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?
On 17 May 2011 16:28, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net 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.
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?
On 17 May 2011 17:19, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net 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.
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
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 fredbaud@fairpoint.net 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 WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l