Wikiality

Posted on by

Stephen Colbert, in his nightly “The Word” segment on the “Colbert Report,” praised Wikipedia tonight for making truth something defined by users rather than objective reality. (He was, of course, in character when doing this.)

As a demonstration of the Colbert Nation’s strength, he has encouraged viewers to edit Wikipedia to reflect that the number of elephants in Africa is increasing, not decreasing.

I am sure that the relevant entries will soon be locked down by the Wikipedia staff.

With all due respect to Wikipedia, the segment (like much of Colbert’s “truthiness” persona) was a hilarious stab at our current “Wikiality,” where people don’t seem to want to be informed so much as to decide what they want to believe and then look for media outlets (on the left or the right) which confirm their beliefs. If they can’t find confirmation, they can always make it up themselves.

This entry was posted in Popular culture by John. Bookmark the permalink.

About John

John Carney is a journalist, a certified United Methodist lay speaker, a veteran of foreign and domestic short-term mission trips, and author of a self-published novel, Soapstone.
  • http://www.gavoweb.com gavin

    again another classic segment fo brilliance

  • http://www.gavoweb.com gavin

    again another classic segment fo brilliance

  • http://blog.johnq.com JohnQ

    In defense of Wikipedia, it’s not meant to be a totally accurate encyclopedia. If you’re using Wikipedia as a reference, you’re treading on dangerous ground.

    What Wikipedia is great for, however, is a starting point. Their information is generally true enough to get the basic ideas across about a topic. They also have tons of links to other places where more (and possibly more accurate) information can be found. If you know nothing about a topic, Wikipedia is the place to go to learn the basics and broad ideas about something which in turn gives you an idea of how better to continue your research.

    I say Wikipedia stood up to Colbert’s critique by acting quickly to preserve their integrity against a direct attack. They also met the challenge Colbert issued when he said that his Wiki entry would be updated within 15 minutes of the show.

    For a full timeline of the Colbert v Wiki saga, including changes to the Colbert entry that have since been removed (one of which is a playful rebuttal to Colbert’s 15 minutes estimation) check out

    http://blog.johnq.com/2006/08/wikiality_0_wik.html

  • http://blog.johnq.com JohnQ

    lol the comment took out the underscores in the url… just head to http://blog.johnq.com .

  • http://blog.johnq.com JohnQ

    In defense of Wikipedia, it’s not meant to be a totally accurate encyclopedia. If you’re using Wikipedia as a reference, you’re treading on dangerous ground.

    What Wikipedia is great for, however, is a starting point. Their information is generally true enough to get the basic ideas across about a topic. They also have tons of links to other places where more (and possibly more accurate) information can be found. If you know nothing about a topic, Wikipedia is the place to go to learn the basics and broad ideas about something which in turn gives you an idea of how better to continue your research.

    I say Wikipedia stood up to Colbert’s critique by acting quickly to preserve their integrity against a direct attack. They also met the challenge Colbert issued when he said that his Wiki entry would be updated within 15 minutes of the show.

    For a full timeline of the Colbert v Wiki saga, including changes to the Colbert entry that have since been removed (one of which is a playful rebuttal to Colbert’s 15 minutes estimation) check out

    http://blog.johnq.com/2006/08/wikiality_0_wik.html

  • http://blog.johnq.com JohnQ

    lol the comment took out the underscores in the url… just head to http://blog.johnq.com .

  • Pingback: No Fact Zone.Net » The Blogosphere Explodes - Wikipedia Part III: The Amazing Wikiality Race

  • Pingback: Wikiality - Truthiness at work

  • http://www.wikiality.com/ Wikiality – Truthiness at work

    Wikiality – Truthiness at work…

    If enough people believe something is true … it is — just like on Wikipedia….

  • Steven

    Call me melodramatic but this might well be the beginning of the end for Wikipedia (as a credible source of information anyway). I thought it was a cool idea when I first found out about the site a few years ago, but now it really just seems like the whole concept is completely unworkable, and I find myself increasingly irritates by the poor quality whenever I read an article there.

  • Steven

    Call me melodramatic but this might well be the beginning of the end for Wikipedia (as a credible source of information anyway). I thought it was a cool idea when I first found out about the site a few years ago, but now it really just seems like the whole concept is completely unworkable, and I find myself increasingly irritates by the poor quality whenever I read an article there.

  • Pingback: Lake Neuron » Wikiality followup