Encyclopedia Dramatica

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Ken Arromdee
Disclaimer: I don't actually use ED and what I know of it comes from mentions
on the talk page and here, which seems to be quite enough to understand this:

Summary: This site is a controversial site that is often considered an attack
site, but we have an article about it anyway.  The site shut down and the
users of the old site restarted it at a different location.  Wikipedia has
decided that site should be considered defunct and the new site ignored
because 1) the new site is for harassment and we shouldn't link to harassment
(even though the same is true of the old site, yet we have an article about
it), 2) the new site is a copyright violation of the old site and we're
not supposed to link to copyright violations (even though the claim that it
is a copyright violation is based on selectively using one of two
contradictory copyright notices from the old site), and 3) we have no reliable
source claiming the two sites are the same.

It seems obvious to me that this is being excluded because either the editors
don't want to link there and find this a good excuse, or else are simply
blindly adhering to rules even when they make no sense (I recall a case where
an open-source project was restarted by the same people under a new name and
we couldn't have an article about it because we had to provide separate
notability for the new version of the project).

We also may want to rethink the rules about copyright violations.  It's one
thing to ignore a site because it contains a bootleg copy of Star Wars.  It's
another to ignore a site where there's a copyright dispute and Wikipedia has
to actually decide the dispute in order to call the site a copyright
violation.  It especially makes little sense when the same people are
involved in the "copyright violating" site who were involved with the original
site--shouldn't it make more sense to treat it as the same site if it has the
same content and the same people, even if its copyright status did change?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Encyclopedia Dramatica

David Gerard-2
On 17 May 2011 16:28, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Summary: This site is a controversial site that is often considered an attack
> site, but we have an article about it anyway.  The site shut down and the
> users of the old site restarted it at a different location.  Wikipedia has
> decided that site should be considered defunct and the new site ignored
> because 1) the new site is for harassment and we shouldn't link to harassment
> (even though the same is true of the old site, yet we have an article about
> it), 2) the new site is a copyright violation of the old site and we're
> not supposed to link to copyright violations (even though the claim that it
> is a copyright violation is based on selectively using one of two
> contradictory copyright notices from the old site), and 3) we have no reliable
> source claiming the two sites are the same.


The new site has indeed had about 0 verifiable third-party coverage.
It's not clear it's sustainable either - the original ED was barely
financially viable with wall-to-wall porn ads, what the current one
runs on is unknown.

I would suggest that we can wait for verifiable third-party coverage
and we don't need an article tomorrow.

I do take your broader point, though: when we have things that were
notable for a while and now get little to no coverage, there's very
little to base updated coverage on. The [[Citizendium]] and
[[Conservapedia]] articles are cases in point - the articles are now
patchy and outdated, and anyone looking those up in hope of finding
out "so whatever happened with those?" will not have that question
answered.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Encyclopedia Dramatica

Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 17 May 2011, David Gerard wrote:
> The new site has indeed had about 0 verifiable third-party coverage.

But the problem is that it's being treated as a "new site" and therefore all
the notability and such has to start from scratch.  How do we determine that
something remains the "same site" or is a "new site"?

If the Washington Monument was torn down and rebuilt 2 miles to the west as
"Washington Monument West", would we need to determine separate notability
for the Washington Monument West and the Washington Monument?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Encyclopedia Dramatica

David Gerard-2
On 17 May 2011 17:19, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2011, David Gerard wrote:

>> The new site has indeed had about 0 verifiable third-party coverage.

> But the problem is that it's being treated as a "new site" and therefore all
> the notability and such has to start from scratch.  How do we determine that
> something remains the "same site" or is a "new site"?


In this case, it is a new site. It's a new site forked from the old
site (and in fact it got DMCA notices from the proprietor of ED).


>If the Washington Monument was torn down and rebuilt 2 miles to the west as
"Washington Monument West", would we need to determine separate notability
for the Washington Monument West and the Washington Monument?


Your analogy is not a good one. If the Washington Monument was
demolished and some people got together to build a duplicate two miles
to the west, that would be noteworthy if there was verifiable evidence
third parties cared.

Note that there's also LurkMoarPedia - it's not like this is the only
fork. To continue the analogy, let's imagine there's several locals
getting together to build duplicate Washington Monuments at various
locations nearby.

Really, if you want an article on this particular "new ED", the way to
solve this is to get third-party coverage for this particular "new
ED".


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Encyclopedia Dramatica

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Ken Arromdee
> On Tue, 17 May 2011, David Gerard wrote:
>> The new site has indeed had about 0 verifiable third-party coverage.
>
> But the problem is that it's being treated as a "new site" and therefore
> all
> the notability and such has to start from scratch.  How do we determine
> that
> something remains the "same site" or is a "new site"?
>
> If the Washington Monument was torn down and rebuilt 2 miles to the west
> as
> "Washington Monument West", would we need to determine separate
> notability
> for the Washington Monument West and the Washington Monument?

I must admit to a certain nostalgia for Encyclopedia Dramatica, I am anal
retentive, but it was no "Washington Monument".

Fred



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Encyclopedia Dramatica

Mike DuPont
Thanks for the hint
http://www.lurkmoarpedia.com/wiki/LurkMoarpedia is gone, but the
google cache delivered some hints and by searching for the sentence
"After Encyclopedia Dramatica was ***** over by the *****"I was able
to find the site http://www.encyclopediadramatica.ch/Wikipedia

nice, lets see what happens to this, I found the the ED was a great
place to find all the dirt on any subject.

thanks,
mike



On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> On Tue, 17 May 2011, David Gerard wrote:
>>> The new site has indeed had about 0 verifiable third-party coverage.
>>
>> But the problem is that it's being treated as a "new site" and therefore
>> all
>> the notability and such has to start from scratch.  How do we determine
>> that
>> something remains the "same site" or is a "new site"?
>>
>> If the Washington Monument was torn down and rebuilt 2 miles to the west
>> as
>> "Washington Monument West", would we need to determine separate
>> notability
>> for the Washington Monument West and the Washington Monument?
>
> I must admit to a certain nostalgia for Encyclopedia Dramatica, I am anal
> retentive, but it was no "Washington Monument".
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania
flossk.org flossal.org

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l