Then Wikipedia moderators dictate what is "true". You say you weed out the obvious inaccuracies, but what is obvious to one may not be obvious or oppositely obvious to another. I know this horse has been beaten to death many times over, and I'm not knocking Wikipedia in practice (I think it's great for information on non-polarizing topics), but the concept seems flawed in the favor of popular belief. But then again, what isn't...
Here's a thought: what if tomorrow a report comes out showing that African elephants have increased 50% over the last three years... what will the Wikipedia moderators do? How much faith can we put in the moderators for due diligence in fact checking, particularly when I'm pretty sure there will be at least a few people out there trying to fabricate such a report (maybe Steven's staff writers...). Would we ever end up with an entry noting the increase in population, but without speculation on whether or not it is true?
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.
Burns: Then it's agreed. I'll supply you terrorists with deadly uranium.
Terrorist: You are a credit to the great Satan.
Burns: Oh, pshaw.
I believe it will turn out something like this:
Burns: Then it's agreed. I'll supply you freedom fighters with delicious yogurt.
Freedom Fighter: You are a credit to the great Sultan.
Burns: Oh, pshaw.
Regarding this article, the author expounds on exactly how I felt about Ender's Game: it's a violent nerd revenge fantasy. The reason it was popular then and continues to draw new converts is that the book is simply begging SF readers to identify with the super-intelligent, ultra-skilled outcast with a heart of gold who is beset on all sides by bullies, uncaring authority figures and a brutal system. And when he's pushed into a corner, he responds by killing his enemies. What middle school geek isn't going to identify with that?
It's a decent enough book, and held my attention up until the last few pages (with Ender nursing a bugger from his super-child teat). Unlike most first-time readers, I had the benefit of being older than 20 when first picking it up. Like many other things from childhood (Star Wars, anyone?), the book picks up a gilded nostalgia that prevents an objective look later on. I'm no literary critic, but it's interesting to see other people reach the same conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a thought: what if tomorrow a report comes out showing that African elephants have increased 50% over the last three years... what will the Wikipedia moderators do? How much faith can we put in the moderators for due diligence in fact checking, particularly when I'm pretty sure there will be at least a few people out there trying to fabricate such a report (maybe Steven's staff writers...). Would we ever end up with an entry noting the increase in population, but without speculation on whether or not it is true?
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.
Terrorist: You are a credit to the great Satan.
Burns: Oh, pshaw.
I believe it will turn out something like this:
Burns: Then it's agreed. I'll supply you freedom fighters with delicious yogurt.
Freedom Fighter: You are a credit to the great Sultan.
Burns: Oh, pshaw.
It's a decent enough book, and held my attention up until the last few pages (with Ender nursing a bugger from his super-child teat). Unlike most first-time readers, I had the benefit of being older than 20 when first picking it up. Like many other things from childhood (Star Wars, anyone?), the book picks up a gilded nostalgia that prevents an objective look later on. I'm no literary critic, but it's interesting to see other people reach the same conclusion.