digg

Join DiggAbout

Colbert Analyzes Wikipedia watch!

youtube.com — In his popular The Word segment, Stephen Colbert features Wikipedia, analyzing its Truthiness value and the application of Wikiality on ALL information. Mass vandalism on Wikipeadia ensued!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • porp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Hey, thanks for digging this youtube video. I appreciate it. Now let's spread the Truthiness of Wikiality.
  • bhound89, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16check the article on african elephants. its protected now, but you can see the edits in history
  • interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Wikipedia blocked Colbert in response. http://digg.com/television/Wikipedia_Administrator_Blocks_Stephen_Colbert_For_Incitement_of_Vandalism
    • cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As far as I can tell, they blocked him because his username reflected a well-known personality, and they're looking for confirmation. From the talk page:

      At Wikipedia, we appreciate your interest in the project, but your username matches a well-known public personality and has been blocked. To protect against impersonation, please provide confirmation of your identity to regain access to this account.

      It goes on to say that a user has left a voicemail with his staff to confirm.
  • tomoniki, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yes a wikigeek was quick to put protection on this article for now. Give this a few weeks to die down and someone will be fast in their to change the info to the Colbert Way
  • cambrown99, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Colbert is out of control! And I'm enjoying every single second of it!
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I cannot figure out which episode this is! When did this air?

    Nevermind, i'm retarded, i just realized today is monday.. not sunday.
  • patburke1980, on 10/12/2007, -34/+3why the ***** are there a million steven colbert articles on this site. he's funny but for god sake, there must be 50 of his videos uploaded everyday.
  • cambrown99, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15patburke1980 is a godless killing machine without a soul
  • steveng, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2I love Stephen Colbert, and it's great that he mentioned Wikipedia, but that clip made me slightly sick to my stomach; I can't use Wikipedia anymore.
    • MoofTheStoof, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I feel the same way. I loved Wickipedia but the truth either is or isn't - it can't be voted on. If it could you just know the freepers would be there to screw with the tally.
    • ddales, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you were using wiki for anything serious you were just asking for trouble anyway. Because of the probability of error in their articles, many college professors will kill your paper for references to the great wiki in the sky.
    • steevo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Wikipedia is as acurate as Britanica is
    • wordsnatcher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@steevo: The only difference is that my copy of Encyclopedia Brittanica didn't tell me that the elephant population tripled over the past 10 years for about three hours last night.
  • ChiKoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Gotta love that show.
  • cambrown99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Dear Time Magazine,
    I know it's only the beginning of August, but I think it's safe to go ahead and make Mr. Colbert your 'Man of the Year'. He's basically owned all of 2006.
  • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Wow, it's possible to vandalize Wikipedia en masse until it's reverted and blocks are put in place. Who wouldda thought!
    • interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Right, but most edits are being reverted very quickly, and semi-protction is up during the period that they're being vandalized, so the net effect is a little wasted time, that's about all.
    • UU7etc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Nope, there are a few random pages that are getting edited as well.
  • Yokai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thanks for posting this, you realise that you posting this just proves that digg is the same way, right?
  • ButchCivic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2It was pretty funny, but kids who use Wikipedia for writing research papers won't be laughing when they get their facts all f--ked up. And that's the word.
    • progman445, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Anyone who cites wikipedia on a paper deserves a failing grade.
    • allarise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, at my school - several of my professors have explicitly said it's off-limits. maybe in high school you can get away with citing it.
  • brushen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4He obviously had both windows set up to the relevant edit screens beforehand for the purposes of the show, with the text already changed, so that during the show all he would have to do is feign finger movements on the keyboard, and click submit for both windows.

    Here, if you look at his contributions list on Wikipedia, you'll see his contributions happened between one and two minutes apart, and during the time I would guess the show would usually be taped.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stephencolbert
  • snak3st, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant#Featured_on_Colbert_Report._Get_ready.21

    "Anybody who edits this page to reflect the "fact" that "the population of elephants has tripled" is a tool. That's it. You're a tool. Can't even be original when you vandalise something. That's just sad."
  • JiMiThInG, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Well they can not keep the page locked down forever. The Colbert Army of tools will spread the trusth about the trippling of the elephant population over the last three months. You truthyness hates can not stop us.
  • avester, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I don't always agree with colbert (actually I usually don't). but this is the first time I have actually thought of him as jerk. it's people who do what he just did that make there be any false facts in wikipedia. it is an honor system that has flaws but the majority of people have enouph respect for the thing that they don't just change things to get a lauph.
    • deepspaceant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9He was trying to make a point about wikipedia. (Satire)
    • willp2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes it was reckless, but as with much of what Colbert goes off about, he is making a point. Wikipedia is useful, but often full of messed up “facts”. They are “facts” simply because enough people say they are and not because they actually are true. He then demonstrates why and in a big ugly way.
    • npinski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Colbert isn't the jerk. It's the people that were actually dumb to go ahead and do exactly what he suggested are the stupid jerks.

      Has everyone forgotten that he's a........CHARACTER?? He's a right-wing blowhard ***** - why would you ACTUALLY do what his comedic character suggest!!??
  • tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Anyone else hope he does a piece on digg sometime in the near future???

    (minus the encouragement of vandalism, of course)
  • earl507, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Honestly people.. The account was created while the show aired and not while it was taped. Can you say imposter?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Stephencolbert

    • CydeWeys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ummm, the show airs at 23:30EST and the account was created at 18:03EST. I don't think you're converting timezones correctly ...
  • deuceace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A section on "wikiality" was in the article when I read it 30 minutes ago is gone... Personally I think it may be too early to add the wikiality section until we see if its influence extends beyond die hard members of the Colbert Nation (as truthiness did). That said, I believe that wikiality is a very good term to describe the constant mob rule editing that takes place on popular wikipedia articles.
  • allarise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Colbert, through the character of Stephen Colbert, is actually making a fairly valid point here. That "if enough people believe something" it becomes true. I believe as much as anyone that the self-correcting mission of the huge wikipedia user base will take care of inaccuracies, but "wikiality" is nevertheless, something that we all need to be aware of when using Wikipedia.
  • wjr110, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9325/elephantswiki3gk2.jpg

    Screen shot. I rechecked the website and that sentence is now taken away.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.