Jump to content

Talk:The Colbert Report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dan428 (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 1 August 2006 (→‎i'm confused.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

As of 31 July 2006, the article page associated with this talk page was featured on The Colbert Report, a popular television show.
All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

Where's the "Criticism" section?

While I'm a huge fan of both The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, The Daily Show Wikipedia entry seems to have a "criticism" section where The Colbert Report does not. Surely someone of note must have said something negative about The Colbert Report. I think it would add to the article to present why certain people may dislike The Colbert Report.

--Josh 02:34, 01 August 2006 (EDT)

Fighting districts

I'm reasonably sure that for every congressional district piece, the district is referred to as the "fighting X", e.g. Colorado's second district, "the fighting second". Anyone else noticed this? And if it's true, could it be put in the congressional districts segment?--PIngp0NG 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i am also somewhat certain that he refers to the districts as "fightin'" districts. i cannot speak positively on whether or not he has done it since the first, however.

Yes he's done it for every single one. Comedy gold. --149.167.134.107 03:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely does it consistently every time. --Dan428 20:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also called Ben Franklin "Battlin' Ben" in the Better Know a Founding Father segment. If I recall correctly. --JGGardiner 07:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert on Wikipedia?

This is already mentioned in the truthiness article. Is this section really necessary? 70.225.231.57 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - Nevermind, edited out 70.225.231.57 02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious content

After Ash Wednesday's show, perhaps it's time to add a section specifically on Colbert's spirituality. He frequently mentions that he is a practicing Catholic in interviews, does segments on religion, and hosts religious guests (not all of whom are Christian). Is this all that different from Jon Stewart's frequent references to Judaism? To me, those reference seem more ethnic than religious. At the very least, Colbert's easy invocations of Jesus and references to scripture set him apart from the great majority of television hosts (the exceptions being televangelists), and that seems notable. --Tysto 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has more to do with his character associating himself with the Christian right --FD

He exaggerates the religious practice of his character in the same way as his political views - though he also joked that Pope Benedict used to be a Nazi. - Reaverdrop 11:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Cobert Code

How did he predict all the oscars perfectly? Does anyone else think he might of had some inside knowledge? (Along with his ability to see into the future of course).Dapoloplayer 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty eery that Stephen got the winners right for the oscars. Even "crash" though at that moment it appeared he was improvising because he got tongue tied. Or may be that was an act. However getting the winners right more likely proves how predictable award shows have gotten. No wonder no one watches. Does anyone know yet who watched the oscars ? I didn't watch and I agree with Stephen about all award shows.--Tjkphilosofe 11:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting under the skin of mainstream

I read on the weekend Howard Kurtz did a response to a comment that Stephen made about Kurtz and CNN Reliable Sources.

Not only will Stephen pay attention to comments made about himself will come back swinging and attack. Stephen is getting under the skin of the mainstream pundits and journalists.--Tjkphilosofe 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tek Jansen - Alpha Squad 7 - Lady Nocturne - A Tek Jansen Adventure

The Parody of The O'Reilly Factor section lists the Tek Jansen book as a parody of Oriley's book Those Who Trespass, but the title and plot seem to more closely resemble the cheezy sci-fi thriller novels like tekwar or Alpha Squad. Tho he does try and sell it in an oriley paroding way, I think this should be edited. The text on the page [tekjansen.com] seems to support this.

tekjansen.com is (at least appears to me) to be unlicensed. It may need to be marked as unofficial since, like Colbert Nation, the proof as to its ownership is difficult to determine with absolute certainty. 65.198.167.147 15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big revision

I've done a big revision in which I've reorganized the sections and removed a lot of redundant material, trivia, and breathless "this one time..." anecdotes you would never find in a print encyclopedia. Find it at The Colbert Report/edit. I'm tempted to go further and, for example, strip out the whole section on TCR in Canada—lots of shows are seen in numerous countries. If there is a consensus that the edited version is an improvement, I'll move it over. --Tysto 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format of the Show

I am having a problem with this section and all the additions to it like The Word, Da Colbert Code, Better Know A District, etc. This stuff should belong on The Colbert Report recurring elements page and already do. Now I don't want to go ahead and delete it because it has become a big section and we would still need to keep the Format of the Show section itself. I just don't know how to revise it. What do you guys think? --Barinade2151 03:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything after the bulleted list can be removed and merged with reoccuring elements. --waffle iron 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them and added an invisible note to other editors to please not re-add them. --Tysto 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also was wondering if either in this section or the section on reoccuring elements we mention the other cast members, like "Bobby the stagehand" who's become a regular on the show. Could there be room to at leats mention him in the article somewhere? Skuzabut 11:41, 2 April 2006 (EST)

Colbert, not Stephen

I'd like to just remind editors that when referring to the host of this show by only one name, we should (almost) always use his last name, Colbert, not his first name. The only exceptions are when his first name is directly relevant to the aspect of the show being discussed (e.g., in segment titles, when he refers to himself on the show, etc.) - dcljr (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of names, who is "stage manager bobby" really?--210.176.49.217 05:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere that "Bobby" is one of the producers from The Daily Show.--momo 05:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
bobby is eric drisdel, a writer for the show. he's the only daily show writer who joined stephen's writing team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.195.11 (talk • contribs)

O'Reilly's O'Reaction

Did anyone confirm O'Reilly's quote in Newsweek? I thought Colbert made it up, but I don't have that Feb 2006 issue. --68.249.8.204 05:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it on the web and added a link to the article. I used a cite tag for the first time, so perhaps I didn't get it quite right. The URL I gave is for the webpage (the second of three that constitute the article) that contains the quote. I didn't give a pagenumber or a publisher. I hope this is an improvement, though. Tim Ivorson 16:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's good enough for me. I don't know how to cite either.--68.249.237.53 20:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even so O'Reilly has said even on his program that he was going to go home, watch the Daily Show and Colbert and go to sleep. J. M. 07:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan links?

An IP keeps adding "fan links". A fan petition is hardly notable or useful. Get a blog. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If these are referenced or relevant I'd want them to be properly noted and stay. There was a site I saw on here that was critical of Stephen Colbert's analysis of current events that is no longer listed. For me "perspective" is what it's all about, and if not for the fans of Colbert, there would be no content on this page. 1:39, 6 June 2006 (PST)

Bald Eagle

Has a Bald Eagle really been named after him, or is just a running joke?

Yes, the San Francisco zoo has offered to name a baby Bald Eagle after him. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=412827 Bob schwartz 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced right-wing with conservative

I believe most of colbert's views would more likely follow those of modern american conservatives as opposed to the more extreme right-wingers. As well he is based alot upon bill o'reilly who would likely be reffered to more as a conservative as opposed to someone who is 'right wing' as well someone like Joe scarbourough would very rarely be reffered to as a right-wing mdeia personality. -Brodey

Huh? Most people don't split hairs between right-wing and conservative, or liberal and left-wing. They're synonyms, particularly if you understand the origin of the terms. --128.205.218.25 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, even William Safire got the origin of left- and right-wing wrong in his On Language column (which he acknowledged after I corrected him). - Reaverdrop 03:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might see a difference between right-wing and conservative, but I think an even bigger difference lies between those terms and republican. -JNighthawk 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tek Jansen

http://www.tekjansen.com/index.php

There was some heated discussion some months back about this, but neither side was willing to put forth any reasonable proof in either direction as to why this site may or may not be authorized by Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report, or Busboy Productions. It is pretty clearly a commercial site and has been online for at least 6-8 months. It sells memberships, advertising and at least appears to have a full-time administrator. If we need to renew the discussion of legitimacy, we should do that, but retaining old discussions that were emotionally charged does not serve the community to any benefit.

Critism

why isnt there any critism of his show here?

Right. Crossfire's criticism of John Stewart as rebutting the "hurting America" quote. If we're going to add "critism" section to comedians' entries, we could add "critism" section on artists, musicians, really anyone I suppose ("...though others complain of the banality of Shakespeare...")MotherFunctor 05:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll retract this statement, to an extent, since I've seen the Correspondence dinner routine. I loved it, I'll say, but can't deny he's entered himself into the political arena. Still any criticism of him would probably have to come from THE GUT, not much else to criticize.MotherFunctor 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Word WP Ref today

Is it notable that he used Wikipedia on air? -- Tawker 06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia was also mentioned January 31st [1][2]. While it's fun that it's received some attention on the show, I don't think we should inflate the importance of items relevant to the encyclopedia (i.e., the fact that anything else was mentioned twice on the show, would not be worth including in the article). Therefore it's my opinion that we shouldn't include the Wikipedia references in the article. FAL 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed the addition of the Wikipedia reference in the trivia section. It's not a big deal, but I stand by what I said above. There are many potential trivia items that would be more notable or equally notable to the non-Wikipedian, and I don't think we should give Wiki-relevant facts priority, as it makes the encyclopedia look less professional. If we are going to keep it in the trivia section though, perhaps the prior mention of Wikipedia (see my comment above) should be included. FAL 01:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say he has reason to question the accuracy of wikipedia, at least in articles about him/ the report. For example, the article on the report claims he is deaf in his right ear, however his personal article claims that is not so! Cite sources for that sort of thing maybe? otherwise don't cry about your reputation. Basschron 06:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Colbert is forty-one, a native of South Carolina, one of eleven children, the father of three, a suburban guy, and deaf in one ear. 'I had this weird tumor as a kid, and they scooped it out with a melon baller.' " -The New Yorker, July 25, 2005[3] The bit about the melon baller is obviously a joke. And the tumor was mentioned on the show once. He told the audience, as his character, that he did not have a tumor. But Stephen Colbert, the actor, apparently did have a tumor. Curious enough. The New Yorker did report, however, that he was deaf in one ear. Basschron is right: we need verification of the facts, and this article, or the Stephen Colbert article needs to be fixed. Finally, as far as crying about the mention...I think that most everyone here can laugh at what he said. Most of us are here because we're fans, and it was pretty funny.--Ryan! 07:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reference to Wikipedia should stay in the article. I've seen every one of the shows, but I am also heavily into Wikipedia (my edit count is over 4,000, as you can see from one of my user boxes about wasting too much time on Wikipedia). I laughed hard at the metion of Wikipedia. Let's face it - there is a lot of plain nonsense on Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which we should try to eliminate. I say take it out, as it says nothing important about COLBERT. --JChap 07:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political slant to show?

There seems to be little to no political slant on the show, and when it comes up, it is conservative, and I suppose he is mocking these views with his demeanor. Nevertheless, the show itself, despite Colbert's personal leanings, seems rather apolitical, and if not apolitical, then lacking in a viewpoint, to me. The article doesn't help me clear up any of these thoughts, which I have no basis for making rather than suspicion and the feeling I get from watching The Colbert Report.

Could someone clarify and perhaps change the article to make it clearer in these respects?

The intro needs to be cleaned up as well. It should mention he satirized right-wing or republican views but to mention specific shows such as the o'reily factor and lou dobbs as right-wing/republican shows is POV. Even on the pages of such shows no mention is made to categorize them as republican right-wing shows. Duhon, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

On the May 4, 2005 All Things Considered interview with Robert Siegel [4], Colbert described his show by saying this: "As The Daily Show is to headline-driven news, this will be to O’Reilly, or Hannity, or Scarborough Country." And, on the December 2005 Fresh Air [5], he said that he also patterns his character on Stone Phillips, Geraldo Rivera, Anderson Cooper, and Lou Dobbs (he loves how Dobbs can spin a metaphor).
There seems to be little to no political slant on the show, and when it comes up, it is conservative, and I suppose he is mocking these views with his demeanor.
errrr, are you joking? The show is all about mocking conservative media, and mocking implies criticism. Of course there is a slant. Its a show made for liberals, just like Fox news is tailored for conservatives. Brentt 07:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously the show is obviously biast. Which I find irresponsible but none the less the show is definately biast. Also id like to point out that all of Fox news is not tailored for conservatives, only the opinion shows are.

Yeah. Too bad that's all Fox News shows. Its all biased very conservatively, which is what the Colbert report parodies. Titanium Dragon 07:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wikipedia

I found this in the "Trivia" section of the article. It is interesting to Wikipedians, but really does not do anything for outsiders using Wikipedia as a reference. For discussion, I'm moving it here: 69.177.176.154 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On May 9, 2006, Colbert implicitly criticized the veracity of Wikipedia during his segment, The Wørd, in which Colbert's nightly monologue is accompanied by humorous bullet points on-screen.
    • Colbert: "Who the hell does Sigmund Freud think he is?!" (Bullet point: Carl Jung?)
    • Colbert: "I, for one, had no idea who he is, so I did a thorough study. Read the entire Wikipedia entry." (Bullet point: Even the Accurate Parts.)
Hmm, you may have a point. It is already in the list of celebreties who have mentioned Wikipedia; however, it could be useful in this article as the... articlee (?) mentioned the articler. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this portion of the article should be deleted as it does not tell the reader anything important about the subject. --JChap 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should stay; I happen to love self-referential humor.--Ryan! 04:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that somebody put it back in. Ryan, I can see your point. However, if you were writing a normal encyclopedia, would you put "self-referential humor" into it? And what does the statement tell besides that certain Wikipedians are chauvinists? I don't see the point of putting "trivia" in a respectable encyclopedia, so with that in mind, I say take it out! 69.177.176.154 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is not a respectable encyclopedia. - 81.179.69.230 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is clear. But I respect democratic will. If it is ultimately removed, then please at least record it in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. It's a great one-off. Thank you.--Ryan! 04:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan!, I agree with you that this does deserve to be moved somewhere. However, this is already in Wikimedia in popular culture, and it doesn't seem to be BJAODN material. Wikipedia is generally referenced more in its own articles than it really should be. If you think that Wikimedia in Popular Culture is inadequate or inappropriate for things like this, please make another page to put things like this. 69.177.176.154 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be kept. Truth, accuracy, reference and the distortion thereof are essential themes of The Colbert Report. That Colbert should claim ignorance of an intellectual pursuit and diminish his source is perfectly in-keeping with the show and worthy of a small note in the article. Al001 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagle's Nest?

From the Trivia section - ""The Eagle's Nest" was a code name for the Kehlsteinhaus, Hitler's home in the German Alps near Berchtesgaden.", doesn't provide a point of reference within the sentence. Looking back, one of the categories is described as "The set ("The Eagle's Nest")", however with the parenthesis around the Eagle portion leads one to believe this is an unofficial name. I'd propose changing the title of the category to reflect that the Eagle's Nest is the official name (if it is) and to add a mentioning of the set in the trivia sentence. Zarcath 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Notice-Trivia

"Mort Zuckerman is now on Notice. The Sea was taken off." is in the trivia section. Should that really be there? It's already on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report_recurring_elements#.22On_Notice.22.2C_.22Dead_to_Me.22_and_.22Never_Existed_to_Me.22

A Host Hypocritically

I just thought I'd mention this because I find it funny. On what I think was the June 27, 2006 episode, Stephen discusses A Scanner Darkly in his "Movies that are Destroying America" segment, and criticizes it for using the adverb "darkly" to incorrectly modify the noun "scanner". The part I find funny is that the phrase "a scanner darkly" is based on the phrase "a mirror darkly", that appears in the Bible (Corinthians 13:12), which Stephen finds infallible and wound never criticize for its grammar. VolatileChemical 13:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase appears in the Bible in a complete sentence, where it modifies the verb "see", just as an adverb should:
13:12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known.
With no such verb in the title A Scanner Darkly, the usage doesn't make sense unless you realize it's a biblical allusion. -- Coneslayer 15:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a killjoy

I'm removing this:

  • On May 9, 2006, Colbert made fun of the veracity of Wikipedia during his segment The Wørd in which Colbert's nightly monologue is accompanied by humorous bullet points on-screen.
    • Colbert: "Who the hell does Sigmund Freud think he is?!" (Bullet point: Carl Jung?)
    • Colbert: "I, for one, had no idea who he is, so I did a thorough study. Read the entire Wikipedia entry." (Bullet point: Even the Accurate Parts.)

Maybe we should put it up at the top of the talk page; wouldn't bother me. But it's an inconsequential factoid for the article, unless if you have a particularly strong interest in Wikipedia -- an audience for which, in the spirit of WP:SELF, we should not be writing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good cut. --Tysto 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilford Brimley, Russ Lieber, 'black friend' Alan

These three recurring 'guests' should be mentioned in some capacity, should they not? Does anyone know who actually provides the Brimley voice on those phone calls [assuming it's not Wilford himself], and if that 'Alan' guy is also an actor, or just a member of the staff?

Brass Eye?

Someone added a link to Brass Eye, this seems pointless. I took the liberty of deleting it, but it seemed like I should put that here. J Arn 00:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

In my opinion, there has been a noticeable change in the persona of the Stephen Colbert character over the last few months. When the show started, Stephen would sound completely serious about all of his "convictions," but lately he has been breaking character a lot more and using wholly different types of humor. Has anyone else noticed this?--Mikejoyce 05:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaysrael

Just thinking -- does the "Gaysrael" discussion really belong under the topic of "Influence on the English language"? Colbert has coined many words on the show, but not all of them have taken off like "truthiness". Has the term "gaysrael" been used significantly outside of the Report? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 00:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think to say "Influence on the English language" is giving the Colbert Report way too much credit, this title should be chaged.

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.

Wikiality

File:Colbert - Wiki Situation (Jul 31 2006).png
Colbert comments on Wikipedia

Sure its currently nn, but its hours old. Give'er a chance. - RoyBoy 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]

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.

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. - RoyBoy 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]

Weasel words and sources

Sorry to interupt the Colbert love-in, but this article needs some work. This, for example:

As word of the DeLay site error spread through the internet and news outlets, especially Democratic-leaning blogs, the video clip began to malfunction on the Legal Defense Trust website. It is believed but not proven that the site's creators, put in the embarrassing situation of not realizing the satire until far too late, decided the best way to save face was by deliberately sabotaging the video clip.

Is an intersting collection of speculation and inuendo, but without any credible source, it's just that. Can we remove it? -Harmil 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source the show itself? I don't remember that episode. --mitrebox 05:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no source for this:

  • The Colbert Report is being followed up by a second spin-off of The Daily Show, a show called Red State Diaries to be hosted by Lewis Black and slated to debut in 2006.
  • One reviewer identified Colbert's on-the-spot ad libbing in character during the studio interviews as the one aspect of the show that was funniest and most indicative of (the actor) Colbert's true talent.
  • Gaysrael and Wikiality have no citation to support the idea that they have had any affect on the language (and given that Wikiality is less than a day old as a word, there's no possible support).
  • Much of the trivia section also needs citation.
-Harmil 05:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source that the Red State Diaries article links to: http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/459087.html - Tanman 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRanscript

I am creating a transcript of the wiki segment here: The Colbert Report/wikiality. -Ravedave 05:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Interiot (talk • contribs) didn't like that. We all know what Interiot wants, he gets, so I'll just leave that alone then. However there is a video of this located on youtube here -Ravedave 06:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism predating Colbert airing

If you look at contributions of Stephencolbert (talk · contribs), you'll find that someone edited Wikipedia in the ways Colbert claimed to-- stating that George Washington did not have slaves and to liken Oregon to Portugal. They did so at 7:36 PM EST-- nearly four hours before the show aired. At least one source says that the Report starts taping around 7:30ish (on one occasion at least). I wonder if we're looking at someone from the show doing this, or just a very quick audience member with an excellent memory? (the George Washington reference was exceedingly brief). --Alecmconroy 05:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly Colbert himself? Master of Puppets Giant Enemy Crab! 06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, he may have done it during the taping of the show. Deathregis 06:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not on-screen when he claims to actually do it. Not nearly enough keystrokes. Not to mention interfering with comedic timing. --Alecmconroy 06:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that this was done during the taping of the show. But I also do not doubt this is either Colbert or one of his producers/writers. There is no way they would want their IP address made public. --Nick Catalano contrib talk 07:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it _has_ to be someone from the show. The George Washington reference was quite brief-- I didn't catch it until a second viewing, I doubt an audience member could have caught it and remebered to add it. Furthermore, the timing is such that I would be surprised if an audience member could get to a computer in time to add it at 7:36PM. If the show tapes at 7:30ish, give or take, they probably would have had to leave the taping mid-show in order to make it to machine in time. A particularly ingenius audience member could have used a cell phone or similar decide to communicate the change, but it seems improbable.
But most of all, there's this. These two edits were made a 7:30ish, but the elephant article vandalisms didn't occur until after the show aired. What are the odds that an audience member would have the memory and the enthusiasm to make these two subtle edits, but be able to resist the temptation to make the urged elephant edits? I think we've got to be looking at someone in the show-- and for my money, even though it was vandalism, it was a stroke of comedic GENIUS.
--Alecmconroy 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the script for that segment was likely ready for several weeks. In comedy, when the subject isn't time-oriented, segment scripts are prepared well in advance, not created on the spur of a moment as is with 'current events'. They don't wait until the last moment and hope that an hour-old script will be amusing. These are professionals.

It's coincidence, and not connection with the staffers themselves. The whole G Washington issue mentioned is not new...it pops up quite often here on Wikipedia.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah.. Someone with the username Stephencolbert posts to the G Washington page exactly what he says the real Stephen Colbert claims to post on the same day that he claims to post it? can't be coincidence. Has to be the staffers. And yes, certainly the script for that segment was probably days or even weeks old-- but who outside the staff of the show would have access to the script? --Alecmconroy 09:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Double creepy. The first news stories about this are starting to trickle in. A Stamford Advocate story confirms that taping began around 7:15 PM last night. This would mean the Stephencolbert edits occured during or almost IMMEDIATELY after the taping. --Alecmconroy 10:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking more "Audience Member" than "Staffer or Colbert himself". SAMAS 10:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omphaloskepsis

Why was the 'Wikiality' entry removed? Viewers of the show who rarely visit the site or have never visited may come here to see just what it's all about. Besides looking at the 'Elephant' listing they'll probably look at this entry. What's wrong about detailing the jokes on the show, especially when they involve Wikipedia? And what is with the attack, Mr. Sean Black?

Colbert fans seems to have become the more cerebral cousins of Howard Stern fans. --Bobak
I think the Wikiality concept points up the central non-trivial flaw of a project like Wikipedia. Has it now become the policy of Wikipedia to remove any references to criticism of itself? That itself is an example of Wikiality -- facts being upheld by nothing but mob rule. --Boradis 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it has to do with this project does not make it notable. Where the criticism is notable, it certainly has a place here. See John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. But this isn't really that notable a bit in the run of the Colbert Report. He does a "Word" every night. They're not all notable. JDoorjam Talk 07:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I submit it is not the place of the criticized organization to determine which criticism of it is "notable." Concurrently, if this "Word" segment had been popular and determined by fans of the show to be noteworthy but was not a criticism of the Wiki concept, would you or others be bothered by its addition to this article? A quick glance at the pages about other TV shows where new information is added willy-nilly as new episodes debut indicates not. --Boradis 07:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can say I would absolutely object to funnier-than-normal-but-otherwise-non-notable content being added to this article. I object to it when I find it elsewhere, as well. I'm completely bothered by cruft in all its forms. If you have an example of another tv show article where content is being added unevenly, or is simply devolving into an indiscriminate list of information, by all means let me know and I'll take a look. I can't make any promises, of course, but I'll take a look at it. JDoorjam Talk 07:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "wikiality" actually becomes a fairly widespread phenomenon in the next few days or weeks, then it might be worthy of its own article. Until then, I'd say not.--~e.o.t.d~ 07:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiality

I'd like to see a discussion on the addition a note about the reference to Wikiality. I believe it should be added to the trivia section, being, frankly, trivial in nature (but nonetheless interesting and amusing).

More importantly however, I think there should be a discussion and debate and (hopefully) consensus (the criticism of it being irrelevant 'naval-gazing' is not without merit), rather than the revert war at the moment. Seems to me, this is how it's supposed to work.

So, here’s my take; Yes it leans towards ‘naval-gazing’, but that’s a reason to put it in the ‘Trivia’ section. I believe the audience of article readers would find that tidbit amusing and interesting (and accurate) and that those reasons are sufficient to merit it’s inclusion.

Does anyone know the present disposition of articles about TV shows (and news programs in particular) that have mentioned Wikipedia? Precedence would not be an unreasonable argument for or against.


Robbins 06:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blogging extensively about the incident's appearance in media and in the blogosphere. I will continue to scan the aggregators and post all relevant blogs and articles as the incidents occur. It's already hit CNET and Newsvine. And my hits have more than quadrupled since the incident occurred, and a large amount of those hits are from peole looking for Wikiality on the Wikipedia site and finding the link to my site on th External Link section. People are looking for information about this word, of that I can be sure. (http://www.nofactzone.net) Nofactzone 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps removing any mentioning of Colbert's wikipedia segment on July 31? This seems like an Orwellian attempt to pretend it didn't happen. It is a significant current event which ought to be documented on the page, especially considering the frenzy it caused over on the elephant page. What justification is there not to mention Colbert's recent segement, since it is verifiable, the fact that it happened constitutes a neutral point of view, and it adds the the body of knowledge that wikipedia provides. Since this event is being covered by the external media, it is shameful that the wikipedia isn't keeping up with it, just because it is somewhat self-referential. Again, these attempts at controling knowlege get Orwellian at times. I strongly dissent from current actions. Ivymike21 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops

- evidently I'm a retard and thought more recent posts were at the top, rather than reading down to the bottom. Sorry for the preachyness (perhaps that should be a wØrd

Robbins 06:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame the error on yourself so hastily, it was actually Microsoft that tried to change the default ordering of comments to top-newest instead of top-oldest. This has caused many problems since that time.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It isn't navel gazing if it is someone else, namely Colbert, doing the gazing. It should be noted on this page simply because it is standard practice to add something you find interesting to a TV show's page if you feel like it and it is accurate. It is accurate to note he has held Wikipedia up to a critical light. I for one look forward to seeing how Wikipedia fares as public awareness of it grows. --Boradis 07:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our criteria for inclusion don't include "something you find interesting". Editors should consider a topic's importance before covering the topic in an article. In this instance, it seems like the only reason people want to cover "wikiality" is because it involves Wikipedia. Rhobite 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This article is for important things like whether Colbert uses UPS or FedEx and how his name is written in the credits. -- Rei 15:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened before

It is important to note that Stephen Colbert and his staff have stated that they have edited Wikipedia in the past. In July 2006 Wired it is specifically mentioned how he "improves how he looks" (or something like that) and other edits... if the Stephencolbert username is true, I think it is pretty easy to say he/his staff has a few other sockpuppets. How the admins handle that will be VERY interesting --Nick Catalano contrib talk 07:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more likely, this will simply be another Slashdotted article, in its own way, and everyone outside the project will forget it happened inside a week. Personally, I hope Jimbo goes on the Colbert Report to push this to a climax and then we can get this all over and done with. JDoorjam Talk 07:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned Jimbo do that that on User talk:Jimbo Wales a few minutes ago --Nick Catalano contrib talk 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Nick's comment: It's a comedy show. Stephen is quite well aware of what happens when people edit Wikipedia to make someone look better...that was part of the joke (the inside-inside joke is about the government officials who earlier this year were found out to be socking articles)
-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I should add that another joke was the 15-minute one. If not Colbert himself, at least one of his geek staffers will be looking at this page in the morning, that is certain /me waves at Colbert writers)
-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiality

I added a new "wikiality" section to this article. Please consider it's value and discuss or attempt to clean it up before patently deleting it. Also, the main article for "wikiality" is perm locked. I believe this is an important concept that should be discussed as it seems spin-meisters for some time now have tried to created debate, change perceptions, or alter/create facts for quite some time now. This has had an impact (the amount of which is debatable) on the real world, as well as wikipedia. Colbert's mocking of the situation in my opinion is important because it succinctly demonstrated the problem, and did so on a very public platform bringing the problem to the front of the stage.

I could create a huge laundry list of all the "wikiality" I have personally noted over recent years, but it would very likely devolve into a match of people accusing each other of distorting the facts. This is precisely the point of problem. I fully admit that I am not an expert wordsmith, using the best possible words, tone, and examples here to make my point. Maybe some others can step in and expand on what I have said. Sysrpl 10:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not deleting it now, but I think we are covering Colbert's segment in far too much detail, simply because it involves Wikipedia. Yeah, it's fun to cover our own site but please don't do it disproportionately. Rhobite 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has anything to do with, "Oh my gosh, he mentioned Wikipedia! Quick, to the keyboards, Batman!" Colbert's influence was widely felt through the entire "truthiness" episode and the fact that in just a few months the word and its new meaning became part of the modern American-English lexicon. As soon as I heard/read "Wikiality" last night I thought, "Uh-oh. This can't be good." How can you not recognize that the same thing will happen with Wikiality? Colbert has the ability to capture problems in politics and society that America/the world can usually see, but can't always put into words; he puts it into one word that defines everything. Its inclusion here is very relevant and I can see the section becoming bigger with time. Sections about Colbert saying, "F*** Wikipedia!" for example, are superfluous and only exist to mention Wikipedia itself. If even I, a huge CR fan, have to say, "Who cares??" then it probably shouldn't be a part of the article. Sections/articles on words that influence our languange and way of defining our society, in record time no less, definitely deserve mention. Surely there is an obvious difference. If anything needs to be cut, it's fluff about the show itself; its influence on American society is anything but "fluffy." --ScreaminEagle 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colbert has run an awful lot of "Wørd" segments, many of them with made-up words, and obviously we don't report on all of them. "Truthiness" has clearly stood up to the test of time, notable in its own right, and thus it's appropriate for WP to cover it. But "wikiality"? It just got invented last night, and wouldn't have a chance to be verifiably notable even if it does turn out to be notable. Wikipedians are a little too close to this, and I don't think we can accurately gauge this words eventual notability (perhaps notoriety ;) until we start seeing it in MSM outlets. I think the paragraph on it should at least be pared down to something much shorter, but preferably, it should be removed for now. Once "wikiality" hits the big time, I'd be the first to try to put it back. /blahedo (t) 15:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you said yourself Eagle, truthiness became part of the modern American-English lexicon a few months after he said it, after it was covered extensively in a variety of other media outlets, then included in the WP article, instead of immediately after the show aired, as is the case with wikiality. Questions like "How can you not recognize that the same thing will happen with Wikiality?" is blatant crystalballing and original research and not sufficient grounds for inclusion. The Report makes up lots of neologisms and not all make it into the article, nor should they. The section on wikiality shouldn't be there until it's clear that that the term is on, or close to being on equal footing with truthiness in my opinion. --TM 15:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. If this turns out to be an important incident, we'll hear about it from a reliable source soon enough. When New York Times columninsts start using the term "wikiality" as they have "truthiness", we'll know for certain that this little fiasco mattered to people besides us. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should let this stay for just a little longer before we delete it? Sysrpl 15:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Let's wait until it's notable before including it, like anything and everything else on Wikipedia. JDoorjam Talk 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as it's fun to keep the section in, I am voting to REMOVE the section until it is proven notable, and end this silly revert war.Ashwinr 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's absolutely nothing notable about this one-off joke. He makes hundreds of jokes like this over the course of a week's worth of shows. We shouldn't be making such a big deal out of it just because it happens to be about us; that's unprofessional. Remember how Stephen Colbert made fun of ABC for such self-masturbatory reporting on the "quality and excellence" of their own news reporting? --Cyde↔Weys 15:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in response to Sysrpl - I understand that you are not arguing that the Wikiality segment was significant simply because it involves Wikipedia. Rather, you argue that the segment reflects an important viewpoint of the show; in particular, that the subjectivity of the truth is so great that - especially in the modern era of Wikipedia type information sources - mass agreement upon a point a priori marks it as fact. However, even if this viewpoint is a fundamental part of The Colbert Report, it is still unessential and against wiki guidelines to inculde Wikiality in the article before it is externally established as notable. Not only is it against guidelines, but the argument can be explicitly mentioned elsewhere - I would argue that it moreover already is implicit in other sections of the article, including "truthiness." Ashwinr 15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that posting the word "Wikiality" does entail a bit of navel gazing on our part. However, significant changes in the Colbertniverse (as it were) have been posted on an extremely prompt basis in the past. The precident has been set for allowing changes in the Colbertniverse to be posted on Wiki before they inflitrate the pop culture zeitgeist. Nofactzone 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps removing any mentioning of Colbert's wikipedia segment on July 31? This seems like an Orwellian attempt to pretend it didn't happen. It is a significant current event which ought to be documented on the page, especially considering the frenzy it caused over on the elephant page. What justification is there not to mention Colbert's recent segement, since it is verifiable, the fact that it happened constitutes a neutral point of view, and it adds the the body of knowledge that wikipedia provides. Since this event is being covered by the external media, it is shameful that the wikipedia isn't keeping up with it, just because it is somewhat self-referential. Again, these attempts at controling knowlege get Orwellian at times. I strongly dissent from current actions. Ivymike21 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (reposted from above) Also please note, "wikiality" redirects to Colbert Report, but the Colbert Report doesn't even mention the word on the page. What is the justification for denying the existance of this term. For comparision I suggest that someone take a look at the page on the Simpsons, including the ancillary page regardin all the one-off words that TV show has created over the years. Do any of you think "wikiality" is less signifcant than these terms? Come on people. Ivymike21 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Im a huge fan of Colbert but honestly I think hes gone to far, now as we know were fightiong a war against vandals, the War With ISV and I think Stephen may be in ISV as a vandal. Mr. Vacatour 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else find it ironic that we are engaging in Wikiality here? People are keeping the word off the page, essentially because so far a slight majority of people have "voted" that it isn't important. Importance is pretty subjective, especially if you look at all the very trivial matters that get mention on the various pages for TV shows in wikipedia. Who would it hurt of the term was mentioned? I "vote" to mention Wikiality and the elephant comments. Tmkyle3 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have semi-objective standards... if reliable sources comment on it as important, then we certainly include it. (eg. if New York Times mentioned it) If the only people discussing it are on forums or Digg, we don't. --Interiot 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty lousy standard. The New York Times is the epitome of a traditional gatekeeper, and that's who we rely on to deem an event "worthy" or "significant" enough for mention on a free and open enclylopedia? It's pretty sad to see Wikipedia go the route of relying on outside professionals as a source of worthiness. I might also point out how this so-called "semi-objective standard" is hardly applied universally on wikipedia, as evidenced on practically every page about a popular TV show where the tiniest minutia of details are often mentioned. I think what we're seeing here is a flurry of editors coming to this particular page, applying their desired "standard" because they specifically do NOT want wikiality to be mentioned, since the term is disparaging to wikipedia and is linked to various attempts at vandalism. The people who have written additions to this page on wikiality, or the elephant trivia, have been pretty reasonable in sticking to the facts. This is a true test (which we are so far failing) of wikipedia's open nature to see the wikipedia establishment rally around blocking this term, until "The New York Times" makes mention of it - as if the fact that it happened on national television isn't already enough. Tmkyle3 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, put it all back, along with my Gaysrael entry. Not notable outside his show? So what? This article is about the show, not an article about just the word itself. --Kalmia 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw the segment, and I think Colbert was on the nose with his Wikiality assesment. I think it certainly should be included in this article, if not a seperate Wikiality article, noting Colbert as the coiner of the phrase. Speaking as a conservative editor, while most WP editors take great pains to have a NPOV, WP is overwhelmingly left leaning in it's membership, and it is sometimes very frustrating to have to go through a painstaking and subjective consensus process to get something that is clearly biased and irrelevant changed, and in many cases, fail at it. I am very tempted to click on the red Wikiality link, and start a new article. Crockspot 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Colbert vandals: the joke's on you

Dear everyone vandalizing at the behest of Stephen Colbert: the joke's on you. You're being played for fools. Dr. Colbert purposefully chose something really absurd to see how many mindless drones would go out and add nonsense, each thinking it was really cool and original to do so. This is meta-humor at its finest. All Stephen Colbert has to do is mention something really absurd, hint that it should be added to Wikipedia, and then laugh all the way to the comedy bank as people who can't think of anything funny on their own repeatedly try to insert the same rubbish into articles. --Cyde↔Weys 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dont make fun of Stephen, for christ sake hes a celebrity! Besides i will ask him to join ISV shortly. We will merge with wikia, also where the hell is a article on 1998 Mountain Climbing Accidents in Longs Peak Colorado! It was on the freakin news and google has it even yahoo and were better then yahoo so get the article! Or they will make fun of us for not having it. Mr. Vacatour 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally of editors who do/do not want to include "wikiality"

Those for wikiality are in a very slim majority, in term of the talk page's "consensus". Tmkyle3 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For "wikiality" Bobak Boradis Robbins Nofactzone IvyMike21 sysrpl ScreamingEagle Tmkyle3 Mr.Vacatour RoyBoy Kalmia Crockspot Phoenix9 Sir Vicious

Against it:

JDoorjam eotd (not spelled right...) Rhobite blahedo TM Bailey Ashwinr Cyde (arrows) Ways Interiot Samic OPaul JChap

You can't override our fundamental policies like WP:RS or WP:V by playing a numbers game. --Cyde↔Weys 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason being cited by editors who revert the page is "see consensus on talk page". I'm demonstrating that there is no consensus. As for your reference to the policies, verifiablility is 100% obvious. The link to the clip is on this talk page and anyone can see what took place and verify it. As for "published" sources - very few current events are going to be "published" before mentioning on wikipedia, and a search on Google News will show that this even HAS been mentioned already in several sources. Tmkyle3 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the primary source: [6]


Here's my argument for adding the entry. I feel what needs to be acknowledged is the wikiality of the entire Wikiality episode, as it were. Last week, Colbert did a bit in his show that featured morning newscasters talking about Colbert's interview with Robert Wexler. He stated essentally that not only was he reporting news, but now he WAS the news. The same principal is true of adding Wikiality to the pages of Wikipedia. Even though the word Wikiality has not had the time to filter through the pop culture zeitgeist, it is still relevant because its own creation has fostered the necessity for its definition into Wikipedia. To not mention Wikiality is an ironic manefestation of the wikiality of the situation itself. Not mentioning the word does not make it irrelevant - in fact quite the opposite. The clamouring of the blogosphere for Wikiality to be included into Wikipedia both creates its existance and justifies its existance at the same time. Nofactzone 18:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Its own creation has fostered the necessity for its definition into Wikipedia". Wow, just wow. --Cyde↔Weys 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of my own prose has not escaped me. It did make my head hurt a little to write it. But you have to admit that the way the logic reverts back upon itself like a mobius strip is quite a thing of beauty - Nofactzone 18:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to bet Nofactzone is either Mr. Colbert himself or one of his staffers/production assistants. --Sporkot 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, he doesn't seem to understand at all that Wikipedia is about reporting on important stuff, not making stuff important and then reporting on it. --Cyde↔Weys 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that "wikiality" does not belong in the article on the sole basis of being featured on "The WØRD" once, if someone wants to discuss it, I see no problem with writing an essay in the meta or Wikipedia namespaces. JChap (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 August 2006

(UTC)

I'm flattered (I think) that you might consider me a member of Colbert's staff. But I promise you, I'm simply a lowly eGeek with a web site and a passion for comedy, specifically Colbert's brand of comedy as presented on The Colbert Report. And I still feel a defintion of Wikiality should be listed at the very least in the "Trivia" section of this site, but more appropriately defined in a brief passage in the "Influence on the English Language" part of this site. The desire for learning about this word is there, and this seems the most logical place to host that information. Nofactzone 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no influence on the English language; this word was just made up yesterday! It's nice that you have a passion for comedy and what not, but Wikipedia is not a comedy site, it's an encyclopedia. Just because you find something funny does not mean its inclusion in the encyclopedia is justified. And frankly, I've seen a lot funnier stuff by Dr. Colbert, and the only reason people are even thinking of including this little one-off joke in the article is because of the self-reference bias. --Cyde↔Weys 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the word itself has not yet had time to implant itself in the English language, the existance of the word necessitates its representation in Wikipedia because it is in fact a reflection on the influence of Wikipedia in the mainstream. The Colbert Report is a comedy show with a growing reputation of both influencing and reflecting the opinions of much of the cutting edge of popular opinion. To not acknowledge the topical nature of a segment of the show that directly references Wikipedia is to negate the influence of Wikipedia in pop culture. Most importantly, this page documents the important milestones in The Colbert Report. The people defining these milestones are the fans themselves, just like the fans who maintain the site. And here we go back again, full circle, if enough fans say it is a moment of historical documentable significance, its wikiality has been established, and should be published on this page. The fact that the argument has been made for it is evidence enough that it should be on this page. Am I using circular logic? You bet. But that's the beauty of wikiality. That's the reason it needs to be on this page - at least in my humble opinion. To go against the wishes of the fans of the show who have clamored for this word to be put on Wikipedia is to deny the importance of this particular Wikipedia article itself. Plus it would be good to set the record straight on why the word came into existance in the first place. To validate the existance of a separate Wikiality article, I have no doubt that changes in the database could be found as examples of the word. - Nofactzone 19:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When this term is notable in its own right, and not just a neologism made up in school on TV one day, I'd support inclusion. That particular time isn't yet, so I think we're ok to leave it out. More importantly, though, we don't determine notability by voting. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on "Wikiality"

Their have been repeated mentions of a supposed consensus on this Talk page.. I have scanned the some 4-6 sections regarding "wikiality" and have found no such consensus.. The current revision as of this writing ([7]) is currently clearly against any consensus. There are several reasons that I believe there should be a mention of the incident, the most important reason I see is that there is a protected redirect at Wikiality, it is ridiculous to have a redditect to a page that doesn't even mention the topic being redirected (this is also not the only instance of such an thing). Now to establish a REAL consensus... Here are the points I think can be agreed should be included:

  • Colbert mentioned wikipedia on his July 31st show
  • He coined the term "wikiality" to reffer to the making of a majority opinion to be true
  • He made comments about doing a couple edits, the one about Oregon and George Washington being slaves (these edits may or may not have been done by User:Stephencolbert , see Special:Contributions/Stephencolbert )
  • His mention about and "directions" to edit Elephant caused an upturn in vandalism

What shouldn't be included (by consensus I've seen):

  • Stephen "causing" server and database failures, these are mostly reported by admins to be an unrelated issue, even though it was very likely complicated by the upturn in traffic

Any one feel free to add too or strike points in the list above and add discussion --Phoenix9 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all counts. See running tally of editors above. Tmkyle3 18:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as well. There is a Truthiness article, so why not a Wikiality article? The redirect should either be unredirected, or point to a Wikiality section in this article. Otherwise it makes no sense.Crockspot 18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiality should get it's own dedicated section. There will definitely be plenty of people who will search for 'Wikiality' and it does not need to be overly notable, as long as people want to read about it. No good reason to not include a short Wikiality article in Wikipedia and maybe protect it until there are further developments concerning the word as well as mentions throughout the internet. --Dan428 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Truthiness" was the 2005 word of the year and was featured in a bunch of newspaper stories. Wikiality, by contrast, was just made up yesterday and its heyday has already passed. It will never be nearly as notable as "Truthiness". You're trying to compare the two but there is really no comparison to be made. --Cyde↔Weys 19:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you possibly claim to know how important this word will become? How can you claim that "its heyday has already passed". I bet that Wikiality will only snowball into something bigger at this point.--Milicz 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the reason to include it in the article is that "I bet it will snowball into something bigger" it shouldn't be included. If it in fact does "snowball," include it then, but not until. "Truthiness" was important to Colbert. "Wikiality" may have importance to Wikipedia, but not to Colbert. Note the distinction. JChap (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reaosn you include the word now is so you can capitalize on the free advertising Colbert gave Wikipedia yesterday. The word is already becoming a phenomenon with articles being written about it, but I guess we can have articles about random minutiae, but not Wikiality. I don't get it.--Milicz 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Cyde Weys, it seems to me you just don't like the word or what it stands for. It is you who come acrossed as biased - I noted your edit in the history that this is not a "current event". Why the smarmy attitude? I reiterate that you and some other administrators are against the word, and trying to excise it, simply because it is a pejorative term whose etemology is obviously derived from "Wikipedia" Ivymike21 19:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riiight. Only evil rouge admins (also known as "rogue admins") would invoke considerations like WP:V, WP:RS and relevance. JChap (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the exact kind of thing that Colbert talked about, if you pretend it doesn't exists or if you choose not to acknowledge it, it doesn't exist and your version of the story becomes the truth. Evidently Cyde still can't see it. The truth is Colbert did coined the term Wikiality and if wikipedia is to be seen as a "reliable" encyclopedia then it should not censor what happened. Sir Vicious 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the actual clip from the Colbert Report if you want reliablity and a verifiable source. If the facts Phoneix9 have listed are not confirmed for you by your watching the clip, I don't know what planet you are coming from. I'm not calling anyone a rouge admin. I'm merely saying that there is an agenda at work here, which ought not to be.

I'll tell you what - I'll vote in favor of NOT mentioning "wikiality" after all the admins who are getting so steamed up about this simple word first do a thorough review of List of neologisms on The Simpsons and remove the countless terms that are lacking in "relevance". Ivymike21 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, your proposal is to drag all articles down to the level of the worst you can find? -- Coneslayer 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, my contention is that while administrators are excising the term "wikiality" because it is "not notable", really they are doing so because they are biased against it. Wikiality is no less notable than the countless other words (for example, that simpsons page) that are on here, but the admins are going after this particular term because they don't like the pejorative nature of its etemology. With the vast wealth of information wikipedia is able to provide people, I say always err on the side of inclusiveness.Ivymike21 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Stephens remarks on select elitists creating doubt where none existed before hits the nail on the head. Previously I did not give any example for fear of turning the discussion political, but let's face facts. Colbert mocks the political on his show, particularly the far right wing. Having said that here are a few clear (or maybe not so clear) real examples of elitists doing the same:

Repeat each of the following until they become the truth, or at the very least introduce doubt where none existed before

  • We aren't fighting insurgents in the mid-east, we are fighting militia death squads.
  • Iran passed a law requiring Jews to wear holocaust style yellow stars.
  • There is no scientific consensus on the existence or cause of global warming within the scientific community.
  • Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda.
  • John Kerry lied to gain his purple hearts.
  • We are in the long war.
  • We are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here.
  • They hate us because they hate freedom.

and on and on and on ... Sysrpl 19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're fighting about. "Wikiality" clearly cannot be said to have had any impact on the English language yet, it's not more than 24 hours old. But why has ever mention of the episode from which it originated and the following events on Wikipedia being excised? Doesn't make sense to me. I would consider notable events in the show's history to be appropriate for the show's article.... Y2kcrazyjoker4 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that less than 24 hours is a wee bit less than necessary to argue that a word should be given its own article. Maybe a trivia point here, definitely an addition to that article that documents mainstream media article/pieces on Wikipedia. Won't someone think of the elephants? To just throw out one of the funnier "powerpoint" quotes after rewatching the speech on YouTube: "The Revolution will not be Verified". --Bobak 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside mentions of the Colbert incident


--Kalmia 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those blog entries even have the basic facts wrong ... so much for reliable sources. --Cyde↔Weys 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the webmaster of that site, and have never had the link removed from this page. It means a lot to me that my page has been allowed to remain on the Wikipedia site. It was my understanding that the requisite for remaining on the page was relevance. My page is constantly updated. The main blog is mainly an aggreagator for both mainstream news and the blogosphere, and is the only Stephen Colbert blog of its type. I would very much like to be added again, but the page is still locked due to the activity on the page. I hope that the link wasn't removed due to my partcipation in the Wikiality discussions. While my opinion was not necessarily the one shared by all, I feel that my arguments were relavant to the discussion and contributed to the depth of the conversation. Thank you for your consideration. Nofactzone 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't add links to your own site to articles per WP:EL and WP:AUTO. This is long-standing policy and I regret it if its application in this case causes you distress. You could add this link to your userpage. JChap (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the explanation. It was my understanding, per previous discussion that fan sites were occassionally allowed on pages if they fit this criteria: Occasionally acceptable links - #3 - Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.) In the case of my web site, because is a constantly updated aggregator of news on a topical show, I assumed that it would be considered appropriate. If a person visits my site, they are going to be able to find up-to-the-minute news articles and blogosphere buzz. I consider the site to be very relevant to what's going on with The Colbert Report. It's not appropriate to link 4-5 newspaper articles a week dealing with the week's episodes (like the Wexler interview two weeks ago, or the Wikiality blogs from today) on this Wikipedia site, but my site archives all of this information. I also post daily episode guides that include the CC Motherload videos when they are released, something that no other site does as well. While the information on my site is avaliable through constant surveilance of numerous news and blog aggregators, my blog puts it together in an easy to read format. I was, and am, aware of the policy against most fan sites as many are static and irrelevant. That is not the case with my fan site. This information is not aggregated this thouroughly anywhere else on the web. I would very much appreciate it if you would consider adding my site back to the page due to the fact that it is a relevant site to the subject of the page.


Well I want to add the link to the No Fact Zone.net, he doesn't have to. --Milicz 20:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my site has no ads and is not commercial in nature, unlike a couple of sites of whose merits have been debated on this page. My site is simply informative, to get out the most current information about Stephen Colbert as possible. My site is organic and I have always considered myself working in tandem with the Wikipedia pages, supplimenting (as opposed to trying to replace) these pages with current and relevant information. Nofactzone 20:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relocking of the article

I've locked the main article again because of the number of ardent sleeper accounts that seem tickled by Dr. Colbert's attention here but fail to heed the notability guidelines. Ramming "wikiality" into the article has become disruptive. No one's noticed, apparently, that the guest last night, and even Colbert's mockery of Mel Gibson, have actually gotten more media attention than "Wikiality", and yet no one's clamoring for the inclusion in the article (nor should they). In fact, I'd be willing to mention that, in one nook or another, Colbert's guests and schticks are frequently mentioned in the media. That doesn't make them worth including in the article about the show. JDoorjam Talk 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the "notability guidelines" and their location in the Wikipedia policies that justify your action. Ivymike21 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit as a result of Talk:The Colbert Report#Consensus on "Wikiality"

To reflect what is general consensus that I see here, I tried to edit the "Trivia" section to read as follows: 

* On July 31, 2006, Colbert, during his normal introductions, introduced 
a segment on Wikipedia by describing it as "a segment you can read about on 
Wikipedia in about 15 minutes" (in actuality, coverage of the segment was added to 
Wikipedia in less than three minutes). He began the discussion by commenting about 
Oregon and his opinion of it as either California's Canada or Washington's Mexico, 
which he couldn't remember. To rectify this lack of knowledge, he referred to this 
article. After reading that he had done both, however, he changed his opinion to call 
it Idaho's Portugal and this article to reflect that (there is evidence he 
actually made this edit 
[8]).  After a short 
explanation of how Wikipedia worked (which may be incorrect as he implied a voting 
process that exists only with article deletion, not with normal edits), he introduced 
his "WØRD" for the night,"Wikiality", which he defined as "bringing democracy to 
knowledge", the idea that if a majority of the world can be convinced of a statement, 
it becomes a fact. To illustrate the point, Colbert quoted the "factoid" that "the 
number of elephants in Africa has tripled in the last six months" and, at the 
end of segment, asked his viewers to make an edit on the elephant page to say as 
such. In a foreseeable turn of events, this quickly resulted with the vandalism of 
the aforementioned article and several on related topics (as well as several articles 
about him and his show) and may have compounded database errors already occurring on 
Wikipedia servers. [1] [2][3][4]


By the time I finished, however, full protection had been restored. As such, I request that the text I wrote above be inserted into the article by an admin. --Phoenix9 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got three blogs and a YouTube link as references. Are you saying you believe that should be the bar for inclusion of content on this page? If so, four paragraphs would be added to this article every day the show airs. JDoorjam Talk 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the YouTube link.. the other three were already present when I started editing. I am not saying that there is no need for better sources, I have not, however, been seeing a lack of references as the comment on reverted edits, I have seen a (see consensus). I couldn't even find such consensus, hence why I made that section and after observing it for awhile made that edit. As I see it, however, the sources provided (even just the video) provide WP:V and WP:NOR. The only logical complaint I see is WP:NN, but a point of non-notability is "Non-notable topics do not attract editors" ... and that certainly isn't true in this case. Really, my main complaint is that the redirect at Wikiality exists, so this article NEEDS to contain some reference. --Phoenix9
Since the events cited in Phoneix9's text above ARE verifiable (disparging the clip as coming from YouTube does not mean that is not the actual footage that aired on comedy central), please cite the wikipedia policies whicy you think empower you to remove the text and to protect it from further revision. I will point out, for the record, that "notability" is not an official policy of Wikipedia. It is only a set of ideas about how Wikipedia should work, which argueably the above text does not violate. Moreover, the above text violates none of the clauses in the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Please cite an OFFICIAL reason to block our editing access as a means to keep out our desired addition.Ivymike21 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. By lowering the bar to include a neologism that has had no traction in the real world, simply because navel-gazing is fun, you are arguing that any information that is mentioned in any form of notable media has the strength to be mentioned in Wikipedia. This is not true. Please explain why Wikiality is notable in a way that, for this article, Colbert's mockery of Mel Gibson is not, or Ned Lamont's appearance on the show is not. Do you think that either of those is worth inclusion? What about William Donohue's appearance? Or any "Word" that got any blog traction? How are those different from Wikiality? TV show articles tend to collect meaningless trivia like barnacles. To avoid their becoming indiscriminate collections of information, standards have to be maintained. JDoorjam Talk 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, almost all of those topics ARE included in List of The Colbert Report episodes. My rationale for inclusion of "Wikiality" in the main article is the existence of the Wikiality redirect. If it were redirected to List of The Colbert Report episodes (where it is already mentioned) instead, that would also work. After Colbert's mention, however, most people un-familiar with WP will look for this article and very possibly such a mention as mine. --Phoenix9 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NN is NOT an official policy of WikipediaIvymike21 20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I believe the text written by Phoenix9 should be spun off onto a new entry page with a title such as "Colbert Report Wikiality Segment", linked to from the main Colbert Report page.

That is sort of pointless then. It's about as significant as keeping wikiality here on the talk pages - it remains something esoteric that only heavy users of wikipedia will ever see. The point is to get it onto the main page so that people will come across it when reading about the Colbert Report.Ivymike21 20:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that so important? To C&P from above, please explain why Wikiality is notable in a way that, for this article, Colbert's mockery of Mel Gibson is not, or Ned Lamont's appearance on the show is not. Do you think that either of those is worth inclusion? What about William Donohue's appearance? Or any "Word" that got any blog traction? How are those different from Wikiality? JDoorjam Talk 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. The ban on the word 'Wikiality' from entering the article is completely bewildering. It makes total sense to add an entry on Wikiality into the Trivia section. Preventing these edits are doing nothing but hurting Wikipedia's voice. --Dan428 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already stated to you on your own talk page, any of those examples you cite could be included, if people were interested in including them. The difference between Mel Gibson and Wikiality is that you have a whole slew of editors that wanted to add Wikiality, and none that have expressed an interest in adding Mel Gibson. Again, when we have a bunch of editors who want to include it, who are you to be the arbitor of whether or not it is notable. I reiterate, also, that notability is NOT a wikipedia policy and that you have still not explained your reasoning for putting protection on this page. Who can one appeal to around here?! Ivymike21 20:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Including information because somebody felt like including information simply isn't how Wikipedia works. You're advocating for the collection of indiscriminate information. It's a policy to avoid such accumulation. Having "a whole slew of editors" who want to add something to the encyclopedia anyone can edit does not make it worth including. If you believe that information should be included not because it matters but because a group of people shouted about it, then you completely misunderstand the way this project works. If you'd like to appeal, I'd suggest posting at the administrator's notice board, though I imagine the admins there will come to similar conclusions: this is navel-gazing, lowering the bar for inclusion to this level would allow for the indiscriminate collection of information (which apparently you're an advocate of), and having a group of people who think that something's worth putting on Wikipedia does not mean it should be here, or every after-school basketball club would have its own article. JDoorjam Talk 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I've done it myself. JDoorjam Talk 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You are making some disingenous comparisons here. CNET isn't saying anything about after-school basketball clubs; they are however writing about last night's episode. Mentioning of this whole wikiality/elephant thing does not in fact violate the "indiscriminate information policy" see: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. The information people are trying to add is about an event, viewed by millions of people on television, which then had a clear effect off-air which is demonstrable, verifiable, proveable, and is cited externally. Only a very slanted view point could claim that this is "indiscriminate information". I am not advocating for the inclusion of random or indiscriminate information in the wikipedia, personal annecdotes, self-aggrandizing entries, or any of the proscribed entry types on the list of what Wikipedia is not. This event is none of those things. What is the arguement that this is NOT notable, and why is that for you alone to decide.

If you need further reasoning to include it, it is this. Colbert is a satire program watched by many people, hosted by an internationally recognizeable personality. Last night, he outlined an idea about how information is diseminated, with a somewhat editorial position. The fact that he did so can and should be mentioned, with a neutral point of view on the matter maintained. The irony here is that this term is being kept off the entry in a way that demonstrates the implications of "wikiality". Tragic. Ivymike21 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're saying that anything done on national television is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia? JDoorjam Talk 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert is fundametaly wrong

Colbert said that wikipedia works on a democratic basis. this is not true. we do not take a vote on what the correct truth. there has to be a consensus for amost all wikipedians before something is labeled as fact, with evidence to back it up, hopefully coming from multiple sources. --Greg.loutsenko 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. We do take a vote on what we accept into major Wikipedia edits. That is what this page is for. Also there are admins who have more power than other users, like presidents, who are able to control the rules and prevent people from changing the story. --Dan428 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. -- Coneslayer 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion". Wikipedia might not consider itself a democracy, but it does operate like one. --Dan428 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge difference between "discussion" and "voting." You're conflating the two, while the whole point of the WP:NOT section is to make the distinction. -- Coneslayer 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that Colbert is a comedian. Just about everything he says is not the truth. dposse 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiality redirect

Okay, so wikiality redirects here, but isn't mentioned here. What's up with that? Deco 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might notice that there's been some discussion of the topic above. -- Coneslayer 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it doesn't make much sense at all. --Dan428 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm confused.

I've been on wikipedia for a while now. Why can't i edit this page? dposse 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template says semi-protected, not fully protected, so what is up? --G VOLTT 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the person who protected it didn't do it correctly. And we can't fix it because.. we can't edit it. --Dan428 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Wikipedia article on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Colbert_Report&oldid=66976200 The Colbert Report] dated 11:31 Eastern Time
  2. ^ Web article on Colbert's wikipedia segment. [9]
  3. ^ CNet article on "Wikiality" segment of The Colbert Report[10]
  4. ^ Video of the Wikipedia-related segment [11]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Colbert_Report&oldid=67117317"