Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 Wikipedia conventions, such as this disclaimer template:

This article is crap. You can help by completely re-writing it.

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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

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)

Mediawiki

I find a bit disturbing that this site is running on mediawiki, but does not mention that fact anywhere. What do you think ? user:anthere

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)
And why do you think that 1 user cannot be "too many"? mikka (t) 9 July 2005 01:21 (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 Wikipedia: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)

Before you reverted it the second time, I had put the article back because no one supplied a valid reason for its removal. You said it was nonencyclopedic. What makes something encyclopedic is it's inclusion in an encyclopedia. Therefore to say something is unencyclopedic as an argument for uninclusion is circular logic. (Also, I only meant about the downage part. The reign of terror was removed, but SchmuckyTheCat snuck it back in.) Chunitaku 9 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

I am afraid this is a miscommunication: "unencyclopedic" was supposed to be a shorthand to "not worth inclusion in encyclopedia". If you know a better ford for this long phrase, please educate me. I am aware that my english is not my strong side. As to the issue: Not every single event in the world is in The Book. The fact that a a particular site was down for some time may be of encyclopedic value only if, e.g., the site claimed its robustness, but it failed. mikka (t) 9 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)
The site does claim somewhere that it's faster than wikipedia (due to less users and articles), but I can't find where now. Chunitaku 9 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)
It is in Encyclopedia Dramatica:ED vs. Wikipedia. mikka (t), but I don't like the idea of jouning this silly Battle of Titans. ED is about joke, and this comparison is joke as well. By responding to it seriously wikipedia would make a fool of itself (ED would love to see this happen, I suspect). mikka (t) 9 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

I haven't noticed it being down at all recently and I visit fairly often. Certainly it isn't down for hours at a time as DyslexicEditor claims. DyslexicEditor needs to understand that just because s/he can't connect does not indicate that "not one user can connect." If you check the recent changes, there don't seem to be many significant periods when there wasn't an article being changed, thus indicating that usually there are people connected to the site. I wouldn't be surprised if the site is subject to the occasional DOS attack, though. --Aussieintn 02:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been down like it was anymore. DyslexicEditor 03:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrod

An unknown user:Encydra politely requested to remove the following information from the article.

The reason of the inclusion of this information is verifiability of the claim that ED was launched by "a wikipedia user". Please explain the reason of the request. Otherwise it will be restored, since this is a publicly available piece of data. mikka (t) 15:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

protected?

Why is the article protected? --Smooth Henry 03:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The protection log states: temporarily protecting page until issue relating to personally identifiable information is resolved. Out of curiosity, what change do you want to make? --Aussieintn 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Banbot, I thought you saw in the history that mikka or someone was trying to protect Girlvinyl from the high-level magic spell called PowerWord: IRL Name. Shorthair 15:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected, because protection was frivolous: there was no vandalism or edit war, the reason and duration were not explained in the talk page, and the protector ignored the direct question: the "until something is resolved" is not a reasonable deadline, especially since I don't see any efforts towards resolving the "issue". mikka (t) 16:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Founder/co-founders

Is there any evidence that anyone other than "Girlvinyl" co-founded Encyclopædia Dramatica? I suspect that Hardvice is promoting himself or a friend. Shame, Hardvice, shame! --Aussieintn 00:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to check my source [1]. Hardvice 01:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say this person co-founded Encyclopædia Dramatica? --Aussieintn 02:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Firstly let me state that I myself am a former ED user. Secondly let me state I beleive the neutrality of this article is up for debate because I hold a bias. Yet, at the same time, users User:Hardvice and User:Aussieintn hold their own biases as dedicated members or even administrators to the website.

As a grounds to begin, people deserve the right to know who are the real faces behind these websites. This isn't an "E-encyclopedia". "GirlVinyl" isn't a person, it's a handle, it's as worthless as an AIM screenname. Let's go say the CEO of Microsoft is Bill3222, and not give his name as a person (which by the way, is public anyway, whois search). "Sherrod DiGreppo" is a person who actually used her real life money and her real self to create the site. That's my honest POV, when you create a website, take credit for it, Wikipedia isn't the place for conspiracys. Maybe at Encyclopædia Dramatica you can run and hide behind names like that, but I don't know if that's what we shoul dbe looking for here.

I see alot of Bias in this article going in favor Sherrod DiGreppo, and not against. I'm fully aware wikipedia isn't supposed to be my page for rants, but then it's not supposed to be Encyclopædia Dramatica user's grounds to be sweet to their admin.

I agree. The name "Sherrod DeGrippo" was before in the article, but someone deleted it. The last time I edited the article, it said: "Encyclopædia Dramatica was launched on December 9, 2004, by Wikipedia user Sherrod DeGrippo [1] from Las Vegas, nicknamed Girlvinyl, as a reaction to Internet memes and web phenomena being excluded from Wikipedia. In Girlvinyl's own words, "[avoiding] vanity pages and personal flame wars on wikipedia is the reason Encyclopedia Dramatica exists"[2]" 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

From edit:

Revision as of 15:59, 14 August 2005
67.134.44.88 (Talk | contribs)
This image is copyright and NOT liscensed for redistribution. AT ALL. A DMCA notifcation has been sent . "Take" does not imply liscense to re-distribute.

The content deleted from this article was: - "Image:Sherrod degrippo.jpg|thumb|Sherrod DeGrippo, Owner of Encyclopædia Dramatica"

See also: Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation#Copyright_infringement as the question of DMCA abuse has been raised for discussion there.

The license to use this material (according to the original website, that of Sherrod DeGrippo herself) is:

From http://girlvinyl.com/C9/index.htm
"C9 Las Vegas April 24-27 2003
Feel free to take these pictures if you'd like. Please make sure to give a link back to my site when you do though" [2]

On these grounds, I believe that the repeated attempts to remove images or other factual information from this article wrt Sherrod DeGrippo to be vandalism. There's nothing here that isn't already of public record, either from lookup in a public source like whois or whitepages.com or from her having distributed the material herself online under the terms listed above. If "take" didn't mean "use", from where would the requested link back to her site be expected to be found? Normally, that'd be on whatever page is making the attributed re-use of the material, no? --carlb 22:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Carlb. The text says: "Please make sure to give a link back to my site when you do though." Since DeGrippo says that you have to "give a link back", that means when you put the pictures on a Web page. So "take" in the sentence "Feel free to take these pictures if you'd like." can also mean "put on a Web page". 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
There is no proof that deleted image is the portrait of the actual person. From all I know it may well be a kind of a hoax. the source is not reputable enough. mikka (t) 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is Sherrod DeGrippo's own Web site. You don't believe that's her? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? How long have you been aroundthe web? Any particular reasons to believe? mikka (t) 00:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not kidding you. I already showed you months ago that the registrant of that site is called Sherrod DeGrippo. You can run a Whois search, and there it is. Besides, the name "Sherrod" appears about 65 times on Girlvinyl.com, and there are other sites where they suggest that "Girlvinyl" is the same as "Sherrod DeGrippo". I mean, why do you doubt it now and not months ago when you saw the name "Sherrod DeGrippo" and the hyperlink to the Whois.sc search? You didn't delete it back then either. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is how it looked like:
23:51, June 7, 2005 Mikkalai (rm unferified info. Tits or leave.)
Then I made the changes.
01:08, June 8, 2005 Mikkalai (thx)
Now there you go. Now you doubt it. I mean, why didn't you doubt it back then? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
You even put the hyperlinks below the text because you didn't like them inside. I remember it very well. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I meant that there is no reasons to believe that the photos are hers. I cannot even be sure that she is "she". Whois is a reputable source of information, her website is not, to my tastes. If you known her personally and vouch that she is on the photo, I can take your word as an independent confirmation. mikka (t) 00:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno... "Sherrod" is a unisex name which could refer to anything from this to this to this; take your pick? --carlb 02:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I agree with both of you (User:Mikkalai and User:Carlb, who didn't sign his message). First of all, what User:Mikkalai says is true. It's still possible that those photos are not his/hers/from it. And I agree with User:Mikkalai and User:Carlb in that we don't know that person's sex even if they call him/her/it "she" on the Girlvinyl Web site. If you read a bit about "Girlvinyl" or "Sherrod" on his/her/its Web site (Girlvinyl.com) and on the Encyclopedia Dramatica, you see it's not easy to know the sex of the person. I mean, from the looks of those photos, it looks like a "he-she". That's my pick. What's your pick? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 01:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[Note: Substantial portions of the text to which I was replying have been removed here - this may alter or distort what follows next --carlb 05:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Hmmm... if this were the case, it would explain a few things:

  • The willingness of ED to accept content like Rape - From Encyclopedia Dramatica "(Revision as of 21:58, 12 Dec 2004)- Surprise sex. It is sometimes justified... ". This article is still very much live and has expanded, going further downhill. A female might've been inclined to delete such content (some ladies reportedly oppose or are offended by rape) instead of hosting it and allowing it to be expanded upon for eight months.
  • The ability to afford to operate a site without advertisements or donations. Some random gal from LiveJournal would be less able to justify the expense than would someone in the position you describe. From [3] "Does it bear including in the article that they are obviously Æ's poorer cousin? (as shown by the Google ads on every page) --無 01:21, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)"
  • The desire not to have even publically-available info about the site's ownership posted anywhere in Wikipedia or even the Wikicities parody version Uncyclopedia (where their version of this article is currently under VFD consideration; he'd be very lucky if they vote to delete instead of posting something far worse in its place)

Strange, though, that someone of these attributes would put this much effort into a site of this nature, but it takes all kinds. Interesting... who knows. --carlb 03:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look up girlvinyl on ED, it's possible to see she is referred to as "she". The only times she has been referred to as a he was by the admin's from ED who vandalize this article. That pic should stay there, and this page should be protected from the ED admins. Also, by doing a google search, it's clearly possible to see a Sherrod DeGrippo works for the Department of Energy in Nevada as a Senior Intrusion Analysis Specialist. Oddly enough, GirlVinyl's online identity is often correlated around technology, and she made the site. She's a livejournal user, but she's also a technical enthusiast. It's not that hard to beleive, woman can like technology too, she's just no Anna Kournikova. No privacy is being breached, all this information is public. She's not being damaged. Everythings fine like wine. --Depakote 15:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters anymore, since the copyright notice on the http://girlvinyl.com/C9/index.htm website has been changed, and now disallows any usage, especially by wikipedia: No one has permission to use these images for any purpose. Specifically, these images may not at anytime be uploaded to any open content server or re-liscensed. To go further, these images are specifically prohibited from being used on the website wikipedia.org or any other sites associated with wikipedia's owners, mirrors or affiliates. (Bolding and Italics are mine) So, the whole argument is now moot apparently.--Azathar 16:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are not familiar with the ways how the copyright works. But I would say that a civilized way would be to honor the request of the person from the photo. We are not paparazzi here. An let us not make an innocent look: the selected photo is an embarrassing one, and I seriously doubt it was selected for the purposes of information. mikka (t) 18:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Paparazzi not-withstanding, I have always been under the impression that when one owns a picture, and lets others use it, thats ok, but when the owner then says that you can't use it anymore, then that is no longer allowed. Also, isn't the owner the copyright holder, and in this case, she can say that it can't be used anymore, we can't use it, correct? If not, please explain how copyright works, or point me towards a good reference that explains it. Thanks.--Azathar 20:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use of multiple userID's?

Just curious to know if anyone else considers this to be Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Comment_about_individual_users-worthy before taking this further:

Statement of the dispute

I believe the following to be aliases of (girlvinyl | talk | contributions), created solely for the purpose of removing valid factual info from Encyclopædia Dramatica and the Image:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg description page:

Description

The use of multiple userID's by the same person is discouraged, according to Wikipedia:Sock puppet, in a number of contexts not limited solely to their use on voting pages. For instance, use of multiple ID's to circumvent policies may qualify. I raise the question of 67.134.44.88, Encydra, Encydra2 as a set of possible duplicate userID's of girlvinyl on the discussion page of the affected article, Encyclopædia Dramatica.

The multiple ID's show the same or similar pattern in edit history; one of claiming in some form to hold intellectual property rights over publically-available (whois) information as to the ownership of the Encyclopædia Dramatica domain by one Sherrod DeGrippo, listed in whitepages as resident in Las Vegas, Nevada, and of removing that information from the text. The link to image Image:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg, legitimately available to us for attributed reuse under the terms stated on her own site girlvinyl.com and archived elsewhere online, is also the routine target of removal from the article by the various userID's listed below.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[4] Deletion of name "Sherrod DeGrippo" from Encyclopædia Dramatica, done as user Encydra
[5] Deletion of "Image:Sherrod Degrippo.jpg" from Encyclopædia Dramatica, done as anon user 67.134.44.88
[6] Deletion of "Image:Sherrod Degrippo.jpg" from Encyclopædia Dramatica, done as user Encydra2
[7] Deletion of source information on Image:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg, done as user Encydra2, reverted by Angela

Applicable policies

Wikipedia:Sock puppet
Wikipedia:Vandalism


Users certifying the basis for this dispute

--Depakote 16:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

The matter has been raised on the relevant article talk page; to date there has not been any successful resolution of the issue:

Talk:Encyclopædia_Dramatica
Image talk:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg

removal of information on the talk page

I've removed information here on the talk page. It is nothing other than spreading personal attack information that isn't appropriate in the article and moving it to talk. A talk page is not a web forum nor a place for information that isn't good enough for the article. Does the discussion help the creation of an encyclopedia? No, it's gripes from people disgruntled with the article subject and completely inappropriate. SchmuckyTheCat 04:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have also busied yourself removing information from the article itself, specifically the registered name of the site's owner, which is public information (whois). Please don't do this in cases where there is any means of verifying the info in question. --carlb 04:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the pic, which has an unknown copyright status, and an article section designed to be a personal attack that is only interesting to wikidrama followers. Whether the name on a whois report is interesting enough for the article, I take no position and haven't removed it in the past. SchmuckyTheCat 04:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status is indeed known (original site prima facie does list the images as available for reuse on condition only that attribution be provided)... Do you suspect that the originating site itself doesn't have legitimate rights to redistribute the images - for instance if the photo were to happen to be of someone else and not of Sherrod Degrippo at all? Only reason I can see for this to be a legitimate copyright issue (as opposed to merely a blatant DMCA abuse to suppress facts). Deleting information isn't in any case bringing us any closer to answering those questions. I have a very bad feeling about this one.

Nonetheless, the supposed "personal info"? Much or most of what you've deleted is stuff available from a Google search on the name "Sherrod DeGrippo", not exactly anything that you'd need a top secret clearance or any expertise in computer security to find. And yes, it's consistent with the whois on one of the IP's being used to delete info from the article. Big deal. Unfortunately that still doesn't tell us whether the photo is indeed of the person it purports to be (such is the magic of unisex names and hiding behind a computer) - and that's the one bit of info that will need to be known to determine ownership of the image. In order to respond to any DMCA abuse which may be directed against Wikipedia or Wikia, ownership will need to be determined. --carlb 15:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above comment that "original site prima facie does list the images as available for reuse on condition only that attribution be provided" is untrue. The original site makes it very clear that the images are copyright, "not to be uploaded to any server" and so on. --Aussieintn 05:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture isn't relevant to the article, anymore than an article on wikipedia would have a picture of Jimbo.
  • Any other personal info isn't notable to the article either.
  • The description of the conflict is wiki-drama, not relevant to the subject of the article.
  • That it doesn't require any expertise to find the information isn't relevant, "Does it add to a readers understanding of the subject matter?" No. SchmuckyTheCat 16:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may be used to making points and assumptions and being able to make the final decision because your an operator of a private wiki, but this is the real thing. The only people who are taking these pictures off are friends of Sherrod DeGrippo because she is paranoid about her name and her picture (public anyway, she has galleries of pictures with her on it). The picture itself was basically handed to us, if you can see by the archive she gave permission for anyone to use her pics as long as they linked back. Nothing being breached. Nobodies bleeding, nobodies hurt. --Depakote 18:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't care if Sherrod himself uploaded it. It's irrelevant to the article subject. Make a Sherrod DeGrippo article if you want to fixate on him. SchmuckyTheCat 18:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, the statement that Sherrod DeGrippo gave permission for use of the pics is untrue. Where is this permission? Do you have it in writing and signed, or is it merely an assumption? --Aussieintn 05:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Straight from the site the picture has been linking to:
          • The previous agreement on re-use of these images was for personal use, with a link required. At no point have I released these images into the public domain or in anyway relinquished my rights of ownership or my copyright of these images.
          • Due to the ambiguousness of the previous statement, I will make it more concise now: These images are not to be uploaded to any server for any reason at anytime. No one has permission to use these images for any purpose. Specifically, these images may not at anytime be uploaded to any open content server or re-liscensed. To go further, these images are specifically prohibited from being used on the website wikipedia.org or any other sites associated with wikipedia's owners, mirrors or affiliates.
        • How much clearer does it have to be? --Badlydrawnjeff 15:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I have taken the issue to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Encyclopædia_Dramatica as this otherwise is a revert war waiting to happen. --carlb 05:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is User:SchmuckyTheCat is another LiveJournal and Encyclopaedia Dramatica fan like Evan Ling. SchmuckyTheCat and Sherrod DeGrippo, they have each other on their LiveJournal "friends" lists. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:25, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
No, but if you understood basic logic, it suggests that your motives aren't exactly as noble as you would have us believe.--UnFlammable 04:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yet every other contributor's motives are completely beyond reproach? --Aussieintn 05:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't implied. I stated what should have been an obvious inference. However, that's perfectly valid question, part of which I believe has been answered by previous discussion/speculation.--UnFlammable 06:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think motivation is relevant, anyway. If someone makes a factual statement, it is factual regardless of the person's motivation for making the statement. On the other hand, if a person makes an incorrect statement, the statement is false even if the person has completely acceptable reasons for making the statement or is merely misinformed. --Aussieintn 06:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Conflict" section

This section is fo direct relation to ED, rather than to Sherrod, so it stays, without guesswork about possible outcome, though. BTW it demonstrates that the site is not immune to drama it tries to make laugh of; in particluar, the case is so unfunny, i.e., funny. mikka (t) 20:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you cut a li'l too much; to include one side of the story and excise the other is to introduce POV. Might want to recheck that bit... --carlb 03:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is the whole story in two words: removal request. Since "legal considerations are ongoing," the opinions about the merits of the case are opinions and good in a newspaper, not in ancyclopedia article. mikka (t) 18:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with this section isn't whether it's related to ED. Its "does a general reader care?" I don't think interwiki drama is notable to the average reader, especially when it doesn't involve anything on the actual sites. SchmuckyTheCat 15:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a word invented long time ago to describe the case when someone decides what an average reader care. Anyway... The notability of the drama is comparable with the notability of the sites themselves. To my tastes I would rather delete both of them from wikipedia (and I voted so at VfD). But since they stay, it seems that "average reader" (or, rather, "average writer" :-) is interested.
Finally, I am bit confused with the phrase "doesn't involve anything on the actual sites." Are you saying there the phrase "legal considerations are ongoing" is false, and the case is routinely closed? If this is so, i.e., there is no real conflict, but rather a request that was readily granted, then I have to agree with you and delete the section. mikka (t) 18:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be severely trimmed

Come on, folks, we're trying to do an encyclopedia here, not free advertising for another site. The level of detail given in this article is just way overkill and not notable or encyclopedic in the slightest. This isn't The Onion we're talking about here, it's just a minor web site. Keep things to the point and relevant.

Those of you who are here as fans of the site making edits... that's very poor form. This site follows NPOV, which includes sections about not devoting so much space to thinkgs that aren;t notable. Focusing so strongly upon this site gives readers the idea that it's way more significant than it really is. This isn't a fan site. DreamGuy 12:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yet this discussion page is much, much longer than the discussion about The Onion, as well as being much longer than the article that is being discussed. This may be evidence that the site is more significant that you think - at least to its target audience. --Aussieintn 13:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't paper. The NPOV policy has nothing to do with article length. Accurate, verifiable, and relevant. Does the additional information help the reader? Yes. Does the additional information have a POV? No, it's unbiased text as a few examples of the type of humor found on the site. This idea of yours to trim articles is something you should give up. SchmuckyTheCat 14:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, most of the dispute here is because of the admins of ED themselves trying to censor and change information. POV. --Depakote 15:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica&oldid=21162892"