What is Digg?120 Comments
- verifex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+75Everything Stephen Colbert does is being tracked by Digg. I wonder what happens when he mentions digg on the show, will digg explode?
- CydeWeys, on 10/12/2007, -2/+66And yes, this was Stephen Colbert. The user account, User:Stephencolbert , made two edits during the timeslot in which the show is taped, hours before it actually aired. And then on the show he refers to those exact edits.
- afx1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49Forget wikipedia...who's protecting us from the bears??
- GinsuGuy585, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36So was it California's Canada, or Washington's Mexico?
He did address a crucial point though; if you control the idiots, you control the world. - Chairboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37Incorrect, the account was blocked as a possible/probable impersonator of Stephencolbert. The block had nothing to do with 'incitement'.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephencolbert - tawker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33Heh, yeah, it's a username block - though on afterthought I would have blocked for this vandalism spree... I only have so much bandwidth for the bots you know...
- samesong, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32Most people, such as yourself, can't see through the "fake news" aspect of this show and realize that he's MAKING A POINT through satire and comedy.
He satirized how encyclopedias are a thing of the past and how he only wished that "the entire body of human knowledge" worked through making opinion fact if enough people believe it. This is called SATIRE, and continues his satirical approach by changing a Wikipedia article, and his point is only proved by the fact that people actually logged on and made changes.
I think he's a genius for showing the downside of information that can be changed by anyone. - CydeWeys, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28And now it's on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHm0rGns4I - CydeWeys, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Here, let me make this a bit easier with a direct link to Stephencolbert's account:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephencolbert - PunkRampant, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27I can't wait for Stephen to to bash Tawker on tomorrow night's Report.
- Robertsk8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20or the tripling Elephant population in the last 6 months!
- reeder, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29Dude, Colbert is just the man! He exposes people's silly destructive behaviors like Financial firms do with greed. And they don't even have a clue! So subversive, so brilliant. He and Jon Stewart define a new breed of intellectual comedian, using Orwellian tricks against the system. Just ***** brilliant!!!
- cambrown99, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Steven Colbert is protecting us from the godless killing machines with no souls on a nightly basis.
- Tsujigiri, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23Poor Wikipedia. It's idealism at it's best in a world of cynicism at it's worst.
- violentvinyl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21"Anyone can logon and change it, and if enough people agree with it, it becomes truth"
Was he talking about Wikipedia... or Digg? - Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14During the show, in the commercial break, this showed up on Stephen Colbert's wiki article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert&oldid=66977046
at the end of the bit about The Colbert Report. Pretty funny, actually. - goat77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12RTFA, everybody. Tawker said himself that he blocked him and essentially locked down many pages because of what stephen colbert said on his show.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16"Did he go too far? Thats the question here."
It's only the question if you are so far up your own ass that you completely lack a sense of humor. - nogami, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Ya, blocking him was a bit silly (and probably incurred a fair bit of wrath from fans). I imagine they've pretty much guaranteed that elephant-related modifications will continue for months after this :P
They probably should've just left it alone for a while and reverted it a week or so from now when people had forgotten. Now it continues to be a target (ongoing joke). - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Now the dangers here are when people only get their news from these shows and trust it 100%."
It's impossible to get your news from these shows. They reference huge swathes of other news, so if you aren't getting your news from somewhere else, it's basically impossible to follow the show or get any of the jokes. - molochi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Hey! I heard that too!
- thirstyrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9To hell with wikipedia. If the TV says that the number of elephants in the world has tripled in the last six months, then it must be true.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Does no one recognize the point he was making? As someone said above, its satire! He was basically saying that at the same time its a great thing but easily destroyed.
Now, he didn't change it back as far as I know, which is bull of him. He should have removed his alterations himself. The fact that people went online to mess with it just proves that people can be idiots.
The reason he is popular is because he and Jon Stewart aren't far left or far right, they're realistic. Sure, they lean very far left, but the point is that they look at things logically. Now, throw in comedy and you have yourself a show that people call immature and stupid because it has comedy in it.
Now the dangers here are when people only get their news from these shows and trust it 100%. - BicBall, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15is he serious? how immature is blocking someone with a demand that he be let on the show? ok fine, block him, but don't be a douche bag.
"Now, if Stephen Colbert is out there, I%u2019m willing to appear on the show if you put me on report. I need one round trip airfare to New York for the taping but just give me a date and I%u2019ll go."
"blocked "Stephencolbert (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user.. until I get an email from colbertnation.com and get on the show!!)"
"blocked "Stephencolbert (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (please confirm ownership of this account per the email I sent before I unblock. That, and mention me on the show... (put me on notice!!!))" - ImpactedColon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yep, and this was satire. You missed it. Pity. It's funny how defensive people get when things they like are satirized, but are so gung ho then things they hate aren't.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13You can't change much on Digg. You barely have enough time to change your own comments let alone anything else.
- Aldrenean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Hooray, Uncyclopedia!!! :D
- fodder0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I thought America was a democracy! How dare Tawker block Stephen Colbert...
If he wants to say the population of elephants has tripled over the past twenty years, its his right as an AMERICAN. - JiMiThInG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9They can not keep those elephant related pages locked down forever. And as soon as they unlock the the Colbert Army will jump into action. Then the world will know the truth. The number of elephants in the world has tripled in the last six months.
- groo68, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Sort of reminds me of 1984 when history is imediatly altered and no one (shows they) noticed. Meaning that made the same point colbert made.
- DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I really have to hand it to Tawker for being on the ball. What no one seems to realize is how well wikipedia has adapted resistence to vandalism. For years people said "it couldn't be done" and "you can't get over the tragedy of the commons" ('tragedy of the commons' is actually a techincal economic term). Then Tawker proved them all wrong, and for all its faults, wikipedia is a vast store of first-rate knowledge, one I have found immensely useful. I personally have spent much time reading the techincal entries on computer science, software, logic, and mathematics.
- diggmaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Common guys. You all need a sense of humor as any other Colbert Hater does. Tawker was just responding to Colbert's joke, with a JOKE. IT'S A JOKE. If you guys really think that he was serious while demanding to be on his show, you've spent too much time inside. Get out there in the open and breath some fresh air.
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6But User:Stephancolbert posted before the show aired, so if it wasn't Colbert himself, it would have had to have been either someone on his staff, or someone in the studio audience. eg. it's pretty likely it's Colbert himself (or one of his nefarious agents)
- IAmAI, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11People at Wikipedia don't have to listen to other's criticisms and you don't have to use it. If you don't like it, make your own encyclopedia.
- xinpheld, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It seems obvious to me that this is not an attempt to destroy Wikipedia, but to protect it by raising the level of awareness by those who dedicate themselves to tending it that there are people, forces, out there that are or may be making an effort to revise history and/or tweak the truth webpage by webpage, in order to justify their ends and means. This may sound a bit conspiracy-theoryish, but the point is that this fledgling era of an open source knowledge base is a fragile one, and not every contributor has their best intentions put forward.
In a nutshell, any idiot can make their own truth on the Internets (after all, the tubes are accessible by anyone on tier one), and it's left up to those who care to make sure that it's actual truth, rather than truthiness.
Stay vigilant. - rolandog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wasn't his video more like a 'rhetorical challenge'? He expects people not to do it, but it'd be funny if someone did it.
- ramd3z, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Whether they think it's an impersonator or not doesn't make sense. Tawkers Blog starts "Yes, that’s right. I blocked the defender of truth, Stephen Colbert tonight on Wikipedia." That sounds like it was pointed directly at Stephen Colbert not an impersonator.
- corser, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Wikipedia was great when only the geeks knew about it. Now that everyone and their dog uses it, in things like their school reports ( those f'ing idiots, different rant ) It's being used a tool for promotion by politicians and companies. They edit the site to put themselves in the best light. And they probably don't catch everything.
- jcidiotashram, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@bennyboy371
actually i feel sorry for those who get their 100% news only from CNN or Fox. then they will never get the reality checks. here they compare all news shows and make fun of it. this will make you wonder, whether what you saw in fox news was really true or not. - pollardito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5all the Stephen Colbert fans will rush over to Digg and the webserver will collapse under the load
- JohnH, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I saw that episode last night. There is no way he could have actually loaded the page, found the relevant section, made the change and hit submit while on the air. I call shenanigans.
- samesong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Let's break down the word "parody", shall we?
"A satiric imitation of a work or of an author with the idea of ridiculing the author, his ideas, or work."
Never mind the fact that parody and satire heavily overlap. But hey, that's just semantics, which isn't the issue. Now let's break down your argument:
"Colbert isn't making a point he's just taking easy potshots."
Of course he's making a point, I don't see how anyone could have missed it. Wikipedia isn't perfect; thousands are clamoring to this online editable encyclopedia as and authentic reference when the fact is, literally _anyone_ could have written what other are citing as true fact.
"Just because Colbert can go on his show and make some egregiously wrong edits to Wikipedia pages doesn't invalidate the potential usefulness of something like Wikipedia"
He never stated it was useless. He simply pointed out the pitfalls of such a system and let the viewers decide for themselves whether or not using Wikipedia as reference should be done without at least thinking about where the information derived.
And for the record, I love Wikipedia. It's a great source to get retrieve information from quickly, and in conjunction with Google I can't think of a faster way to look up information. But Colbert is simply pointing out that information that can be submitted anonymously should at the _least) be double checked by a second source. - nazsco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4unencyclopedia is dead. it started as dubtle jokes. now it's plain, obvious, non-funny, lame jokes.
- McMultiverse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"were like falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater"
Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater: People die.
Changing the Elephant Wikipedia Entry: People ... whine.
Yeah, the exact same thing. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Eh, well done for blocking him, have a cookie, but what is with the shameless lame-ass self-publicization? I thought people moderated Wikipedia out of selflessness, not out of narcissism?
"Now, if Stephen Colbert is out there, I%u2019m willing to appear on the show if you put me on report. I need one round trip airfare to New York for the taping but just give me a date and I%u2019ll go."
I thought they put funny, interesting people on their show? - LemonLoaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Tawker was obviously joking on his blog, I don't understand why people take all of this so seriously
- psients, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's a good thing that Colbert is a joke-teller, because when his jokes aren't funny, he suddenly becomes nothing.
- Darmichar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Aww, the poor Wikipedians have been exposed on TV.
Now everyone knows how easy it is to alter the truth there.
Maybe people will stop referencing it as the be-all-end-all truth in discussions.
Colbert proved that just because it's on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it's true. - JiMiThInG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like the wikipedia and all but boy has this incident really brought out all the fanboys in force. If its of no real harm to the site then get over it. Its just a website..
- DiamondIce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What an ass. Even if he is just trying to be funny, even if he is just trying to make a point, I cannot condone the vandalism of Wiki. Colbert is undermining everything Wiki is trying to accomplish.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is