I was going to rant but why bother?

Here, I was going to quote this, from the Talk:elephants page on Wikipedia:

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. RyÅ«lóng 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn’t mean i have to but i am because i saw the good will to do it. Sure, wikipedia can just be wikipedia and you can just be it’s acolyte, but it can just as easily save free will. I am dead serious. You say “idiocy”. That’s something i call idiocy. You are in the face of greater value and you choose elephants. Okay? Read your own lips. Greater value can tolerate elephants. Can you tolerate greater value? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueCrabs (talk • contribs) .

You must really be getting a kick out of this, aren’t you? — Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if i am? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueCrabs (talk • contribs) .

So you admit you’re just trolling for your own amusement? — Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Ryūlóng 22:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
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. RyÅ«lóng 22:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This isnt about me. This isnt about elephants. Sure, maybe you had to prevent all of this “vandalism”, but if Wikipedia were to set up a poll in which everyone sent here by the colbert report could respond to instead of saying elephants are trice their number, then it would almost be a hero. Think bigger picture. That’s what “read your own lips” means. Who are you? A wikipedia acolyte or free speech activist and wikipedia acolyte? Stop trolling in your sandbox. Step up to the plate wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluecrabs (talk • contribs) .

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. —RyÅ«lóng 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So here, you can have it and see some of the very smart people and very blind people taking part in this discussion. Unfortunately, I suspect wikiality.com is also populated by morons.

Plus, my comments aren’t showing up on my favorite blog anymore. She uses the same software I do, but I think she filters hers. I’m stuck wondering if there’s a technical problem or she’s just rejecting them. Takes me straight back to junior high and wondering what the hell’s wrong with me that I can’t even understand what I’m doing incorrectly, let alone earn a second chance to improve.

Published by


I used to be at attractmode.net, but flakiness is one of my primary traits, and the domain expired. Apparently it was popular enough to be snatched up!

2 thoughts on “I was going to rant but why bother?”

  1. The comments are just as ugly over at The Colbert Report and the Latchkey Kids sites. Wikipedia moderators take their moderating jobs VERY seriously!

  2. Hmm, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the Colbert folks on this one. Given that edits are open to anyone, it seems like it is not really creative or interesting or difficult to make an edit. The hard thing is taking this setup and making something actually worthwhile out of it; I wish the people would spend their energy doing something worthwhile instead of trying to put jokes into wikipedia and make it less useful for anyone else trying to use it, or setting up wikiality.com which is not useful to anyone at all, and not particularly funny either. *And* the concept duplicates uncyclopedia, so no points for originality. (I guess that’s the other thing that bugs me — it’s not even like these people have come up with their own joke, they’re just repeating the one that Colbert did.)

Comments are closed.