http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant
LOCKED.
That's right, Wikipedia has LOCKED the entry for "Elephant".
Why?
THAT'S WHY. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Colbert_Report#Consensus_on_.22Wikiality.22) (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant#On_the_Colbert_Report_Again )
Stephen is Da Man! Wow, what power! ;D
PS: big shock -- The Colbert Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report), also locked -- . ::) (history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Colbert_Report#Wikipedia_featured_on_Colbert_Report.21)) :o :D
Quote
hahahahahahaha, Colbert is causing complete chaos on wikipedia! He's a comedic genius. dposse 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Haha "The Wikimedia Foundation system administrator who locked the database offered this explanation: 'Database server overloaded '" Tanman 04:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
'Nuff said ;)
The thing is he was trying to prove was that the system was too easy to alter, but there where admins watching the show so they locked the target topics before they where altered.
Quote from: Lazybones on August 03, 2006, 01:57:52 PM
The thing is he was trying to prove was that the system was too easy to alter, but there where admins watching the show so they locked the target topics before they where altered.
Well, from what I see in the "Talk" section, the "locking" on a few of the entries was due to excessive bandwidth. I'm sure the decision to "stay locked" is based on a fear of more Colbertization of the entries ;)
Quote from: Lazybones on August 03, 2006, 01:57:52 PM
The thing he was trying to prove was that the system was too easy to alter
Wasn't that addressed by the comic of Skeletor editing He-Man's entry? amn, wish I could find it...
Quote from: Thorin on August 04, 2006, 01:31:00 PM
Quote from: Lazybones on August 03, 2006, 01:57:52 PM
The thing he was trying to prove was that the system was too easy to alter
Wasn't that addressed by the comic of Skeletor editing He-Man's entry? amn, wish I could find it...
(http://vger.homeip.net/images/ihavethepowerwiki.jpg)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16
Mwahahaha! QUICK, have a look while it's still there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He-Man *evil* ;)
(see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:He-Man#Hahaha)
update: Golly, I guess I'm not all that original (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=He-Man&diff=32017096&oldid=31586833) ::)
thought-provoking article: Wikipedia: THE Truth (http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/nonentity/nonentity1.html)
Slashdot summarizes silliness thusly: (http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/02/1747238.shtml) Stephen Colbert Wikipedia Prank 'Backfires' ???
I disagree, /.er! Unlike you, most people have a sense of humour:
http://spring.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/01/307864-stephen-colbert-causes-chaos-on-wikipedia-gets-blocked-from-site
Umm, but apparently not *everyone* though...
(comment @ newsvine.com by DrCruel) "Colbert is a smug self assured twit who uses humour to mask a lack of evidence and send a message he could not otherwise argue logically. As for myself, I think I consider Wikipedia a more veracious source of info than a comedy show run by partisan hacks." 0!#98 - Mon Aug 7, 2006 8:07 AM EDT
Ooo... Swing and a miss! ::)
The whole "Daniel Brandt" Wikipedia controversy: here's a unique perspective on it... with lots of excerpts from the "Talk" pages exposing the immaturity of some of the Wikipedia admins...
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html
e.g. 2006-04-05 (http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#020):
"He [Brandt] is sometimes refferred [sic] to as an 'expert'
in matters of privacy. That makes him a public figure,
which means his right to privacy is significantly curtailed."
::)
"Why Wikipedia isn't like Linux" (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/wikipedia_britannica_and_linux/page2.html) 8)
see also letters in response to The Register's attacks on Wikipedia (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/24/wikipedia_letters/print.html),
and
"The Great Failure of Wikipedia" (part one (http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000060.html) , two (http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000067.html))
and
Hey, look, all the MSM criticisms re. quality/accuracy are actually having an effect on Wikipedia itself! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Project_Galatea)