Talk:The Colbert Report/Wikiality

message: It was a little fast so I only heard it briefly on television, if someone has it on video, check if the last name of one of those lawyers is Stewarts original last name, Leibowitz. Thanks xAXISx 03:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditionally females (maiden) have maiden names, not guys.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was one of the names Colbert mentioned as his Jewish Lawyers Jon Stewarts maiden name? 

message: Sure its currently nn, but its hours old. Give'er a chance. - RoyBoy 800 04:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see it becoming another truthiness quite easily. Please correct me if I am incorrect, but I am inferring the general definition of 'wikiality' as 'the popular or majority view of a reality becoming the actual reality.' Boy, I'm sure it could be worded much better than that, but not by me at 1:20 in the morning... User:Dragonstrider 06:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible, but not by far. As the term only affect the wikipedia community at this moment. However, if the edit war is hot enough to get into blogs and media, it might well be significant enough to enter the "truthiness" stardom - sort of self-fulfilling prophecy if you will. --Samic 06:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you dare.  --Cyde↔Weys 13:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiality 

message: This page is not semi-protected as it claims, it has full protection.  Since I am neither a anon or new editor I should be able to edit if this page is semi-protected.  Either put the right tag on, or unprotect it.  Would be nice to have administrators who know what they are doing... --Assawyer 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like Wikipedia is unravelling at the mouse cord... --Assawyer 04:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: Stephen Colbert does the Word segment on every show. There is nothing of imporance on his Word segment which included references to Wikipedia because that is only notable to Wikipedia and no where else and since it would not be put in any other encyclopedia, it should not be put in Wikipedia.
:The fact that a Word segment is done on every show is an excellent argument for not including every segment in the article.  But it is not a good reason why mention of this particular Word should be left out. Wikipedia is not every other encyclopedia and because of its existence in the cyber sphere can provide more information than ordinary encyclopedias.  We can be more colorful than dry, and we shouldn't be afraid to show ourselves being made fun of in an entertainment-related article.  If you ask me, it seems as if for the sole purpose of negating Colbert's criticism, we have rolled ourselves up into a self-important huff to make ourselves look more stuffy, and along with that – we hope – credible. --Omaryak 01:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But wikipedia is foolish. --mitrebox 04:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Opinion(s) noted. Here's another. Wikipedia and Colbert are notable and that specific segment stands a fair chance of becoming notable because of that dynamic. It also falls within the meme of Truthiness, of stating/changing facts you (and your associates) wish to be true. So can be considered an extention of the already mentioned Truthiness. - RoyBoy 800 04:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Segment