Slashdot Mirror
Stephen Colbert Wikipedia Prank Backfires
Vicissidude writes "The champion of 'truthiness' couldn't resist making fun of a website where facts, it seems, are endlessly malleable. But after making fun of Wikipedia on Monday night's "Colbert Report," Colbert learned some hard truths about Wikipedia's strength in resisting vandalism. Here's how the segment started: 'Colbert logs on to the Wikipedia article about his show to find out whether he usually refers to Oregon as "California's Canada or Washington's Mexico." Upon learning that he has referred to Oregon as both, he demonstrates how easy it is to disregard both references and put in a completely new one (Oregon is Idaho's Portugal), declaring it "the opinion I've always held, you can look it up."' Colbert then called on users to go to the site and falsify the entry on elephants. But Wikipedia's volunteer administrators were among those watching Colbert, and they responded swiftly to correct the entry, block further mischievous editing, and ban user StephenColbert from the website."
Who in their right mind would use Wiki as a 'source' document?
It is a great tool and it works as a starting point. You still have to verify data.
Then again, there are people that still try to go whale watching in Lake Michigan.
I thought the goal was to be funny. Considering it was hilarious, I think it worked out perfectly.
Somebody better head over to Wikipedia and proofread the entries for 'irony' and 'satire'.
...not the ones that are obvious vandalism.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
If that's a joke backfiring, what's success? Having America celebrate it's 750th birthday?
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
On the contrary, it proved exactly what Colbert's point was. Wikipedia's very nature makes it prone to misttatements and error. Wikipedia practically had to shut itself down after Colbert proved his point.
Seems like the submitter couldn't see the beauty of the satire. Just like Dave Barry's "Dog Ate My Toes" poetry project, it gave us all a good laugh, which is the entire point of humor and satire.
Backfired? No way. We all got a great laugh from this.
JoAnn
Backfired? Quite the opposite. This proves his point. If it's left open you can end up with any facts people choose to insert. The other option is to limit edit rights, which goes against the basic idea behind the site.
I'm sure he didn't go to bed crying because he's been blocked from editing wikipedia.
Developers: We can use your help.
I think Colbert's point was that Wikipedia and other vote based knowledge bases ultimately conform to the beliefs of the majority, and not actual fact. The truth isn't democratic in nature (although truthiness might be). If a bunch of skinheads get together and vote that the Holocaust never happened, that doesn't make it true. Just because a moderator was watching and locked down the entry isn't a display of Wikipedia's power. The moderator can't handle everything in that fashion. If the power of Wikipedia is in the breadth and good will of it's contributors, then unlock the entry and let's see what happens.
Wikipedia is a bit larger than that, and is quite a bit hardier than you imagine.
Other than referring to O'Reilly as "Papa Bear," being loud and obnoxious, and covering his set in American flags, the show is not at all a straight spoof of O'Reilly. A simple spoof of the Factor would give you about 5 minutes of material, but Colbert mocks pretty much the entire media establishment, especially the "opinion" media (which some would argue constitutes all media these days). He also dabbles in some straight Daily Show-style political satire.
I don't know how you could have possibly watched more than one or two episodes of the Colbert Report and still refer to it as nothing but an O'Reilly ripoff. Or maybe you're just repeating what O'Reilly himself says about the show, without having actually watched it yourself.
Finally, my name as well as references to my work were removed from a few articles (for instance, from the entries about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Narcissism (Psychology)). At least one of the "editors" who were responsible for what appears to be a vindictive act ("Danny") claims to be somehow associated with the Wikimedia's grants commission.
Oh, sweet, sweet irony.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
It was hard to read that article over the sound of the grinding axe.
I read the internet for the articles.
I couldn't disagree more. Well, maybe I could a little... I do agree that Colbert is rarely laugh out loud funny...
However!
I don't think one needs to love the subject in order to satirize it. I don't think this has ever been the case. Do you not find the Daily Show funny either? They are downright vicious with thier attacks sometimes. Very rarely do I get the sence that they have an affection for thier subject matter and I think that's a good thing. If they donned a "just kidding!" attitude, it would remove the potency of both the humor and the very valid cultural statement that they are making. (This all applies to The Colbert Report as well.)
I will admit that the meaness sometime sucks the merriement from the room. The too-true-to-be-too-funny principle often applies for both shows, but while Steward is much better at laughing it off and playing the room, Colbert deliberately wallows in it. (See his keynote at the Washington Press Dinner. How could he even stand it?) But I'll say again: this is not only a good thing for comedy, its a good thing for our culture. Often this satire is so scathing that it far outpaces the standard news organiztions in "sticking it" to the guilty parties, a practice that is very important in a free society. This is what, at root, makes these shows so entertaining: people simply crave that biting hatred of wrong-doing-organizations that seem to be getting a free pass from the rest of the media.
Only on slashdot could this be modded "insightful." Many of the funniest comedians have no love for the things they skewer. According to your theory, George Carlin simply can't be funny as he tears apart the church, business, or idiocy (he is, in fact, hilarious in all cases) . Richard Pryror?. Clearly, we need someone who can appreciate racism to tell jokes about it. Lewis Black? Bill Hicks? You offer a few positive examples of your all-encompassing theory (i.e. there are plenty of folks who skewer things they love) without addressing the avalache of evidence disproving it. Sheesh. If you want to theorize about funny, you better *be* funny. And by the way, just because colbert doesn't make you laugh doesn't mean he's not funny -- it means you dont' get him. There's a big difference. Not every comedian is going for breadth of audience, and that doesn't make them less funny than, say Larry the Cable Guy, any more than topology a lessor math than arithmetic.