NationStates Jolt Archive

Scores of internet users took Colbert's bait, repeatedly vandalizing approximately 20 articles on elephants before all being placed under a lock. The move also subsequently caused Wikipedia administrator Tawker to block Stephen Colbert from the website, reportedly to verify his identity. Either Tawker is incapable of checking the above log times that corroborate Colbert, or, more likely, he just wants to be mentioned on Stephen's show (as evidenced by his notes on the block and blog entry). http://spring.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/01/307864-stephen-colbert-causes-chaos-on-wikipedia-gets-blocked-from-site

Fear the Colbert Nation! They have laid waste to Wikipedia, and they approve of Widipedia. Imagine what they will do to to an internet site that they don't like!

Dude, if only you realized how nothing reverting the changes is. The height of triviality. It was a good joke, and I certainly went to look after I saw that. More than anything else, there was an OMG we're awesome, he loves us, he really does discussion on the Colbert Report discussion page.

Dude, if only you realized how nothing reverting the changes is. The height of triviality. It was a good joke, and I certainly went to look after I saw that. More than anything else, there was an OMG we're awesome, he loves us, he really does discussion on the Colbert Report discussion page.

That is one issue. It isn't a big deal.

The second thing is vandalism to prove a point is still vandalism. I could cry up and down about how terrorists might strike Los Angeles, and if I was so frustrated that in order to prove my point I started terrorizing Los Angeles, I've not really proved anything other than the fact that given a *reason* (even a stupid one) I can do something. Just because I was just trying to illustrate a cities vunerability to something doesn't suddenly make it any more OK than the people who would do it for some other goal.

The fear and disdain for Wiki is not because of any inaccuracy...all encyclopedia's are inaccurate, and most do not correct their errors with the speed of Wiki.

No, the antithapy towards Wiki happens because people want a single reference that is 100% true...something that does not exist.

Listen, Wiki is great if one--just like in an online argument--CHECKS UP ON THE SOURCES AND USES CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS.

Wiki has, for the trustworthy articles, more than sufficient sourcing that is just a click away. If an article doesn't support what it states, ignore it until further notice. If it does have support, then READ THE LINKS.

http://spring.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/01/307864-stephen-colbert-causes-chaos-on-wikipedia-gets-blocked-from-site

Fear the Colbert Nation! They have laid waste to Wikipedia, and they approve of Widipedia. Imagine what they will do to to an internet site that they don't like!

But do we have more elephants now?

But do we have more elephants now?
Ten times as many as before! It's all thanks to wikiality

Oh noes, there's not one source that is all knowing! That's why my only reference material is the Bible. Even the parts that contradict the other parts.

That is one issue. It isn't a big deal.

The second thing is vandalism to prove a point is still vandalism. I could cry up and down about how terrorists might strike Los Angeles, and if I was so frustrated that in order to prove my point I started terrorizing Los Angeles, I've not really proved anything other than the fact that given a *reason* (even a stupid one) I can do something. Just because I was just trying to illustrate a cities vunerability to something doesn't suddenly make it any more OK than the people who would do it for some other goal.
I suppose this might be a case where one man's vandalism is another man's distributed community theater. At worst it's dropped a small in convienence on at most a couple score of people, for the entertainment of well over a million, some of whom were among the few in the scores. For me it's a matter of intent, proportion and reward. :)

Is this like computer security companies hiring convicted hackers to test their firewalls, or is it like firing nuclear missiles at the US to prove that the Point Defense missiles won't work?

Shades of gray, kids. Shades of gray.

I suppose this might be a case where one man's vandalism is another man's distributed community theater. At worst it's dropped a small in convienence on at most a couple score of people, for the entertainment of well over a million, some of whom were among the few in the scores. For me it's a matter of intent, proportion and reward. :)

Let's play that game ... one man's good is outweighed by the entertainment needs of ten men. I think we could easily dream up of some people we know with some pretty twisted entertainment "needs" ... does that make it right to screw over one person?

Of course not.

Terrorism or vanadalism to illustrate that something can be terrorised or vanadalised is the real McCoy.

Let's play that game ... one man's good is outweighed by the entertainment needs of ten men. I think we could easily dream up of some people we know with some pretty twisted entertainment "needs" ...

Like the audiences of Fear Factor or the Springer Show?

Let's play that game ... one man's good is outweighed by the entertainment needs of ten men. I think we could easily dream up of some people we know with some pretty twisted entertainment "needs" ... does that make it right to screw over one person?

Of course not.

Terrorism or vanadalism to illustrate that something can be terrorised or vanadalised is the real McCoy.
I prefer to weight things in economic value, and accept that frequent emotional inconvenience is the tribute demanded by our Republic. All told the total energy demand to rectify the inaccuracies wrought Colbert's highly entertaining sport is far FAR less that the energy people enthusiastically put forth by participating in the merrymaking. This tells us something important. Principally, that it was worth it.

Far different than something that can't be undone, burning down a house, or something very difficult to undo TP'ing a tree, Colbert's prank is something trivial to undo. Having done similar reversions myself on wikipedia I know a little something about this. In total the burden of this little game is something like the calories one might get from a stick of diet gum. For a funny, international, prank? That's the kind of theater I can get down with.

Nermid, you're so clever, I was going to go Japanese game shows.

It reminds me of people who push into queues just to gauge people reaction. eventually they get hospitalized and I laugh. especially if they end up crippled.

Wouldnt it be awsome if Colbert declared war on NSG?
Spread Truthiness!

His point, of course, was that people too easily believe anything they read or hear and it is very easy to mislead people into believing something that isn't true. His point is to not accept everything at face value. This seems to have been lost on a lot of people.

His point, of course, was that people too easily believe anything they read or hear and it is very easy to mislead people into believing something that isn't true. His point is to not accept everything at face value. This seems to have been lost on a lot of people.

That is because he choose a poor means to illustrate that point ... he resorted to vandalism of something else and people flagged it as such.

The bottomline is, if a point is *really* strong, you shouldn't have to go to any lengths for people to say, "Gee that does make sense."

I prefer to weight things in economic value, and accept that frequent emotional inconvenience is the tribute demanded by our Republic. All told the total energy demand to rectify the inaccuracies wrought Colbert's highly entertaining sport is far FAR less that the energy people enthusiastically put forth by participating in the merrymaking. This tells us something important. Principally, that it was worth it.

That sort of "logic" justifies murder.

The energy it takes to kill a person ... simply pull a trigger. The amount of protesting and legal garbage that must be sorted out afterwards. In such a warped view of "economics" we should be popping each other off ... like now. And yet amazingly it hasn't come to that yet. *knocks on wood*

Poor elephants are abused so much. Would people stop fuckign with Wikipedia...seriously. Only an immature piece of shit would vandalize it. Sorry for the cursing, but it really bothers me what people do and say about wikipedia.

His point, of course, was that people too easily believe anything they read or hear and it is very easy to mislead people into believing something that isn't true. His point is to not accept everything at face value. This seems to have been lost on a lot of people.

yes there should always be concrete quantitative easily checked proofs.


Like 3 equals 4

Theorem : 3=4
Proof:
Suppose:
a + b = c

This can also be written as:

4a - 3a + 4b - 3b = 4c - 3c

After reorganising:

4a + 4b - 4c = 3a + 3b - 3c

Take the constants out of the brackets:

4 * (a+b-c) = 3 * (a+b-c)

Remove the same term left and right:

4 = 3

yes there should always be concrete quantitative easily checked proofs.


Like 3 equals 4

Theorem : 3=4
Proof:
Suppose:
a + b = c

This can also be written as:

4a - 3a + 4b - 3b = 4c - 3c

After reorganising:

4a + 4b - 4c = 3a + 3b - 3c

Take the constants out of the brackets:

4 * (a+b-c) = 3 * (a+b-c)

Remove the same term left and right:

4 = 3

Syntax error much?

Syntax error much?
Daily

That sort of "logic" justifies murder.

The energy it takes to kill a person ... simply pull a trigger. The amount of protesting and legal garbage that must be sorted out afterwards. In such a warped view of "economics" we should be popping each other off ... like now. And yet amazingly it hasn't come to that yet. *knocks on wood*

Even using the obvious misinterpretation of the point you quoted, you got it backwards. Interpreting it correctly, you make no friggin sense.

His point, of course, was that people too easily believe anything they read or hear and it is very easy to mislead people into believing something that isn't true. His point is to not accept everything at face value. This seems to have been lost on a lot of people.
I think he just thought it would be funny and would fuck with the heads of people who argue about it online.

20 articles about elephants is kid stuff

A truly dedicated crazy internet forum community like luelinks or 4chan could have the whole database turned upside down.

That sort of "logic" justifies murder.

The energy it takes to kill a person ... simply pull a trigger. The amount of protesting and legal garbage that must be sorted out afterwards. In such a warped view of "economics" we should be popping each other off ... like now. And yet amazingly it hasn't come to that yet. *knocks on wood*
The energy to kill a person by pulling a trigger is small. But the energy of undoing the pulling is monsterous. Assuming that it's possible at all to undo the shooting with emergency surgery, pehaps followed up with plastic surgery and therapy. In the case of Colbert's Gambit™, the energy of the undoing was vanishingly small on par with pulling a trigger provided someone has bullets provided for free. Vastly smaller than the energy that went into the playing. Then again, we're still discounting the wikipedians (myself included) who were tickled by the whole affair.

Given:
Far different than something that can't be undone, burning down a house, or something very difficult to undo TP'ing a tree, Colbert's prank is something trivial to undo.
One wonders how such a grave misreading of my previous comment was even accomplished.

I just checked to see if they locked the latchkey kid entry because Colbert hinted that there was no evidence that they ended up with social problems (and suggested that the guest look in Wiki to see that it is so), and yep, they did lock it. hehe.

Colbert just made it a necessity that they watch his show and preemptively lock entries up in case of vandalism. I think this will be a joke that runs a long course.