Talk:Elephant/Archive 2

message: If Wikipedia doesn't want their pages to be vandalized, then they shouldn't allow just anyone to edit the pages.  The Colbert Report exposed just how easily wrong information can be given on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a trusted source of information because of its open edit policy.  There is wrong info all over Wikipedia and Wikipedia does nothing about it.  The administrators for Wikipedia are just people who have signed up to be one online.  Wikipedia has way too many problems and has way too much false information.  Hopefully all the vandalism with the Colbert Report will wake up Wikipedia and create a safe and reliable web based encyclopedia.
:With all due respect, sadly ignoring the "No Personal Attacks" policy, Mr. Colbert is what many would refer to as a Professional Troll. Now, despite the fact that Colbert has millions of viewers, most of whom edit the Elephant article to all hell, Wikipedia is still able to maintain the article's integrity through diligent reverts and article protection. The fact of the matter is, it's been proven (albeit grudgingly) that Wikipedia has, in cases, been more accurate than (or as accurate as) Reuters and Brittanica. Whether or not Wikipedia is a trusted source of information should not matter if all Wikipedians contribute source citations for information inserted. There is wrong information all over wikipedia, sure, but things are being done about it all the time. Reverts, peer edits, demands for source citation, are all things that are done and that you can do to make wikipedia a better place to learn. Yes, I'm sure there's false information on wikipedia, but it's not like nothing is being done. The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia actually has a very fast, efficacious peer review process. In the end, all the Elephant article has proven is that when Mr. Colbert rallies his forces behind their keyboards, all the edit warring in the world cannot change the fact that the elephant population has still not tripled. Regards, Utopianfiat 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbert Report and the problems with Wikipedia

message: This is The Problem with the world today... we rely to much on Facts.  You refuse to believe that the elephant population has trippled in the past six months simply because there are no facts to prove it. Well, I don't rely on what my brain tells me. I rely on what I feel is true.  Our nation relys too much on factiness and not enough on truthiness Ikaveman 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: according to world sex records, 150cm. <http://www.world-sex-records.com/sex-298.htm> Skhatri2005 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the Colbert Report Again

message: Wouldn't semi-protection have been enough? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definately justified. Did you just see the Colbert Report? For those that don't know what is going on Steven Colbert on "The Word" of the Colbert Report told his viewers to come on this article and state as fact that the number of Elephants in the world has tripled. Just a warning to people watching this page to know why there might be a sudden horde of IPs claiming an increase in the world Elephant population. On a side note, Colbert is really a genius, the first guy I heard of to use his mass populace to sponsor a spam attack on Wikipedia!--Jersey Devil 04:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did watch the show, but new users who just saw the show and decided to go vandalize the article on a whim would still not be able to edit the article under semi-protection. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It only takes one.  Ratbert42 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You have no idea how many intelligent individuals have no maturity Myself included. ^_^ Messatsu 01:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tidied up a number of articles, including the Tejas one, which I wouldn't have bothered doing if I had to register. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Casual vandalism is pretty easy to revert anyway, it's the slow bias creeping in from dedicated people with an agenda that's hard to deal with - and that can happen just as easily (or even more easily) with registration.--88.96.3.206 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more!  I've been editing Wikipedia anonymously since when Everything2 was a more comprehensive repository of knowledge than here.  Once you begin instituting requirements for contribution, the slippery slope of credentials will soon follow; which is exactly what the Wikimedia Foundation set out to avoid in the first place.  The correlation between anonymity and cogency is a weak argument; focus on the content not the contributors.  71.162.255.58 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ditto here, every so often i see something that isn't right and i correct it, but i'm still to lazy to get an account, so go figure:) anon editing is there for good reason i think
Personally, I'm pleased as punch. Wikipedia has landed. This show featured discussion of a major political race; a movie star that said some very controversial things; and Wikipedia. It would have been nice if he'd asked his fans to go read the article on neutral point of view and improve the site, but he's a comedian and we can't expect miracles. Still, pat yourselves on the back. You're part of a cultural phenomenon. -Harmil 04:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd think that at least a few would have accounts here. They don't have to be "full-fledged" just have accounts here that they created and have been inactive. I think we should wait at least a little while before going down to semi-protection.--Jersey Devil 04:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as you're labelling it a cultural phenomeonon, I feel that this incident should be noted in the "pop culture" section of this article.  I believe not doing so is akin to wikipedia having an elephant in the room --Shirley Grace 14:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the above. Danorux 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I must state for the record that even though I am a well-established Wikipedian who is completely against vandalism of any sort, I would have made an exception in this case and vandalized. So it was probably a good idea to go for the full-protection. I must do what Colbert tells me. (Sorry) K-UNIT 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unacceptable that a user with something like (it appears) 700 edits would do such a thing. Especially a user that considers themselves to be part of the "Counter Vandalism Unit." It looks bad for the public and it is a disgrace for dedicated contributors like myself. If you wanted to do it, fine, we reverted it, but saying you did such on this talk page angers me. Admins, consider blocking the editing capacity of User:Tkevin1 for the time being. Thank you. --Nick Catalano contrib talk 10:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon, don't take life so seriously. Smoke some pot. --BMF81 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I couldn't resist i had to do it, because he told me too. Id be a bad American if i didn't or somthing. Heh we should have a contest to see who can sneak somthing in the article and if anyone notices, I bet we will and wikipedia will be vindicated for it.Qrc2006 07:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Protection? 

message: We could let the page say the pop. has tripled, and then just BJAODN it. Jds10912 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population Compromise

message: I recently heard that the population of elephants in africa has tripled over the last 6 months. I would add this, but for some (unlisted) reason, the page is locked. --Tedivm 04:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehehe, nice try, everyone knows about Colbert :) Anyway, despite what outsiders might think we actually have processes here to deal with false information.--Jersey Devil 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Colbert made an excellent point when he remarked that the Wikipedia entry on truthiness is longer than the one on Lutheranism. Mentioning the Colbert/Wikipedia segment within elephant-related articles would be shameless navel-gazing. It would probably be a good idea to improve our actual references to elephant population data, though. This article doesn't cite too many sources. Rhobite 04:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good thing that truthiness is longer than Lutheranism. Xizer 17:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population Information

message: Someone changed the number of African elephants from 600,000 to 1.8 million, and then the page was locked.  This number should be changed back to 600,000.  The vandal also changed the word "remain" to "remained" in an effort to make the crazy changes in numbers more readable.  That word, too, should be changed back.—GraemeMcRaetalk 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.   --Interiot 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This whole thing is sort of ironic because, if the page was not protected, we would have fixed this already. I really understand the desire to protect this page, but Colbert has actually been attracting some legitimate attention to this page. I think some good edits have actually been made here within the last day. alphaChimp laudare 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other had, if the page was protected, the problem wouldn't have been there in the first place.  Maybe someone should check the TV schedule and see if the Colber Report is set to re-run at all. Klosterdev 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reduced the protection level to semi-protected. Most vandalism was from anons and new users. — xaosflux Talk 18:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vprotected with vandalism locked in place -- please fix that! 

message: They edited my user page for contact, ckeak.
They also removed my addition of Patrick Henry's brithdate, as if it wasn't factual or an important day of mention.
It's up there with the Bahai Founder biting the big one, and yes he is blessed with sharing a day with me.   Who wouldn't be.
They banned Google and Wikipedia critic sites as spam from being linked here, so I do something tricky and 
link the via another location, but not directly, address doesn't touch it, but they then remove that and they even have 
the nerve to have entries on Google Watch Scroogle Wikipedia Watch and so on.  They should at least back link to 
the official site, oh and I know a big Wiki nono is going after User Pages.
Isn't it Firefox?
Why is a more notable 1996 Vancouver Election ignored over 2002?  or 2005? and I say this doing better in the latter ones
this place seems designed to make the more knowing suffer, make mighty erudite have endless head aches because someone is 
upset you knew something better than they did or where there, or expect honest facts to stated about you or do what they ask 
and bring up notable sources ending up in their deletion (2005 and my former Mention here under 2005 election ballot name, I was asked 
for them and provided them). They encourage people to take pot shots at them.
Oh know I see the Wikka Cult arrising to attack me.  Admins need not use words, they can Vandalize with Authority.
--G-Spot 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The preceding text was randomly generated by combining unrelated segments from user talk pages and running them through Babelfish twelve times.--BigCow 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking the same thing, lol.--Zaphod Beeblebrox 04:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good Point --69.165.106.102 13:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lighten Up, Think Before You Leap Tall Buildings. 

message: This article just appeared on Fark, so there will likely be another influx. --Thax 23:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? I don't see it there. --Macarion 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just saw it, it's a YouTube link to the segment, along with this caption: "Colbert Report - Wikiality, also known as the report that locked down Wikipedia" with a good size 200+ comments.  If you can't see it, just to a find with "Colbert".  Heh, bring it!  :-) --Bobak 00:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on Fark 

message: The segment is re-airing as I type this. Here we go. - Kookykman|(t)e 00:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rerun 

message: Where's the consensus for this change?  Seems pretty heady. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus, its a proposed policy/guideline that doesn't exactly have a consensus yet. Kevin_b_er 02:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I'm hearing, this was agreed to behind the scenes, and the lack of discussion violates the proposed policy anyway.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Daniel Bush, is the idea of stable versioning always supposed to involve moving the article's history to someplace that typical users will not find it? Isn't that MORE damaging than quickly reverted vandalism? -Harmil 03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit history needs to be moved so that when the development version is moved back, it retains a record of the edits that produced that version. Keeping a stable version is for the reader, which far outnumber editors, and even with editors, most all edits are made without looking the page history. The page history isn't as important as you make it out to be, it is still available at the development version, and this is a temporary measure anyway. —Centrx→talk • 03:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are assuming that EDITORS are the ones who care about the edit history. Not so. The edit history is a MUST for those using an article for research. They need to be able to see that some "fact" was added a week ago, and replaced a well sourced bit of information that lasted a year. If the casual reader can't use the edit history any longer, then we should just punt the stable version idea. -Harmil 03:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they can use the edit history, it is available at the location of the dev version. —Centrx→talk • 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless that's where the "history" link at the top of the article goes, no one is ever going to see it, and they're going to make assumptions based on the history that they DO see. -Harmil 03:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If the current Main Page featured article is anything to judge by, this isn't true. There have been 25 edits since the Elephant article was moved and unprotected (that is, in the last 40 minutes), all or nearly all vandalism or vandalism reverts. In that same amount of time, there has been 1 edit of the Main Page article, and it isn't vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Have you seen the history of Fidel Castro? -Splash - tk 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I misread the time stamps. This is still current. I've reversed it. -Splash - tk 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. Desperately wanting something is not reason enough to unilaterally impose it. "Be bold" applies to editing, not changing how things work, especially not if there is, as far as anybody can tell, only a dozen of users supporting the change. The vandalism has continued on the development page after the article was "stabilized", and now even the development version is sprotected. Meanwhile a removal of an obvious spam link from the stable version was reverted. Let's hope Google spiders are smart enough to figure out what's spam and what isn't. Zocky | picture popups 03:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable version? 

message: Has Steven Colbert himself edited this page? LCpl 02:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he pretended to edit several pages on Wikipedia during his show, but it was obvious that he was just quickly tapping on the keyboard. He couldn't have gotten a response from clicking on "edit" that fast, much less finished an edit. -Harmil 02:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe he had the windows open already and merely typed for effect.  His contributions show the two pages were modified at the time of the show's recording.  Also, my whole take on this thing is that Colbert is right, and the fact that the Wikipedia community is in such a freak about the situation makes me sick. --tj9991 08:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbert Edits

message: I feel these edits (one of which I reverted here) have no place in this article, because this is an article about elephants. If anything, this is something that might belong on an article related to the Colbert Report, but every joke/popular reference/meme involving elephants can't be listed in the elephant article. Rebuttals? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking. What, exactly, does the Colbert thing even have to do with elephants? Nothing. It was just the page he suggested be vandalised. If anything it should go on the Colbert page or the Wikipedia in popular culture page, not here. Konman72 06:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, I can't help but pose a slippery slope scenario where the media picks up the "Colbert elephant story" and this article becomes a sea of blurbs about references by news outlets because the restriction I'm in favor of isn't observed. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy on that one would be Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, Konman72, just to make it official. — Scm83x hook 'em 08:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikiality" related additions 

message: To Mr Colbert.  This article is flushing out the vandalism-only accounts as fast as we can block them.  Next time, though, could he please encourage them to pick a more worthy target?  The YTMND article hasn't been vandalised in a while... ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't Colbert have said to vandalize the bear page? That would've made more sense than this page. --PiMaster3 12:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should send a collective letter from Wikipedia commending him as a true patriot, helping to flush out internet terrorism. God bless that man. --Wafulz 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree on the bear thing. While we're busy protecting the elephants, the bears are mounting their offensive. Couple that with the recent bald eagle alliance, and you've got yourself a woodland blitzkrieg. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the bear article does get Colbert-inspired vandalism. Also, there are some references on the talk page to bear here. The Ungovernable Force 19:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- I'll put that article on my watch list. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A word of thanks... 

message: I intend to unprotect this article in the next hour or two.  It is currently semi-protected and the vandalism seems to have died down compared to yesterday.  If anyone objects (and particularly if you have reverted any vandalism on this page in the last day or two), please speak up and I'll leave things alone for a while longer.  --Yamla 17:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, I went ahead and did it before seeing this here.  But... I agree.... yeah. JDoorjam     Talk 18:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intent to unprotect

message: Last time I checked, the Colbert Report was a part of pop culture.  The reference to the population of elephants tripling on the show should be included in this section.. otherwise, maybe we should just get rid of that section entirely. Djedi 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference has more to do with Wikipedia's article on Elephants than on the creatures themselves. "Elephants in culture" is cluttered already, there's no need to add an entry for every time someone mentions elephants on a tv show. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright - by the principle of Wikiality, (despite my belief of the truthiness of it) elephants did not appear in the Colbert Report as a worthy pop-culture reference, and never will. 69.196.112.32 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also feel the reference was about the wikipedia article about elephants, not elephants themselves. What about what he said has anything to do with elephants? Nothing. Oh, and IP address Colbert fan, we aren't saying it never happened, that would be wikiality, which is not a true principle. Konman72 22:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then we will have to take that chance. There should be no mention of Colbert in this article. The edits that have been, and will continue to be reverted have nothing to do with Elephants, solely with Wikipedia. If we have to keep this article protected from moronic edits, then we will. Ryūlóng 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually some of the articles involved have already been unprotected successfully. This page will probably take a week at most, especially since so many people are watching it for vandalism now. But I also agree with Ryu, if it has to remain locked then it will, that is not censorship, make an acount and wait 4 days. There are many articles that are permanently protected actually, everyone who wants to edit still can, we take away no freedom. It seems like all these IP address members think they can never edit, well you can. Sign up for an account, it is free, wait 4 days and you will be able to edit everything. Konman72 22:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the Colbert reference should not be mentioned in this article. The article is about elephants, not about itself (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference), and this phenomenon has very little to do with elephants - he could've chosen any article at all. It might deserve a mention in The Colbert Report, as an example of how Colbert influences his audience. Of course people will continue to vandalize elephant indefinitely, but it'll die down quickly and after that we'll just revert as usual. No insertion of text is going to stop them. Deco 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop culture

message: While the Colbert Report may be superficially silly, I believe it is in large ways a bastion of free speech and liberty.  By prohibiting edits on the elephant page, Wikipedia is saying no to America.  Rather, why didnt you guys here at wikipedia offer some way to gauge the response of the colbert report.  It would honor free speech and common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecrabs (talk • contribs) 
:Yes. People are trying to keep the Elephant article encyclopedic and factual because they hate liberty. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC
No.  But they aren't helping it by just saying no.  Have a sense of humor.  I am saying here that Wikipedia can do very much good for the world by in some way complimenting the Colbert Report.  Think about it?  Read your own lips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueCrabs (talk • contribs) 
:Humor has no place in the main articles of Wikipedia. We are not blocking free speech. In fact, the reversions on Wikipedia are outside of the scope of any first amendment rights, as the Wikimedia Foundation is privately run and international. There are editors on this article from the US, the UK, Egypt, India, Australia, France, Italy, etc. Just because we have the right to keep idiocy that Colbert has pushed, doesn't mean you have to go off on "free speech and liberty" rights. Ryūlóng 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must really be getting a kick out of this, aren't you? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So you admit you're just trolling for your own amusement? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Ryūlóng 22:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And what the hell does "read your own lips" mean? We are protecting this article from idiotic edits that imply that the population of African elephants has tripled in the past six months, which it hasn't because that is solely due to Stephen Colbert telling all of his viewers to state. We had to protect nearly two dozen articles from vandalous edits because of that one five minute spot, and your edits prove that we will have to keep several of them protected. Ryūlóng 22:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Except that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia isn't a "poll" where people vote on what is included and not included. And if you point to any of the "(something) for deletion" pages, those are not votes or polls, either. They are discussions as to whether or not information is to be included and treating them as a vote is strictly prohibited. There is no such thing as "Wikiality" which is what you are trying to suggest. Information on Wikipedia is all based on external reliable sources. If someone, a viewer of the Colbert Report or not, found an official statement by some sort of conservation effort that the population of African elephants has been steadily increasing (or tripled in the past six months), we would include that and cite it. However, by merely stating that unsourced fact repeatedly, that is vandalism, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Perhaps instead of trying to make wikiality reality, you should read the guidelines of what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. --Ryūlóng 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But there is no potential. It's just idiocy by the fans of The Colbert Report that you are appearing to be one of. Your arguments are directly against what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia isn't about mob rule, it's about the truth. There is no room for truthiness or it's cousin wikiality on this project. Ryūlóng 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Wikipedia isn't mob rule, nor is there potential.  But Wikiality and Truthiness both appear to "belong" on the Wikipedia project...       sorry, I'm being obnoxious today ;) Dark Shikari talk/contribs 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No one has said "America is an idiot." Now you are putting words into our mouths, and you have solely been criticising Wikipedia itself through your edits. If you have anything constructive to contribute to the project, then do so, but none of your edits so far have proven such a fact. You have just been criticising the project and its protection of this page due to the vandalism by viewers of the Colbert Report. If, in three days or so, this page is still semi-protected and you contribute to the page by stating that "The population of elephants has tripled in the last six months" then you, too, will be blocked indefinitely for vandalizing the article, despite whatever "free speech" and "liberty" jargon you throw out at us. We are not impeding on anyone's rights, as there are no free speech rights on Wikipedia. Whatever is contributed can and will be editted by others continuously. If you want a free speech forum, go somewhere else. Complain about Wikipedia at a LiveJournal account, a blog, Uncyclopedia, Encyclopædia Dramatica, anywhere but on Wikipedia itself. Ryūlóng 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's really at stake. 

message: Why is everyone freaking out here?
IT WAS A JOKE
I love The Colbert Report and I thought the segment was very funny. Stephen Colbert knew it was a joke and so should all of you.
To the people who are freaking out about all this "vandalism" calm down and relax. It is not that big a deal.
To the people who want to change the article to say that some people considor the population to have tripled in the past six months also need to shut up. The population has not tripled and I think everyone knows that.
I think it's funny how big a deal everyone is making about this. Just lighten up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewm89 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 August 2006  (UTC)
*:No offense, but did you come here to contribute or just roll your eyes at us? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey man, don't freak out about all this "vandalism". It's not a big deal. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * I agree, a bunch of people spamming a site is not funny, it is immature but I don't think it's that big a deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewm89 (talk • contribs) 
Is freedom and liberty something to make a big deal about.  Is it too bad wikipedia doesnt host a sort of "opinion of the state of the union" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecrabs (talk • contribs) 
*There is nothing about freedom and liberty being affected here. The Wikimedia Foundation has rules and there were several new users who had watched the Colbert Report that broke these rules in the process of their edits. Wikipedia has a right to control what is and is not included. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a forum for free speech. Ryūlóng 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually Federal law and basic human rights say so. Wikipedia is the property of the Wikimedia foundation, not the American people. Konman72 00:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, why has he not been blocked for trolling yet? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Ryūlóng 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And that's done. Ryūlóng 00:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huzzah! One less idiot on Wikipedia! Konman72 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, if we're talking names for banning idiots, I have some names totally unrelated to this situation to pass along... --Bobak 02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AN/I,  WP:AIV alphaChimp laudare 02:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pfff... that takes too long.  I want a quick kill that happens under the table and with corruption.   Corruption is sexy, like butta. --Bobak 02:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calm Down People 

message: I think the following things have to happen to close out this chapter in Wikipedia history:
* Create a talk sub-page... say, Talk:Elephant/Colbert Report and move all Colbert-related talk there.
* Make a template for the top of the article page that says, in effect, "this article was the target of a coordinated vandalism action, based on The Colbert Report's suggestion that, "the population of african elephants has tripled in the last 6 months" (an explicit falacy) be placed here. Please feel free to discuss this on the appropriate talk sub-page." Re-word and format to taste.
* Patrol both the article and the talk page for 7 days, moving any vandalism or discussion of the Colbert joke to the talk sub-page.
* Unprotect the page at the end of 7 days.
I think that the combination of these two will result in the end of the "fun", and most importantly a return to the state were editors who actually wish to discuss elephants and not Colbert can use this talk page. Putting a template on the article gives those who visit with "intent" the correct idea: it's been done, move along; without actually including a reference to Colbert in the body of the article. This template might even me more generally useful for any article that needs to make note of a Wikipedia-specific situation that downstream sites might want to remove. -Harmil 02:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further note: I think we need a policy like this for coping with such coordinated vandalism without spinning everyone's wheels. In six months, this should be like getting Slashdotted: i.e. we just shrug and say, "oh that again, yeah we don't even notice now." -Harmil 02:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, don't we already do all those things? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear the number of vandal attacks have tripled in the past 6 months... --Bobak 02:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good idea. there must be policies on about coordinated vandalism like Everyone's wheel. That's the way to protect Wikipedia.  *~Daniel~*  ☎ 03:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't need more policies; existing policy handles this nicely.  If an article gets vandalized a lot, regardless of source, we can semi-protect it.  We can unprotect it when we don't think it'll be vandalized anymore, and reprotect if necessary.  If we have an explicit time period which we officially patrol for, not only will it be a pointless pain in the ass, but people will know exactly when to start vandalizing again.  Have you ever read WP:BEANS? -- SCZenz 03:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried to edit elephant recently? How's that policy workin' out? Have you tried to discuss anything on this talk page other than Colbert in the last 48 hours? -Harmil 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But your proposed "policy" calls for us to do what we've done anyway!  Yes, editing the article has been hampered by the situation, but it's just how things go.  You propose to replace common sense with rigidity, not to actually change how we handle things.  As for the talk page being clogged with crap, I agree irrelevant stuff should be removed (see below), but I also think it's a minor inconvenience—I rather suspect that this article was pretty stable prior to this silliness, and will be again after it's over, so there wouldn't be much other discussion here anyway. -- SCZenz 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A very much think we should remove irrelevant comments from the talk page.  It's no more censorship than removing vandalism from an article; it's making sure that the site's pages are used as intended. -- SCZenz 17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, with archiving as an option it just comes off as censorship to a significant lot of us. --Bobak 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel that way, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.  Wikipedia talk pages are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and are specifically designated, by community-written policy, for use that is relevant to their respective articles.  If you want a page where everyone can type anything they want, you can make your own website. However, if I remove comments (as I might do later), I will put them on a subpage. -- SCZenz 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am completely for sub-pages.  --Bobak 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An exit strategy 

message: For now and probably through the weekend, please remember that you can revert Colberrorism and other forms of trolling without more than an edit description explaining your action — it's better for both the page and your sanity to remove such comments instead of replying to them.  Help keep this page focused on bettering the article with which it is associated. JDoorjam     Talk 05:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We must stop the Colbertistas! Does anyone know where we can find some godless killing machines? Oh, and Stephen--you're on notice! Seriously though, this is getting ridiculous. I love the Colbert Report, but come on people. It was funny for about 10 minutes. Then it just became stupid. If you're going to vandalize, at least do something creative. The Ungovernable Force 07:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the obvious and correct action to take is to provide a comedian with a snappy catch-phrase, because we know that won't end in crying. -Harmil 16:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that Colbert needs our help. :) – ClockworkSoul 16:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Colberrorism- An act of vandalism or terrorism conducted by those incapable of understanding satire or irony in their truthiest forms. Lol. NeoJustin 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A word on talk page trolling 

message: Great: Very quick revert responses to Colbert-inspired vandalism of this page. Not So Great: Apparent confusion of this article over current population of African elephants (is it 300,000 or 600,000?) even in version existing prior to Colbert incident Bwithh 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, this article's confusion over numbers was probably why Colbert chose this particular page for his gag Bwithh 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I may be wrong here - may not have looked back far enough in the edits. Bwithh 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Colbert doesn't have an agenda.  He has the truth.  Or, er, at least truthiness. Makgraf 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great and Not So Great

message: The whole Colbert Report incident is being overanalyzed as an act of malice. Obviously, Wikipedia makes an enormous attempt at producing high-quality articles that are scholarly and verifiable. However, it is not free from Wikiality. Articles such as use of the word American or any article on a specific culture or ethnicity suffer from some degree of systemic bias (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias).
Systemic Bias (Wikiality) occurs everywhere (outside of Wikipedia), but in Wikipedia it is easier to see, incidentally because of the fortunate ability to contest changes (with verifiable evidence). This very ability to edit an encyclopedia is so new and foreign to an outsider that it becomes perceptibly absurd to a newcomer, and a good target for satiric commentary - the real irony being that Colbert has his own encyclopedia article, which he, during his show, can edit. (And to which he can inject his own nonsense).
I doubt Colbert has any real issues with Wikipedia, as it is truly a symbiotic relationship. He gets more attention from Wikipedia than the traditional media since the media often misinterprets his satire (or is the target of). Wikipedia gets free advertising on Comedy Central.
To put into perspective, does he really care that he was misquoted on something so trivial as whether Oregon is California's Canada, or  Washington's Mexico? Doubtful, since the rest of the article is so informative (and generally positive about Colbert). If he really thought the article was so terrible, why drive his audience to his Wikipedia article? It is likely that the majority of Colbert Report article editors are a subset of his audience.
It's good to point out the Systemic Bias that is so relevant to truthiness - not just in Wikipedia but in society. Fortunately Wikipedia has safeguards, and new readers drawn through The Colbert Report will probably come to discover how useful Wikipedia really is after they've had their fun. If you don't understand irony, you won't possibly catch the undertones to his humorous philosophical statement. Deepstratagem 11:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agenda Overanalysis 

message: It seems the version of this article currently available mentions that there are 300,000 though the citation has a number from 1989 that there are 600,000.  Is someone SWAG'ing the 300,00 number or was this more vandalism?  Some interesting info, though, from National Geographic has the population of elephants in Kruger National Park growing from 7,000 to 13,000  from sometime in 1995 until the article was published November 5th, 2004. The growth in this 22,00 square KM park equates to anywhere between 1.66 and 1.89 elephants per DAY.  So you may ask if I think the population has tripled in the past few months... No, of course not.  But perhaps there is more info from reputable sources (sorry Colbert) on this subject.  But I do feel the attention he has put onto Wikipedia deserves a spot on Pop Culture as much as an episode of The Simpsons.
Montgomp 17:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion on the "real" population numbers. 

message: Stephen loves wikipedia.  Before he was even the host of his own show (it doesn't count when that Giraldo hating bastard was keeping him down), Wikipedia was revolutionizing the world by letting the people write the history books, not some latte drinking histanista.  Stephen not only showed the world his own power to guide millions that night, but showed the world just how poweful and poignant the concept of Wikipedia is.  What is truth?  Who decides it?  Why are "facts" taken as fact, whereas they could just be the delusion of many, and the few, like Stephen, who challenge these factinistas are actually right.  And to whomever is about to erase this entry, why?  Why are you deleting this, because I disagree with you?  Because I'm not "right?"  Well then, what is "right?"  Because Wikiality is not about what's right.  It's about having a voice.  Stephen knows that, and showed it to the world that one night.  God Bless Stephen.
Nobody here is writing history books, we are simply recollecting verifiable facts and providing them here for ease. Wikipedia has policies against original research and verifiability. Those are things that Stephen Colbert failed to mention while christening his term "Wikiality". The show is not meant to be taken seriously. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Stephen Colbert Truly Embodies Wikiality 

message: Hello everyone! In my user space, I've created an article about wikipedia's article on elephants.  It's just a start.  All are invited to improve it.  User:John Kenney/Elephant (wikipedia article).  Once we get it really good, we can move it to the main name space, perhaps making it the first wikipedia article on the subject of a wikipedia article!  Good hunting everyone.
(Tongue firmly in cheek).
john k 01:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When can we expect an article about User:John Kenney/Elephant (wikipedia article)?  --Chris (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a user subpage, probably not, but if this article does get promoted to become the first wikipedia article whose subject is a wikipedia article, then of course it would be a good candidate for being notable enough to have its own article about it.  I'm not sure what the best title would be, but at the moment we should all be focused on improving the article about the article, before we get to the point of an article about the article about the article. john k 16:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I hadn't realized that the article has made significant progress since I created it, with two whole other people editing it.  Is it ready for the spotlight? john k 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely ready. 70.145.159.12 14:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test article! 

message: So what of this information that states that the elephant populstion has tripled in the past 6 months? I think its credible and should be included.
:Its a damn joke. You all do realize that Colbert is not the person he plays on TV. He is mocking people that do everything O'reily tells them. Just look at last nights episode, he ordered people to do at least 3 things. He's mocking people who do what people on TV tell them. Its okay if you're joking but once you start taking Colbert seriously it just reveals how sheep-like some people are.Gdo01 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once you feed the trolls one time, you'll never get them to leave you alone. They're like stray cats (not Stray Cats) that way. – ClockworkSoul 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  I fed Brian Setzer once and he won't come out of my basement.Elbow 08:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elephant Population

message: I'm frankly stunned that this conversation has one on this long, but since it's obviously got everyone aflutter, let me try to bring some logic to bear: no, neither the Simpsons nor the Colbert episodes have any substantial impact on the topic of elephants. Nothing about elephants is substantially changed by either reference. The public consciousness is left fairly unchanged (really, outside of Wikipedia neither reference is particularly notable), and if you were going to list the 10,000 most important things about elephants, I don't think either reference makes the cut.
South Park has already summed up the most damning point in a phrase, "Simpsons did it." That is, there are potentially tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that could have a "The Simpsons did and episode which made particular note of ." Heck, we could make a template out of it, just so that it would be easier to find and remove. Now, if a particular Simpsons (or Colbert) meme affects the world outside of Wikipedia substantially, then we can include a reference to that impact. Until then, we should not feel compelled to include a footnote every time a popular personality mentions Elephants, Wikipedia or any other topic. -Harmil 02:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The South Park defense

message: Wooooo!
Fledge 03:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: He Called It!

message: October 18, 2006;  The number of Elephants has INDEED tripled!--Ricimer 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Called it!