Forum:What's our situation with Encyclopedia Dramatica?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > What's our situation with Encyclopedia Dramatica?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6196 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hey, I'm a little bit of a n00b here and I've been pwn3d by curiosity. Where ED is concerned, are we enemies? Are we mates? I've looked at some of their stuff about Uncyc, and it seems like they've got nothing against us. Also, whats up with our article about them? How come it redirects to Daemonica? The reason I'm asking is because I've done a 'FABULOUS article abobut the Millennium Dome and I've done this bit about what it could be turned into. One of the suggestions is ED Headquarters, and I put in brackets, (out of the f**king question). I assumed that we didn't like each other, but now I'm not sure, and I don't know whether to keep it or lose it. Can someone help me out? Cheers =) Spongey 12:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have nothing against Encyclopedia Dramatica, just as they have nothing against us. Despite us both being online humour wikis, we are completely different: Dramatica relates more to web phenomena, whereas Uncyc encompasses loads of other things, being as it is a parody of Wikipedia. I suppose there is nothing wrong with parodying them (so long as it's funny and not just an outright attack), this is a parody site after all. I suppose in this context, your comment is OK.
On a personal level, however, many users (including me) prefer not to contribute/visit etc. because it is not to their taste. That said, however, I did once create an article there just out of curiosity to see if it was deleted.
Daemonica was created independantly by an Uncyc user and is supposed to be a parody of Dramatica, but to be honest with you, that project never got off the ground. -- Hindleyite Converse?pedia 13:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No wikipedia is satirical parody of Uncyclopedia. ED is a parody of Wikipedia.--Scott 23:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's a bit difficult to say what we as a collective think of them- uncyc encompasses so many opinions on... well, on pretty much everything, that a single attitude is usually quite hard to establish. I think the general feeling is basically just indifference (I personally don't find their humour particularly funny, but then that's because a) I don't like shock humour and b) I'm not that clued up on internet memes, and those are the two things ED is essentially a repository for), although there are quite a few users here who seem to have an irrational hatred of all things dramatica-related, and I'm sure there is some reciprocal feeling amongst ED's users. The gist of which is: write what you feel like, since your opinion is as valid as anyone else's in this messed-up continuum of confusion and occasional hilarity- if something's funny and the sentiment behindit isn't outrageously prejudiced, people will like it. --Sir Jam 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think ED is just flat-out crap. They've had a history of animostity towards us ever since we had an image of their 'logo' (It's a fucking litagure. How can they claim copyright over it?) on our servers, and sent a DMCA takedown notice. --User:Nintendorulez 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ED is neither our enemy or friend. We tend to keep the issues between Uncyc and ED buried and dead for most of the time, and they do too. You could say that it's a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" kind of thing between ED and uncyclopedia. --~ Tophatsig.png

22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Originally we linked to them in a friendly gesture, but in return they sent us a DMCA notice instead of talking to us like human beings. Thus there is a no link policy to them. I do not like them, because well, they sent me a DMCA. --Chronarion 22:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Which of these are you speaking of? - Lemon. Lemonwedge.gif 01:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
DMCA = Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Looky ere.

I don't like ED for the same reasons Nintendorulez stated. That, and spamming the N-word isn't funny whatsoever. I also find it funny while ED has an article on Uncyclopedia, Uncyclopedia made a whole mock wiki about ED. Dead Decoy 03:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So that's what the whole Daemonica thing is... I was wondering about that. I do wonder why they didn't want us to link to them though. --KWild 03:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally hate them, but I also feel that we should just let them be and not meddle in their business (Wikipedia has an official hate ED policy which I'm trying to get rid of because they're not supposed to hate anybody). Frankly, their (attempt at) humor is just a failure and is tasteless (shock humor + negative point of view + goatse = unfunny in my view). Let's compare the big three Wikis on how we view things. Let's do Kanye West for example:

  • Wikipedia thinks he is a professional rapper
  • We (Uncyc) think he is a civil rights activist and professional Black Person
  • ED thinks he is a mediocre hip hop artist

That pretty much is an example of style (and ED's article on you: "You are a moron and probably a cunt" is just plain classless ant tasteless). But still, frankly, I think we should just let ED do what they do in their own little world. If they're going to flip out at little things like putting up a ligature on our pedia, we should just laugh at them and tell them to go home. But we shouldn't visit. Sometimes I like to pull up ED and Uncyc articles side by side to compare humor values (which Uncyc always wins in). Nobody should have an official policy regarding them, just as they shouldn't regarding us. But frankly, we should just let them be. They're not worth our time. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 04:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If we don't do anything to them, they are seen as the dicks because they are coming over to us. --—Braydie 20:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ED is a load of shit written by a bunch of white supremacists. Just look at this. --GAMESPOT=666 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your brain on ED

You know what, I tried ED, but I didn't inhale. I did create a user account there and contributed to some of their articles, but it was not the same as Uncyclopedia. Encyclopedia Dramatica seems to have more Drama Queens, and Uncyclopedia seems to have more Comedians, and that is the real difference I tend to see between us. For example, members on ED dress up in women's dresses for the drama it causes, while Uncyclopedia members dress up in women's dresses for the laughs it causes. ED has shock images like Goatse and Tubgirl for the drama it causes, while Uncyclopedia has Goatse and Tubgirl images that are not the original shock images but funny versions of them that are not offensive but get some laughs. I think that ED is created to troll people to get a drama reaction out of them, and Uncyclopedia is created to troll people to get laughs out of them, or to laugh at them in some form of mockery. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't troll people for the laughs because we don't troll people at all. Also, ED doesn't do it for the drama; they do it for laughs, but their laughs are called "lulz", which equates to drama. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 05:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ, our articles enter Google, some idiot finds it, feels that they have been trolled, some of them laugh over it, and the rest get upset and angry over it and try to blank and vandalize our pages over it. So don't give me crap like we don't troll people, because we do. Maybe we don't intend to troll people, but I got feedback from a lot of people that they felt trolled by Uncyclopedia over the articles they read here. When I go into one of my famous rants, I write them to be funny and over the top, but I get accused of trolling as well. I never intend to troll anyone or try to troll, but I guess they end up as trolls anyway. Most trolls are accidental, and only some of them are intentional if you ever cared to do research of Internet trolling like I have since 1995. Heck I studied trolling since 1985 back in the BBS days. If I do happen to troll, I try to be funny in almost anything I write, so if what I write becomes a troll, it is a funny troll. Those who don't laugh at it are idiots anyway not even worth my time. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I always thought to troll you had to go somewhere to intentionally start trouble. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't consider us to be trolling if they were coming here. In fact I belive the opposite is true, if these people who feel they've been trolled feel they have to come here and start a fuss over it after seeing us as a result in google rather than just letting it go, then they're the ones trolling, right (unless of course it refers to them personally, which is very unlikely)? Someone told me today that there's enough music in the world today that it would take over three lifetimes of continuous listening to listen to it all. I'm sure the same is true of the internet and websites - and if you're spending time complaining about the ones you don't like, rather than focusing on the ones you do, you're just wasting everybody's time. And that's trolling, surely? Spang talk 06:45, 26 Dec 2006
No, in order to troll, one must write something that gets an emotional reaction out of someone else. It need not be a personal attack, and it need not even be in the same web site that they are on. Look, we had someone who felt that we had trolled him and made fun of his syndrome which forces people with his syndrome to react by getting a gun and start shooting people. I mean out of like a billion web sites on Google, he happened to find the one that Uncyclopedia wrote about his syndrome, and we found ones (esp one at ED) that were a lot worse than the one at Uncyclopedia for making fun of his syndrome, but that didn't stop him. I mean someone can write something innocent like "Have a Happy New Year" and it makes someone else upset and they write "What is so Happy about it, innocent people are dying in Iraq, you idiot!" and accuse the first person of trolling, while at the same time writing their own troll response to it, which causes someone else to react by it, and write something that might trigger a troll response in someone else. It is the Troll Domino effect. I am sure the person who wrote "Have a Happy New Year" didn't mean to offend anyone, and only meant to have positive responses like "Thanks, you have a Happy New Year as well" or something. The same thing with my rants, I write them to be funny and hilarious, and some people see it that way, but others accuse me of trolling. I mean look, there are over 30 billion porn sites on the Internet, and maybe about 10 billion game sites, yet we still get people upset over what I wrote in some article at Uncyclopedia so they send me death threats and tell me to go kill myself, because I was making fun of liberals and they are a liberal. Instead of reading the article, and then maybe posting something in their blog or the Daily Kos, or looking to access some free porn or game on the Internet, they chose to respond to something I wrote, and give me a hard time about it. So yet, by your logic, I am not trolling, and the people responding to my articles in that way are the trolls? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, you just wrote 396 words about the nature of internet trolling :). However, my point was that even though some of our content is offensive to some people, we never officially tell anyone to send this offensive material out to other people with the stated intention of offending those people - much less doing it for the "lulz". Also, I agree with gwax's statements below about official policy regarding diplomacy with ED. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well we need to write an article about trolling here, and maybe about how we really don't care about ED as well. Two different articles or the same one? Nobody cares about it, really. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hang on. If we don't care about ED, how come we need an article to illustrate our apathy? How about we just ignore them and let them get on with what they want to do - they're not doing us any harm, and to be honest our site's so much bigger it doesn't make sense to make it into a big problem. We have no connection with them at the moment, lets just keep it that way. -- Paw print.jpg 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
To show to others what sort of apathy we have, and also to be funny about it. While we really don't care about ED, we do care about being funny and making fun of ED. After all, ED has an article on Uncyclopedia and they claim they don't care about us. We can do one on Encyclopedia Dramatica but say how much we don't care about it and link it to the nobody cares article. I mean if nobody cares, why write an article saying that nobody cares? The answer is simple, because it is funny to write an article claiming that nobody cares. Just make the Encyclopedia Dramatica article like the nobody cares article, except we shall say what nobody cares about Encyclopedia Dramatica, at least not on Uncyclopedia. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Surely the best way to illustrate the fact that we don't care is to... well, not care? There's just no point writing an article saying we don't care about them - even if it's done ironically they'll just cry hypocrisy. Just because ED does something doesn't mean we have to as well - that makes us similar to them and that's the last thing we need. -- Paw print.jpg 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
So why then do we point the Encyclopedia Dramatica article to the Encyclopedia Demonica Meta Wiki instead of simply having it go nowhere and we basically have a message on it that says we don't care about Encyclopedia Dramatica? Isn't having a Meta Wiki redirect in a way saying that we do care or care enough to joke about ED? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, personally I thought the redirect was to stop the page getting continually recreated by EDers. -- Paw print.jpg 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If that was the case, we'd just have an admin make the page with a message like something that says "Nobody here cares about Encyclopedia Dramatica, so piss off you little wankers!" and then lock the page so it can only be edited by admins. Instead we created a whole new Meta Wiki and redirected to it. How is that for showing how apathetic we are about ED? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Officially

Because I like to pretend that I have the authority to dictate Uncyclopedia's beliefs, views and policies: our official policy on ED is that we don't care. I want to make sure that I'm clear on what I mean, it's not that we officially don't care about ED but, rather, we don't care officially about ED. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke.gif 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that nobody cares about ED around here? Like they are our stupid evil retarded cousin who looks nothing like us, and we are better off not even acknowledging that they exist anyway. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the deal: YOU decide how you feel about ED. Go on ahead. Edit ED. We won't stop you. But we're not responsible either for anything you do. And don't you dare try to vandalize us as an EDer because that will make us really, really sad. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Now why can't I be a contributing member to both Uncyclopedia and ED at the same time? I mean if I start writing on ED, do I like slowly become a werewolf or something and the werewolf in me controls me so I come back to Uncyclopedia and start vandalizing here? I mean if that is the case, I won't write at ED and I'll just stay here. Like I said, I tried ED but I didn't inhale. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My personal policy on ED, Wikipedia, and the Muppet Wiki is that if I don't pay attention to them (exept the Muppet Wiki, which I once used for an essay on Moby Dick) they won'y pay attention to me, and eventually we will grow appart. So yah, that what I do. Feel free to copy me, cause I know you would all do it anyway. --Sir Zombiebaron 17:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking about shutting down my Wikipedia operations and operate solely here. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have an account on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of making minor edits as I read it. It's too big a bother to actually get involved. Also, Uncyclopedia's deal with Wikipedia is that, on the surface, we act like we "hate" them, but in reality, although not everyone likes editing Wikipedia, we like Wikipedia as a resource. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it's funny how we all take the p*ss out of Wikipedia yet we all (well, I think most of us, I know I do) have Wikipedia accounts. Here I would hastily like to point out that I only have a Wikipedia account by accident, having signed up on Wikipedia because I had stupidly gone there instead of Uncyclopedia and not noticed. I had signed up for an Uncyclopedia account the day before, and upon visiting what I thought was Uncyclopedia, it looked like it was lost or void or something, because I wasn't recognizing me. But of course, I was merely on the wrong wiki. Wikipedia. They both look the same apart from the logo, and the Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia links on my Bookmarks Bar are right next to each other. And they both look the same. Whatever. I don't know why I just wrote that, that was the most pointless thing I've ever written. It's not even true. Feel free to ignore this comment.Spongey 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of place response, due to auto spam filter

But ED was a horse with his own b/w TV show. --HPSig.PNGHP talk KUN.png Icons-flag-pi.PNG 06:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)