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, use 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.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] 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:
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
The following Wikipedia 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.
I've been familiar with ED since 2007, so I'm no noob with this site's tumultuous relationship with the web. That being said, it sounds like ED may be divorcing MediaWiki, unless things change, according to https://edramatica.com/threads/encyclopedia-dramatica-archives.5048/. The content has been temporarily stored at https://wiki.edramatica.com for now. Let's keep an eye on the situation, as this has happened in different forms God knows how many times. Though, I wonder if we can say it's offline for now? BOTTO (T•C)17:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't really meet the standard where it could be used in the article, but it is clear that the site is down at the moment. What they decide to do next is very much up to them. It would probably be ok to say "Offline as of October 2025", but there is no indication that the site will be gone forever.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this isn't anything like the proper ED website, it is basically a dump of the backup material in PDF form. They said that they were having problems with the MediaWiki software, so the clickable link based site is not available right now.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like ED is back to die another day. Their forum posts indicate they weren't confident in this solution, so we'll see - as always. Aside from the original URL, this is probably the longest the content has been hosted without disruption in one place. BOTTO (T•C)13:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the very beginning, it says that its members frequently participate in harassment campaigns. The same could be said for 4chan, Wikipedia, GitHub, Facebook, YouTube and so on; and the article for 4chan is a great example of how it should be phrased: "4chan has often been the subject of media attention...including the coordination of... harassment against websites and Internet users".
I think that, rather than attributing stuff in the lead, it would be better for us to find higher-quality sources and tweak the wording to statements that don't require attribution. That said, I'm not sure the Slate source actually supports the precise statement cited to it in any case (it doesn't, that I can see, say that the site's users are doing this.) I replaced it with an academic source that touches on the same very broad point but with different focus and framing, and reworded it to reflect this. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through the intro carefully, I cannot say that it gives an inaccurate summary of what the site is about. ED sets out to shock and offend, which is its raison d'être and always has been. There is little point in criticizing sources that have pointed this out.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg?lang=en){kind=icon}
