Wikipedia bans Stephen Colbert

[tocqueville]

August 3, 2006 4:11 PM PDT
In the wake of "Colbert Report" host Stephen Colbert waxing philosophical about Wikipedia, making changes to entries on the air and urging his viewers to edit entries to include details he knew were false, an editor of the site has banned the comedian.

According to Newsvine, a Wikipedia editor locked the entries Colbert had exhorted his viewers to edit and banned the account "Stephencolbert."

http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6102088.html?part=rss&tag=6102088&subj=news

[aquart]

1. Harsh. But fair.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Is Wikipedia run by Americans?

I wonder if they didn't get the joke.

[zreosumgame]

35. I bet they did

and when they realize THEY were the butt of the joke that is when they banned him. Damm is nobody else disturbed by the idea of wikipedia being taken seriously as a reference source?

[Atman]

38. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I am continually amazed -- ney, STUNNED -- at the number of people I see citing Wikipedia as a source for ANYTHING. An encyclopedia that you can write yourself is NOT an encyclopedia. It's a diary. Wikipedia is a fucking joke as a reference tool.

[NuttyFluffers]

57. can i get an AMEN!

it ain't no clearer than that, folks. wiki is wacky. mental masturbation, diary, graffiti board, take your pick. it's a mild distraction, nothing more. scholarship requires a higher standard. if i were a teacher i'd give an instant F- to any paper citing wiki as a source; i'd give at least an F+ to one who used Reader's Digest.

[JohnLocke]

46. Wikipedia is based in St. Petersburg, Fla., & was founded by an American.

[Mind_your_head]

61. Yeah? So? The point about it being a genuine/good /unbiased

reference source, would be what?

on edit: adding "unbiased"

[Lautremont]

3. I don't even know why anyone would look at that site,

much less rely on it for information.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. because on many issues,

I compare what I find there with my handy dandy Enc. Brit and find little difference.

[Lautremont]

26. But why should you have to? If the Brittanica is handy, stick with it.

The chance of getting wrong information is not worth the convenience.

[Vidar]

28. Maybe if you're publishing, but Wikipedia covers topics Britannica

doesn't & updates a hell of a lot more often.

[Redneck Socialist]

48. What if your topic isn't in Britannica?

Say you want information on White Wolf's meta-plot, Britannica (or most other resources) isn't going to be very useful.

[JackNewtown]

30. A study found wikipedia is as accurate at Enc. Brit

So your experience has been confirmed by a study comparing the two.

[cynatnite]

10. I like it...

but it shouldn't be the only source of information either.

[tammywammy]

16. It's good for a quick look up

of something, as long as it isn't political or controversial, it can be pretty accurate.

[SmokingJacket]

25. Actually, you should look at it.

I wouldn't rely on it for life or death questions, but it is a terrific reference for further research.

I would definitely avoid any hot-button topic, but if you want to know just about anything else -- just because you're curious, or because maybe you're writing something and need a place to start on a topic, it is really quite good.

Recently I looked up a writer because I wanted to know what order their books had been published in, the musical term "circle of fifths" because I wanted a concise way to explain it, and the national suicide rate, because I wondered if it had gone down since anti-depressants have been introduced (it has; I corroborated the information elsewhere).

I use it almost daily for stuff like that.

[NYC Liberal]

33. I've found it's reliable for cut-and-dry stuff

Almanac-type stuff. Less reliable (and more "opinion" than "fact") when you get into current events or hot-button topics like, say, religion, abortion, high-profile politicians, etc.

[Atman]

39. So, basic information you should know anyway is reliable?

But the stuff that you might actually need to "research" is probably tainted.

Gotcha.

Get the Funk & Wagnall's set at the grocery store, $3.99 a volume with your purchase. You'll get reliable information -- and food.

[NYC Liberal]

44. No, not necessarily "basic information you should know anyway."

I said cut-and-dry stuff, and not, i.e., a highly controversial subject.

And no, I wouldn't suggest using Wikipedia as a direct source, but it can be helpful to give you a START on REAL research, in *real* sources. I sometimes have read a Wikipedia article on a topic that I was researching to give me kind of an overview to give me an idea of what to look for when I went to the library.

[Redneck Socialist]

49. No, for obscure, largely irrelevant to most folks, information...

it is reliable.

Say you want info on an obscure pop culture topic, chances are some obsessed fan of said pop culture topic has put info into wiki. If nothing else it gives you a place to start.

[blurp]

37. Because it has relatively accurate and up-to-date information

Seriously.

And you mostly get all points of view, citations and bibliography, unlike cable news or the newpaper, for example.

Oh, and you can see what they do with trouble-makers -- even those with popular television shows. :)

[Redneck Socialist]

47. Because for pop culture or other obscure topics it can be...

incredibly useful.

[Book Lover]

4. Thank you Stephen Colbert!

Excellent. Well done, sir.

[htuttle]

5. Ooooh, now I'm SURE they'll be put ON NOTICE!

[Fuzz]

14. No, they will be "Dead to him!"

:)

[CatWoman]

6. ROFL!!!

Steve is a REBEL!!

:rofl:

[ThoughtCriminal]

8. Release the Bears!

That'll learn him.

[Jara sang]

9. Wiki is the best source for finding obscure facts about the porn industry.

[cynatnite]

13. And goatse, too

Someone here at DU linked to it yesterday. I was educated in ways I was so not prepared for. ;)

[DefenseLawyer]

56. And everything you need to know about pro rasslin

Did you know Classy Freddie Blassie made a special appearance on an episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show called "The Twizzle"? Well now you do.

[DRoseDARs]

11. Good. Wikipedia has had this problem before...

...of people not playing by the rules and changing articles willy-nilly to suit their mood and whatever falsehoods they wished to post. Shame on Colbert for this little stunt, he should know better.

[itsrobert]

17. That's exactly his point

People can misrepresent facts. He's pointing out it's not a good reference and should not be relied on.

[Lisa]

20. I like how he drew parallels with the misrepresentations about Iraq

He pointed out that most Americans believe untruths about the Iraq War (WMDs found, Saddam involved in 9/11, etc.) -- so just because most people happen to support an explanation, it doesn't make it true. (Although I imagine it might be a criterion for "truthiness", perhaps?)

"Truth by consensus" actually becomes a plot point in the recent film "Manderlay" -- after people in a community decide to their official vote, based on a vote for what time they think it is.

[DRoseDARs]

24. But, as others have pointed out it can be reliable if you utilize other...

...sources too. He speaks as if by virtue of saying it that he and Stewart are a more reliable source of news than FOX News. Both media are subject to their participants' whims and interpretations. Wikipedia is no different than the regular media, so Colbert is calling the kettle black.

[Atman]

43. But why not just use "the other sources?"

I don't get it. If you can't rely on Wikipedia as a primary source because you know it tends to be full of crap, what benefit is it as a source at all? It sounds like reading Consumer Reports AFTER you've already purchased the washer and dryer, just to see if you made a good choice. Wikipedia is worthless if it is only good as a third or fourth reference source. Because at that point, if Wikipedia didn't agree with your other "legitimate" sources, which information would you ignore? Encyclopedia Britannica? Comptons? Funk & Wagnalls? Or Wikipedia? Jesus, people. Wikipedia is not to be used for anything but trivia and amusement.

[DRoseDARs]

50. Because relying on ANY single source would get you a lower grade...

...on any research paper. Wikipedia is to be used as a online reference. Standard old-world references can't be updated remotely as quickly nor can they adapt to current events as they happen. It's up to the reader to have the intelligence to know to double check facts and check multiple sources. Whining about new media is simply crying over spilt milk. Go pour yourself a new glass and move on with your life.

[Atman]

51. Go bite me and get on with yours.

What the hell makes you think I need to "get on with my life" just because I don't agree with some kids who think Wikipedia counts as a reference source? Wikipedia is part of the general dumbing down of America, IMHO. Using it as a reference source is just intellectually lazy. ALL the major encyclopedia publishers have versions online which are updated regularly. And none of them allow middle school dweebs surfing porn on the internet to edit and write their research material.

On edit: I do agree that Wikipedia tends to have accurate information on obscure topics. But then, how would I really know? They're obscure topics. If I were a teacher today, I'd deduct points on any report which indicated Wikipedia as a source.

[NuttyFluffers]

60. i disagree about obscure topics, too.

some of my big hobbies is anime, sub-culture music/fashion/expression, RPGs (such as WW meta-plots, as has already been mentioned), etc. and have found EVEN THOSE WRONG. remember, just because it is an obscure topic doesn't mean it's safe from opinion-meisters. in fact, because of the nature of obscure topics, you often find far more rabid and neurotic opinion-meisters. did you even know that there are rabid fans that are "haters" of everything even remotely considered "the competition" of their beloved? like pre-teen girls screaming over their favorite boy band, you have relatively socially isolated adults who obsessively fixate on their diversions as whole defining factors to their personality. imagine that often neurotic, incestuous, back-biting, spastic world of teen idol fan clubs mixed with people who can wield the power and money of adults (edit: this means computers, time, etc. for those don't get it).

no, wiki is an utter waste of time. and this is from someone who *knows* about their favorite obscure topics. a source like that is the very last thing on earth you want to give such fans. they're a lot more devious than they appear (y'know, the mousy one in the far off cubicle? the one that goes off when no one expects it?) and have a fanaticism that blows most others out of the water.

[Occulus]

53. It needs a peer review system

Or an official cross-checking system, or something of the kind. This could actually be a good project for a philanthropist or some such, if any still exist... Wikipedia could be fantastic if its information could in some way be considered irrefutable as fact.

As is, it's merely conveniently useful. Completely reliable?

No way. Not yet.

[fishwax]

27. welcome to DU!

:toast:

[JuniperLea]

18. It's a very stupid system!

I say KUDOS to Colbert for pointing out the folly!!

[JuniperLea]

12. Oh, right. Colbert can't be trusted

but the rest of us can be... how stupid is that?

As soon as I learned that anyone could change "facts" on that site, it was immediately useless to me.

Really dumb of them... all the way around.

[KamaAina]

15. We wouldn't tombstone Colbert, would we?

For all we know, he could be around. I did see a "Truthiness Inspector" the other day...

[ComerPerro]

19. their "information" on political issues is so biased

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

40. their lucianne goldberg entry has been whitewashed dozens of times

taking out her death threats to bill and public claims that he 'finger-fucked' chelsea

[McCamy Taylor]

21. Um...is Wikipedia SURE or is this one of the "open to debate" posts?

[Tesha]

22. "Stephencolbert" isn't blocked at this time. (NT)

[LSK]

23. ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

:rofl:

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

29. How can they be sure that "Stephencolbert" is Stephen Colbert? n/t

[JackNewtown]

31. The edit to the George Washington entry

The edit came at exactly the same time Colbert was saying he was going to edit out GW having slaves on his show.

Note: I am a big fan of Colbert ;)

[Kingshakabobo]

42. The show isn't live. nt

[JackNewtown]

52. Ah, good point

I can't believe I forgot that!

Whether it was the real Colbert or not, the joke is on wikipedia. Colbert can easily create another account, or better yet, simply direct his legion of fans to occassionally raid wikipedia. Look at the wikipedia entry on "latchkey", the latest in this battle, along with the "elephants" page. The former has been "semi-protected" so new users can't edit it and editing of the latter has been temporarily suspended. The Colbert Report page has also been "semi-protected."

Colbert is a genius at getting free publicity. :D

[Atman]

45. VERY INTERESTING...because Colbert's show is TAPED.

Hmmmmmmm. I wonder how he pulled that off?

[Occulus]

54. He looked at the airing schedule for the network

Come on. That would be the easy part.

[lectrobyte]

32. For a while, I didn't see the genuis in Stephen Colbert. I really didn't

think anything on TV could be subversive. I was wrong on both points. A tip of the hat to Stephen. A wag of the finger to Wikipedia, I can see the editors now, slightly huffy: Stephen Colbert, you are dead to us!

[AnnInLa]

34. I saw the genius, but at first, didn't think he was funny at all

He seemed so nervous and unsure of himself. Now, of course, I laugh out loud all during the show.

Did yall hear the late-great Giraldo diss Colbert and Stewart on the O'Reilly show? It's up at Media Matters. That means tonight is going to be great....hope they destroy Giraldo (who I mistakenly thought had died.)

[Occulus]

55. And you just KNOW he'll mention this suspension

edit: well, maybe not, since it's TAPED....


I too keep forgetting.

[peekaloo]

36. LOL!

:rofl:

[spacelady]

41. That is a well earned Stinking Badtch of Honor!!!!!! Yay Colbert's Balls!!

[Hatalles]

58. This thread wouldn't be complete without this classic toon.

[WernhamHogg]

62. LOL!!! n/t

[killbotfactory]

59. The articles on Wiki are only as good as their sources

sometimes there is a lot of good reference material.

[Evoman]

63. Wikepedia is bullshit

As a source to check unimportant topics that you don't really care about, it may be marginally useful. But if any of my students use wiki (I'm a university lab instructor/grad student), and I see it all the time, I automatically deduct marks. That shit may pass in high school, my friend, but in university, Wiki doesn't cut it, not by a long shot. I know profs who automatically fail reports that use Wiki as a primary or secondary source.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

64. Wikipedia on "Bullshit"

Bullshit (often abbreviated to BS) is a common expletive. Its meanings include unacceptable behavior or ludicrously false representations. As with many expletives, it can be used as an interjection (or in many other parts of speech) and can carry a wide variety of meanings.
As it contains the word "shit", the term is sometimes considered foul language, hence the use of the euphemistic abbreviations "bull" and "BS". However the term is prevalent in American English and, as with many words, the term is used in a variety countries some dating back to approximately the same era WWI. In British English, bollocks is the equivalent expletive. In Australian English, Bulldust is another equivalent but less popular expletive, In Australia the phenomenon Bulldusting does not exist whereas Bullshitting, Bullshit filters and a number of other Bullshit based derivatives do.
While bullshitting and bullshit can be used in a deprecating sense, the term 'bullshit artist' may imply a measure of respect for the skill required to bullshit effectively. It is by no means necessary to be inaccurate or wrong to be bullshitting, simply being overly pompous, presumptuous, or putting on excessively academic airs, may also be labelled in some cultural subgroups as bullshitting.




Seems pretty accurate to me.