[WikiEN-l] Encyclopedia Dramatica

[David Gerard]

On 17 May 2011 16:28, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at 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patchy and outdated, and anyone looking those up in hope of finding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.