- Portals
- The Current Year
- ED in the News
- Admins
- Help ED Rebuild
- Archive
- ED Bookmarklet
- Donate Bitcoin
Contact an admin on Discord or EDF if you want an account. Also fuck bots.
Wikipedia Review/I'm researching Encyclopedia Dramatica/Page 2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I'm not surprised. Until the 1970s, people like weev would have been committed to a mental institution, usually involuntarily. But of course most of those places were shut down, because they were famous for abusing their patients. The former patients/victims were given prescriptions for antipsychotics (which they were free to take or not take) and tossed out onto the street. Now, we even have some of them on the Internet, running amuck while not taking their meds.
The ED/Goatse Security people are nothing. Just minor pranksters and pests.
Russian credit-card scammers and malware operators aren't even well-organized, but
they make the ED people look like children.
I think Daniel Brandt and Tarantino could make livings as private investigators. It's amazing the detailed information you two can find and how quick you can find it.
Maybe they already work for someplace like Neohapsis, or know somebody who does. Privacy really is a fleeting thing, these days. ED is in for some lulz of their own type indeed.
Okay, does Adrian Lamo now really consult for the FBI as it says on his WP bio, and was he really involved in the arrest of Auernheimer/Escher/Weev? How come these hackers all seem to be on the edge of mental illness?
You'd have far better luck getting Google to sandbox the entire site than getting them to delete the article, though I suppose bribery might work. Of course, you'd be doing the rest of the world a disservice by giving them money.
Abstracting from ED specifically to a more general issue, Mr. Brandt's post and Somey's reply raise two significant issues, one factual and one theoretical:
1. Does Google have a procedure whereby someone can request that a website or webpage mentioning them be deleted from searchability on the grounds that is defamatory, privacy-invading, or just generally inappropriate? I am not referring to DMCA takedown notices based on copyright violations, which is a well-defined procedure but has a specific, limited purpose. More generally, does Google address user complaints that a high-ranking page about someone in their search results is outrageous through some defined process, or on an ad hoc basis, or not at all?
2. How should Google handle situations where someone complains that a high-ranking page about them contains malicious, defamatory, privacy-invading, grotesque, or otherwise inappropriate content? If it were up to you, or us collectively, how would we (or would we?) set up a process to protect people from this sort of thing -- a sort of Internet-wide BLP policy, I suppose, though presumably to be applied only in extreme cases -- without giving Google, which many regard as having too much power already, the actual or perceived role of censors of what can and can't be found on the Internet?
For "Google" of course one can substitute any search engine; I mention them specificially because they are the best-known. (I'm not familiar with Bing, but to the extent we're told that they do not index the articles referred to, I'm curious what in their algorithm or parameters causes them not to.)
Thoughts?
I'm aiming to get my ED bio taken down. They frequently use real full names for the title on articles about living people, and Google tends to rank these at number one. Bing, on the other hand, seems to skip such articles entirely, and so should Google (and Yahoo).
You'd have far better luck getting Google to sandbox the entire site than getting them to delete the article, though I suppose bribery might work. Of course, you'd be doing the rest of the world a disservice by giving them money.
Abstracting from ED specifically to a more general issue, Mr. Brandt's post and Somey's reply raise two significant issues, one factual and one theoretical:
Thoughts?
This is an important issue, and I started to comment, but it's a waste of time and energy doing that in a closed forum. Maybe the generic part of the topic could be taken up on the main board?
Jon Awbrey
Do you guys really expect entities like Google to be able to make the sort of judgment calls as to what sort of commentary about a person is fair criticism and what sort is defamatory, etc., and should be removed? That's something real judges and juries do, in long, expensive proceedings that still sometimes get it wrong … but you want a search engine company to do it for free? They'd just end up making some arbitrary and heavy-handed rule that pleases nobody.
The e-steemed con-selor tosses out a red herring … and sure e-nuff, some wiki-phish bites.
Jon :P />
How should Google handle situations where someone complains that a high-ranking page about them contains malicious, defamatory, privacy-invading, grotesque, or otherwise inappropriate content?
Assuming the complaint is not completely spurious, put a warning next to the link?
Tobias is right, Google can't be expected to investigate every complaint to determine whether the page is *actually* infringing. And even just altering the rank of the page would probably lead to gaming of the system. On the other hand, I think Google does have a responsibility to inform the public of the complaint, as that's part of its mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".
You'd have far better luck getting Google to sandbox the entire site than getting them to delete the article, though I suppose bribery might work. Of course, you'd be doing the rest of the world a disservice by giving them money.
Abstracting from ED specifically to a more general issue, Mr. Brandt's post and Somey's reply raise two significant issues, one factual and one theoretical:
1. Does Google have a procedure whereby someone can request that a website or webpage mentioning them be deleted from searchability on the grounds that is defamatory, privacy-invading, or just generally inappropriate? I am not referring to DMCA takedown notices based on copyright violations, which is a well-defined procedure but has a specific, limited purpose. More generally, does Google address user complaints that a high-ranking page about someone in their search results is outrageous through some defined process, or on an ad hoc basis, or not at all?
2. How should Google handle situations where someone complains that a high-ranking page about them contains malicious, defamatory, privacy-invading, grotesque, or otherwise inappropriate content? If it were up to you, or us collectively, how would we (or would we?) set up a process to protect people from this sort of thing -- a sort of Internet-wide BLP policy, I suppose, though presumably to be applied only in extreme cases -- without giving Google, which many regard as having too much power already, the actual or perceived role of censors of what can and can't be found on the Internet?
For "Google" of course one can substitute any search engine; I mention them specificially because they are the best-known. (I'm not familiar with Bing, but to the extent we're told that they do not index the articles referred to, I'm curious what in their algorithm or parameters causes them not to.)
Thoughts?
Jon is right that this is a discussion that would better be held in a more public forum.
I was going to say that I've seen examples of Google removing pages from search listings based on what I presume were complaints from the person being maligned, but I may be confusing that with Google taking down defamatory Blogger sites, which they do quite aggressively.
Jon is right that this is a discussion that would better be held in a more public forum.
I was going to say that I've seen examples of Google removing pages from search listings based on what I presume were complaints from the person being maligned, but I may be confusing that with Google taking down defamatory Blogger sites, which they do quite aggressively.
Voila!
Well, EXCEPT for embarrassing information about ITSELF. Remind you of anybody? :)
Yeah. Google has a responsibility to its shareholders to fulfill its mission in a way calculated to maximize its profit.
Yeah. Google has a responsibility to its shareholders to fulfill its mission in a way calculated to maximize its profit.
...or in their own words "Don't be evil."
Next to weev, the most powerful non-owner admin on Encyclopedia Dramatica is Sheneequa. He has now been doxed after four years on ED, thanks to a joint effort by tarantino and me. It turns out that he became an admin on Wikipedia at age 14. But editing Wikipedia from his mother's basement could not contain his ambition, and he moved on to more perverted pastures.
Top marks and well done. I guess you achieved your own priority and deserve to reap the rewards. Sounds like a lovely bit of drama and another topping for a chapter of 'The Book'.
Please let you know who know.
I this is a perfect example of what I have just been ranting on about elsewhere. Welcome to Web 2.0 generation, as perfect an example as 'pedophile porn addict turned child sex abuser' and, god knows, Encyclopedia Dramatica is out there on the extreme.
Yes, seriously folks, I hold the Wikimedia Foundation and 'Teh Community' or raving libertines to blame for the corruption of the young individual. We need a government health warning on the front page. Hell, even "libertine" is too noble a word for them louche.
Hopefully you have saved him from being sued VERY, VERY, hard by someone.
I would say an admin who is also an ED admin should be desysopped, but I suppose that would run into the long-standing precedent of Alison.
And apparently that "with us or against us" fallacy never goes out of style.
Mattwolf/Sheneequa has now allowed Daniel's name and business to be removed from ED.
Now word yet if he has been busy IMing "get on irc fgt" to random losers.
Wut. Is THAT all this was about? I thought Brandt was going to take down these fuckers once and for all for the good of, like, society...... but he just wanted his page deleted?????????
hmmph, so is The Game over now?
hmmph, so is The Game over now?Whether you admire or despise Daniel Brandt, you have to recognize his efforts are for the greater good... of Daniel Brandt. :P
Wut. Is THAT all this was about? I thought Brandt was going to take down these fuckers once and for all for the good of, like, society...... but he just wanted his page deleted?????????
hmmph, so is The Game over now?
It's certainly not about keeping Obesity entertained.
Whether you admire or despise Daniel Brandt, you have to recognize his efforts are for the greater good... of Daniel Brandt. :P
People who hide behind screen names have no right to criticize those who act to protect their real-life name.
I didn't start this. SlimVirgin did, and that was five years ago.
I didn't start this. SlimVirgin did, and that was five years ago.
SlimVirgin started it? Hey, this is a great cue for a WP-inspired song parody of this tune:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eFTLKWw542g"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eFTLKWw542g" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Whether you admire or despise Daniel Brandt, you have to recognize his efforts are for the greater good... of Daniel Brandt. :P
People who hide behind screen names have no right to criticize those who act to protect their real-life name.
I didn't start this. SlimVirgin did, and that was five years ago.
My statement was not intended as anything other than a wry observation that you act in your own interest, not for others. You're not obligated to act for the 'greater good' any more than I am.
hmmph, so is The Game over now?Whether you admire or despise Daniel Brandt, you have to recognize his efforts are for the greater good... of Daniel Brandt. :P
Always.
Anyway, what Wikipedia admin is that ED guy?
hmmph, so is The Game over now?Whether you admire or despise Daniel Brandt, you have to recognize his efforts are for the greater good... of Daniel Brandt. :P
Always.
Anyway, what Wikipedia admin is that ED guy?
Redwolf24 (T-C-L-K-R-D)
You'd have far better luck getting Google to sandbox the entire site than getting them to delete the article, though I suppose bribery might work. Of course, you'd be doing the rest of the world a disservice by giving them money.
I think at least one litigation prone individual did succeed in having this article deleted:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
:afraid:
You'd have far better luck getting Google to sandbox the entire site than getting them to delete the article, though I suppose bribery might work. Of course, you'd be doing the rest of the world a disservice by giving them money.
I think at least one litigation prone individual did succeed in having this article deleted:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
:afraid:
They've deleted Proaby's article as well:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Proabivouac
Anyone know why?
They've deleted Proaby's article as well:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Proabivouac
Anyone know why?
My guess is that they are feeling somewhat on the defensive these days.
Seriously, Daniel, why are you wasting your skills and time on a dip-shit operation like ED when there are vastly bigger φish (and their ED's) to φry?
Jon <_<
If some anonymous jerk decided to do an ED article on you, Jon, and it sat there at number one in Google in a search for your name, you wouldn't be asking that question. The larger problem is Google and I'm still working on that one, but big wheels ($202 billion market cap) are difficult to move.
Seriously, Daniel, why are you wasting your skills and time on a dip-shit operation like ED when there are vastly bigger φish (and their ED's) to φry?
Jon <_<
If some anonymous jerk decided to do an ED article on you, Jon, and it sat there at number one in Google in a search for your name, you wouldn't be asking that question. The larger problem is Google and I'm still working on that one, but big wheels ($202 billion market cap) are difficult to move.
There might be bigger fish but this one needs frying. BTW how come Alison's not on the wall of admins?
There might be bigger fish but this one needs frying. BTW how come Alison's not on the wall of admins?
Alison left ED and requested that her sysop and checkuser bits be removed. After several requests, Sherrod DeGrippo removed them. At that point Alison was removed from the Wall of Admins. If you are a nasty former admin and also still active and influential on ED, your tenure on the Wall may get extended. That's the case with Zaiger and Weev, but Alison didn't qualify.
By the way, I don't edit the blog and don't have the password to edit it, but I contribute research on occasion and I help optimize some of the photos with Photoshop. Everyone is invited to contribute: [email protected]
My opinion of Sherrod and her little buds is starting to go very, very negative.
In the blog, there is a discussion of Sean Carasov--which included a link to a Webcitation picture of the
now-removed ED page about Carasov's suicide. Oh, look, Little Miss No-Censorship has censored it!
To the larger point, it will always be possible for someone to write something negative about you (the general you) on the Internet. I've always viewed trying to fight this type of battle as pissing in the ocean, personally, though I sincerely admire your dedication. :)
You're encouraging the use of Gmail and Blogspot? I'm bemused.
To the larger point, it will always be possible for someone to write something negative about you (the general you) on the Internet. I've always viewed trying to fight this type of battle as pissing in the ocean, personally, though I sincerely admire your dedication. :)
It's probably a waste of my time to take any of your one-liner posts seriously, but here goes:
I said I didn't have the password for that Blogspot site — it's not my site. But I support the owner's decision to use Google's blogspot.com and Gmail in this case. Consider this:
1. Blogspot cannot be subjected to a DDoS attack because Google has too much bandwidth. We're dealing with ED here, which by extension means Anonymous and 4chan. Remember, Weev wasn't wearing orange coveralls when this anti-ED site started.
2. Google has a fairly straightforward DMCA procedure. They will take down photos and this anti-ED site has had a number of photos taken down due to formal DMCA complaints by Ms. DeGrippo. But compare this to webcitation.org, which has responded to DeGrippo much more broadly than this by prohibiting entire pages. And compare it to livejournal.com, which killed a backup of the blogspot.com site after a complaint by DeGrippo.
So, if you wanted to put up a site with anti-ED research, what would you do? The bottom line is that blogspot.com was the right decision in this case.
Regarding your other one-liner, you completely missed what I'm trying to accomplish. The fact of the matter is that ED wouldn't exist if editors had to use their real names. The problem is with anonymous ED editors who write defamatory articles about real people, and use that person's real name in the article, and then brag that it's number one in Google and collect "lulz" points on ED for being so clever. This is what I'm trying to fight. Yes, Google should stop indexing ED altogether. That's not easy to arrange, but at least they won't let ED use AdSense. A serious activist has to pick his battles.
Apparently serious activists also have to put up with one-liners from non-serious activists.
They've deleted Proaby's article as well:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Proabivouac
Anyone know why?
My guess is that they are feeling somewhat on the defensive these days.
I have a feeling that is why the new 'oh internet' site is spinning so hard it's almost taking off into space, it has an ED article trying to put the blame all on a minority of 'trolls' now as if it wasn't like that from the start, hmm.
imported>Mr Jonzz |
imported>LulzKiller No edit summary |
||
| Line 286: | Line 286: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div style="padding:6px;font-size:0.8em;"> | <div style="padding:6px;font-size:0.8em;"> | ||
Seems like there was a "temporary outage" today that | Seems like there was a "temporary outage" today that {{archive|MXsDR|some mistook}} for the end of ED. Perhaps it was just foreshadowing. | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div><div style="border:1px solid #E6E3E4;padding:1px;margin-bottom:15px;"> | </div><div style="border:1px solid #E6E3E4;padding:1px;margin-bottom:15px;"> | ||
Latest revision as of 00:14, 19 August 2016
Full Version: I'm researching Encyclopedia Dramatica
Daniel Brandt
Sun 19th September 2010, 4:58pm
Earliest pic found of Andrew Thornton, linked from girlvinyl.com when Sherrod started working with him at the Department of Energy in April 2004:
Pic of "weev" from September 2005, holding a sign that is eerily prescient:
Weev's mother says that weev (Andrew Auernheimer — not to be confused with Andrew Thornton) has mental problems.
Pic of "weev" from September 2005, holding a sign that is eerily prescient:
Weev's mother says that weev (Andrew Auernheimer — not to be confused with Andrew Thornton) has mental problems.
EricBarbour
Sun 19th September 2010, 6:02pm
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 19th September 2010, 2:58pm) *
Earliest pic found of Andrew Thornton, linked from girlvinyl.com when Sherrod started working with him at the Department of Energy in April 2004:
Pic of "weev" from September 2005, holding a sign that is eerily prescient:
Weev's mother says that weev (Andrew Auernheimer — not to be confused with Andrew Thornton) has mental problems.
Pic of "weev" from September 2005, holding a sign that is eerily prescient:
Weev's mother says that weev (Andrew Auernheimer — not to be confused with Andrew Thornton) has mental problems.
I'm not surprised. Until the 1970s, people like weev would have been committed to a mental institution, usually involuntarily. But of course most of those places were shut down, because they were famous for abusing their patients. The former patients/victims were given prescriptions for antipsychotics (which they were free to take or not take) and tossed out onto the street. Now, we even have some of them on the Internet, running amuck while not taking their meds.
The ED/Goatse Security people are nothing. Just minor pranksters and pests.
Russian credit-card scammers and malware operators aren't even well-organized, but
they make the ED people look like children.
Moulton
Mon 20th September 2010, 3:06am
Bildungsroman In the Age of Character Assassination
The phenomenon of the Ubertroll may be well documented, but I daresay it's not well understood.
There is no shortage of disturbed people in the world, some of whom don't keep their disturbance to themselves and become openly and overtly disturbing people in their own right.
I've spent my career studying and analyzing problematic issues, and occasionally crafting carefully developed recommendations for handling them.
Among the problematic issues that we know all too well are seemingly intractable problems arising from the perplexing machinations of arrogant, manipulative, and abusive site administrators on Internet venues (notably those associated with the Wikisphere).
I daresay that the response of Encyclopedia Dramatica falls way short of ethical best practices for dealing with abusive practices that pervade WikiCulture.
It occurs to me that Wikipedia Review has a wide open field for developing and demonstrating systematic progress toward artfully constructed ethical best practices for responding to the wretched excess of arrogance, manipulation, character assassination, and abusiveness that stubbornly haunts the Wikisphere.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:02pm) *
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 19th September 2010, 2:58pm) *
Weev's mother says that weev (Andrew Auernheimer — not to be confused with Andrew Thornton) has mental problems.
I'm not surprised. Until the 1970s, people like weev would have been committed to a mental institution, usually involuntarily. But of course most of those places were shut down, because they were famous for abusing their patients. The former patients/victims were given prescriptions for antipsychotics (which they were free to take or not take) and tossed out onto the street. Now, we even have some of them on the Internet, running amuck while not taking their meds.The phenomenon of the Ubertroll may be well documented, but I daresay it's not well understood.
There is no shortage of disturbed people in the world, some of whom don't keep their disturbance to themselves and become openly and overtly disturbing people in their own right.
I've spent my career studying and analyzing problematic issues, and occasionally crafting carefully developed recommendations for handling them.
Among the problematic issues that we know all too well are seemingly intractable problems arising from the perplexing machinations of arrogant, manipulative, and abusive site administrators on Internet venues (notably those associated with the Wikisphere).
I daresay that the response of Encyclopedia Dramatica falls way short of ethical best practices for dealing with abusive practices that pervade WikiCulture.
It occurs to me that Wikipedia Review has a wide open field for developing and demonstrating systematic progress toward artfully constructed ethical best practices for responding to the wretched excess of arrogance, manipulation, character assassination, and abusiveness that stubbornly haunts the Wikisphere.
Daniel Brandt
Wed 22nd September 2010, 8:13pm
Next to weev, the most powerful non-owner admin on Encyclopedia Dramatica is Sheneequa. He has now been doxed after four years on ED, thanks to a joint effort by tarantino and me. It turns out that he became an admin on Wikipedia at age 14. But editing Wikipedia from his mother's basement could not contain his ambition, and he moved on to more perverted pastures.
Is it okay for a teenager to impersonate a psychiatrist on ED and dish out advice on IRC? Sure, Your Honor, it's all part of the Lulz! Don't you understand?
24 hours later: I deleted the link under the "doxed" above, which led to a hivemind entry. That's because that new hivemind entry was horse-traded for Sheneequa's authorization to delete a page about me on ED.
tarantino
Wed 22nd September 2010, 9:12pm
Redwolf24 was nominated by Essjay, and made an admin on wp when he was 14.
Sherrod DeGrippo and Andrew Thorton made him an ED admin and checkuser at the age of 15.
I predict the drama on ED and wp resulting from the disclosure will be lulzworthy.
Milton Roe
Thu 23rd September 2010, 1:12am
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 14th September 2010, 1:14am) *
I think Daniel Brandt and Tarantino could make livings as private investigators. It's amazing the detailed information you two can find and how quick you can find it.
Maybe they already work for someplace like Neohapsis, or know somebody who does. Privacy really is a fleeting thing, these days. ED is in for some lulz of their own type indeed.
Okay, does Adrian Lamo now really consult for the FBI as it says on his WP bio, and was he really involved in the arrest of Auernheimer/Escher/Weev? How come these hackers all seem to be on the edge of mental illness?
Newyorkbrad
Thu 23rd September 2010, 4:19am
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 19th August 2010, 12:20am) *
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 18th August 2010, 6:30pm) *
I'm aiming to get my ED bio taken down. They frequently use real full names for the title on articles about living people, and Google tends to rank these at number one. Bing, on the other hand, seems to skip such articles entirely, and so should Google (and Yahoo).
You'd have far better luck getting Google to sandbox the entire site than getting them to delete the article, though I suppose bribery might work. Of course, you'd be doing the rest of the world a disservice by giving them money.
Abstracting from ED specifically to a more general issue, Mr. Brandt's post and Somey's reply raise two significant issues, one factual and one theoretical:
1. Does Google have a procedure whereby someone can request that a website or webpage mentioning them be deleted from searchability on the grounds that is defamatory, privacy-invading, or just generally inappropriate? I am not referring to DMCA takedown notices based on copyright violations, which is a well-defined procedure but has a specific, limited purpose. More generally, does Google address user complaints that a high-ranking page about someone in their search results is outrageous through some defined process, or on an ad hoc basis, or not at all?
2. How should Google handle situations where someone complains that a high-ranking page about them contains malicious, defamatory, privacy-invading, grotesque, or otherwise inappropriate content? If it were up to you, or us collectively, how would we (or would we?) set up a process to protect people from this sort of thing -- a sort of Internet-wide BLP policy, I suppose, though presumably to be applied only in extreme cases -- without giving Google, which many regard as having too much power already, the actual or perceived role of censors of what can and can't be found on the Internet?
For "Google" of course one can substitute any search engine; I mention them specificially because they are the best-known. (I'm not familiar with Bing, but to the extent we're told that they do not index the articles referred to, I'm curious what in their algorithm or parameters causes them not to.)
Thoughts?
Jon Awbrey
Thu 23rd September 2010, 5:10am
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 5:19am) *
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 19th August 2010, 12:20am) *
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 18th August 2010, 6:30pm) *
I'm aiming to get my ED bio taken down. They frequently use real full names for the title on articles about living people, and Google tends to rank these at number one. Bing, on the other hand, seems to skip such articles entirely, and so should Google (and Yahoo).
You'd have far better luck getting Google to sandbox the entire site than getting them to delete the article, though I suppose bribery might work. Of course, you'd be doing the rest of the world a disservice by giving them money.
Abstracting from ED specifically to a more general issue, Mr. Brandt's post and Somey's reply raise two significant issues, one factual and one theoretical:
- Does Google have a procedure whereby someone can request that a website or webpage mentioning them be deleted from searchability on the grounds that is defamatory, privacy-invading, or just generally inappropriate? I am not referring to DMCA takedown notices based on copyright violations, which is a well-defined procedure but has a specific, limited purpose. More generally, does Google address user complaints that a high-ranking page about someone in their search results is outrageous through some defined process, or on an ad hoc basis, or not at all?
- How should Google handle situations where someone complains that a high-ranking page about them contains malicious, defamatory, privacy-invading, grotesque, or otherwise inappropriate content? If it were up to you, or us collectively, how would we (or would we?) set up a process to protect people from this sort of thing — a sort of Internet-wide BLP policy, I suppose, though presumably to be applied only in extreme cases — without giving Google, which many regard as having too much power already, the actual or perceived role of censors of what can and can't be found on the Internet?
Thoughts?
This is an important issue, and I started to comment, but it's a waste of time and energy doing that in a closed forum. Maybe the generic part of the topic could be taken up on the main board?
Jon Awbrey
dtobias
Thu 23rd September 2010, 7:18am
Do you guys really expect entities like Google to be able to make the sort of judgment calls as to what sort of commentary about a person is fair criticism and what sort is defamatory, etc., and should be removed? That's something real judges and juries do, in long, expensive proceedings that still sometimes get it wrong... but you want a search engine company to do it for free? They'd just end up making some arbitrary and heavy-handed rule that pleases nobody.
Jon Awbrey
Thu 23rd September 2010, 7:25am
QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 8:18am) *
Do you guys really expect entities like Google to be able to make the sort of judgment calls as to what sort of commentary about a person is fair criticism and what sort is defamatory, etc., and should be removed? That's something real judges and juries do, in long, expensive proceedings that still sometimes get it wrong … but you want a search engine company to do it for free? They'd just end up making some arbitrary and heavy-handed rule that pleases nobody.
The e-steemed con-selor tosses out a red herring … and sure e-nuff, some wiki-phish bites.
Jon :P />
anthony
Thu 23rd September 2010, 8:42am
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 9:19am) *
How should Google handle situations where someone complains that a high-ranking page about them contains malicious, defamatory, privacy-invading, grotesque, or otherwise inappropriate content?
Assuming the complaint is not completely spurious, put a warning next to the link?
Tobias is right, Google can't be expected to investigate every complaint to determine whether the page is *actually* infringing. And even just altering the rank of the page would probably lead to gaming of the system. On the other hand, I think Google does have a responsibility to inform the public of the complaint, as that's part of its mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".
carbuncle
Thu 23rd September 2010, 12:30pm
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 9:19am) *
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 19th August 2010, 12:20am) *
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 18th August 2010, 6:30pm) *
I'm aiming to get my ED bio taken down. They frequently use real full names for the title on articles about living people, and Google tends to rank these at number one. Bing, on the other hand, seems to skip such articles entirely, and so should Google (and Yahoo).
You'd have far better luck getting Google to sandbox the entire site than getting them to delete the article, though I suppose bribery might work. Of course, you'd be doing the rest of the world a disservice by giving them money.
Abstracting from ED specifically to a more general issue, Mr. Brandt's post and Somey's reply raise two significant issues, one factual and one theoretical:
1. Does Google have a procedure whereby someone can request that a website or webpage mentioning them be deleted from searchability on the grounds that is defamatory, privacy-invading, or just generally inappropriate? I am not referring to DMCA takedown notices based on copyright violations, which is a well-defined procedure but has a specific, limited purpose. More generally, does Google address user complaints that a high-ranking page about someone in their search results is outrageous through some defined process, or on an ad hoc basis, or not at all?
2. How should Google handle situations where someone complains that a high-ranking page about them contains malicious, defamatory, privacy-invading, grotesque, or otherwise inappropriate content? If it were up to you, or us collectively, how would we (or would we?) set up a process to protect people from this sort of thing -- a sort of Internet-wide BLP policy, I suppose, though presumably to be applied only in extreme cases -- without giving Google, which many regard as having too much power already, the actual or perceived role of censors of what can and can't be found on the Internet?
For "Google" of course one can substitute any search engine; I mention them specificially because they are the best-known. (I'm not familiar with Bing, but to the extent we're told that they do not index the articles referred to, I'm curious what in their algorithm or parameters causes them not to.)
Thoughts?
Jon is right that this is a discussion that would better be held in a more public forum.
I was going to say that I've seen examples of Google removing pages from search listings based on what I presume were complaints from the person being maligned, but I may be confusing that with Google taking down defamatory Blogger sites, which they do quite aggressively.
thekohser
Thu 23rd September 2010, 12:50pm
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 1:30pm) *
Jon is right that this is a discussion that would better be held in a more public forum.
I was going to say that I've seen examples of Google removing pages from search listings based on what I presume were complaints from the person being maligned, but I may be confusing that with Google taking down defamatory Blogger sites, which they do quite aggressively.
Voila!
MZMcBride
Thu 23rd September 2010, 1:45pm
QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 9:42am) *
On the other hand, I think Google does have a responsibility to inform the public of the complaint, as that's part of its mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".
Really? It does?
Milton Roe
Thu 23rd September 2010, 2:03pm
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 11:45am) *
QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 9:42am) *
On the other hand, I think Google does have a responsibility to inform the public of the complaint, as that's part of its mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".
Really? It does?Well, EXCEPT for embarrassing information about ITSELF. Remind you of anybody? :)
anthony
Thu 23rd September 2010, 3:51pm
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 6:45pm) *
QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 9:42am) *
On the other hand, I think Google does have a responsibility to inform the public of the complaint, as that's part of its mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".
Really? It does?Yeah. Google has a responsibility to its shareholders to fulfill its mission in a way calculated to maximize its profit.
GlassBeadGame
Thu 23rd September 2010, 4:00pm
QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 2:51pm) *
Yeah. Google has a responsibility to its shareholders to fulfill its mission in a way calculated to maximize its profit.
...or in their own words "Don't be evil."
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
Fri 24th September 2010, 7:17am
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 23rd September 2010, 1:13am) *
Next to weev, the most powerful non-owner admin on Encyclopedia Dramatica is Sheneequa. He has now been doxed after four years on ED, thanks to a joint effort by tarantino and me. It turns out that he became an admin on Wikipedia at age 14. But editing Wikipedia from his mother's basement could not contain his ambition, and he moved on to more perverted pastures.
Top marks and well done. I guess you achieved your own priority and deserve to reap the rewards. Sounds like a lovely bit of drama and another topping for a chapter of 'The Book'.
Please let you know who know.
I this is a perfect example of what I have just been ranting on about elsewhere. Welcome to Web 2.0 generation, as perfect an example as 'pedophile porn addict turned child sex abuser' and, god knows, Encyclopedia Dramatica is out there on the extreme.
Yes, seriously folks, I hold the Wikimedia Foundation and 'Teh Community' or raving libertines to blame for the corruption of the young individual. We need a government health warning on the front page. Hell, even "libertine" is too noble a word for them louche.
Hopefully you have saved him from being sued VERY, VERY, hard by someone.
tarantino
Fri 24th September 2010, 5:07pm
Mattwolf/Sheneequa has now allowed Daniel's name and business to be removed from ED.
Now word yet if he has been busy IMing "get on irc fgt" to random losers.
everyking
Fri 24th September 2010, 10:03pm
I would say an admin who is also an ED admin should be desysopped, but I suppose that would run into the long-standing precedent of Alison.
CharlotteWebb
Sat 25th September 2010, 1:20am
QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 25th September 2010, 3:03am) *
I would say an admin who is also an ED admin should be desysopped, but I suppose that would run into the long-standing precedent of Alison.
And apparently that "with us or against us" fallacy never goes out of style.
Obesity
Mon 27th September 2010, 1:44am
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 24th September 2010, 6:07pm) *
Mattwolf/Sheneequa has now allowed Daniel's name and business to be removed from ED.
Now word yet if he has been busy IMing "get on irc fgt" to random losers.
Wut. Is THAT all this was about? I thought Brandt was going to take down these fuckers once and for all for the good of, like, society...... but he just wanted his page deleted?????????
hmmph, so is The Game over now?
Zoloft
Mon 27th September 2010, 2:11am
QUOTE(Obesity @ Sun 26th September 2010, 11:44pm) *
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 24th September 2010, 6:07pm) *
Mattwolf/Sheneequa has now allowed Daniel's name and business to be removed from ED.
Wut. Is THAT all this was about? I thought Brandt was going to take down these fuckers once and for all for the good of, like, society...... but he just wanted his page deleted?????????hmmph, so is The Game over now?
Daniel Brandt
Wed 29th September 2010, 7:37am
QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 27th September 2010, 12:44am) *
Wut. Is THAT all this was about? I thought Brandt was going to take down these fuckers once and for all for the good of, like, society...... but he just wanted his page deleted?????????
hmmph, so is The Game over now?
It's certainly not about keeping Obesity entertained.
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 27th September 2010, 1:11am) *
Whether you admire or despise Daniel Brandt, you have to recognize his efforts are for the greater good... of Daniel Brandt. :P
People who hide behind screen names have no right to criticize those who act to protect their real-life name.
I didn't start this. SlimVirgin did, and that was five years ago.
A Horse With No Name
Wed 29th September 2010, 7:40am
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 29th September 2010, 8:37am) *
I didn't start this. SlimVirgin did, and that was five years ago.
SlimVirgin started it? Hey, this is a great cue for a WP-inspired song parody of this tune:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eFTLKWw542g"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eFTLKWw542g" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Zoloft
Wed 29th September 2010, 10:08am
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 29th September 2010, 5:37am) *
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 27th September 2010, 1:11am) *
Whether you admire or despise Daniel Brandt, you have to recognize his efforts are for the greater good... of Daniel Brandt. :P
People who hide behind screen names have no right to criticize those who act to protect their real-life name.
I didn't start this. SlimVirgin did, and that was five years ago.
My statement was not intended as anything other than a wry observation that you act in your own interest, not for others. You're not obligated to act for the 'greater good' any more than I am.
Anonymous editor
Wed 29th September 2010, 12:23pm
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 27th September 2010, 3:11am) *
QUOTE(Obesity @ Sun 26th September 2010, 11:44pm) *
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 24th September 2010, 6:07pm) *
Mattwolf/Sheneequa has now allowed Daniel's name and business to be removed from ED.
Wut. Is THAT all this was about? I thought Brandt was going to take down these fuckers once and for all for the good of, like, society...... but he just wanted his page deleted?????????hmmph, so is The Game over now?
Always.
Anyway, what Wikipedia admin is that ED guy?
tarantino
Wed 29th September 2010, 3:03pm
QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Wed 29th September 2010, 5:23pm) *
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 27th September 2010, 3:11am) *
QUOTE(Obesity @ Sun 26th September 2010, 11:44pm) *
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 24th September 2010, 6:07pm) *
Mattwolf/Sheneequa has now allowed Daniel's name and business to be removed from ED.
Wut. Is THAT all this was about? I thought Brandt was going to take down these fuckers once and for all for the good of, like, society...... but he just wanted his page deleted?????????hmmph, so is The Game over now?
Always.
Anyway, what Wikipedia admin is that ED guy?
Redwolf24 (T-C-L-K-R-D)
He was nominated by Essjay at the age of 14 to be a wp admin, and ED made him an admin at 15.
ED claims that they won't make anyone under 18 an admin now, because a 13yo admin's parents were threatened with a lawsuit for his writing of this article.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Robert_Pierson
Here he is 4 years later, pleading his case before the paranoid schizophrenic weev to try and persuade him that the article should have a more sympathetic tone. Of course that didn't work
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/User:Thayo/Pokchu
weev was recently removed after his arrest in Arkansas, but he still has influence among the EDiots who worship him.
Anonymous editor
Wed 29th September 2010, 3:29pm
on an old version of his userpage, he had the mentorship template there, and one of the cases was JarlaxleArtemis. Given the havoc Grawp eventually wreaked with ED, it's kinda ironic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50050415
Son of a Yeti
Thu 30th September 2010, 8:30am
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 18th August 2010, 9:20pm) *
You'd have far better luck getting Google to sandbox the entire site than getting them to delete the article, though I suppose bribery might work. Of course, you'd be doing the rest of the world a disservice by giving them money.
I think at least one litigation prone individual did succeed in having this article deleted:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
:afraid:
Heat
Fri 24th December 2010, 7:41pm
QUOTE(Son of a Yeti @ Thu 30th September 2010, 1:30pm) *
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 18th August 2010, 9:20pm) *
You'd have far better luck getting Google to sandbox the entire site than getting them to delete the article, though I suppose bribery might work. Of course, you'd be doing the rest of the world a disservice by giving them money.
I think at least one litigation prone individual did succeed in having this article deleted:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
:afraid:
They've deleted Proaby's article as well:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Proabivouac
Anyone know why?
Daniel Brandt
Mon 27th December 2010, 10:14am
QUOTE(Heat @ Fri 24th December 2010, 6:41pm) *
They've deleted Proaby's article as well:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Proabivouac
Anyone know why?
My guess is that they are feeling somewhat on the defensive these days.
KStreetSlave
Wed 29th December 2010, 1:40pm
edit: You know what, it's not worth it to open up that can of worms again.
EricBarbour
Tue 18th January 2011, 9:12pm
Oh yes it is!......
Weev just keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper......
carbuncle
Sun 23rd January 2011, 6:12pm
Seems like there was a "temporary outage" today that 
some mistook for the end of ED. Perhaps it was just foreshadowing.
Daniel Brandt
Sun 20th February 2011, 11:55am
This anti-ED blog represents the state of the art in research about who's who behind Encyclopedia Dramatica. The "Aboriginal" article was deleted on February 1, and it will probably stay down. This article, about the person who filed the complaint with Australian authorities a year ago, exists only because ED is revengful. It is important to get that one deleted too.
Wikipedia's article on ED no longer mentions Joseph Evers. There was a fight over that deletion, but common sense prevailed in the end. A half-dozen ED administrators have resigned or otherwise lost their admin bit recently. Some were clearly apprehensive over getting exposed.
The anti-ED blog deserves some link love. Please help if you have web sites. It currently ranks at around 20 on Google in a search for "encyclopedia dramatica" with or without the quotes. But the main problem with ED continues. Any jerk that knows how to navigate ED can create a sock and throw up an offensive article. The latest example was mentioned by mainstream media. (One line in this MSNBC article reads, "Now she's got her own entry in Encyclopedia Dramatica, which has basically branded her as a bad mom for life.")
Sherrod DeGrippo doesn't like the fact that her name on Wikipedia redirects to the Wikipedia ED article. Gee, imagine that — a BLP complaint about a redirect on Wikipedia? The thing is, she deserves it. She has total control over ED whenever she decides to exercise it. No questions are ever asked about her authority whenever she takes action, as shown by countless occasions in the past. Ultimately the responsibility for ED is hers, and by now I doubt that she has a Section 230 leg to stand on.
Please help give that anti-ED blog some link love!
Jon Awbrey
Sun 20th February 2011, 12:04pm
Seriously, Daniel, why are you wasting your skills and time on a dip-shit operation like ED when there are vastly bigger φish (and their ED's) to φry?
Jon <_<
Daniel Brandt
Sun 20th February 2011, 12:13pm
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 20th February 2011, 11:04am) *
Seriously, Daniel, why are you wasting your skills and time on a dip-shit operation like ED when there are vastly bigger φish (and their ED's) to φry?
Jon <_<
If some anonymous jerk decided to do an ED article on you, Jon, and it sat there at number one in Google in a search for your name, you wouldn't be asking that question. The larger problem is Google and I'm still working on that one, but big wheels ($202 billion market cap) are difficult to move.
GlassBeadGame
Sun 20th February 2011, 2:33pm
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 20th February 2011, 12:13pm) *
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 20th February 2011, 11:04am) *
Seriously, Daniel, why are you wasting your skills and time on a dip-shit operation like ED when there are vastly bigger φish (and their ED's) to φry?
Jon <_<
If some anonymous jerk decided to do an ED article on you, Jon, and it sat there at number one in Google in a search for your name, you wouldn't be asking that question. The larger problem is Google and I'm still working on that one, but big wheels ($202 billion market cap) are difficult to move.
There might be bigger fish but this one needs frying. BTW how come Alison's not on the wall of admins?
Daniel Brandt
Sun 20th February 2011, 4:14pm
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 20th February 2011, 1:33pm) *
There might be bigger fish but this one needs frying. BTW how come Alison's not on the wall of admins?
Alison left ED and requested that her sysop and checkuser bits be removed. After several requests, Sherrod DeGrippo removed them. At that point Alison was removed from the Wall of Admins. If you are a nasty former admin and also still active and influential on ED, your tenure on the Wall may get extended. That's the case with Zaiger and Weev, but Alison didn't qualify.
By the way, I don't edit the blog and don't have the password to edit it, but I contribute research on occasion and I help optimize some of the photos with Photoshop. Everyone is invited to contribute: [email protected]
EricBarbour
Sun 20th February 2011, 7:41pm
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 20th February 2011, 1:14pm) *
By the way, I don't edit the blog and don't have the password to edit it, but I contribute research on occasion and I help optimize some of the photos with Photoshop. Everyone is invited to contribute: [email protected]
My opinion of Sherrod and her little buds is starting to go very, very negative.
In the blog, there is a discussion of Sean Carasov--which included a link to a Webcitation picture of the
now-removed ED page about Carasov's suicide. Oh, look, Little Miss No-Censorship has censored it!
QUOTE
This URL has been archived internally and can be made available for scholars on request, but we cannot make it accessible on the web, because the copyright holder (Sherrod DeGrippo, [email protected]) has asked us not to display the material. If you have concerns about this individual not being the copyright holder, or if you require access to the material in our dark archive for scholarly or legal purposes, please contact us.
MZMcBride
Tue 22nd February 2011, 12:03am
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 20th February 2011, 4:14pm) *
By the way, I don't edit the blog and don't have the password to edit it, but I contribute research on occasion and I help optimize some of the photos with Photoshop. Everyone is invited to contribute: [email protected]
You're encouraging the use of Gmail and Blogspot? I'm bemused.To the larger point, it will always be possible for someone to write something negative about you (the general you) on the Internet. I've always viewed trying to fight this type of battle as pissing in the ocean, personally, though I sincerely admire your dedication. :)
Daniel Brandt
Thu 24th February 2011, 2:41pm
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Mon 21st February 2011, 11:03pm) *
You're encouraging the use of Gmail and Blogspot? I'm bemused.
To the larger point, it will always be possible for someone to write something negative about you (the general you) on the Internet. I've always viewed trying to fight this type of battle as pissing in the ocean, personally, though I sincerely admire your dedication. :)
It's probably a waste of my time to take any of your one-liner posts seriously, but here goes:
I said I didn't have the password for that Blogspot site — it's not my site. But I support the owner's decision to use Google's blogspot.com and Gmail in this case. Consider this:
1. Blogspot cannot be subjected to a DDoS attack because Google has too much bandwidth. We're dealing with ED here, which by extension means Anonymous and 4chan. Remember, Weev wasn't wearing orange coveralls when this anti-ED site started.
2. Google has a fairly straightforward DMCA procedure. They will take down photos and this anti-ED site has had a number of photos taken down due to formal DMCA complaints by Ms. DeGrippo. But compare this to webcitation.org, which has responded to DeGrippo much more broadly than this by prohibiting entire pages. And compare it to livejournal.com, which killed a backup of the blogspot.com site after a complaint by DeGrippo.
So, if you wanted to put up a site with anti-ED research, what would you do? The bottom line is that blogspot.com was the right decision in this case.
Regarding your other one-liner, you completely missed what I'm trying to accomplish. The fact of the matter is that ED wouldn't exist if editors had to use their real names. The problem is with anonymous ED editors who write defamatory articles about real people, and use that person's real name in the article, and then brag that it's number one in Google and collect "lulz" points on ED for being so clever. This is what I'm trying to fight. Yes, Google should stop indexing ED altogether. That's not easy to arrange, but at least they won't let ED use AdSense. A serious activist has to pick his battles.
Apparently serious activists also have to put up with one-liners from non-serious activists.
Selina
Tue 26th April 2011, 8:55am
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 27th December 2010, 4:14pm) *
QUOTE(Heat @ Fri 24th December 2010, 6:41pm) *
They've deleted Proaby's article as well:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Proabivouac
Anyone know why?
My guess is that they are feeling somewhat on the defensive these days.
I have a feeling that is why the new 'oh internet' site is spinning so hard it's almost taking off into space, it has an ED article trying to put the blame all on a minority of 'trolls' now as if it wasn't like that from the start, hmm.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.