Be aware...in his The Word segment 10 minutes ago EDT Stephen Colbert asked people to go to [[Elephant]] and insert bad information, and people are already hitting the article.
FYI.
Stephen, how could you do this to us =(
On 7/31/06, John Lyden rasputinaxp@gmail.com wrote:
Be aware...in his The Word segment 10 minutes ago EDT Stephen Colbert asked people to go to [[Elephant]] and insert bad information, and people are already hitting the article.
FYI.
-- John Lyden - rasputinaxp@gmail.com "The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time..." -Kerouac _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/1/06, John Lyden rasputinaxp@gmail.com wrote:
Be aware...in his The Word segment 10 minutes ago EDT Stephen Colbert asked people to go to [[Elephant]] and insert bad information, and people are already hitting the article.
Whew. Thank god he didn't tell people to use the "random article" button, we'd have been screwed.
Steve
On 01/08/06, John Lyden rasputinaxp@gmail.com wrote:
Be aware...in his The Word segment 10 minutes ago EDT Stephen Colbert asked people to go to [[Elephant]] and insert bad information, and people are already hitting the article.
It is slightly sad that some people lack a sense of good faith.
What? He asked people to vandalise the page.
On 8/1/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/06, John Lyden rasputinaxp@gmail.com wrote:
Be aware...in his The Word segment 10 minutes ago EDT Stephen Colbert asked people to go to [[Elephant]] and insert bad information, and people are already hitting the article.
It is slightly sad that some people lack a sense of good faith.
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/08/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
What? He asked people to vandalise the page.
No, I'm saying that Colbert has no sense of good faith. Why would he just ask people to vandalise a page? Seems senseless.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 01/08/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
What? He asked people to vandalise the page.
No, I'm saying that Colbert has no sense of good faith. Why would he just ask people to vandalise a page? Seems senseless.
He's doing it "for the fun of it"; in reality, it's so that people will watch him, and he'll get more money.
On 8/1/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
What? He asked people to vandalise the page.
No, I'm saying that Colbert has no sense of good faith. Why would he just ask people to vandalise a page? Seems senseless.
Colbert's entire show is based on tongue-in-cheek parody. In fact, you could say the whole thing is intelligent "trolling". It's usually fairly funny, as the Wikipedia segment probably was.
Anyway, I'm kind of surprised he didn't mention something to Wikimedia warning it before broadcasting that segment.
Anthony
We've been getting elephant population requests ~5 times a day at WP:AFC as well.
On 02/08/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/1/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
What? He asked people to vandalise the page.
No, I'm saying that Colbert has no sense of good faith. Why would he just ask people to vandalise a page? Seems senseless.
Colbert's entire show is based on tongue-in-cheek parody. In fact, you could say the whole thing is intelligent "trolling". It's usually fairly funny, as the Wikipedia segment probably was.
Anyway, I'm kind of surprised he didn't mention something to Wikimedia warning it before broadcasting that segment.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/08/06, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
We've been getting elephant population requests ~5 times a day at WP:AFC as well.
Well, that's five fewer to delete in one way or another...
--- Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/06, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
We've been getting elephant population requests ~5
times a day at WP:AFC as
well.
Well, that's five fewer to delete in one way or another...
The population is already given and search brings you to the elephant page, so maybe this should be taken as an indication that the page may benefit from a mild reorganizing, such as a dedicated section on elephant populations. There's already a section on rogue elephants, but no population statistic for them.
Pro-Lick http://shilllicker.blogspot.com http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/2/06, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
We've been getting elephant population requests ~5 times a day at WP:AFC as well.
I repeat: I am *so* glad he made his vandalism request specific. Can you imagine if people just started turning up making outlandish but mildly plausible claims? There's no way we'd zap *all* fo them.
Steve
Steve Bennett schrieb:
On 8/2/06, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
We've been getting elephant population requests ~5 times a day at WP:AFC as well.
I repeat: I am *so* glad he made his vandalism request specific. Can you imagine if people just started turning up making outlandish but mildly plausible claims? There's no way we'd zap *all* fo them.
People who follow such a call are often not very patient. We could have proected the whole site until the idiot-storm is over. With a big banner saying so.
Magnus
On 8/3/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
People who follow such a call are often not very patient. We could have proected the whole site until the idiot-storm is over. With a big banner saying so.
That kind of reaction seems like going the wrong way. At the end of the day, Wikipedia wants to be open, and it wants to grow and develop. We should look at these "idiot storms" as opportunities to attract new contributors. It would be cool if we could replace the {{test}} template with something like "Hey, thanks for the test - we've undone it now, use the sandbox if you need to test anything else. You wouldn't happen to know anything about <insert item from requests for expansion> or <another item> would you? We're short on information on them!"
You know, obsequiously assuming good faith even when presented with evidence to the contrary can have an amazing effect on basically good-hearted people.
Steve
On 03/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/3/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
People who follow such a call are often not very patient. We could have proected the whole site until the idiot-storm is over. With a big banner saying so.
That kind of reaction seems like going the wrong way. At the end of the day, Wikipedia wants to be open, and it wants to grow and develop.
Not to mention that it would show a po-faced lack of sense of humour. I always feel that an organisation has become too large when they react terribly to jokes.
We should look at these "idiot storms" as opportunities to attract new contributors. It would be cool if we could replace the {{test}} template with something like "Hey, thanks for the test - we've undone it now, use the sandbox if you need to test anything else. You wouldn't happen to know anything about <insert item from requests for expansion> or <another item> would you? We're short on information on them!"
You know, obsequiously assuming good faith even when presented with evidence to the contrary can have an amazing effect on basically good-hearted people.
I agree, although we don't have to wait for concensus to change {{test}}. A better solution would be to just make an alternate template (perhaps in the userspace). Hopefully this template will become popular through its use and effects.
On 8/3/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention that it would show a po-faced lack of sense of humour. I always feel that an organisation has become too large when they react terribly to jokes.
...
I agree, although we don't have to wait for concensus to change {{test}}. A better solution would be to just make an alternate template (perhaps in the userspace). Hopefully this template will become popular through its use and effects.
I kind of think a group has become too large when the effort of making a change that affects everyone is too great, and *everything* becomes a fork...
Steve
On 8/3/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention that it would show a po-faced lack of sense of humour. I always feel that an organisation has become too large when they react terribly to jokes.
Depends on the joke. We have no problem with humor per se see the last line of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2038_problem
On 03/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Depends on the joke. We have no problem with humor per se see the last line of:
Haha, very good. No, I don't think we have a problem with humour either - the suggestion about blocking Wikimedia until the storm is over seemed to lack a sense of humour. If most people find a joke funny and our reaction to it makes us seem self-righteous and indignant then we have lost a sense of humour.
Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote: On 03/08/06, geni wrote:
Depends on the joke. We have no problem with humor per se see the last line of:
Haha, very good. No, I don't think we have a problem with humour either - the suggestion about blocking Wikimedia until the storm is over seemed to lack a sense of humour. If most people find a joke funny and our reaction to it makes us seem self-righteous and indignant then we have lost a sense of humour.
I was temporarily blocked for trying to add wikiality on wiktionary. It already shows 189,000 results on Google and 5 news results, including: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report
Pro-Lick on Wikipedia Halliburton Shill on Wiktionary
--------------------------------- Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
On Aug 3, 2006, at 6:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
People who follow such a call are often not very patient. We could have proected the whole site until the idiot-storm is over. With a big banner saying so.
That kind of reaction seems like going the wrong way. At the end of the day, Wikipedia wants to be open, and it wants to grow and develop. We should look at these "idiot storms" as opportunities to attract new contributors. It would be cool if we could replace the {{test}} template with something like "Hey, thanks for the test - we've undone it now, use the sandbox if you need to test anything else. You wouldn't happen to know anything about <insert item from requests for expansion> or <another item> would you? We're short on information on them!"
Great. Invite more vandalism.
On 8/2/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Anyway, I'm kind of surprised he didn't mention something to Wikimedia warning it before broadcasting that segment.
Don't forget the prevailing attitude is "Wikimedia is a website where random people write random things" - there is no understanding of a Wikipedia community, much less a Wikimedia that oversees things.
It would be like expecting someone to warn a noticeboard before telling your friends to stick notices all over it.
Steve
On 8/2/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Anyway, I'm kind of surprised he didn't mention something to Wikimedia warning it before broadcasting that segment.
Don't forget the prevailing attitude is "Wikimedia is a website where random people write random things" - there is no understanding of a Wikipedia community, much less a Wikimedia that oversees things.
Actually I'd say that is more the reality, and the common misunderstanding is that all of Wikipedia is a work of a small organized group (like say a traditional newspaper). Thus you get headlines that Wikipedia is confused about Ken Lay's death, as though the differing accounts are being written by the same person.
It would be like expecting someone to warn a noticeboard before telling your friends to stick notices all over it.
No, I think this is a little different. In journalism there is a well recognized principle that when you write a story about someone you should contact them to hear their viewpoint. This is why you often see a line in stories about "[whoever] could not be reached for comment". Now Colbert isn't a journalist, certainly not a traditional one as his show is basically a farce, but I would hope he knows who Jimmy Wales is and would be intelligent enough to contact him or someone else at Wikimedia before doing a segment on it.
Anthony
--- Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Actually I'd say that is more the reality, and the common misunderstanding is that all of Wikipedia is a work of a small organized group (like say a traditional newspaper). Thus you get headlines that Wikipedia is confused about Ken Lay's death, as though the differing accounts are being written by the same person.
Good point.
Now Colbert isn't a journalist, certainly not a traditional one as his show is basically a farce, but I would hope he knows who Jimmy Wales is and would be intelligent enough to contact him or someone else at Wikimedia before doing a segment on it.
Why? Wikimedia just pays the bills - it doesnt run the show. Wikipedians run the show, and any Wikipedian who saw that report probably got up off the couch and strolled over to their computer just to make sure it didnt get out of hand. Wikifaith - apparently Colbert has some sense of it. Wikifunniness too maybe.
-SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/2/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Now Colbert isn't a journalist, certainly not a traditional one as his show is basically a farce, but I would hope he knows who Jimmy Wales is and would be intelligent enough to contact him or someone else at Wikimedia before doing a segment on it.
Why? Wikimedia just pays the bills - it doesnt run the show. Wikipedians run the show, and any Wikipedian who saw that report probably got up off the couch and strolled over to their computer just to make sure it didnt get out of hand. Wikifaith - apparently Colbert has some sense of it. Wikifunniness too maybe.
I dunno. I apparently was wrong that it's a standard practice anyway. It would have been nice if *someone* had gotten a heads up *before* Colbert told the public to come vandalise the web site (even if it was said tongue-in-cheek).
Anthony
On 8/2/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I dunno. I apparently was wrong that it's a standard practice anyway. It would have been nice if *someone* had gotten a heads up *before* Colbert told the public to come vandalise the web site (even if it was said tongue-in-cheek).
If you look at the talk page history, we were onto it basically as soon as it went to air, and semi-protection kicked within minutes or so. How much warning do you need that a bunch of kids are going to come past and moon your office window?
Steve
On 02/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at the talk page history, we were onto it basically as soon as it went to air, and semi-protection kicked within minutes or so. How much warning do you need that a bunch of kids are going to come past and moon your office window?
They probably knew we'd pick up on it straight away anyway.
On 8/2/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Why? Wikimedia just pays the bills - it doesnt run the show. Wikipedians run the show, and any Wikipedian who saw that report probably got up off the couch and strolled over to their computer just to make sure it didnt get out of hand. Wikifaith - apparently Colbert has some sense of it. Wikifunniness too maybe.
Perhaps the best place to have mentioned it before the episode aired would have been the Village Pump or somesuch. I agree that notifying Wikimedia would have been unnecessary.
On 8/2/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/1/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
What? He asked people to vandalise the page.
No, I'm saying that Colbert has no sense of good faith. Why would he just ask people to vandalise a page? Seems senseless.
Colbert's entire show is based on tongue-in-cheek parody. In fact, you could say the whole thing is intelligent "trolling". It's usually fairly funny, as the Wikipedia segment probably was.
That's the first time I ever heard intelligent satire referred to as intelligent trolling. Jonathan Swift is turning over in his grave somewhere :P
On 8/2/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Colbert's entire show is based on tongue-in-cheek parody. In fact, you could say the whole thing is intelligent "trolling". It's usually fairly funny, as the Wikipedia segment probably was.
That's the first time I ever heard intelligent satire referred to as intelligent trolling. Jonathan Swift is turning over in his grave somewhere :P
The only real difference between satire and trolling is whether or not you get the joke! Of course the word "trolling" has basically become meaningless at this point. People use the term for basically anything and everything.
Anthony
Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:The only real difference between satire and trolling is whether or not you get the joke! Of course the word "trolling" has basically become meaningless at this point. People use the term for basically anything and everything.
Anthony _______________________________________________
No, trolling is to illicit a response, preferably an extended, irate one. Satire, as you may be aware, has a long history in non-interactive media, such as books.
If wikiality hasn't disrupted it, I'm sure wikipedia's entry for each can help you better understand both and their distinctions.
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:35:03 -0700 (PDT), Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
trolling is to illicit a response
I think you mean elicit.
Oh, wait, you were trolling, weren't you?
Guy (JzG)
--- Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:35:03 -0700 (PDT), Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
trolling is to illicit a response
I think you mean elicit.
Oh, wait, you were trolling, weren't you?
Technically, I was writing an effective lede to inseminate the sede that trolling is illegal in the public consciousness. I recall rede'n that somewhere in Wikipedia.
http://shilllicker.blogspot.com http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cheney Shill wrote:
Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:The only real difference between satire and trolling is whether or not you get the joke! Of course the word "trolling" has basically become meaningless at this point. People use the term for basically anything and everything.
Anthony _______________________________________________
No, trolling is to illicit a response, preferably an extended, irate one. Satire, as you may be aware, has a long history in non-interactive media, such as books.
If wikiality hasn't disrupted it, I'm sure wikipedia's entry for each can help you better understand both and their distinctions.
You are mostly right but there is a very large amount of "Trolling" hat goes on which is quite obviously a joke. In this case the troll is really only going after the users who are either too easily agitated to read carefully or just plane dumb. In that instance it really is a matter of "getting the joke".
Dalf