Stephen Colbert Wikipedia Prank Backfires 701
Vicissidude writes "The champion of 'truthiness' couldn't resist making fun of a website where facts, it seems, are endlessly malleable. But after making fun of Wikipedia on Monday night's "Colbert Report," Colbert learned some hard truths about Wikipedia's strength in resisting vandalism. Here's how the segment started: 'Colbert logs on to the Wikipedia article about his show to find out whether he usually refers to Oregon as "California's Canada or Washington's Mexico." Upon learning that he has referred to Oregon as both, he demonstrates how easy it is to disregard both references and put in a completely new one (Oregon is Idaho's Portugal), declaring it "the opinion I've always held, you can look it up."' Colbert then called on users to go to the site and falsify the entry on elephants. But Wikipedia's volunteer administrators were among those watching Colbert, and they responded swiftly to correct the entry, block further mischievous editing, and ban user StephenColbert from the website."
Always Hilarious (Score:5, Informative)
Censorship? (Score:1, Informative)
too late (Score:2, Informative)
He's not banned (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, all the blocks put on his account were due to the inability to confirm that this account actually belonged to Stephen Colbert since creating an account with a public figure's name if you are not the public figure is against wikipedia policy. His account was not blocked for vandalism.
Re:Backfires? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is why... (Score:3, Informative)
"In many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer Eastern Rim of the Galaxy, the Hitch Hiker's Guide has already supplanted the great Encyclopedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects. First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words Don't Panic inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover."
Re:Always Hilarious (Score:5, Informative)
The Six Sins of the Wikipedia (Score:3, Informative)
Sam Vaknin had an interesting article The Six Sins of the Wikipedia [americanchronicle.com] pointing out the problems with the Wikipedia system. I enjoy using Wikipedia but I am wary of using it has some sort of gospel or authority. The contributers are anonymous and that lack of transparency does make it sort of a problem for me. Below the article.
Sam Vaknin July 2, 2006
It is a question of time before the Wikipedia self-destructs and implodes. It poses such low barriers to entry (anyone can edit any number of its articles) that it is already attracting masses of teenagers as "contributors" and "editors", not to mention the less savory flotsam and jetsam of cyber-life. People who are regularly excluded or at least moderated in every other Internet community are welcomed, no questions asked, by this wannabe self-styled "encyclopedia"
Six cardinal (and, in the long-term, deadly) sins plague this online venture. What unites and underlies all its deficiencies is simple: Wikipedia dissembles about what it is and how it operates. It is a self-righteous confabulation and its success in deceiving the many attests not only to the gullibility of the vast majority of Netizens but to the PR savvy of its sleek and slick operators.
1. The Wikipedia is opaque and encourages recklessness
The overwhelming majority of contributors to and editors of the Wikipedia remain anonymous throughout the process. Anyone can register and members' screen-names (handles) mean nothing and lead nowhere. Thus, no one is forced to take responsibility for what he or she adds to the "encyclopedia" or subtracts from it. This amounts to an impenetrable smokescreen: identities can rarely be established and evading the legal consequences of one's actions or omissions is easy.
Everything in the Wikipedia can be and frequently is edited, re-written and erased and this includes the talk pages and even, to my utter amazement, the history pages! In other words, one cannot gain an impartial view of the editorial process by sifting through the talk and history pages of articles (most of which are typically monopolized by fiercely territorial "editors"). History, not unlike in certain authoritarian regimes, is being constantly re-jigged on the Wikipedia!
2. The Wikipedia is anarchic, not democratic
The Wikipedia is not an experiment in online democracy, but a form of pernicious anarchy. It espouses two misconceptions: (a) That chaos can and does lead to the generation of artifacts with lasting value and (b) That knowledge is an emergent, mass phenomenon. But The Wikipedia is not conducive to the unfettered exchange of information and opinion that is a prerequisite to both (a) and (b). It is a war zone where many fear to tread. the Wikipedia is a negative filter (see the next point).
3. The Might is Right Editorial Principle
Lacking quality control by design, the Wikipedia rewards quantity. The more one posts and interacts with others, the higher one's status, both informal and official. In the Wikipedia planet, authority is a function of the number of edits, no matter how frivolous. The more aggressive (even violent) a member is; the more prone to flame, bully, and harass; the more inclined to form coalitions with like-minded trolls; the less of a life he or she has outside the Wikipedia, the more they are likely to end up being administrators.
The result is erratic editing. Many entries are completely re-written (not to say vandalized) with the arrival of new kids on the Wikipedia block. Contrary to advertently-fostered impressions, the Wikipedia is not a cumulative process. Its text goes through dizzyingly rapid and oft-repeated cycles of destruction
Re:Always Hilarious (Score:1, Informative)
[for those that don't know, Jon Stewart is the host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, a nightly news spoof on the day's events. Steven Colbert used to work on The Daily Show before getting his own show, The Colbert Report, which is a spoof on The O'Rielly News Hour. One of the regular bits that Steward does on The Daily Show is to crack jokes about organizations that have a lot of words in their names and always abbreviate them down into NAMBLA. One can easily see Steven Colbert doing a regular bit where he references questionable news sources and always says Wikipedia under his breath. Thus providing an ongoing way of discrediting Wikipedia (like NAMBLA). all the Wikipedia people need to do is make enough controversy, like banning him (oooow).]
Re:Doesn't Refute His Point (Score:5, Informative)
Even if 1,000 skinheads do get together and try to "vote" to change the article on The Holocaust, it won't do anything. We'd simply protect the article and block the lot of them. Wikipedia is not a democracy (this is actually one of our policies), and we administrators have lots of discretion to simply get rid of obviously false or stupid entries. Go check out our articles on Evolution [wikipedia.org] or Global warming [wikipedia.org]; I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
There's this misconception out there that if you get enough people to come edit you can make Wikipedia say anything you want by the sheer sake of having numbers on your side. This is simply not true.
Re:Wiki works, but it shouldn't be the only 'Sourc (Score:2, Informative)
Short answer: Too many people.
I've read through tons college level papers that cite wikipedia as a source for factual information. That is scary.
Re:Wiki works, but it shouldn't be the only 'Sourc (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah. I was pretty bummed when it occurred to me during my under graduate years that all of my "research" essentially amounted to consolidating and regurgitating other peoples research. (And, in some cases, THEIR consolidation and regurgitation.)
I never really proved anything.
------------
Clever trolls are master baiters of the worst kind.
Re:Always Hilarious (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Resisting Vandalism? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Slashmeme error alert! (Score:1, Informative)
Torrent for the show's video (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wiki works, but it shouldn't be the only 'Sourc (Score:4, Informative)
Wikipedia is a bad resource for a number of reasons, the least of which being its somewhat dubious provenance: it is never a primary source, at best a secondary source, and most often a tertiary source, neither of which are incredibly accurate or paint a very good picture of ths subject.
Wikipedia can be a good resource for beginning your research, however. If the article is any good, it will document its sources, which you can then look up and use yourself. The source material usually has more information than is posted on Wikipedia, which might also be useful to your topic.
Re:How to fight vandalism (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, his insertions of false material into those articles were both noticed and reverted quickly, one in under three minutes and the other in under seven minutes. This was still long before the show went live, and thus before it was pointed out to anyone.
Re:Always Hilarious (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's the Subtle Edits that are the Problem... (Score:5, Informative)
Conrad Burns, senator for Montana. [wikipedia.org]
Over the last several months, quotes of his which are extremely offensive to many people have been slowly dissapearing from his Wikipedia page. They're still on WikiQuote though.
I would change the wiki entry so that those are back in there, because I feel that they are important topics for someone who is running for reelction in a few months. I'm just not familiar enough with how to edit Wikipedia.
Re:One Trick pony (Score:3, Informative)
Everytime the Daily Show displays an indecision2006, the brink of the brink of war, a mess-o-potamia, etc they are making funny of news reporting, big business, talking points, and the polical administration.
How is that backfiring? (Score:3, Informative)
How is that backfiring? Yes, you can protect certain Wikipedia pages from vandalism -- at least temporarily -- by blocking modifications to them. And only people in power can choose to do that. Some areas of Wikipedia have gotten so bad that this needs to be done routinely.
So how does this not demonstrate that there is something fundamentally silly about having it be a collaborative free-for-all? The only way you can prevent abuse effectively is by making it non-collaborative by blocking edits and a non-free-for-all since only admins can call for such blocks. Quite frankly, it demonstrates the inherent nonsensical nature of Wikipedia quite nicely. And we're not getting into the area of libel, and the lack of responsibility therein ...
Not familiar enough? (Score:2, Informative)
MOD Parent Down (Score:4, Informative)
Wikipedia is not a democracy [wikipedia.org]. Evidence-based, rational discussion leading to consensus [wikipedia.org], not voting, is the primary method by which article content is determined.
Re:One Trick pony (Score:2, Informative)
MIssed the point (Score:2, Informative)
Wikipedia was simply used as a pop-culture vehicle with which his audience could identify.