Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.

Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right if you wish to review old threads.

Contents 1 Current downtime 2 "Even the registration process is an IRC trial-by-fire." 3 Lockdown mode notes... 4 Section ordering 5 Fonder 6 references question... 7 types of content and relationship to the fandom updated (draft) 8 Pardon my ignorance... 9 Deaffleas 10 Privacy invasion for the sake of drama?

[edit] Current downtime

The site is currently down, although I am not sure how permanent this is. A few days ago their site header announced:

Encyclopedia Dramatica needs moar IRL moneys, like, fucking now. Disk space is pretty much screwed, so there may be problems loading. HALP PLZ!!! Visit Encyclopedia Dramatica:Support ED or join us in ED IRC for moar details and ways to pledge your fealty!

They probably are out of money, but they could well be back. I guess we'll see. --GreenReaper^(talk) 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ED is up again, although their image (and CSS) server appears to be dead. I am taking off the "dead" tags for now and classing it as "reanimated". --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It is "down" the same way FChan is occasionally down; over-quota. The account is still active; it just can't receive connections until it gets more monies or until the next billing cycle. Cross-posted from the Duke Otterland talk, as it's applicable here. Leam 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Even the registration process is an IRC trial-by-fire."

Is this line necessary? It seems rather irrelevant, and I think it is more than a little inaccurate. Thoughts?-El, oh, el 08:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever registered an ED account in ED IRC? Leam 10:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but I've made accounts for people on ED IRC ^^. The "official" account registration channel on IRC isn't what you'd call a trial-by-fire, btw. The only time people who are looking for an account are bullied, harassed or kb'd for fun is when they ask in the general discussion channel, which is the wrong place to look for an account nowadays. Therefore I think that the line is inaccurate-El, oh, el 14:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it sounds like you're saying there's a separate channel for account creation. I've been on ED for awhile, and if that's the case, it must be buried deep; all the "IRC" pages I've ever come across redirect to #ed, therefore the implication I see is that it is the appropriate place to ask for an account. However, if I am mistaken and #ed is more for general chat, feel free to toss the line; I made the change to preserve the tone of the original paragraph (which admittedly, was crap) and it isn't all that NPOV. Leam 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been a seperate channel for account creation requests (#accounts) for about a month. I was under the impression that this was common knowledge, but obviously no-one has bothered to update the relevant pages on ED to reflect this-El, oh, el 02:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I have a few friends who would like to know this. And hey, if you're feeling constructive, maybe you'd like to tackle the last paragraph I didn't.  :3 Leam 07:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this one, too. Leam 07:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not *shrugs*-El, oh, el 10:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lockdown mode notes...

This text is misleading...

"At present (May 2007) editing of articles may only be carried out by ED administrators and all other users are prevented from logging in."

The administrators aren't preventing anyone from logging in or editing articles -- the free space in /var is in the mere hundreds of kilobytes! There is literally no place to store session data. The site is in read-only mode until this is rectified, and not by choice. Leam 23:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section ordering

Having the "Encyclopedia Dramatica and furs" section first seems a little odd, and in fact seems to be detrimental to the flow of the article. Can we shuffle it back to where it was?-El, oh, el 05:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this way it tells the reader first why is this relevant/related/connected with the furry fandom (see The Werelist, QI, Deviant Desires, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, and a few more I can't #@$&* find {murphy's Law],) before moving on to the context of what the site is. Just FYI Spirou 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see, but the issue I have with this is: taking QI as an example, the reader is given a steady introduction to what the subject of the article is, before being informed of how it has impacted on the fandom. Here, there's no such opportunities for gaining some basic background knowledge of the site before diving into whatever issues the site has with furries, impact on the fandom etc. and it makes reading it more difficult than it has to be. Also, this ordering could be accidentally construed as POV - discussing how ED has had a rather negative impact on the fandom straight up doesn't seem impartial, to be honest - not saying that you're meaning to do anything like that, so please don't think of my criticism in that way :3-El, oh, el 06:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I haven't got to moving the QI article around (just minor cleaning and add logos,) shouldn't have added that one as an example. I see your point on the POV, but I think it's something that can be worked on in its next edits. No, criticism is fine if it keeps the article readable and informative =) Spirou 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought that QI was a good example of an article that gives sufficient background info before going into issues and impact within the fandom, so as to give the reader a better opportunity to understand the issues at hand :/-El, oh, el 09:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the QI seems to have more on the shown itself, instead to its relevance to furry (i.e. It could use a "to the point" trim.) But, after a couple discussions on section flow, I returned the section to its prior placement until a consensus on the proper formating is reached Spirou 12:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn on this one. I agree that the relevance to the community should be pointed out first, but that breaks the flow of the article in a way, because you have the introduction paragraph; it rather makes sense to continue talking about the topic at hand a bit before going into the relevance to the community. I think we should have the relevance to furries after the types of content, I guess. My writing instincts override my web design sense.  :3 Leam 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fonder

Who knows, maybe she is >=) ...Or is that Fondler? Spirou 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references question...

should the form of the reference be formatted like:

<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/26p5l7 Encyclopædia Dramatica's] copyright information]</ref>

or

<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/26p5l7 Encyclopædia Dramatica's copyright information]</ref>

? i ask because google will index the link wrong with the former, but that appears to be the default. i changed it to the latter because otherwise, it looks like it's a link pointing ot ED, when it's really pointing to ED's copyright information. Leam 03:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Google should actually take the context into consideration - it picks up nearby words, although not as strongly. Personally I'd use the second, or "[URL Copyright information] - Encyclopædia Dramatica" (usually this format where the title of the page is the link is preferred). --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] types of content and relationship to the fandom updated (draft)

plz feel free to edit to death in the usual fashion. but i think we actually have something good. Leam 05:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pardon my ignorance...

But what the hell is the obsession WF has with ED? Why are these two always going at each other? It just seems idiotic, childish, and trite to me.

Look back at the early article; it was ass, full of misconceptions and outright lies, serving mostly as a vent page for the butthurt. It took a lot of changes to get to something that could be considered quality. Like it or not, the furry community and the internet trolls intersect, and if WikiFur is going to document everything, it needs to document ED. I'm just trying to make sure it does so fairly. Leam 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Why are these two intertwined so much, though? It doesn't make any sense and it's hardly fair for either side, cause both just end up with plenty of negative exposure. Frankly, I don't see a huge reason for the article, except as maybe a footnote elsewhere. --IanKeith 04:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get into a discussion about why internet trolls exist that will take awhile, and is frankly beyond the scope of this discussion. It does exist, and we make up a notable part of the community, and since WikiFur documents pretty much everything having to do with that which is "furry," here the article is. It doesn't have the same (and often absurd and contradicting) notability standards that Wikipedia has. Exposure is only negative if either side is negatively affected, which frankly, I don't see. Leam 06:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deaffleas

I feel more discussion is in order, to avoid article protection. Leam 21:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

actually, nm now. Leam 00:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy invasion for the sake of drama?

I don't think that link actually illustrates the re-insertion of private details for the sake of drama. As can be easily seen, that edit was a reversion of what was essentially a blanking, by an administrator using admin rollback. Whether it was reverted to provoke more drama is purely speculation (more likely, the admin just took a cursory glance and reverted what seemed to be vandalism) and as such shouldn't be included in the article-El, oh, el 01:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Leam 05:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)