David Shankbone - Why I love Encyclopedia Dramatica Options

http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/08/01/why-i...-dramatica.aspx is interesting.

http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/08/01/why-i...-dramatica.aspx is interesting.

Let him rant. He doesn't understand the first thing about anything. The best thing to do with Shankbone is to ignore him, because his MOA is to create drama. He thrives on that. The only response to this is silence, because without drama, he is nothing.

Is it any wonder that he loves ED? It's his life blood.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

I wonder if we're seeing the beginnings of "Slimvirgin, Phase Two." Or "Linda Mack, Phase Three." This is where, rather than actively promoting her various interests as an agent on the front line, she instead works as a sort of spy master, recruiting disaffected people of various sorts and braiding their particular motivations into her own schemes. And then she can sit back and concern herself directly with non-controversial edits about philosophy professors or the like, with the occasional nudge to one of her recruits to attend to some matter.

I wish I could envision her recovering from her disease as easily as I can see it metastasizing into a new form.

Hmm, not at all fixated...

What I find interesting is that he has the underlying presumption that people can only be content in life with a high profile and recognition. It seems to me that this is as fallacious a view as the idea that we all need to be consumers and should worry about the state of the High Street.

Hmm, not at all fixated...

What I find interesting is that he has the underlying presumption that people can only be content in life with a high profile and recognition. It seems to me that this is as fallacious a view as the idea that we all need to be consumers and should worry about the state of the High Street.

I thought that it might be practical at this point to suggest that users who wish to visit this site from here might find it wise to use a proxy service such as anonymous, for whatever reasons one might have for doing that...

That said, the comments about SV seem quite astute to me. I wonder if she's not weaving together a robot army. And now, she has someone to write her ED articles for her...

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

Much more interesting is the NYT article that Shankbone links to, "The Trolls Among Us" By Mattathias Schwartz. He spent days hanging out with Jason Fortuny and ED's Weev.

That the Internet is now capacious enough to host an entire subculture of users who enjoy undermining its founding values is yet another symptom of its phenomenal success. It may not be a bad thing that the least-mature users have built remote ghettos of anonymity where the malice is usually intramural. But how do we deal with cases like An Hero, epilepsy hacks and the possibility of real harm being inflicted on strangers?

Hmm, not at all fixated...

What I find interesting is that he has the underlying presumption that people can only be content in life with a high profile and recognition. It seems to me that this is as fallacious a view as the idea that we all need to be consumers and should worry about the state of the High Street.

It's not even true recognition he has, but mere vulgar name dropping and attempting to have fame by association and ingratiating himself. People who are truly 'famous' or friends with someone who is, probably consider the numerous people like that chronically sad.

Much more interesting is the NYT article that Shankbone links to, "The Trolls Among Us" By Mattathias Schwartz. He spent days hanging out with Jason Fortuny and ED's Weev.

"That the Internet is now capacious enough to host an entire subculture of users who enjoy undermining its founding values "

I'dve thought flaming/mocking/trolling/ un-politically correct humour were some of the founding values of the internet (not that it's my personal favourite, but it's a fact of life.) It's been a fact in the real world for millenia, and has been on the net since the net began.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

"The problem many Wikipedia editors have, including me, is that they allow critics to affect them. "

That's the truth.

Why on earth--after criticizing WR for supposed complicity in outings--would David support an utterly amoral site like ED? I guess it's "an artistic movement that seeks to tear at the fabric of society and expose its absurdity." People should be honored to be nominated by ED!

Disturbing. If the threat of Wikipedia is ruining reputations to build an "encyclopedia," I wonder how much better it is to trash a name for the sake of "lulz." I suppose every wiki needs a founding myth to retain its contributers--something that makes users think they're part of humanity's greatest work. Wikipedia's myth is the library of Alexandria. ED's is whatever the hell David sees in it.

Why on earth--after criticizing WR for supposed complicity in outings--would David support an utterly amoral site like ED? I guess it's "an artistic movement that seeks to tear at the fabric of society and expose its absurdity." People should be honored to be nominated by ED!

I think it is easier to deal with ED by viewing it as some sort of bizarre prank that will not be taken seriously by anyone. Yes, it can contain cruel and hateful things, it brims with intolerance and bigotry, but the context is so absurdist that it is almost impossible to take it any more seriously than graffiti.

WR is a much more serious threat because it is, at its best, a thoughtful and intelligent critic of Wikipedia and its ilk. While there are "burn it down" absolute abolitionists among the critics here, there are far more who can and do thoughtfully comment on both the content and power structure of Wikipedia.

This is one reason why we can't let Wikipedia Review become a free-for-all -- it would make the criticisms made here more easy to ignore by those who, for whatever reasons, want to turn a blind eye to WP's failings.

Why on earth--after criticizing WR for supposed complicity in outings--would David support an utterly amoral site like ED?

Because he's utterly amoral himself?

I mean, why on Earth would he actually perpetrate the outings himself, for that matter? I guess the assumption is that he'll go after me next, and the bit about me having "little-to-no status in any other facet of [my] life" and how my "self-worth relies upon Wikipedia thriving," etc., is actually an expression of frustration because he's having a little trouble figuring out who I am.

I can't wait for the flood of gay-porn DVD's showing up in my mailbox, sans their brown wrappers, once he gets my street address. Hey, maybe I can sell them at the local Farmer's Market for Big Buck$! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laughing.gif)

Maybe having David Shankbone donate money to you is like having Durova be interviewed on your online journalism site.

Chaos, defeat and disappearance follows... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/08/01/why-i...-dramatica.aspx is interesting.

This blog entry in particular caught my eye. It's wacked on a whole number of levels, it's really hard to know where to start, to be honest. My immediate reaction is that it's a gross invasion of a person's privacy, esp. a person who has precious little privacy as a result of her own circumstances. No cameras! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

Oh my. He never misses an opportunity to gross us all out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

I recently read an interview this guy had with Shimon Peres, and it seems almost incomprehensible to me that some internet troll can manage to obtain such a high-profile interview. I don't really know much of anything about him, but the contrast is just completely bizarre.

http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/08/01/why-i...-dramatica.aspx is interesting.

This blog entry in particular caught my eye. It's wacked on a whole number of levels, it's really hard to know where to start, to be honest. My immediate reaction is that it's a gross invasion of a person's privacy, esp. a person who has precious little privacy as a result of her own circumstances. No cameras! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

Wow. Shankbone's behavior is disgusting, inhumane and unethical. This shows again his failed attempts a reaching for for what Mapplethorpe achieved and what he fails at except on the most superficial level. He has achieved a new level in this failure. He he has achieved mis-mapplethorpism

I wonder if we're seeing the beginnings of "Slimvirgin, Phase Two." Or "Linda Mack, Phase Three." This is where, rather than actively promoting her various interests as an agent on the front line, she instead works as a sort of spy master, recruiting disaffected people of various sorts and braiding their particular motivations into her own schemes. And then she can sit back and concern herself directly with non-controversial edits about philosophy professors or the like, with the occasional nudge to one of her recruits to attend to some matter.

I wish I could envision her recovering from her disease as easily as I can see it metastasizing into a new form.

Now Slim is responsible for Mr. Shankbone's behavior? Son of Godwin's law, indeed.

EK: he's just clearly been good at leveraging his work on Wikipedia. It's too bad he's also a little screwy.

It's still a bizarre dichotomy: Shankbone the troll who takes inappropriate pictures of homeless people and abuses them on the internet, and Shankbone the reporter who gets an interview with the President of Israel. Whenever Shankbone is discussed here, this dichotomy never seems to be mentioned, but to me it's the most striking thing about him.

I saw something related today. There is a lot of frak'n threads connected... drama... drama town... drama city... drama county... drama province... drama country... drama nation. It's spread everywhere.

http://digg.com/security/Stalkers_Haunt_Wi...ia_s_Volunteers
http://friendfeed.com/e/67e2efba-352e-11dd...Space-ny-David/
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia

That last one is kinda wicked. It points out how and why people would do what they do, and then goes on to give an example, and then claim fair game in a way. It was like being able to tell someone with the utmost politeness of how much that person is doing wrong and getting away with it, but without praise. I sense there was a disturbance in the SEO field, and someone got vomited on in such nice, polite way.

This leads me to think that the so said cyber-stalk was more of a raw deal.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091828/plotsummary

You think all cops that have been so said started as undercover agents until they got caught and were actually employed as an undercover agent before they were caught? Or, maybe they were just the bad guys that did bad, so the only way out of jail for them was to accept the sudden undercover cop being caught drama. It makes a good story, and why would anybody question the bad they did before being caught. The undercover cop bit just makes it look like it is all justified for some good cause. Ya follow how that kinda hits home on what the dark side dude was saying?

There are real stories and there are those silly undercover cop stories.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

It's just all buzz.

It's still a bizarre dichotomy: Shankbone the troll who takes inappropriate pictures of homeless people and abuses them on the internet, and Shankbone the reporter who gets an interview with the President of Israel. Whenever Shankbone is discussed here, this dichotomy never seems to be mentioned, but to me it's the most striking thing about him.

It's not even a dichotomy or an aberration. It's trademark Wikipedian.

Relentless starf**king, and unfettered abuse© are Wikipedian hallmarks.










Apologies to Valleywag for stealing their description of Jimbo Wales, a la Relentless....

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: