Stephen Colbert gets banned from WikiPedia

[rocadelpunk]

even if only one person could edit wikipedia it still wouldn't be useful as a source.

People need to wiki vetting : P

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: 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...

Nope! The Oregon entry has been locked too...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: 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...

Nope! The Oregon entry has been locked too...

Oh. You could do it the long way around, change the Washington and California entry to reflect your Wikiality!

 

[chambersc]

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:

With every post, you continue to amaze me.

 

[msparish]

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:

He actually had a thing where he was playing a game (with Mel Gibson, Iran's President, etc.) about zionist plots earlier in that same episode. Pretty funny.

 

[b0mbrman]

Heh...California is locked but Washington is still up for grabs! Link

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: msparish

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:

He actually had a thing where he was playing a game (with Mel Gibson, Iran's President, etc.) about zionist plots earlier in that same episode. Pretty funny.

His book club.

 

[SagaLore]

The whole point of Wikipedia is for people to volunteer their time and knowledge to build an easy to use reference.

Its not meant to replace all the encyclopedias out there.

 

[SophalotJack]

I fvcking love Colbert.

I have this friend that thinks he knows stuff on any subject when we debate on arguments. He feels this way because he goes to fvcking wiki on his laptop while we are debating something.... and he believes everything on that site.

I am totally making him watch this Colbert clip.

Thanks OP

 

[chuckywang]

Colbert has a good point though. If enough people believe something, it is widely regarded as "fact." Wikipedia is simply a very sharp and concrete example of this.

Take a look back at this thread posted by Amused, for example: Link.

 

[jagec]

Wikipedia is a good reminder that every other bit of information on the planet is ALSO written by some random yokel you've never met. Some books and ideas may be more authoritative than others, but there is no such thing as a 100% authoritative source. Why mock wikipedia? All we have to do is go back a few decades to see how wrong the authoritative books of that day were...

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: lokiju
You just have to take it with a grain of salt with sites like wikipedia and snopes.

At least those are more trustworthy than Fox News

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: jagec
Wikipedia is a good reminder that every other bit of information on the planet is ALSO written by some random yokel you've never met. Some books and ideas may be more authoritative than others, but there is no such thing as a 100% authoritative source. Why mock wikipedia? All we have to do is go back a few decades to see how wrong the authoritative books of that day were...

Dispute my math textbook. I wanna see you try that.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: jagec
Wikipedia is a good reminder that every other bit of information on the planet is ALSO written by some random yokel you've never met. Some books and ideas may be more authoritative than others, but there is no such thing as a 100% authoritative source. Why mock wikipedia? All we have to do is go back a few decades to see how wrong the authoritative books of that day were...

Dispute my math textbook. I wanna see you try that.

In general, I think I have found more errors in math textbooks than any other books.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: lokiju
You just have to take it with a grain of salt with sites like wikipedia and snopes.

exactly. its a source. its up to you how much faith you put in it (i.e. wikipedia is a good starting point to learn about something)

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: purbeast0
he has a point though. people already use wikipedia as a reputal resource when in fact it could have been created from a 10 year old who knows nothing on the subject.

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: jagec
Wikipedia is a good reminder that every other bit of information on the planet is ALSO written by some random yokel you've never met. Some books and ideas may be more authoritative than others, but there is no such thing as a 100% authoritative source. Why mock wikipedia? All we have to do is go back a few decades to see how wrong the authoritative books of that day were...

Dispute my math textbook. I wanna see you try that.

In general, I think I have found more errors in math textbooks than any other books.

Typos or flat out errors?

 

[Babbles]

I just saw the comment made by the Wikipedia admin person who locked Stephen Colbert's account:

(please confirm ownership of this account per the email I sent before I unblock. That, and mention me on the show... (put me on notice!!!))

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit...e=block&user=&page=User:Stephencolbert

Lame attention whore.

 

[DaiShan]

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

Fixed. Many of the articles are spot on with accurate scientific facts, however I wouldn't (nor would my professors allow me to) use Wikipedia as my only source of facts.The current policy in my department is that Wikipedia may be used only as a stepping stone to generate ideas.

 

[BD2003]

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:

I don't think anyone in the past 5 years has clowned the president any worse, directly to his face. Not on TV, but literally to his face. Except for bush himself, perhaps.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

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

Fixed. Many of the articles are spot on with accurate scientific facts, however I wouldn't (nor would my professors allow me to) use Wikipedia as my only source of facts.The current policy in my department is that Wikipedia may be used only as a stepping stone to generate ideas.

My girlfriend sometimes takes on a role as an adjunct professor at the university as she finishes up her PhD and they have had many problems with students relying entirely too much on Wikipedia.

There are many good Wikipedia articles and I read Wikipedia quite often for personal entertainment, but I have run across many entries in my field that are very poorly written and even at times incorrect.
When people are unfamiliar with a topic and find it on Wikipedia, the danger is that they have no clue if it is indeed accurate or not. In regards to my scientific discipline I know what is "right" and "wrong" simply because that is what I do for a living. If a layperson saw the same article they would have no clue if it was correct or not. Needless to say some scientific "facts" on Wikipedia are more fiction than fact.

As a professional scientist, I would in no way ever, ever, ever use Wikipedia as any source of anything.

 

[eits]

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:

i agree. stephen colbert has no balls at all. he doesn't ever do anything ballsy. it'd be great if he could go to the white house correspondant's dinner or something and completely humiliate bush and his followers or something.... instead, he makes a tv show about wikipedia. what a guy with no balls at all....

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Babbles
My girlfriend sometimes takes on a role as an adjunct professor at the university as she finishes up her PhD and they have had many problems with students relying entirely too much on Wikipedia.

There are many good Wikipedia articles and I read Wikipedia quite often for personal entertainment, but I have run across many entries in my field that are very poorly written and even at times incorrect.
When people are unfamiliar with a topic and find it on Wikipedia, the danger is that they have no clue if it is indeed accurate or not. In regards to my scientific discipline I know what is "right" and "wrong" simply because that is what I do for a living. If a layperson saw the same article they would have no clue if it was correct or not. Needless to say some scientific "facts" on Wikipedia are more fiction than fact.

As a professional scientist, I would in no way ever, ever, ever use Wikipedia as any source of anything.

Did you correct the ones you found with issues?

 

[rh71]

I used wiki to find out that the airliner Varig is in fact downsizing... which caused me to miss a vacation. So help me out.

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
The whole point of Wikipedia is for people to volunteer their time and knowledge to build an easy to use reference.

Its not meant to replace all the encyclopedias out there.

The strange thing is that Wikipedia usually has the best info (note: usually) you can find online. Most other resources are either painfully difficult to find, ridiculously incomprehensible, or just plain wrong. In general, wikipedia is correct, because the majority of people who take time to write on a subject actually know about it.