Talk:The Colbert Report/Wikiality

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. This is an archive of a previous discussion page. Please do not edit it. For further discussion on this topic, please do so at the article's talk main page. It was last substantively updated 21 December 2006.

Wikipedia featured on Colbert Report!

Hahaha. Colbert is featuring wikipedia on his show. It's airing now. dposse 03:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Colbert is a fellow wikipedian...--Automail 03:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC) If he really did just update the oregon article, can't we techinically see his IP adress or wiki account?--Automail 03:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching the CR, and in his opening statement he mentioned he would be doing something about wikipedia, or something. Should the article be edited to mention this? GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, someone beat me to it :)... GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I'm watching that right now. I just couldn't help myself but contribute. Wikipedia is the embodiment of truthiness.--Automail 03:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woot. I wonder what he will say in the future (12 minutes from now.) --mitrebox 03:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something hilarious! lol--Automail 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orogon is Idaho's Protugal. It's true hes always said that. Always. --mitrebox 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're tonights word!! dposse 03:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's going to make the elephant article? us wikians? Maybe our reality will be to much for wiki... go minions of colbert!--Automail 03:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has colbert actually tried to change this page like he pretended to on tonight's show? --Jacobking 03:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the busy server message thing - think it has something to do with tonight's episode? It'd be cool if he actually edited the page. Stephen, if you're out there, post! Ouuplas 03:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Colbert, you ratings monster you! Post! With all us wikipedians going into a frenzy, he must be getting tons of ratings.--Automail 04:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I serious doubt that they would do that.. the show is 100% ironic, and sarcastic, although that'd be funny, they probably wouldn't. ----

I'd put my money on an audience member. The edit's timestamp is 7:30 Eastern, and IIRC, the show is taped in NYC, so that might be a little bit late for the comedian or someone working for the show to have done it during taping. If you were an intrepid audience member with a laptop, WiFi, and some time on your hands, wouldn't you be tempted to slide that edit in? 69.214.88.102 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I also keep getting error messages. Since I'm newly registered user, I can't edit the page, but will someone clean up the mess people just made? There are like three different mentions of tonight's show in a row when it should be conglomorated into one entry. haku8645 03:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, who is going to make an article for Wikiality DidYouLoseASock 03:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also am having a hard time editing the article. Maybe they are trying to block the editing of that article? Lunchboxisdead 1 August 2006

I think Steven would call Cyde (the user who reverted this article to yesterdays version) anti democratic when it comes to infromation. --mitrebox 04:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahahahahahaha, Colbert is causing complete chaos on wikipedia! He's a comedic genius. dposse 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha "The Wikimedia Foundation system administrator who locked the database offered this explanation: 'Database server overloaded '" Tanman 04:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Stephen Colbert, you single-handedly crippled Wikipedia in a few minutes. I guess the character is going to get a huge ego trip tomorrow.--Gdo01 04:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who didn't watch it you can see it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHm0rGns4I -- nobody 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this event should get some notoriety. He did just disable wikipedia for a few minutes.--Gdo01 04:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crippling websites by mentioning them on tv isn't a new thing. Leo Laporte used to do it all the time on his TechTv shows. However, this was on a much larger scale since TechTv was never as main stream as Comedy Central. I bet that Colbert can crash any website that he wants to, just by mentioning it. dposse 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think Stephen and the Report dislike this whole site?

I know it'll probably get dismissed as light-hearted ribbing, but I get the feeling something really sticks in Stephens craw about the site, or some of his writers. Like they don't think the good outweighs the bad.

I don't really know, stephen's black friend, but I hope he does like some aspects of wiki. I think wikipedia has a great system of checks and balances.--Automail 03:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I just assumed he thought it was the perfect vehicle for the spread of truthy propaganda. A strong enough leader can bend his followers to distort reality. Perfect experiment in controlling the masses!

Yeah, I don't see any mysterious edits in the elephant article about the population tripling yet. But I also got the feeling there may have been more to it than "light-hearted ribbing". I'd like to think though that it was just a warning to users to be careful what they beleive.

The edits have appeared and been erased and admins have protected the page to prevent more vandalism

But there has been no vandalism. --mitrebox 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clearly, this is more than a light hearted ribbing. tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth. going by the numbers he (Colbert) gave in reference to the american populous' preception of Iraq's WMD's this becomes evident. (yes, i'm going by unverified numbers disseminated by Colbert. yes, i understand the irony.) paranoid as it may sound, the potential for Orwellian styled tampering (abuse) of this site by this administration or any entity is great.--driprock

Yeah just don't sign your commnets so Bush can't findout who you are. (Crackpot Alert, Crackpot Alert) --mitrebox 04:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it it seems like it was an experiment in a few ways. How many times has traditional media mobilized a web based attack on a large scale? Probably a test of Wikipedia's security against such an attack and how truthiness (i.e. we would rather believe that the elephant population has recently tripled than the more likely truth) is countered in a democratic information database. Also he just wants to stir up harmless trouble for fodder on his next show. Hehe.

Y'all, this is not a message board. Let's get back to discussing improving the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history of the african elephant and elephant page. There obviously have been blantant edits to the site. Stephen Colbert craftfully and skillfully played this out to cause trouble for Wikipedia. This should not be tolerated, as much of a "jester" as Stephen Colbert is. Still, it's a good act, but it has ruined a good portion of tonights servers and content. --John Cho 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was one of the names Colbert mentioned as his Jewish Lawyers Jon Stewarts maiden name?

It was a little fast so I only heard it briefly on television, if someone has it on video, check if the last name of one of those lawyers is Stewarts original last name, Leibowitz. Thanks xAXISx 03:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was taping it for what I thought was going to be a joke interview. The first name of the first lawyer was Leibowitz.

Traditionally females (maiden) have maiden names, not guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiality

Sure its currently nn, but its hours old. Give'er a chance. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could see it becoming another truthiness quite easily. Please correct me if I am incorrect, but I am inferring the general definition of 'wikiality' as 'the popular or majority view of a reality becoming the actual reality.' Boy, I'm sure it could be worded much better than that, but not by me at 1:20 in the morning... User:Dragonstrider 06:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but not by far. As the term only affect the wikipedia community at this moment. However, if the edit war is hot enough to get into blogs and media, it might well be significant enough to enter the "truthiness" stardom - sort of self-fulfilling prophecy if you will. --Samic 06:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare. --Cyde↔Weys 13:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

This page is not semi-protected as it claims, it has full protection. Since I am neither a anon or new editor I should be able to edit if this page is semi-protected. Either put the right tag on, or unprotect it. Would be nice to have administrators who know what they are doing... --Assawyer 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it's bouncing back and forth between unprotected, semi-protected and fully protected Tanman 04:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Wikipedia is unravelling at the mouse cord... --Assawyer 04:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also mention that Colbert inadvertantly caused vandalism on the article on Wikipedia about elephants (I think, after I saw the Report on July 31 2006 the article on elephants had been closed to full public editing due to vandalism, I could definitely be wrong)

Word Segment

Stephen Colbert does the Word segment on every show. There is nothing of imporance on his Word segment which included references to Wikipedia because that is only notable to Wikipedia and no where else and since it would not be put in any other encyclopedia, it should not be put in Wikipedia.

The fact that a Word segment is done on every show is an excellent argument for not including every segment in the article. But it is not a good reason why mention of this particular Word should be left out. Wikipedia is not every other encyclopedia and because of its existence in the cyber sphere can provide more information than ordinary encyclopedias. We can be more colorful than dry, and we shouldn't be afraid to show ourselves being made fun of in an entertainment-related article. If you ask me, it seems as if for the sole purpose of negating Colbert's criticism, we have rolled ourselves up into a self-important huff to make ourselves look more stuffy, and along with that – we hope – credible. --Omaryak 01:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Including a lot of information on it would only make wikipedia look more foolish than Stephen Colbert made it look. 75.3.60.48 04:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But wikipedia is foolish. --mitrebox 04:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion(s) noted. Here's another. Wikipedia and Colbert are notable and that specific segment stands a fair chance of becoming notable because of that dynamic. It also falls within the meme of Truthiness, of stating/changing facts you (and your associates) wish to be true. So can be considered an extention of the already mentioned Truthiness. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wikiality info fits better under Trivia than under Influence on English - 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is foolish. The administrators call anything that they don't like "vandalism" and they delete it. Maybe they are doing the right thing in their own Wikiality.

From some editor's page:

WikiDefcon

WikiDefcon 1: Overwhelming degree of vandalism or extremely dangerous incitement. Drastic measures (e.g. database lockdown) recommended.

[edit]

Dangerous levels of IP vandalism to Elephant-related articles. Scienceman123 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic.

I also don't think the term "Wikiality" belongs in the Influence on the English language section. As the term was only coined today, about 2 hours ago, it is impossible to foresee it's impact on the English language. --OPaul 06:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have an official vote, to see how people feel.

Should Wikiality be mentioned on the Colbert Page, given the long discussions that have been had

Agree Ariginal

The Colbert Mueseum

In the Colbert Report article i see no mention of his museum. Also i would like to know what happened in the third and final installment. --User:Crazy Chainsaw