14 May 2010

McCanns & Carter-Ruck Target Satirical Wiki Encyclopædia Dramatica



«Encyclopædia Dramatica [Slogan: In lulz we trust] is a satirical open wiki built on MediaWiki software. Launched on December 10, 2004, it satirizes both encyclopedic topics and current events, especially those related to or relevant to internet culture. It is also associated with the internet subculture Anonymous. The site's "elaborate trolling culture" chronicling of internet trolling, use of content with shock value, and criticism of other internet communities have all gained media coverage and commentary. Some of the content on Encyclopædia Dramatica is "flamingly racist and misogynist", sexually explicit or otherwise disturbing, including uncensored material taken from shock sites. (...) Articles at Encyclopædia Dramatica are notably critical of MySpace as well as users on YouTube, LiveJournal, DeviantART, and Wikipedia. In The New York Times Magazine, journalist Jonathan Dee described it as a "snarky Wikipedia anti-fansite". Shaun Davies of Australia's Nine Network has called it "Wikipedia's bastard child, a compendium of internet trends and culture which lampoons every subject it touches." The site "is run like Wikipedia, but its style is the opposite; most of its information is biased and opinionated, not to mention racist, homophobic, and spiteful, but on the upside its snide attitude makes it spot-on about most Internet memes it covers." This coverage of Internet jargon and memes has been acknowledged in the New Statesman, on Language Log, in C't magazine, and in Wired magazine - where it was described once as the wiki "where the vast parallel universe of Anonymous in-jokes, catchphrases, and obsessions is lovingly annotated". (...) On December 16, 2008, Encyclopædia Dramatica won the People's Choice Winners category for favorite wiki in Mashable's 2nd Annual Open Web Awards, with wikiHow as the runner-up.» in Wikipedia

Encyclopædia Dramatica on Madeleine McCann cached circa 2008
cropped screenshot, for obvious reasons
[inappropriate comments and jokes about Madeleine McCann, nevertheless this is still a case of censorship]


Encyclopædia Dramatica.com on Madeleine_McCann after Copyright and Defamation claim May 6 2010, by Carter Ruck/McCanns [letters bellow]





19 comments:

  1. Carter Ruck is still trying it on.

    People who receive such letters should tell them to take it up with the investigators who worked the case, and who have stated in open court they believe Madeleine died in the apartment.

    The investigators have informed the parents that Madeleine is dead, and await the parents cooperation in the relinquishing of the cadaver.

    If the McCanns want people to believe Madeleine was abducted then they should prove it first. So far they have failed to do so.

    And until they can, they should not be soliciting funds from the public based on their telling them the abduction is a fact.

    This could end up being construed as a fraud perpetrated by the McCanns on the unsuspecting public. In which case the public should be protected from the McCanns.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One thing jumped out at me "Maddie photos are copyrighted" ? wtf is this all about ?its ok if you PAY for something from the online shop ,with her face on ,other than that its copyrighted ? you couldnt make it up could you ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Joanna, could you clarify something fo me. I have been an avid poster/reader since the wee one went missing, but decided to go to the madeline files and get another perspective of what happened. In the section regarding the antennas being activated on various times around various parts of portugal, does it mean they were places they couldnt/shouldnt have been but except for the antennaes being activated we have this knowledge. And does it also mean they must have had a mode of transport when they said they didnt have and thats where the car comes into play? sorry but a bit confused thanks gordon

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well,shock horror!!! The macaans really are out to "rule" the world! Well enoughs enough of this charade,because the very people who are supplying CONSTANTLY the "ammo for us to fire" are the negligent parents themselves!IT,S ONE RULE FOR THEM,and ,it appears none for anyone else!Actually they must spend all their spare time trolling anything and everything ,just to make their day when they find something that they can threaten legal action over ,even more easy ££££££££££Do you know something I,m up for the challenge when they read my opinions regarding their DESPICABLE propaganda that is purely to try and divert "jo public" from what really happened in apartment 5a! Joana ,please if this in any way jeapordises your "site",then just "bin" it ,because this is what they are out to do "gag those who dare challenge their lies",Also as a cancer patient myself I AM SOOOOOOOOOO ANGRY that once again they GET IT THEIR WAY.A charity "do" for cancer ,BUT HE WILL PUT HIS "DONATIONS" INTO HIS FUND!!!!You couldn,t make it up.UNBELIEVABLE!!and the organisers AGREE????? PS They own the copyright to their daughters photos ???????????? Then keep them locked up in your photo albums ,like the rest of us do,You can,t have your cake AND eat it!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joana,me again,I also have a few questions I hope you or a helpful blogger might know. (a)When is Amaral Goncalo challenge to his banned book expected? (b) Is Robert Murat still proceeding with his court case regarding Jane Tanner ? Thank you "in advance"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jesus Joana, I thought better of you than to promote this site.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joana,Ihave just re-read the" threatning" letter from Carter Ruck ,sent to latest "victim" ,surely they have been misled,or have chosen to ignore written evidence from Portuguese authorities ,as a result of the cavader etc etc ? WHY then , can they say ,as top professionals ,"there was no evidence WHATSOEVER????? to impliciate their client in their daughters disappearance !!!! Is it wrong of me ,to put it to them ,WHO else can we put in the frame for leaving those 3 little babies ,UNATTENDED ,either as a prime target for their so called abductor to pay a visit while mummy and daddy were out enjoying themselves as per usual OR something a lot more sinister,which I,m afraid we may never get to the bottom of ,the way these two are playing it out !Where oh where are the questions ,our so called British press just won,t put forward to the general public,because without the public challenging the lies those two are fobbing the country with.There is no end to what limits those two will go to "to prove their innocence" PROVIDING of course Jo public keeps topping up that fund, to FIND a little girl who can,t be found, because ,unfortunately,as proven by "the dogs" etc etc she.even though we would all love to be proven wrong,is no longer with us,Poor little Maddie!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, it is a fact that Kate McCann did not intend to actually look at the children when she went back to the apartment, as she said she had gone to close the door when a gust of wind pushed it against her. Carter Ruck cant sue anyone for saying that.

    It is also a fact that she had done so even though she says the door was in a different posistion since she had left it, and this means she didnt think Gerry had moved it when he went back to check the kids.

    In short, she thinks he went in, looked at MADELEINE in his 'proud father' moment and then put the door in the exact same position as when they had left together (I find this hard to beleive and I dont see how anyone can sue me for having that difficulty).

    So it seems irrefutable that some 'enhancement' has been made in order to underline the checking that went on.

    It is a fact that to enhance experience is generally considered to be lying. To tell lies when any evidence can send investigators along the wrong path when the issue is the safety of ones child may properly be considered as negligence.

    Why dont we get together and state these things in a letter to their solicitors?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've never even heard of Encyclopaedia Dramatica until now. Thanks for the heads-up, TM.

    Is this how Kate spends her time when she's 'working on the campaign from home?' Not so much searching for Madeleine as searching for potential payouts. Between trying to scam the McMillan nurses' charity race and now this, and all the other scams in between, I don't know how these people can live with themselves.

    Patiently awaiting, as usual, justice for Madeleine and karma for TM. x(


    Angela

    Angela

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Lynn

    You are right to be angry. I am not a sufferer but in the past 3 years (coincidentally the same time that Madeleine has been missing) I have supported 5 close family members (Mum, uncle, 2 cousins and sister-in-law)and 1 best friend all with cancer. I am fighting and venture to say I might understand some of how you feel. The hijacking of this charity event is pure McCann arrogance.

    Sheila

    ReplyDelete
  11. @6
    I was going to chastise you for your silly post but then thought 'what's the point'?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shiela,(thank you)but what makes me really really sad is,little children with cancer,when every penny put into cancer research is just SO important ,as its just the cruelist ,most painful time for them and their loving families,how you two money grabbers can sink SO low is beyond my comprehension!I have to say it again though,why did everyone involved in what otherwise would have been a day to celebrate "mans humanity towards his fellow man" to be tainted by the organisers allowing "him" to pocket his sponser money,not for cancer research ,but the macaan money making fund!Yes you guessed it I,m really angry !

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 13, you wrote ...human beings have bounderies and there you are right. Problem is that the whole story overstept all bounderies since long ago and still continues to go beyond everything ever heard of. That's the only reason why those horrendes Jokesites do exist - like a reflection and it's getting worse all the time by the actions taken by parents and everybody involved. Nobody is 'promoting' sick jokes but freedom of expression is also freedom to choose what you read and what not. It can't be about what one is 'allowed' to read or write?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Although I consider Encyclopaedia Dramatica excessive and in poor taste, many times, nobody is obliged to read it. This action by the Mccs lawyers only estimulates the curiosity of people and motivates the usual posters in the Encyclopaedia to keep posting. They are not as rich or as poweful as the Scientologists, and the latter have declenched a war that is slowly weeking their cult. Mr. and Mz. M may have just started a much fierce war than they ever imagined.
    I'm getting my popcorn and wait calmly ;;)

    Luz

    ReplyDelete
  16. By the way, I've been reading Anonymous for the last 2 years since they started picketing Scientology orgs all over the world (and helped, by those actions, to encourage more than a thousand members of that cult to get free) and although I accept that some can easily use the Ency.Dramatica, their aims are far higher than make stupid jokes about a little child whose parents not only allowed to disappear but are also making profit from.

    [For those that may be interested, see for yourselves. Anonymous: http://www.whyweprotest.net/en/ , better explained by the documentation presented here http://www.xenu.net/ and here http://www.xenutv.com/blog/].

    Luz

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous 13, blogger spot blogs commenting system is very limited, it does not allow to edit the commentators messages, either we don't allow the full comment or we allow it. Either way, as it is in the comments policy «Comments are a reflection on you and your personality», I don't think you really needed to give that example to express your point.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Farter-Ruck write that the allegations are untrue.
    How can an allegation be untrue?
    An allegation is a claim for a fact.
    The fact might be untrue, but once the claim is made, the claim exists, therefore the claim is true.
    Is Farter-Ruck first language English?
    At £500 an hour, it's poor service.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @6 and everyone - I shall quote Voltaire: I do not approve of what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.

    --Trismegistus

    ReplyDelete