![]() | This project page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I wouldn't say Colbert encouraged or told people to vandalize the article on elephants. He stated that he was doing it, but didn't say, instruct, or even strongly imply that others should vandalize Wikipedia. He did express that he wasn't a fan of Wikipedia itself, but he didn't go out and tell people to tear it apart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.204.149.100 ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And yet, this is in dispute. Quite remarkable how the first discussion was overturned in controversial circumstances, now, isn't it? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What happens if a media personality 'vandalizes' this page itself by adding themselves when they had not previously vandalized Wikipedia? Do you have to remove it and immediately add it back again? Because the minute you consider it inaccurate, it becomes accurate. Maybe it's a good thing Godel isn't still around...
72.1.186.174 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the current title of this article "List of media personalities to vandalise Wikipedia" sound like it is in future tense? It sounds like a prediction. Perhaps a more general title such as "Media personalities and Wikipedia vandalism" would be better, though I half think that this content should be a section at Criticism of Wikipedia. - BT 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The following was added:
However, are Penny Arcade "media personalities"? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how many people spend hours reading their radio but I certainly don't. I think, unless it's referring to the Radio 1 website, the reference to the Radio 1 "readers" should be changed to "listeners". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madeinsane ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comic book writer/artist John Bryne engaged in a length and acrimonious edit war over his own Wikipedia entry? Should this be added? - CNichols 01:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that it would be a good idea to show the vandalizations, just to verify that they actually happened. Starhood` 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the history for the Vince Demitri article, 63.163.57.20 was the first IP to vandalize the article to say he has 27 children, so technically his IP is logged, even though it's just the IP for a proxy server for NBC. He wasn't singled out for IP logging though, which is what the news article seems to suggest, so I'll change this page to reflect that. Ziiv 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning this too? It was created alongside a Dinosaur Comics strip about the same subject.
I've gone ahead and written a short thing about Ryan North. - henryfish
The result of the debate was Move Duja ► 10:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote on Wikipedia:Requested moves, it's an interesting article, but we're not that notable that this would warrant its own article, so I'm proposing a move to the Wikipedia namespace. -- Conti| ✉ 20:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Because Stephen Colbert's (in character) vandalism is of a wholly different nature than the rest of this list - not meant mearly as comedy, self promotion, or absurdity - I've moved his list entry to the top and bolded his name. He's not only the most notable character to have vandalized wikipedia, but did so for the purpose of social commentary on how information is distrubuted and believed or disbelieved; how "facts" can be manufactured.
OK, so how are we going to merge it? And how can we make sure the merge sticks? After all, we want the article kept right? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As info on living people, these bullet points should be sourced to make it clear that it was them. I could log in as any username and say "Madeleine Albright has blanked this page on order of Kim-Jong-Il", and that would not make it Madeleine Albright. Milto LOL pia 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at the article on Weird al, and it occured to me, Wikipedia does not support the type of Word Art in Editing Pages, So that Isn't Really Vandilisim. 68.173.12.180 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC) NOTE: A actually am User: Samnuva, I'm Just not logged in right now.
I propose this is moved to Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media. Who would like to do the honours? Carcharoth 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media — More neutral name - allows this 'Wikipedia' article to expand outside just vandalism to cover other aspects of editing by the media. See below for more details. Carcharoth 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with the following text:
To me, this constitutes completely unnecessary, blatantly POV editorializing. Does the fact that this page resides in the Wikipedia namespace rather than in the main space make it "okay" to indulge in rambling editorials? I think not. Can we remove this language?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The references give the dates, but the dates should also appear in each entry. I've also found the following examples from scanning through the other "in the media" pages and a brief Google search:
Just for starters. Carcharoth 13:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales was given the "Mr. Ten Questions" treatment by Andrew Hansen of The Chaser on The Chaser's War on Everything in early May. He got 4/10, which is pretty good. Here's the video - the file was uploaded legally as it's an Australian Broadcasting Corporation series. Hansen claimed to have vandalised Jimbo's article to read he was a "teenage druglord from Malaysia". An edit to this effect was made in late April - here's the diff. Other edits of similar content were made for the next few days by various users. I don't know how to cite this though as it was a TV episode and is not yet on DVD. It's discussed on Talk:Jimmy Wales. ~ Switch ( ✉ ✍ ☺) 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This edit was really not the best. We don't need a chronological structure like this, too many sections with not enough text. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
On 26 August at around 12:30 am UTC+10 on her radio show, Helen Razer claimed to have edited the Moon article to claim that "The moon is made of cheese" in a segment criticising Wikipedia in a manner similar to the concept of wikiality. She claimed that "... for an hour, the moon was made of cheese." In this diff, it shows that an edit of this kind was made shortly before this time which did indeed make this claim. Switch ( ✉ ✍ ☺ ☒) 09:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty clear if you look at the changes that the edit Rory Cellan Jones did was a frivolous one, with no real malicious intent. Shouldn't this be made clear? The same applies to the Radio One edits. Is there a distinction to be made between deliberately introducing untrue information about oneself to give a misleading picture and simply having fun?
Nick Reynolds (BBC) Nick Reynolds Nick Reynolds (BBC)
That is odd, considering there are sections for almost all of the other years that wikipedia has been in existence. Can there be information about this topic during the years 2008 and 2009 so that this page is more up to date? Thanks. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done 20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What if a media personality vandalises this list to say he vandalised Wikipedia? Then if that was reverted the list would be factually incorrect. But if it was kept it wouldn't be vandalism so the list would be factually incorrect. Contradiction. Attinio ( talk) 13:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note that WP:BLP applies to all pages. If you're going to make claims about living people that could be perceived as negative, like the ones I've just removed, you'd better have excellent sourcing to back them up. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This project page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I wouldn't say Colbert encouraged or told people to vandalize the article on elephants. He stated that he was doing it, but didn't say, instruct, or even strongly imply that others should vandalize Wikipedia. He did express that he wasn't a fan of Wikipedia itself, but he didn't go out and tell people to tear it apart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.204.149.100 ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And yet, this is in dispute. Quite remarkable how the first discussion was overturned in controversial circumstances, now, isn't it? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What happens if a media personality 'vandalizes' this page itself by adding themselves when they had not previously vandalized Wikipedia? Do you have to remove it and immediately add it back again? Because the minute you consider it inaccurate, it becomes accurate. Maybe it's a good thing Godel isn't still around...
72.1.186.174 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the current title of this article "List of media personalities to vandalise Wikipedia" sound like it is in future tense? It sounds like a prediction. Perhaps a more general title such as "Media personalities and Wikipedia vandalism" would be better, though I half think that this content should be a section at Criticism of Wikipedia. - BT 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The following was added:
However, are Penny Arcade "media personalities"? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how many people spend hours reading their radio but I certainly don't. I think, unless it's referring to the Radio 1 website, the reference to the Radio 1 "readers" should be changed to "listeners". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madeinsane ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comic book writer/artist John Bryne engaged in a length and acrimonious edit war over his own Wikipedia entry? Should this be added? - CNichols 01:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that it would be a good idea to show the vandalizations, just to verify that they actually happened. Starhood` 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the history for the Vince Demitri article, 63.163.57.20 was the first IP to vandalize the article to say he has 27 children, so technically his IP is logged, even though it's just the IP for a proxy server for NBC. He wasn't singled out for IP logging though, which is what the news article seems to suggest, so I'll change this page to reflect that. Ziiv 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning this too? It was created alongside a Dinosaur Comics strip about the same subject.
I've gone ahead and written a short thing about Ryan North. - henryfish
The result of the debate was Move Duja ► 10:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote on Wikipedia:Requested moves, it's an interesting article, but we're not that notable that this would warrant its own article, so I'm proposing a move to the Wikipedia namespace. -- Conti| ✉ 20:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Because Stephen Colbert's (in character) vandalism is of a wholly different nature than the rest of this list - not meant mearly as comedy, self promotion, or absurdity - I've moved his list entry to the top and bolded his name. He's not only the most notable character to have vandalized wikipedia, but did so for the purpose of social commentary on how information is distrubuted and believed or disbelieved; how "facts" can be manufactured.
OK, so how are we going to merge it? And how can we make sure the merge sticks? After all, we want the article kept right? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As info on living people, these bullet points should be sourced to make it clear that it was them. I could log in as any username and say "Madeleine Albright has blanked this page on order of Kim-Jong-Il", and that would not make it Madeleine Albright. Milto LOL pia 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at the article on Weird al, and it occured to me, Wikipedia does not support the type of Word Art in Editing Pages, So that Isn't Really Vandilisim. 68.173.12.180 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC) NOTE: A actually am User: Samnuva, I'm Just not logged in right now.
I propose this is moved to Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media. Who would like to do the honours? Carcharoth 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media — More neutral name - allows this 'Wikipedia' article to expand outside just vandalism to cover other aspects of editing by the media. See below for more details. Carcharoth 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with the following text:
To me, this constitutes completely unnecessary, blatantly POV editorializing. Does the fact that this page resides in the Wikipedia namespace rather than in the main space make it "okay" to indulge in rambling editorials? I think not. Can we remove this language?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The references give the dates, but the dates should also appear in each entry. I've also found the following examples from scanning through the other "in the media" pages and a brief Google search:
Just for starters. Carcharoth 13:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales was given the "Mr. Ten Questions" treatment by Andrew Hansen of The Chaser on The Chaser's War on Everything in early May. He got 4/10, which is pretty good. Here's the video - the file was uploaded legally as it's an Australian Broadcasting Corporation series. Hansen claimed to have vandalised Jimbo's article to read he was a "teenage druglord from Malaysia". An edit to this effect was made in late April - here's the diff. Other edits of similar content were made for the next few days by various users. I don't know how to cite this though as it was a TV episode and is not yet on DVD. It's discussed on Talk:Jimmy Wales. ~ Switch ( ✉ ✍ ☺) 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This edit was really not the best. We don't need a chronological structure like this, too many sections with not enough text. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
On 26 August at around 12:30 am UTC+10 on her radio show, Helen Razer claimed to have edited the Moon article to claim that "The moon is made of cheese" in a segment criticising Wikipedia in a manner similar to the concept of wikiality. She claimed that "... for an hour, the moon was made of cheese." In this diff, it shows that an edit of this kind was made shortly before this time which did indeed make this claim. Switch ( ✉ ✍ ☺ ☒) 09:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty clear if you look at the changes that the edit Rory Cellan Jones did was a frivolous one, with no real malicious intent. Shouldn't this be made clear? The same applies to the Radio One edits. Is there a distinction to be made between deliberately introducing untrue information about oneself to give a misleading picture and simply having fun?
Nick Reynolds (BBC) Nick Reynolds Nick Reynolds (BBC)
That is odd, considering there are sections for almost all of the other years that wikipedia has been in existence. Can there be information about this topic during the years 2008 and 2009 so that this page is more up to date? Thanks. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done 20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What if a media personality vandalises this list to say he vandalised Wikipedia? Then if that was reverted the list would be factually incorrect. But if it was kept it wouldn't be vandalism so the list would be factually incorrect. Contradiction. Attinio ( talk) 13:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note that WP:BLP applies to all pages. If you're going to make claims about living people that could be perceived as negative, like the ones I've just removed, you'd better have excellent sourcing to back them up. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)