviates from this goal, producing somewhat humorous articles on a wide range of topics, most of which are not necessarily classifiable as satire. Humor of all categories enters the wiki, prompting an equally freeflowing response, such as the vandalistic classification of sexual fetishes as relating to "Unhealed Childhood Trauma".

Because of the open nature of Encyclopædia Dramatica, which began as a collection of personal attacks, Encyclopædia Dramatica itself suffers from vandalistic attacks similar to those of other wikis. For example, occasionally people blank entire pages, make legal threats or add messages that insult other users. The creation of humor is not entirely material to random acts of text insertion. Indeed, the effort required to write one article on the Encyclopædia Dramatica of good quality may even exceed the effort required to produce a factual article on Misplaced Pages. Good humor may be more difficult than good information, as there is a correct or publically accepted form of a fact, but not necessarily a universal joke.

That's all for now! Fabartus 01:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's actually quite true about ED. I don't see anything I can construed as vandalism. --Tydaj 01:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

For the prior VFD discussion of Encyclopedia Dramatica, now a redirect to this article, see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica.

• The decision was to delete basing on nonnotability. The page has been recreated without undeletion procedure. No new proof of notability is provided. Therefore the page is candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted unless independent references will be provided from authoritative sources. Blogs and forums don't count, folks. mikka (t) 21:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I added why it's notable: because it has a relation to Misplaced Pages. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 01:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Removing technical notices without discussion is inadmissible. Also you cannot add links to wikipedia technical pages. And you must not add external links inside article body. There is a special section "external links" for this. Has relation to wilipedia is not a sufficient reason of notability. I am related to wikipedia, b`ut I don't have artickle about myself. mikka (t) 16:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This is not the Encyclopedia Dramatica article, though. A speedy for recreation wouldn't apply here, but perhaps at the redirect. In fact, as this isn't a repost of a formerly deleted article, but a new article based around a notable website, I'm removing the speedy tag, as it does not fall under the qualifications for speedy deletion as noted at the speedy deletion page. Now, I'm starting to question the good faith, too. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Notability is not proven by independent research. All what is written in the article is original research. Most facts are verifiable only from the website in question. This is inadmissible in wikipedia. I'm starting to question the good faith, too, when seeing this kind of blind eye. mikka (t) 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • So how can we repair this? Because it is a notable website with plenty of secondary information availiable. We obviously don't want it deleted, so how about giving us some help instead of trying to make this a speedy when it's not and flinging mud? What do you need from me to make this palatable for you and I'll fix it. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • It was already spelt out several times: independednt solid references to discussion of this site. Blogs, chat rooms and forums won't do, unless the comments are made by notable persons, e.g., those who warrant wikipedia articles (I hope the latter remark will not make you to write a wp-article about your buddy for this sole reason) and the remarks are in permanent place. mikka (t) 17:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I think you're just mistaken. The site itself is a primary resource. SchmuckyTheCat 14:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Cat, you really in need to read wikipedia policy before going to bed. The site itself cannot be considered as a reliable source. Problem with it: wikipedia:verifiability. On my website I may write that I have penis 30 inches long, which makes me clearly a notabe person to write a wikipedia article about myself. Once again: only secondary sources may be the base of wikipedia articles. mikka (t) 15:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Rubbish. If your website said your penis was thirty inches long then a wikipedia article can use your website as a primary source to state "The author claims his penis is thirty inches long." That sentence makes no claim to the truth about your penis, the truth is your claim. Similarly, if I attend a speech and George Bush states that he is reversing his ban on stem cell research because stem cell research could re-animate a zombie Ronald Reagan I do not need to wait for the New York Times to report it, which presumably they will. So, if I go to ED and see that it is a collection of parody, the the verification of that statement is that the reader can go there and see for themselves. The ED site isn't citing itself, the ED site exists and we as observers and writers use it as the primary source. SchmuckyTheCat 16:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Not rubbish. In the way you propose you will fill wikipedia with garbage. There is so much false statements mover internet. For the third time: verifiability of truth in the issue here. My claim about my penis, my claims alone, without other, reliable, people commenting on it, cannot be a reason for wikipedia article. Bush example is moot, since the person already has an established notability and his speech will be easily verifiable from other sources. ED exists, but its existance and its claims about itself alone is not the reason for its notability. Once again: example with Bush is inapplicable, because we know about Bush not only from his speeches. Observers, other than wikipedia editors report plenty about them. mikka (t) 16:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Besides, the site's creator was thinking about wikipedia when he made this site does NOT mean that it actually has any relation to wikipedia. Even if the site was made by a wikipedian, that's still not a connection worthy of ANY sort of mention. --InShaneee 18:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion history

• Deleted by VfD Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (Dec 2004)
• Recreated (20:41, 27 Apr 2005) and speedily deleted (00:46, 28 Apr 2005). user:2004-12-29T22:45Z 01:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (timestamps added by mikka (t) 03:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Recreated again under the "æ"'d title.
• Survived VfD Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (June 2005)

mikka (t) 02:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"General satire & humor"

ED's humor primarily focuses on common internet fads and jokes, such as jokes about political parties, homosexuals, country related stereotype jokes and racist humor. I added the part about what ED was criticised for, mainly because nearly all vandalism on ED has been related to that. In fact I've particapated in some vandalism on ED myself. I guess its because there are some people who are annoyed to see a site like ED as a humor parody of wikipedia being constantly being rewritten and added onto by people with different tastes in humor taste, many of whom tend to use rather overdone styles of humor and satire. Another thing to note is a very large portion of the site deals with Livejournal drama and humor, which appeals to a relatively small portion of people, since livejournal happenings have little effect on the rest of the internet and many people see blogs/online journals as useless and stupid. -Kraftstoff (t) 18:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article says so. But after reading a hundred or so ED articles I gradually got an impression that it is a pretty specific kind of humor, far from what I would call "general". I am not an expert in humor (more precisely, in anglophone humor; also I naturally have my own preferences in humor), so I may be wrong. Does anyone know a "scientific" definition of what is there, in ED?

The things I managed to recognize (IMHO) at the site:

• It seemingly does not store old jokes.
• The humor is mostly satire, a really nasty, biting one.
• There are many parodies, but none of them (of what I've seen) of friendly kind (of course, I am aware that some kinds of camaraderie do involve poking each other's noses with fists).

For example, compare Numa numa and Numa numa.

Surely, this is my original research, and it is not going to be in the article. This is only to satisfy my curiosity: is there a special name for this kind of humor? mikka (t) 17:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the article if you take "general satire and humor" to mean "general humor." It is the satire that is described as "general." You have mentioned three different genres: humor, satire and parody. Each of these can exist independently or in combination with one or both of the others. Because there are many contributors with various styles and intentions, there won't be one specific style. However, what I hope to see in an ED article is a combination of all three, along with specific reference to some sort of Internet phenomenom - preferably online interpersonal conflict ("drama"). It's not intended to be a general humor web site. I can't claim to speak for everyone involved, though. --Aussieintn 02:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "...what I hope to see in an ED article is a combination of all three". Did you mean a wikipeadia article about ED or and article in ED? (You probably know, I am a Bureaucratic ####.)

I agree that satire is general indeed. A good example here would be Faulkner. But still, my question is unanswered: how to define the kind of humor at ED? (You seem to say that the adjective "general" was not intended for "humor".) mikka (t) 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response to your first question, I was referring to my preference for an article written for ED. As for the second, I don't think a simple definition is possible. There will be a combination of types of humor because there are many different contributors, each with their own style. --Aussieintn 00:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inspecting the block log of ED and contributions of blocked ED-accounts, I think I've noticed a certain peculiarity: ED seems to be pretty tolerant to stupid humor, but intolerant to smartass-humor, i.e., to the jokes that tend to demonstrate how smart the joker is, rather than to demonstrate the stupidity of the target of the joke. mikka (t) 03:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Downage

I think the guy may have been referring to the point that, often, it's hard to connect to the site because of the "too many users" error. It's gotten better recently, but that's the best rationale I can get. --Badlydrawnjeff 8 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

Better? I think it's gotten worse! And how can something be too many users if not one user can connect in the first place? DyslexicEditor 8 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

Downage is a transient event. A couple of occasions of downage is not a subject of encyclopedia entry. And it is absolutely false statement that it is down 12 hours a day. Not to say that it is your original research, and I have no reason to believe you. mikka (t) 8 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

Yeah, it's more like 16 hours. Can you get it to access. Oh and since I researched it why don't you write an article about it since it's not your original research. DyslexicEditor 8 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

Yeah, I observed the same during Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica, when the trafic was probably high, but an occasional outage does not warrant the generalized statement. And by the way, your way of using mis-redirects is not in style of wikipedia. Please remember, this is an unfunny site, and you will hardly succeed in changing this, hear from an old Bureaucratic Fuck. And BTW, the ED us up back. mikka (t) 9 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)