Stephen Colbert Wikipedia Vandalism and Mitt Romney's Vice President

Uploaded by memefactoryboobtube on 16.08.2012

All Stephen Colbert had to do was ask his viewers to edit the Wikipedia pages for Romney VP hopefuls, and it was shut down. Completely.
Hello world, this is Alexandra Cardinale and you're watching The Meme Factory.
Colbert played a clip from Fox News, noting that the day before she was selected as McCain's running mate
Sarah Palin's Wikipedia page was edited 68 times.
So why not make it a thing?
In true Colbert fashion, he asked the Colbert Nation to go and bang on the Wiki pages of
whomever they wanted Mitt Romney VP to be.
Popular candidates included
Tim Pawlenty, Marco Rubio, and Sarah Michelle Gellar. Buffy.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Eh? 
Granted that comes from one of Colbert's punchlines, it begs the question:
How much of Wikipedia do we take as gospel truth?
Absolutely anyone can edit it, and while its moderated, stunts like this still happen often.
[Invader Zim] "When will the lies end?"
It’s not the first time Colbert tested Wikipedia waters either.
Back in 2006 Colbert theorized, in character, that if any user can edit an entry,
and if enough users agree, then it becomes true.
Makes… no sense… but I’ll go with it.
[grunting] Um, um. I know some of these words.
So he encouraged his viewers to go to the Wikipedia article on
elephants and write in made up facts. Completely out of thin air.
Making Wikipedia again have to lock down a page because of the intense barrage
of utter BS coming through the internet, as they have now done with the article on Romney and his rumored running mates.
Getting a Wikipedia article padlocked is actually hard. And pretty rare.
Example: One of the locked down sites is about the Virginia Tech Shooting due to sensitivity issues.
Now, a man with the power to wield a joke has a half a dozen articles on lock down
because he could raise his legion of fans on command.
I think it’s hilarious.
Not to mention a testament to a media personality and their power.
But in the generation of the Internet where we readily use forums like Wikipedia for information,
who is to say what someone will believe if it is written on a popular enough website?
(sarcastic) Personally, I know we can't use Wikipedia as an academically credible resource.
I mean, completely disregarding every single research paper I’ve ever done … like ever.
It’s a popular tool for 99% of us to get the general gist of an idea, person, place or thing.
So when stunts like this cause certain articles to be shut down from further editing,
does that censor the very spirit of community Wikipedia was designed as?
Throw down in the comment box below.
Like and subscribe for a dose of news and satire on the daily,
and you can check us out on Facebook, Twitter, and the podcast.
This has been Alexandra Cardinale and you just watched The Meme Factory.
I'll see you on the wire. Signing off!
[flubbing lines] Yes, that's ... smarts
tense barrange of [flubbs lines]
Choking on my hair
[flubbing lines]
Who wrote this damn sentence?
Locked down because he [flubbs lines] ... I suck at writing (laughs)
Brain power