Revision as of 17:52, 3 November 2023 editUnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users541 edits →Nuetrality: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:17, 6 December 2023 edit undo2603:8080:d500:4981:80ba:f788:f2c2:efd9 (talk) →No external link: ReplyTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app editNext edit → | ||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
::There is a link to the .online version in the infobox, but it is not clickable due to ].--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 06:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) | ::There is a link to the .online version in the infobox, but it is not clickable due to ].--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 06:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::@] of course the leftist cuckolds would have the link. anythint their feels are hassaments. fucking twats. ] (]) 19:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Nuetrality == | == Nuetrality == |
Revision as of 19:17, 6 December 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Encyclopedia Dramatica. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Encyclopedia Dramatica at the Reference desk. |
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
view · edit Frequently asked questions
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Why was this article recreated? This article was deleted in July 2006. Later, major media began to write about Encyclopedia Dramatica. After a deletion review, this article was recreated in May 2008. |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
No external link
Where is the external link ? 216.247.72.142 (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- If there is no need for one, I'd understand the reasons for this. I'm a newbie here. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is a link to the .online version in the infobox, but it is not clickable due to WP:LINKLOVE.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Ianmacm of course the leftist cuckolds would have the link. anythint their feels are hassaments. fucking twats. 2603:8080:D500:4981:80BA:F788:F2C2:EFD9 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is a link to the .online version in the infobox, but it is not clickable due to WP:LINKLOVE.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Nuetrality
Despite agreeing with lines such as "the site hosts racist material and shock content", I'm not sure if that compromises the neutrality of the article. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 14:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly "prejudice" would be a better word than "racist", because you can't be racist against "furries". And if the argument is that the mere existance of something that is racist means the site is racist, then that means pretty much every American politician is racist just because they've verifiably said something that could be easily argued to be racist. But of course no one in the right mind would consider a politician who was, say, verifiably against bussing at one point in their career (which could arguably seen as reflecting resistance to policies aimed at addressing racial segregation and promoting racial equality) as outright racist.
- Basically, it's essential to recognize that shock-value racism like Encyclopedia Dramatica uses hurtful language not because the individuals genuinely believe in the racist statements, but because they seek to provoke strong reactions for entertainment value. Consequently, responding with strong emotions to such provocations can inadvertently play into their hands, and it doesn't deter the provocateurs from their primary goal of inciting reactions. Instead, it's more effective to withhold the emotional response and deny them the satisfaction they seek. This includes calling their content "racist", because even tho the language is, and perhaps was added by an actual racist editor, I feel like calling it as such simply lures in people who think "they should be stopped!", which provides a constant feed of unwitting victims who can be trolled "for the lulz".
- In other words, I feel it's more appropriate to call it for what it is: shock content that uses the language used by racists solely to provoke unwitting readers into reacting emotionally which can then be exploited for "the lulz". Claiming the site itself is racist or "hosts racist material" is not very neutral as it is asserting that the site is something that it isn't.
- Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that ED members actually made that claim as a sort of game of five-D chess to make the site seem more "evil" than it actually is, in order to provide that constant feed of unwitting victims to the site who are either ignorant of ED's goal of trolling "for the lulz" or think they can "raid" ED to "fix" it or something. — 66.60.148.2 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I still think a little rewriting should be in the works. I also think it's bias by omission, as the content itself is meant for entertainment value, albeit being not very socially correct or sensitive. The only thing I think should be rewrote due to omission is that part. It IS, in fact, troll culture. They are trying to get a reaction. And the users DO partake in harassment. I just think the racism is a bit murky with intention, and should be put as such. I can't tell whether it's entirely for shock value or to spread racist ideals, but this is my case for a rewrite. Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 17:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Websites articles
- Mid-importance Websites articles
- B-Class Websites articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- Mid-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- B-Class Comedy articles
- Mid-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- B-Class Misplaced Pages articles
- Mid-importance Misplaced Pages articles
- WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
- Unassessed Book articles
- Reference works task force articles
- WikiProject Books articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Articles edited by connected contributors