Stephen Colbert gets banned from Wikipedia
 

YouTube clip from the show is here.


On Monday's episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert showed the world how easy it is to make something true just by editing its page on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the dork moderators at the site banned him.

Sad thing is, it was the perfect illustration of the accuracy of Wikipedia.

ROFLLLLLL.

Colbert :heart:

LOL, I think Colbert is a genius in the way he presents things.

He's a first amendment martyr.

Thanks to him, I'll never know that important fact about the elephant's penis...

That's the one thing that gets me everytime someone links to wikipedia or quotes wikipedia to prove their argument, bloody pointless. It like most of the interne is un-moderated crap - yes wiki have mods, but unless they know everything, how are they going to correct me if i edit the West Coast eagles page to say they won the F.A cup in 1968.

actually I might do that

brb

This came up on another board, where someone posted this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=61462092

It took more than two weeks just to remove:

"EMOS ARE FAGS







STUPID EMO MUSIC
ITS JUST PEOPLE SCREAMING

FUCKERS"

How the fuck can they be expected to be accurate, if they can't even take slurs out?

"Emo really means stupid whiny kids who can't accept that life is full of hardships and that everyone goes through crap. Toughen up"

Well, if they don't want people to go around fucking up Wikipedia, they shouldn't make it so easy to put anything on there.

I edited the Bolivia page the other day, it was edited back and I was warned within 2 hours :o

Colbert is deaf in his right ear, as he has no ear drum in it. "I always wanted to be a marine biologist...but then I had this ear problem. I have no ear drum. (Flicks his ear.) So I had this operation at the Medical University when I was a kid. Now I can't get my head wet. I mean, I can, but I can't really scuba dive or anything like that. So that killed my marine biology hopes."[8] He once joked to The New Yorker that "I had this weird tumor as a kid, and they scooped it out with a melon baller."[24]

From Wikipedia

Wiki is good, but full of people who think that whatever they put on there is right and to hell with what anyone else thinks. The rights issues of Sailor Moon has been argued on there for months, and this one guy keeps trying to point out that no one should be allowed to take him up on what he thinks is true (even though there is no citations to any of the shit he has posted about anything, either).

Not to mention the number of people who turn pages into an op-ed piece.

What I love is when someone writes something like that, and then you suddenly get a "citation needed" next to it.

:rofl:

"the neutrality of this article is in question."

Does Wikipedia have people that created some of the articles? First of all, if the site started with absolutely nothing it would still be that, but second, a lot of those articles aren't just random people with time on their hands. If nothing else, I would think some PR people must be updating. The areas that surprise me the most are the politicians, the sports players and the descriptions of TV shows. They are so consise and up to date, I can't imagine there isn't somebody being paid to do that.

IT started off as essentially a project by one guy.

And yes, political groups and promotion reps do get involved, though they're technically not supposed to. It's not like anyone can tell if you're really promoting your own agenda.