How Truthiness And Wikiality Helped Colbert Take Down Wikipedia
from the the-revolution-will-not-be-verified dept
Since The Daily Show has been getting so much love from the tech crowd lately, with their recent discussions on net neutrality, spinoff show The Colbert Report had to really step things up to top its parent show. They did so by going after a topic that would get even more attention among techies: Wikipedia. As plenty of folks have been emailing and submitting, Stephen Colbert decided to take on Wikipedia tonight, and discuss his vision for a new "Wikiality," where the masses create the facts they want to believe in. And did they ever. At the conclusion of the amusing segment, Colbert instructs his audience to find the Wikipedia entry on elephants, and edit it to say that "the number of elephants has tripled in the last six months." Not surprisingly, plenty of people went to either make the edit, or to see if had been made. Sean Feeney quickly wrote in to note that the rush from the Colbert Nation apparently took down the site, giving visitors a message about technical difficulties. Of course, it didn't take long for the folks at Wikipedia to leap into action and lock down 20 elephant related Wikipedia pages (they also claim that the technical problem was unrelated to Colbert-driven traffic, but Colbert is likely to claim otherwise). Of course, for those who are both fans of Stephen Colbert and Wikipedia... who gets the tip of the hat and who gets the wag of the finger?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FIRST POST!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALso..
Spam will KILL wikipedia. In about 2-3 years I predict the onslaught of automated bots looking for topics on wikipedia to link to link farms with keyword analysis, followed quickly by a full user system with captcha and everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bahahahaha
The Colbert Report is awesome, maybe even better than the Daily Show......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bahahahaha
Yes, Wikipedia needs to move with the times and innovate better security while maintaining open source. However, I still think it's out of line for Colbert (or anyone else) to mass-promote site vandalism the way he did. It would be too bad to see a site like Wikipedia die out due to mass-vandalism as a result of celebrity promotion of such acts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really don't think this is cool on Colbert's part, it's like a malevolent /. effect attack. Jimbo should make him revert all the changes his audience made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They're in the industry. They know their audience better than anyone. Which is exactly why they're so popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kat
Although it's certainly possible that there is a significant contingent of Colbert Report viewers who take it seriously. After all, there were enough idiots at the White House Press Dinner to hire him to speak there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lemmings...
As for wikipedia, I think it's best defense against spam is the same one that exists against erroneous information, user feedback. The more users it has the more quickly spam gets taken down when it occurs. About the only thing maybe they should do is improve protection against bots to make the task of making spam links more difficult to produce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiki
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wiki
Yes. That was out of line. But that doesn't make him any less funny. For all the comedic genius in his body the guy should get a little credit for attacking the wrong thing - I think he should apologize for underestimating the impact his joke would have in reality - that would square things up as far as I'm concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cobert Report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cobert Report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cobert Report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cobert Report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
viva la revolution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the "Wiki" principle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the "Wiki" principle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: coment 12
I mean, isn't this a self-propelling problem? They very problem he's complaining about, he's propagating! Most of the articles on Wikipedia try to stay void of opinion and just keep to the facts as they are known. Why are these people in such a rush to vandalise anything that smacks of progress? Are they afraid of it? Did it say something nasty about them? Or are they still just acting like children, messing it up because they can? There are communities that monitor most of the stuff, ad the admins can close anything down that becomes an opinion war. Look at Bush Jr's article - it survived the war and it mostly lists the facts and timeline of his presidency with little, if any, opinion.
To people that vandalise it just because it can be, I say GROW UP! Wiki's just trying to help, what's your problem with that?! In my opinion, anyone that contributes should have to register, prove their intentions are neutral, and have to prove, in conversation, that they are just adding information. It is, I'll admit, naive for Wikipedia to trust anybody to any capacity, and believe in nothing but the worst in people; I also believe the people who did this are worthless fuckers, and proves even more that mandatory registration and presentation of evidence into the group or admins controlling the article should be mandatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accept Wikipedia for what it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accept Wikipedia for what it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank You Colbert!
The fact that Wikipedia shrugged off this challenge fairly easily is a testament to its robustness.
The real issue is that a BUNCH of people who probably had never heard of wikipedia just did. Wikipedia can't buy that kind of advertising.
In fact, perhaps the wiki foundation should start a Hollywood campaign to get some "product placements" into movies and television shows so even more people can join in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fatal flaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pat robertson et. al.
'what happens when Pat Robertson and the 700 club catch on to Wikipedia and start editing entries about homosexuality and non-Christian religions?"
read the wikipedia article on part robertson, or paul wolfowitz, or any other conservative. at least half the time the neutrality of the article is being disputed.
colbert's whole running gag has been that we should blindly accept the whitehouse's version of everything and to not think for ourselves, telling people to vandalize wikipedia is part and parcel with his schtick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compromise
Wikipedia may have some disadvantages, but it is one-of-a-kind. Other sources of information may be more reliable in some ways, but they have their own disadvantages. Despite its flaws, Wikipedia is a great resource and I believe it will change with the times - after all, that's what it's designed to do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the onion took on wikipedia too
Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence
Founding Fathers, Patriots, Mr. T. Honored
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lighten up people
2) Nobody is going to believe that the population of elephants has tripled in six months.
3) Wikipedia is great, but it's not Holy Writ. It's an experiment in collaborative information-sharing. It's vulnerable to this sort of thing, more or less by design. This is not a problem.
4) Once they're through cleaning up the entry on elephants, it'll probably be way better than it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia is generally good...
What Colbert did was point out one of these 'dangers' to the normally uninterested public. I believe this is a good thing because, like similar situations with Myspace and Ebay, it allows the public to become more aware of what the tool can and cannot provide and the 'dangers' associated with its use. Informed users are always better than blind ones.
As long as the Wikipedia community continues to police itself (by disputing facts, erasing incorrect information, etc) it will keep getting better and better and the malicious efforts of a few will be washed away by the noble efforts of the many.
As it turns out, if you give the public a chance they are indeed capable of doing the right thing and more often than not, prefer to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be ridiculous
They were thinking; there's nothing lemming-like about it.
It's like Nathan said, Wikipedia doesn't NEED anything, it is what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone even wrote that a "good prosecutor" could "make a case" against Colbert for inciting violations of cybercrime laws. Which law is it that prohibits a person from posting inaccurate information on Wikipedia?
This all exposes the vulnerability of Wikipedia and other Internet resources to inaccurate information yet also confirms the ability of the community to safeguard Wikipedia's content. These seem to be positive points, but at the very least, they represent reality.
If you're upset about this, you probably crave an Internet and broadcast media that are much more restricted by the government. Fortunately, you can find this in China, so I'd recommend a visit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cybercrime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They played into the joke to confirm his point while having some fun, curious about where the joke could lead.
To fully understanding Colbert's meaning is the opposite of being weak. Watch the show, and if you miss any of the biting social and political commentary, made through satire, post here and I'll explain it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called Wikiteering - the processes of adding your own links to wikipedia articles for SEO purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is everyone so upset?
Well guess what, this is a great way to use the Wiki system to demonstrate that it is different than an encyclopedia.
There's no harm done to Sean, and no harm to Wiki, so chill.
And yes, I am a WIki contributor. I look after my little article every month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the public will do the right thing?
As it turns out, if you give the public a chance they are indeed capable of doing the right thing and more often than not, prefer to."
I guess the "public" doesn't watch Colbert, then eh? Which "public" are you referring to? I think what happened with the Colbert show indicates more clearly than ever that given the temptation, the "public" will do the wrong thing, not the right thing. As it has turned out this time, if you give the public a chance to do the wrong thing, the malicious efforts of the many (Colbert viewers) have to be cleaned up by the noble efforts of the few (wiki staff).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the public will do the right thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the public will do the right thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colbert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Would O'Reilly Do?
O'Reilly's true style is way below this; if anything, he (and other would-be disinformatives) would perpetrate something like this in secret. Something tells me he'd go for something a little more relevant to his own ends than the elephant population.
Recall that the staffs of certain Federal representatives--both elected and appointed--modified their masters' Wikipedia entries about a year ago--and were caught. I like to think that there are plenty of volunteers who monitor changes to Wikipedia pages, but I doubt that there are enough to survive an orchestrated attack.
And I cling naively to the hope that such attacks will continue to require masses of human beings (as opposed to botnets) in order to vandalize freely available resources--at least for the foreseeable future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Would O'Reilly Do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
saw the show last night, very funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colbert Report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A certain segment of the population will always be so poorly socialized or simply sociopathic, and will make a mess of things given the chance.
I don't see any problem with requiring logins and some sort of karma-authorization system to keep the screwups from spoiling Wikipedia for us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't watch the show, do you Kat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm....
As far as I'm concerned, 'requiring logins and some sort of karma-authorization system' would spoil Wikipedia for us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many Colbert Watchers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Many Colbert Watchers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he had told his audience to go on and state edit in their opinions on some topic they had some particular knowledge on, that wouldn't be so bad because there would probablly be roughly an equal amount of good and bad edits and once (most of) the bad edits got corrected, Wikipedia would be left with a net positive gain.
Telling the audience to go and mess up the Elephants page is just mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
checks and balances
Granted this system is only as good as its users. However thats true of all information systems. Over time automated checks and balances will have to be added to fight spammers using automated tools against wikipedia. But any and all good software design is a process of evolution. Wikipedia is the same, and over time will have to evolve or become defunct. But the designers have done a great job to date, hopefully they will continue to do so for the future. It shouldn't be a process of debate or arm chair quarter backing but rather it's us working as community together to keep Wikipedia what it is :) a Great shared resource.
peace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know...
I agree that it has it's flaws. But it's really just this massive experiment. An experiment that happens to be kicking ass at what it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boycott
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the fuss?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WikiWar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeesh.
Gullible.info is a website devoted to made-up facts. They are trying to distance themselves from Wikipedia because (amongst other things) in the past back-and-forth link has required them to debunk their own fake facts in Wiki articles. It's a unique case. Ease up, tiger.
To Brad Eleven:
The speaker at the White House Correspondents' Dinner has always been an entertainer, and has become more and more 'roastish' as the years have gone by. Even if he didn't wow the crowd, bringing Colbert in is exactly what they've always done. Nothing idiotic about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
D & D rules!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read some research
They concluded that as far as science is concerned, it is as accurate as Encyclopedia Brtannica.
It was slightly less accurate concerning contemporary events and culture.
Overall the researchers concluded that it is as accurate as anything else in print.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What could "kill" Wikipedia are its fundamental flaws in structure and philosophy. We can already see that the hype Wikipedia has been receiving from the mainstream media is dying down now, and being gradually replaced with cynicism and ridicule as people realise that, in actual fact, Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia, but rather an often-innacurate repository of trivia and a place for nerds to participate in flamewars with each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, were you talking about wikipedia or techdirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikiality Lives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia
I am a volunteer Wikipedia administrator, and I thought Colbert's bit was hilarious.
What drew me to Wikipedia (WP) was the desire to make sure that the articles on my and related professions weren't being spammed, and I spend about half my time there removing spam and banning spammers as well as other vandals. Due to the increased traffic, a lot gets by, but it is usually caught fairly soon.
Even so, WP is a better place to start researching a subject than it is to use as a reliable source...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Wikipedia...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen
thank you
Duane barry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stephen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It didn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help define a reality we can all agree on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robust?
Unless you were one of the 2 billion or so people with internet access outside the USA, or not watching Colbert, who happened to consult Wikipedia's entry for African Elephants last night - and got wrong information.
Click ... Boom!
Admit your Wikipedia dreams are over, guys.
You can't vote for the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of a Borges short story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia Rules!
I'm willing to pay for the 1% inaccuracy. Besides where else can you go and find the information contained within the Wiki web site?
You'd be pressed to do alot more searching or paying.
Not so bad now...is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikiality.com is here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny thing is ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
¿And?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contradictions everywhere
Sure the masses can decide what they want to believe, until a minority committee of Wikipedia admins disagrees.
I think this Elephant deal was perfect. The masses decided to believe something different, and a minority population disagreed. Then the minority population used tools and influence such as locking the page to ensure that only their opinion mattered and won.
That's not open.
Facts will be disputed...until the admins decide they should not be. Yet they have no credentials to argue their facts are better than yours. Meanwhile experts and academics are vilified for claiming to be authorities. The only expert authority in Wikipedia is admin apparently.
So who is right about Elephants? Who is to say Colbert wasn't right about the population? Wikipedia doesn't respect expert authorities that aren't open, so what WWF says doesn't count. WWF doesn't just let anyone dispute and change the information they publish, so they can't be trusted.
Wikipedia is an array of contradictions, and that was the point Colbert made beautifully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contradictions everywhere
I'm inclined to agree except you're forgetting something. Admin locked Wikipedia because it became very apparent that "vandals", or folks who thought it would be funny to take Colbert's suggestions to heart, were about to completely skew the collected data of people who were serious and concerned and diligent enough to contribute to the African elephant and other elephant entries. So the administrative staff did not lock those entries to ensure their opinions were the main source of info to be delivered to the masses, but rather to protect the efforts made by countless elephant enthusiasts as it were who made those entries in the first place -- a group maybe far outnumbering those who were ready to sabotage those entries. So in fact, the Wiki administration was looking out for the minority trying to report factual information.
At any rate, I agree that Colbert made a good point, however rebelliously it may have been executed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The revolution will not be verified
And who gets a Tip of the Hat or a Wag of the Finger? I think both Colbert and Wikipedia get the former. Colbert for pointing Wiki out and Wikipedia for the quick response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elephants - AntiWikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, by the gods.
Have any of you actually observed how Wikipedia works? Or are you all just flaming Wikipedia when in fact you have no clue how it works? I suspect the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is EVERYONE completely ignorant?
I'm not saying that other systems of information need not be questioned, but Wikipedia is garbage, and no comments about close-mindedness or not understanding the checks that are in place will change this. The information is not reliable, and until there are stronger checks in place, it never will be. And banning IP addresses is not enough. Anyone can mask that easily enough.
And even if someone does revert any false changes, for the time that the information was incorrect, it could have been accessed by any number of people. What do you say to them?
Different people have different priorities. That is the flat out truth. Weather you know it or not, you have your own, no matter how neutral you might try and be. And it has been recorded that people with priorities have systematically changed "facts" to suit their own priorities, whatever they may be. And this includes the "altruistic" admins that run that site. Not all of them are as benevolent as they claim.
At least when you watch the CBC you know it is going to have more of a Liberal slant, or when you read the Sun or the Post, it'll be Conservative. Wikipedia is anyone guess, and as such it is mostly useless, system of checks notwithstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's a comedian.
No he wasn't. Steven Colbert is a comedian. He is funny. He did something that he thought was funny. It kind of was. Steven Colbert deserves a wag of the finger for recommending that his viewers sabotage a good thing.
When I saw that episode, I immediately went to the African elephants page, not to sabotage, but to see if it was locked down. It was. Good for wikipedia.
A little off topic, but since we are talking about the strengths and weaknesses of wikipedia, has anyone noticed how snooty the staff are? I make several changes every month, usually spelling and/or grammar, sometimes filling in blanks. About three times so far, I got their "Your submission is not approved and has been reverted" page. Ok, fine. I'm not perfect, maybe I made a mistake. But the problem is, that page is uninformative and condescending. It doesn't say what edit was not approved. I make several. It also doesn't say why it wasn't approved. It is also condescending. "Thank you for experimenting with wikipedia. In the future, please experiment in the sandbox." Wikipedia needs to get off their high horse and recognize that they would be less complete without user contribution. In fact, they would be almost nothing without it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeebus, they are all idiots...
People do not "vote on" articles. Unsourced statements are marked as uncited and deleted. The only actual "voting" process occurs when an article is nominated for deletion. Even then, it is not the number of users on each side as much as the consensus. Three users with correct and valid arguments to keep an article will outweigh fifteen users who give no sound argument to delete.
There is no opinion involved in publishing cited facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not clear
I'm not sure why Wikipedia works. It shouldn't. It's a terrible idea, and a recipe for disaster. But for some reason it does, even in an age where any moron can use the internet, for some reason they've managed to keep their database reasonably stable, even one that everyone on the internet has the power to edit. And yes, there have always been vandals, but overall they haven't overrun the pages. Don't ask me WHY it's worked, I have no idea, and certainly I wouldn't advise anyone to "assume good intentions" of everyone online, but they did, and for the most part they got what they wanted.
I think the actions on the part of Colbert's fans were a clear-cut case of "finding what you're looking for." They created a problem, namely mass vandalism, and now they're claiming it's always been a major problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really.
You cannot use multiple accounts to influence consensus. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOCK.
You cannot push your own point of view on an article, this gets you banned. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV.
There is a large group of editors that pass a rigorous process and examination so that they have exculsive rights. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ADMIN.
I'm sick of all these people who have absolutely no experience on the site saying "WELL IF ANY1 CAN EDIT THEN IT CANT B ACCURATE!!!111"
There are literally hundreds of thousands of malicious edits made every day on Wikipedia. Even if Colbert could get 100,000 people to vandalise the site (which I seriously doubt, the number was more like 10), it would make no difference. Wikipedia IS ALREADY UNDER ATTACK. Everyone keeps saying "well, people can screw up the database". Dead wrong. They've been reverting and blocking since January 2001. They're not going to be overrun.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Honestly, you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flameviper is a perfect example.
Little anecdote, I vandalized several articles and my vandalisms stayed for weeks (people even SPELLCHECKED my vandalisms)... then someone took it down as being "unreferenced". So I left the page, created a Geocities account... and self referenced myself, that was up for months before people noticed my little addition.
And I wasn't "subtle" like Colbert was planning on being, I posted blatant lies that most people could see through but were worded in such a manner that it seemed true.
Simple matter of distorting information without being too stupid. (Like claiming sulfur is yellow, but turns bright red under High Spectrum UV Light, this effect is caused by the electron ionization shells increasing due to the UV Radition.) [I don't think any of that really makes much sense]
A simple claim that "the number of Elephants has tripled in the last six months" is quite likely to be left unnoticed... expecially if worded into an existing paragraph. (But most wikimorons probally remember the attack and will take it down...)
Remember the number one rule of Wikipedia, if don't read the ARTICLE, read the EDITS. Which means if your edit can survive for a few days, most Wikipedians won't notice it.
Nother anecdote. I have several wikipedia accounts... and just to test my theory I made a blatant vandalism to an article and with one of my wikiaccounts followed up with an edit. Several edits actually. No one touched the blatant error for days... I think it was me vandalizing another article to see if I could do it again that brought the vandalism to wikipedias attention (although to the cred, it was some article about some stupid person that no one knows).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]