Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica
[edit] Wassup?
Wassup? They block you Pyro? Susanpurrrrr ... 15:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)
- Not under that name, at any rate. Also, it's not really a wikipedia parody (that's uncyclopedia), it's more like the temple of the high priests of internet drama that got annexed by /b/. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
/b/?-αmεσ (historian) 15:46, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Encyclopædia Dramatica sucks. — Unsigned, by: 98.17.57.143 / talk / contribs
You pick on them for only caring about goatse when all you have is stupid goats? OIPOTT 16:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)
- Hey - don't pick on the goats.PFoster 16:09, 18 December 2007 (EST)
- That's not true! We also have LLamae! And long-eared jerboas, curse their filthy little hides. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I used to have a tally of actual quality articles on ed, but I lost it. There are(were?) even a few pages on the site that are bizarrely SFW. But don't ever go on a two hour random spree on ed. I had to go watch old kids shows for a few hours to clean my mind. Tyrannis (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Always fail?
It's not particularly well written, but you've got to love an article on Bible slash fiction. I suddenly feel in a very-important-message-for-Ken kinda mood... --Robledo 17:49, 20 December 2007 (EST)
[edit] funniest site ever
ed is teh funniest site ever
kill teh white man— Unsigned, by: Straha / talk / contribs
- I can has chesseburger? kitteh sez NOOOOOOO. Thanx fur teh laff! Kthnxbai. 17:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)
[edit] I love Lynx and Lamb
Was it Uncyclopedia that was rated the best wiki by Mashable's People's Choice Awards? No, it was ED. So while YOU may bash ED, the average person thinks it is the best wiki around. LOL. Jed Barkley 20:57, 15 January 2009 (EST)
- RW is secretly run by pro-uncyc conservapedia boobs. The Blonde and Ginger Collection 21:08, 15 January 2009 (EST)
[edit] Smacks of butthurt.
It's odd that this website is disparaged for poor-writing (I've found several that were witty, among a see of, as Encyclopaedia Dramatica readily admits, shit.), especially considering Uncyclopedia is praised for "wonderful satire". When I think of Uncyclopedia, I think text-walls of AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA and "lol so randum XD" and lolcats. 139.62.178.82 16:48, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
- lol That was me. I wrote that ^. comamaos 00:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am tempted to just revert your edit again but I would rather talk this out. The fact that it upsets you means I think we got it right. Why should we act like it is anything but trash? Especially if you are going to go around calling people "butt-hurt" makes me think you are just a child and deserve mocking.- π 07:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- What is your problem with the article as it was? - π 07:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- "...I would rather talk this out."
- "...you are just a child and deserve mocking."
Awful hard to understand you from all the way down here, Mister. Maybe if you got off that high horse? comamaos 07:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- What is your problem with the article as it was? - π 07:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- It really gives RationalWiki the wrong image. I'm not sure if there's a word for this kind of attitude, but you know some people who just insist that using swear words are a sure sign of lack of intelligence? You know, god forbid a paleontologist should drop the f-bomb like a guy at a bar? That basic attitude, here applied to a much broader range of obscenity, signified the Pretentious, Pseudo-Intellectual Douchebag. I'd figure what we'd want at RationalWiki would be to loosen our cheeks enough to let the metal rod fall out, ya know? To show that, being intelligent, reasonable people who rally behind the cause of intelligence and reason, we don't see this kind of vulgarity or vitriol (most of which is written in such a way as to form something of a meta-joke concerning *channer vernacular, beyond memes and catchphrases, to say nothing of the portions of it which are written in "neat" wit) as any affront to what we stand for, but raunchy entertainment. I'd say it's a lot funnier than this goat-meme, and certainly above Uncyclopedia. comamaos 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is a fine line between "raunchy entertainment" and silly childish rubbish. Most of what ED has is not really of the former and a lot of the latter, so I see no point in emphasising its rarity at the expense of its common. I personally think most of the "jokes" here should go if they can be replaced with quality material, but that is another conversation. - π 07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm actually reading their article on Epic Threads now. Brother, you seriously need to either read some of the good ones or just accept that the humor-value of ED is a contentious issue. I was pretty fair in including ED fail, but why you're getting so particularly worked up about "childish humor" is beyond me. Also, high horse: get off it. You dropped your monocle, btw. comamaos 07:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is a fine line between "raunchy entertainment" and silly childish rubbish. Most of what ED has is not really of the former and a lot of the latter, so I see no point in emphasising its rarity at the expense of its common. I personally think most of the "jokes" here should go if they can be replaced with quality material, but that is another conversation. - π 07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay I'll start the conversation then, I think your edits white washed the article too much. - π 07:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll proceed with it: it's not like I edited the Conservapedia article and talked about how scientific they are. comamaos 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not really relevant here. - π 07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let me elaborate, then: it's a humor site. It's not an affront to rationalism or science. It's not Conservapedia, it's not Metapedia, it's not IHateNiggers R US. It's a humor site. Some people liek, and some people do not want. I feel like I left a fair amount of ED's inherent fail within the article. Why so serious, holmes? comamaos 07:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay I have added what you wrote abouts it humour in addition to what is already there. Are you happier with it now? - π 07:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let me elaborate, then: it's a humor site. It's not an affront to rationalism or science. It's not Conservapedia, it's not Metapedia, it's not IHateNiggers R US. It's a humor site. Some people liek, and some people do not want. I feel like I left a fair amount of ED's inherent fail within the article. Why so serious, holmes? comamaos 07:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not really relevant here. - π 07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll proceed with it: it's not like I edited the Conservapedia article and talked about how scientific they are. comamaos 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- It really gives RationalWiki the wrong image. I'm not sure if there's a word for this kind of attitude, but you know some people who just insist that using swear words are a sure sign of lack of intelligence? You know, god forbid a paleontologist should drop the f-bomb like a guy at a bar? That basic attitude, here applied to a much broader range of obscenity, signified the Pretentious, Pseudo-Intellectual Douchebag. I'd figure what we'd want at RationalWiki would be to loosen our cheeks enough to let the metal rod fall out, ya know? To show that, being intelligent, reasonable people who rally behind the cause of intelligence and reason, we don't see this kind of vulgarity or vitriol (most of which is written in such a way as to form something of a meta-joke concerning *channer vernacular, beyond memes and catchphrases, to say nothing of the portions of it which are written in "neat" wit) as any affront to what we stand for, but raunchy entertainment. I'd say it's a lot funnier than this goat-meme, and certainly above Uncyclopedia. comamaos 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
All right, well, "Phantom Hoover" decided to be a dick and change it back. I can't get this image out of my head of people quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail... and no other Monty Python movie or the sketches. I have no idea why. comamaos 07:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Cleaned
I've kind of cleaned it up as it was doing to much from "oh it's utter shit" to "but it has its moments" every seven words.
d hominem 14:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] OldDirtyBtard
Massive ED contributor OldDirtyBtard killed himself on Saturday. Should this be mentioned in tha article? SJ Debaser 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Prolly not, since we haven't namechecked any other editors, & mentioning a guy just to say that he's dead seems a bit irrelevant. Unless he had Jimbo style status at the site, & there are sources other than ED confirming his death, I'd say leave it out. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who? Srsly? Is he Leaving and Never Coming Back? Are you sure? ħuman
00:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly looks that way. SJ Debaser 14:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who? Srsly? Is he Leaving and Never Coming Back? Are you sure? ħuman
[edit] This site is over!
It should not be recognized. It has done away with any lulz. Smellingkate (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] encyclopediadramatica.ch
encyclopediadramatica.ch is not a mirror site, it is the new ed. It is created by die-hard fans and a reboot of the previous site --In any case (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- And we don't care... ħuman
08:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is too premature to give it too much weight. Maybe in 6-12 months, everyone will agree it is the "new ED". Then again, it might fizzle out into nothing. Too early to say what'll happen.
- That is the nature of 'project forks' - it takes time to evaluate how successful they are. --Zack Martin
11:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] A quick note for the ED refugees who have just joined us
You've noticed, no doubt, that we are rather lulzy around here. This is true, and we appreciate good lulz. However, there are two things that you need to keep in mind: your lulz must be based on a reasonable approximation of scientific and/or mainstream historical consensus, and they must be relevant ("on-mission") to what we do here. Keep that in mind, and be ready to provide references if challenged, and you'll do just fine here. EVDebs (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Meh, stuff on religious bigots also works. Meanwhile I'll register on one of the mirrors now...Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 03:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] ED resurrection
Would just like to query the recent reversion of the changes made to the ED page? While I respect the decision, and am not planning an edit war of any kind, I do consider that the changes made were done with good intent, were factual, and could not be reasonably construed as vandalism - am fairly new to wiki editing (inb4 flameage!) so constructive advice would be appreciated - 94.196.33.38
- The resurrection is, at present, a couple of forks that members have pulled from Google's cache. There's still no indication of whether or not these new projects will be viable - if they are, we'll update accordinly. For now, mention has been made of the forks. Also, why not create an account - we're less way of account holders than BoN editors. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the response - I might well join you, can't promise much OC though - your subject matter and approach to it does keenly interest me, but I'm not sure if I know enough to contribute in that way just yet - I've found myself to be pretty good at writing in general though, and tidying articles up, so I'll see what I can do... - 94.196.33.38
- The forks will be interesting to watch. I know opinion is often split when ED goes too far. It could be that one ends up as a cleaner version of ED and once ends up as something much, much worse. ADK...I'll exterminate your hailstone! 14:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've put the article back into present tense, as ED.ch has been up for four months now. Though apparently it was being run by Ryan Cleary, who's just been arrested as a suspected member of Lulzsec ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cleary's arrest has no impact on the future of Encyclopaedia Dramatica.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] mission
Probably not. Don't get me wrong, I love getting ED some exposure, but I've come to realize that RationalWiki mainspace isn't the place for that.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Cue Brx concern trolling, focusing on himself, having a whaa, saying something tasteless and the article ends up staying right where it is. There we go, conversation finished. So, no - it is as on mission as the Wikipedia page. Aceace 03:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- More like as on mission as Uncyclopedia, i.e. not really, but despite that I don't think it should be deleted. You need to come up with a better argument than "it's not refuting pseudoscience and stuff, therefore delete as off-mission" -- Nx / talk 07:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- No no! We must expand the mission to accommodate it. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's one of those things that doesn't actively damage the mission, though. We could delete it, but that means the ED article on RationalWiki would have to alter its currently butthurt status over the content of this article, which I think is asking for far too much effort.
moral 17:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well this was awkward to read....
gnostic 17:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- The RW article there is in serious need of improvement anyways. It's on my to-do list, although not much ever gets done on that.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Bricks accusing someone else of butthurt? Lolirony.
Radioactive Misanthrope 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ace: You criticisms are pretty lame, would you like me to find a better criticism?
- Brx/ED: Lol, you are butthurt!
- Ace: WTF?
- Aceace 19:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's ED, you should have typed things out very clearly using only small words. Like "lulz".
theist 20:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's ED, you should have typed things out very clearly using only small words. Like "lulz".
- Well this was awkward to read....
- It's one of those things that doesn't actively damage the mission, though. We could delete it, but that means the ED article on RationalWiki would have to alter its currently butthurt status over the content of this article, which I think is asking for far too much effort.
- No no! We must expand the mission to accommodate it. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- More like as on mission as Uncyclopedia, i.e. not really, but despite that I don't think it should be deleted. You need to come up with a better argument than "it's not refuting pseudoscience and stuff, therefore delete as off-mission" -- Nx / talk 07:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] deletion
The article on Uncyclopedia was deleted, I would like to reopen the deletion discussion for this one. How is it on mission?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to point you to the above discussion. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing salient about the above discussion (which was largely oriented towards belittling me) was Armondikov saying that mission isn't such a big deal all the time, and I think in light of the deletion of the article on Uncyclopedia, the question of whether or not to delete this one is still open.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Anybody other than the usual chuckleheads want to participate? Uncyclopedia was removed, why not ED?--"Shut up, Brx." 01:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Unless there is something about ED that makes is substantially more important than Uncyclopedia, then there is no point having an article. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Mr Anon - you'd be wise not to align yourself with Brx. He'll only bring you down. AceModerator 03:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, Ace, this isn't about politics. It's about whether the article should be deleted.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you want this deleted Brx? Why? AceModerator 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll try to keep out of this, but I will say this: the burden of proof lies on you to show why the article is necessary, not Brx to prove why it is not. I think that's already been established with the mass deletion of conservapedia articles. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- No it isn't. AceModerator 03:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. But if you want a reason why, I'll give it to you. Again. It's off-mission.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- So are many articles - why are you focused on this one? AceModerator 03:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I also want to see TV Tropes deleted. I have partaken in a number of discussions on this wiki concerning missionality. Generally what gets me involved in such a discussion is me seeing it on recent changes.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- So are many articles - why are you focused on this one? AceModerator 03:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. But if you want a reason why, I'll give it to you. Again. It's off-mission.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- No it isn't. AceModerator 03:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll try to keep out of this, but I will say this: the burden of proof lies on you to show why the article is necessary, not Brx to prove why it is not. I think that's already been established with the mass deletion of conservapedia articles. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you want this deleted Brx? Why? AceModerator 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, Ace, this isn't about politics. It's about whether the article should be deleted.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Mr Anon - you'd be wise not to align yourself with Brx. He'll only bring you down. AceModerator 03:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Unless there is something about ED that makes is substantially more important than Uncyclopedia, then there is no point having an article. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
There, I brought back Uncyclopedia. Now we can have both. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Except that actually got a vaporize vote. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 03:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- meh. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I changed my mind. I'm prepared to vote on banning Brxbrx.

03:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- !Voting is overrated. ħuman
02:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not from this article, from the entire fucking thing. He's worthless scum. Take this as the opening of my campaign.

15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I wish this community had an automated protocol that coops every user that proposes to ban another user without a single evidence-of-misconduct providing link. --84.158.81.160 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not from this article, from the entire fucking thing. He's worthless scum. Take this as the opening of my campaign.
- !Voting is overrated. ħuman
- I changed my mind. I'm prepared to vote on banning Brxbrx.
- meh. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Delete
[edit] Keep
- --David Gerard (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- ED are fascist, racist, misogynist cranks. The site needs to be discussed for what it is. It's not "funny," it's horrible.

15:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Per Nutty.
Radioactive Misanthrope 19:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- ^--il'Dictator Mikal 19:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- We have English Shieldwall and Yahoo! Answers, similar sinkholes of hate and/or stupidity. I don't see what the problem is. People going "it's off mission" "no it isn't" aren't really helping much. Sophiebecause liberals 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- What Nutty Roux said. --Raga Man (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nutty is wise and speaks many truths from his many orifices. AceModerator 20:34, 29 May 20E12 (UTC)
-
bomination 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Goat
[edit] Ban Brx
- From this article - David Gerard (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- With the might of a thousand Mjolnirs.
Liquid Blue 13:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yes. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 13:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- From RationalWiki.

15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- --il'Dictator Mikal 19:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yes. AceModerator 20:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] David Gerard needs to take a break. Where is Ace McWicked when we need him?
DG is entirely obsessed. [1].
Seeing his revert, I thought, maybe there is some obscure British usage of "tit" to mean ... what? What that would apply to Encyclopedia Dramatica?
Tits are useful objects that provide nourishment and pleasure for their owners and others. Twits are ... David Gerard et al. OMG! Conflict of Interest! Censorship! To the Coop!
David Gerard just desysopped me, so, fortunately, I can't block him to smithereens, it was just in time. I'd have blocked everyone else just for good measure, and then deleted the Main page, etc. Whew! All over a couple of tits. Or is it twits?
I wish it was about tits. That would be *much* more interesting. Hey, Ace McWiked, you've got some tits, right? Care to supply us with images? --Abd (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- No tits for you, peasant. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- You don't know what 'tit' means in this context? It's much more appropriate than 'twit' here. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 02:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I don't know. Tits, please. Ace, you are cruel, er ... wicked. I looked up "tit."
- Okay, I'm always right, I know, I know, but just in case, I looked it up again. This time, on Wiktionary, I found:
- (UK, pejorative, slang) An idiot; a fool.
- That would be a synonym for "twit," then. UK. David Gerard is from the UK. Suspect you are, too, PeterL.
- Lots of dictionaries of slang don't show the meaning of "fool." Wiktionary is, of course, a Wikimedia Project, where David Gerard would be, ah, highly influential. Never mind, probably means nothing.
- I'm an American, and I had no clue, other than "fool" from context. I.e., I assumed that "twit" was meant. I wonder what other RationalWikians think. Especially American women!
- Any have the balls to speak up here? Or are you tits? --Abd (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- What's that got to do with the price of fish? --Mikal Harass Follow 03:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am not from the UK. "Tit" (appropriately enough) has a connotation of obscenity, while "twit" is a bit quaint-sounding and implies "upper-class twit of the year" more than anything else. I do love how you slide a paranoid conspiracy theory into here as everywhere, but in a JAQing off 'don't really believe it but just putting it out there' kind of way. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 05:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is why I skip the niceties and go straight for "cuntbollock".
pathetic 11:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I feel that you can call someone "a bit of a tit" without being too offensive. Twit is a bit old fashioned - as used by maiden aunts from Leaminton Spa or Tunbridge Wells. The interesting one is "twat" which either means "fool" or a rather vulgar term for the vulva, depending on which part of the country you come from. Bad Faith (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is why I skip the niceties and go straight for "cuntbollock".
- I am not from the UK. "Tit" (appropriately enough) has a connotation of obscenity, while "twit" is a bit quaint-sounding and implies "upper-class twit of the year" more than anything else. I do love how you slide a paranoid conspiracy theory into here as everywhere, but in a JAQing off 'don't really believe it but just putting it out there' kind of way. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 05:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- What's that got to do with the price of fish? --Mikal Harass Follow 03:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Look, this is RW. Almost nothing here has to do with the price of fish. I'm glad that you love the conspiracy theory slide, PeterL. Lots of sliding going on here. What we can call someone without being "too offensive" is subject to context. There is only one content issue here, and that would be whether, "tit" or "twit" or "twat" or whatever is to be preferred in the article. My point on the text is really that "tit" doesn't communicate the intended meaning for most readers as well as "twit." It might do so for those familiar with the slang usage, which does communicate more broadly than to a British audience, through the common trope that slang names of female sexual parts connote stupidity or weakness or the like, hence, "cunt," "pussy," "twat," and, in this case, "tit." I could add, "boob." I'd never seen the usage of tit, yet still did get the intended meaning.
- Male sexual parts connote something quite different, as I pointed out with "balls," and "prick" or "dick" refer to a person being uncivilly aggressive. Not stupid. However, I'll concede, "schmuck" does convey stupidity or lack of clue. There is no accounting for Yiddish.
- Of course, the etymology of "tit" might possibly have nothing to do with the female sexual part, it might even be related to "twit." But I doubt it. Now, the price of fish? --Abd (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
[edit] TL;DR
TL;DR redirects here and the string is used by RW users in various places around the site. I assume it's an in joke but it's not explained on this page. Anyone care to enlighten me or am I not professed to the right level for such sacred knowledge yet ;) --Barryjon (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- TL;DR: "Too long; didn't read." Basically, it meant for very long, ranty posts that are often soooo long you stop reading after a little while because it becomes tedious. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's because the entry for RationalWiki at ED used to just be a redirect to their page on TL;DR. I can't now find this revision; it was probably at the old site & they do now have a page on RW, albeit not a very interesting one. So yes, a joke, & a rather out of date one. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 09:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's because the entry for RationalWiki at ED used to just be a redirect to their page on TL;DR. I can't now find this revision; it was probably at the old site & they do now have a page on RW, albeit not a very interesting one. So yes, a joke, & a rather out of date one. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
[edit] Should this be in Category:Homophobia, Category:Racism, and Category:Sexism?
Talk to Civic Cat 18:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't strike me as useful to people looking at those categories - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Howzat?
Talk to Civic Cat 21:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- David Gerard might be too busy to answer my post. Anyone else?
Talk to Civic Cat 22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, their purpose is offend. If we put it into every group it offends, it would also have liberal bias, conservative bias, communist and fascist, etc. 142.22.16.53 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Should we give a rat's ass if they offend communists and fascists? They kinda deserve it. Women, LGBTs, and races don't.
Talk to Civic Cat 23:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- but the points is, it also offends other people. You could apply the same reasoning and say that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, conservatives, George Bush, Cheney, etc don't deserve to be offended. 142.22.16.53 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- (The standard curses upon all wankers who conflate multiple issues under "offend/offense/offensive" apply.)
- No, the question is whether ED exhibits these behaviors/traits, not whom it "offends", and whether it would be useful for RW's readers to find it if they open the respective categories.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- So by that, if say, a GOP'er often used blatantly racist, sexist, and homophobic language, and was helped a lot by racists, sexists, and homophobes, but when strapped to a 100% accurate lie-detector test and was cleared of being a racist, sexist, or homophobe personally, a RW article about him wouldn't have him in these categories.
Talk to Civic Cat 21:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- So by that, if say, a GOP'er often used blatantly racist, sexist, and homophobic language, and was helped a lot by racists, sexists, and homophobes, but when strapped to a 100% accurate lie-detector test and was cleared of being a racist, sexist, or homophobe personally, a RW article about him wouldn't have him in these categories.
- Should we give a rat's ass if they offend communists and fascists? They kinda deserve it. Women, LGBTs, and races don't.
- David Gerard might be too busy to answer my post. Anyone else?
- Howzat?
So since nobody has responded to my last post in over a year, I'll put this article in the aforementioned categories in several weeks.Talk to Civic Cat 18:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- How about "that's ridiculously tenuous justification" and "no" - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- You talkin', not proving.
Talk to Civic Cat 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Doesn't strike me as useful to people looking at those categories" as others concurred still stands - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- You talkin', not proving.
and most people would likely figure out that the article White supremacy might make the odd reference to racism without having to look at the category.Talk to Civic Cat 19:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Some insider context about the pre-OhInternet website
Looking at my recently reverted edit, it does come across as too positive for the subject manner. Regardless how much "better" the leaders were than most of the editors, they were always motivated by some form of retaliation and were extremely lazy about moderating their site. There were no good guys in any of it; it was complete and utter scum versus some morally dubious people.
Outside of on-and-off reading of a few articles throughout the years, my main experience with the site was the year leading up to the deletion. I was mostly just fascinated with how and why these people can be so shamelessly awful and was surprised by how... I guess "not completely horrible" the leaders were. They reveled in shocking, horrible topics along with calling out what they perceived to be bad behavior, but they were cordial and you actually could talk with them about the issues you had with articles without being completely dismissed. I don't remember too many early cases of them actually acquiescing to demands, but at the same time, they only seemed to post chat logs when the other person was acting like a dick. They often talked about how much they utterly loathed Anonymous, actual bigots, and everybody bringing their petty grudge to the site, but it seemed to be mostly because they wanted dark comedy, not just darkness. Regardless, there was almost action to fix any of these problems for most of their history.
It was from about December 2010 onwards that they started attempting to sanitize the site somewhat. I don't know how much of it was spurred by legal pressures (they were getting a lot of DMCA requests and Girlvinyl claimed she was ordered by a judge to delete their article about Operation Payback, but who knows if it was true?), the fact that no advertisers with proper CPMs would touch them, or actual morality, but they did finally start deleting the plain old hate speech and banning the worst members. There was still a shadiness to a lot of how they went about things (for example, they deleted the page history of Aboriginal specifically to get rid of evidence the Australian government was going to use against an editor), but they did actually do something to try and fight back against some of the worst aspects of the site. This was really unpopular with the kiddies, so it escalated the in-fighting to an outright war until the site was finally deleted. The new people in charge of the main fork are completely, irredeemably awful and really do just want to ruin the internet for everybody.
I'll let everybody else decide how much (if any) of this information should be included in the article. I'd rather not involve myself with that bit of internet history any more. Larry Wumpus (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, fair enough. Personally I find the new version less unspeakable than the old one - I find 4chanish assholeism less obnoxious than the actual malice of the LJ Drama crew who started ED - but YMMV - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Drop in IQ
The article claims "If you go there expecting either, you deserve the drop in IQ — when RationalWiki's funspace just isn't lowbrow enough, ED will certainly satisfy your needs, or break your brain in half and make you regret ever going there.". I see there is no reference as of now. I've been visting Encyclopaedia Dramatica for quite some time now (I love the brutal honesty) and remember that I did my last IQ test some three years ago at a psychiatrist (it logged 143). Should I try talking to that psychiatrist to take that test again to either verify or falsify the claim above? (Antiphon) --95.91.219.101 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- One person isn't a big enough sample size to verify or falsify anything. Come back when you've got like a hundred ED users ready to retake an IQ test, and a substantial control group who've never even heard of ED. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)