Stephen Colbert gets banned from WikiPedia

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: xtknight
He must have missed this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&c...oAKpksSoBg&sig2=rR9bRWPC5JhXqidCylSSsw

As long as Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it can NEVER be used as a reputable source.

 

[veggz]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Baked
He has no balls. I thought his show's all about politics. How about he make some comment about Israel. Oh wait, maybe he's afriad he might get nuked. :roll:

Dang dude.

As much as the pablum consuming masses would prefer not to believe it Colbert report and daily show are political satire.


They are not actually news sources. Even Jon Stewart used to say this in advertisements. Something to the effect of " Don't get your news from us, WE LIE!"

Doesn't change the fact so many people actually use Stewart and Colbert as news sources.

What are you implying? And who do you know that uses Stewart and Colbert as their sole news source?

 

[Ryan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFT4OfdnVpU&search=wikiality

 

[ViRGE]

I object to the names he's calling Oregon. We're the United States, Washington is Canada, and it's damn California that's Mexico!

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Amused
Yep, he is absolutely correct. Using wikipedia as a source is absurd.

Who used wikipedia as a reputable source that caused him to make fun of that person?

I wouldn't be surprised if college students used it as a source for papers.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Amused
Yep, he is absolutely correct. Using wikipedia as a source is absurd.

Who used wikipedia as a reputable source that caused him to make fun of that person?

I wouldn't be surprised if college students used it as a source for papers.

They use it enough so that all of my professors have a warning that Wikipedia will not be accepted as a valid source on any paper or assignment.

 

[Pastore]

For the record, "Wikiality" now redirects to his Wikipedia entry. Too funny.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: xtknight
He must have missed this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&c...oAKpksSoBg&sig2=rR9bRWPC5JhXqidCylSSsw

As long as Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it can NEVER be used as a reputable source.

so true, and anyone who gets on Colbert for pointing this out cannot accept reality.

 

[veggz]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Amused
Yep, he is absolutely correct. Using wikipedia as a source is absurd.

Who used wikipedia as a reputable source that caused him to make fun of that person?

I wouldn't be surprised if college students used it as a source for papers.

Of course we do.. we don't cite it but it is definitely useful as a preliminary source, especially if pressed for time. And what are the chances of someone subtly vandalizing an article on postmodernism?

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: Ausm
People can't handle his truthiness!



Ausm

The beginning of "truthiness"...OMFG, that was hilarious.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Amused
Yep, he is absolutely correct. Using wikipedia as a source is absurd.

Who used wikipedia as a reputable source that caused him to make fun of that person?

I wouldn't be surprised if college students used it as a source for papers.

Yeah, but I don't think even Wikipedia calls itself a "reputable source".

Wikipedia's take is: "Here is some information. It's written in a formal manner and with a very high probability, it is true. We could be a very useful tool for a lot of people. I know we're not a reputable source, but here it is for your edification regardless."

 

[xtknight]

Many many times there are links to official sources in the Wiki article. No book or encylopedia is guaranteed to be accurate either. Is it news to anybody? It's amazing that it's as accurate as it is, especially due to people who try to destroy it for unknown reasons. There are actually people who contribute good and valuable stuff there. Shocking isn't it? I feel sorry for Wikipedia having to put up with these morons. It would be funny if it was a one-time occurence but it happens everyday and they just have to clean out more detritus.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: veggz

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Amused
Yep, he is absolutely correct. Using wikipedia as a source is absurd.

Who used wikipedia as a reputable source that caused him to make fun of that person?

I wouldn't be surprised if college students used it as a source for papers.

Of course we do.. we don't cite it but it is definitely useful as a preliminary source, especially if pressed for time. And what are the chances of someone subtly vandalizing an article on postmodernism?

Using it as a source to find other sources is fine, and it's something I would have done if wikipedia was big when I was in college. But if you're taking ideas out of wikipedia and putting them in your paper without a citaiton, that's plagiarism.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: veggz

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Amused
Yep, he is absolutely correct. Using wikipedia as a source is absurd.

Who used wikipedia as a reputable source that caused him to make fun of that person?

I wouldn't be surprised if college students used it as a source for papers.

Of course we do.. we don't cite it but it is definitely useful as a preliminary source, especially if pressed for time. And what are the chances of someone subtly vandalizing an article on postmodernism?

Using it as a source to find other sources is fine, and it's something I would have done if wikipedia was big when I was in college. But if you're taking ideas out of wikipedia and putting them in your paper without a citaiton, that's plagiarism.

:evil: In a course my freshman year, the Professor told us all papers were to be submitted via e-mail. He also said that Wikipedia would not be acceptable as a source.

Throughout the course, 2-3 kids were referred to the judicial board for plagiarism. The source they were using uncited? Wikipedia.

You think that if a Professor tells you to submit papers electronically (red flag right there; he's more than likely going to be using programs that detect plagiarism on them) AND that you should not use Wikipedia (2nd red flag, he probably is going to be checking your paper against Wikipedia when grading it), that people would have the common sense not to try it.

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
lol, but it's soooooooo easy for school projects when the teacher is a clueless dip.

 

[veggz]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: veggz

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Amused
Yep, he is absolutely correct. Using wikipedia as a source is absurd.

Who used wikipedia as a reputable source that caused him to make fun of that person?

I wouldn't be surprised if college students used it as a source for papers.

Of course we do.. we don't cite it but it is definitely useful as a preliminary source, especially if pressed for time. And what are the chances of someone subtly vandalizing an article on postmodernism?

Using it as a source to find other sources is fine, and it's something I would have done if wikipedia was big when I was in college. But if you're taking ideas out of wikipedia and putting them in your paper without a citaiton, that's plagiarism.

:evil: In a course my freshman year, the Professor told us all papers were to be submitted via e-mail. He also said that Wikipedia would not be acceptable as a source.

Throughout the course, 2-3 kids were referred to the judicial board for plagiarism. The source they were using uncited? Wikipedia.

You think that if a Professor tells you to submit papers electronically (red flag right there; he's more than likely going to be using programs that detect plagiarism on them) AND that you should not use Wikipedia (2nd red flag, he probably is going to be checking your paper against Wikipedia when grading it), that people would have the common sense not to try it.

Haha, I don't see how people are able to justify plagiarizism to themselves, especially in a university environment, where ideas are treated as currency. One incident at most schools and it's an automatic year's suspension at least (and an F in the course).

 

[Phokus]

Stephen COlbert: Great comedian or greatest comedian?

 

[Praxis1452]

Technical information is often an easy way to get it. How many sites do you have that has a guide for X drug or all the different chemicals. I mean it's just a walkthrough but is very helpful.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: veggz

Haha, I don't see how people are able to justify plagiarizism to themselves, especially in a university environment, where ideas are treated as currency. One incident at most schools and it's an automatic year's suspension at least (and an F in the course).

Not just an F here, but an XF on your transcript, which means you were failed due to Academic Dishonesty.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: xtknight
He must have missed this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&c...oAKpksSoBg&sig2=rR9bRWPC5JhXqidCylSSsw

As long as Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it can NEVER be used as a reputable source.

Many artices on Wiki use confirmed/reputable sources, and cite them as well.

Edit: Anyone who actually cites Wikipedia as a source on a paper is retarded. I still think Wikipedia is useful for getting a quick understanding about a subject, finding more links that are related to that subject, or even finding links to other areas that may benefit ones research.

It should never be used as a "source" though.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Baked
He has no balls. I thought his show's all about politics. How about he make some comment about Israel. Oh wait, maybe he's afriad he might get nuked. :roll:

Dang dude.

As much as the pablum consuming masses would prefer not to believe it Colbert report and daily show are political satire.


They are not actually news sources. Even Jon Stewart used to say this in advertisements. Something to the effect of " Don't get your news from us, WE LIE!"

Yeah, using Comedy Central as a reputable news source is absurd

 

[imported_KuJaX]

Watched it on youtube, pretty good stuff.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Stephen Colbert: Great comedian or greatest comedian?

:thumbsup:

 

[daniel1113]

Wait... doesn't this pretty much prove that Wikipedia does work? I wish I had a link to some of the studies, but I am pretty sure there have been multiple conducted that showed Wikipedia to be more factual than comparative resources like Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
I object to the names he's calling Oregon. We're the United States, Washington is Canada, and it's damn California that's Mexico!

Well, you know what you have to do then...