Comments on: Stephen Colbert promotes Wiki vandalism

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:56:20 +0000

John, it is public property as defined by Wikipedia’s currently being an asset for the entire networked world to freely use and enjoy.
I agree that it may seem a bit much to compare Colbert to a book burning arsonist but I believe that widespread vandalism of Wikipedia’s that have millions of appreciative users can negatively impact society just as much as the loss of a few burned book stores.

By: John

John — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 01:14:41 +0000

Mark, How exactly does Wikipedia qualify as public property? And how would you propose to hold him accountable? I think that having his account blocked is consequence enough.

Also, comparing Colbert to a book burning arsonist is a bit much.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 05:17:28 +0000

He should be held accountable for the vandalism he caused and incited. He has knowingly and intentionally set out to vandalize public property.

To suggest that he should be praised for pointing out that Wikipedia’s have weaknesses is like praising the arsonist for revealing to society the weakness of books against fire. Yes books are vulnerable to arsonists and yes Wikipedia’s are vulnerable to jerks.

The accuracy of any reference source is never going to be 100%. Every single one of the computer books I have purchased over the years has contained a good share of errors.

In my experience with using Wikipedia the accuracy of the information has been on par with any book I have purchased and perhaps even better.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:27:17 +0000

Shodan, I read that article somewhere else. Totally awesome.

Ashutosh, exactly! As long as we aren’t citing them in our research papers, I don”t see any harm in using the Wikipedia as a reference point (at least now). Just treating it like any other ency. is probably its purpose. Truth anyway is relative :)

By: Ashutosh

Ashutosh — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:27:54 +0000

I agree. Wikipedia as a general, quick source of information is good. For research purposes or serious study, I would always double check what I read on it.

By: Shodan

Shodan — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:34:47 +0000

Doing my best to introduce random silliness to the discussion : )

By: Patrix

Patrix — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:06:03 +0000

Sriram, Wikipedia as a source for looking up quick facts is still fine and I continue to do so. Remember, we differed on if Hezbollah was backed by Iran and I hope other ’sources’ also corroborated that fact. Wikipedia for research papers; probably not such a good idea.

By: Sriram

Sriram — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:36:40 +0000

Funny, but I remember you quoting Wiki as a source. this is why wikipedia as a source doesn’t stand. Anyways, Stephen did an awesome job, kind of putting the spotlight on Wikipedia.