Let's get someone from Wikipedia Review on The Colbert Report.

Any ideas of how to convince him?

Greg (thekohser) would be our best bet for that, in my opinion. He's more of a spokesperson than anyone I can think of.
He'd have to be up to the challenge, of course.

Anyway, we need a plan of attack really.

I'm off over in Australia, so he's unlikely to want to talk to me anyway. But we need to decide how to convince him, and then hopefully we can get someone to do it. Even if he doesn't actually interview a real person, or has a fake person being interviewed, its all fine.

I'm not sure that people need to be famous in order to go on there.

*sighs*

Kato likes to make fun of Blissyu2.

Blissyu2 is going in to 3rd person.

If we have a convincing enough argument, there is a chance that Stephen Colbert could consider it. And I don't think that he'd care who he was talking to, he'd only care about the argument.

Shows like The Daily Show, Colbert Report or even NPR's Fresh Air seem hardwired into a network of publishers, editors and literary agents. They provide the shows with an endless stream of reasonably intelligent guests. They provide the authors with a vehicle for promoting their books.

*sighs*

Kato likes to make fun of Blissyu2.

Blissyu2 is going in to 3rd person.

If we have a convincing enough argument, there is a chance that Stephen Colbert could consider it. And I don't think that he'd care who he was talking to, he'd only care about the argument.

Who? Any volunteers? Lamont? Daniel Brandt is apparently too shy. Um, anyone? Somey would be ideal of course, but I am not sure if he would either.

I suppose that Thekohser is pretty much our best bet.

Given that Stephen Colbert likes to make fun of Wikipedia, there is some chance of it. But he might take some convincing.

Any ideas of how to convince him?

You guys do realise that Colbert — uhm — likes Wikipedia, right?

You guys do realise that Colbert - uhm - likes Wikipedia, right?

He's a media personality — he will try to guesstimate which way the wind is blowin' tomorrow, and tacky into that …

Jonny

You guys do realise that Colbert - uhm - likes Wikipedia, right?

Since when? {{fact}}

I thought he was non-stop criticising Wikipedia?

Colbert the character, or Colbert the person behind the character? It's clear the character likes Wikipedia, his "favorite website" because the "truth" can be altered by consensus. It is not at all clear that the real Colbert likes Wikipedia any more than he likes the right-wing pundits he skewers on his show.

I've seen uh let's see about 100 to 150 episodes of the show. Its only on cable TV here,

And the thing is that even if he said something that made fun of us, such as calling us "Kook conspiracy theory nutjobs" then it would still be great for us.

Stephen Colbert criticises EVERYONE - so its not an insult if he criticised us.

Yeah, last year he did the speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in front of George W Bush. He had Richard Branson on his show last night. Surely Somey, Jonny Cache, Poetlister, and co are his obvious next targets?

Sorry

Maybe the VCs ought to start wondering whether the imminent demise of Wikipedia will have any impact on the fortunes of Wikia. Their Series A financing round was for $4 million (scratch those rooftop parties; you can barely get a bucket of shrimp for $4 million anymore). Do I hear a Series B? Maybe not. Looks like Jimmy Wales's scheme to cash in on all those dumb volunteers might come a-cropper. Not that VCs measure their loyalty with a stopwatch or anything.

Are we mostly under 25? I'd suggest that we are probably older than the average Wikipedia user. A few of us might be that young, but there's quite a few older people here. Perhaps we need a poll to determine everyone's ages lol. I am 32 here, and I think Nathan is too, Daniel Brandt is older than that, Selina is younger, and most of the others that I know the ages of are over 25.

Yeah, last year he did the speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in front of George W Bush. He had Richard Branson on his show last night. Surely Somey, Jonny Cache, Poetlister and co are his obvious next targets?

Sorry

32? How dare you! I will not tolerate such lies!
Close enough though, I'm 31.

Series B was an undisclosed sum turned over by Amazon to Wikia.

Surely, you have read my blog post about this and other scandalous interactions between Wikia and Wikipedia?

Greg

No, I hadn't read either of those things. Thanks for pointing them out. I'm still getting familiar with this site, and with the tangle of relationships. I had done a Google search for a Series B round for Wikia and didn't find anything.

You folks don't know me and I'm not going to step out and give some sort of biography, so you'll have to take this on faith (or not): I had a ringside seat at the techno-frauds of the 1990s, and my reading of Wikia and their Series B round tells me that Jimmy Wales is set for life and that, one way or the other, the whole Wiki thing's going to be around for quite a while.

It's an open question as to whether the encyclopedia will survive in the sense of having any real broad respect, but the "Wiki" phenomenon will be with us and Wikia will be generating the good life for a handful of insiders..

The idea that anyone would actually donate their money, let alone their time, to Wikipedia is just preposterous in light of this information. So, the task is to make the truth nice and clear, and broadly accessible. People shouldn't have to hunt this down as much as I've had to.

P.S. Didn't anyone think my daughter was cute?!

I'm sure that they interview some people that aren't totally famous. That was my impression at least. Anyway, it can't hurt, can it? It might be a pie in the sky dream, but if we put in a submission, and get rejected, well, as long as we learn from it, its all good. And you never know, there might be some chance. Stranger things have happened.

Not being banned on Wikipedia would be a plus, since their main argument for any criticism is that the critiquor has been banned, and is just mad about that. That's false, of course, but you need to be able to prove that incorrect.

You know that most administrators are still in high school, right?

Either that or they are tech support, and administrating Wikipedia from work, while being paid so its a no-loss situation. With the added plus that they get to boss people around after being treated like, well, tech support, at work.

Thats the brilliance of Wikipedia. It milks people who are pleased to work for free. The problem is that the Foundation is protected legally, so they dont give a tiny rats ass about how the administrators treat the users. Which is why Wikipedia winds up with the problems youve doubtless heard of.

Wikipedia Review needs to raise its profile before it gets on there. Or someone needs to write a book that qualifies as a bestseller.

It makes for a great insult, but how does anyone actually know that?
.

Age Limits for Admins?

I think that we should have an age limit for administrators. Perhaps one of 18 -- with absolutely no exeptions. Some might think that an admin can do his job just as well being under 18, but look at it this way: We dont let people drive who are under a certain age, and I'm sure there are plenty of under-16 year olds proficient enough to drive a car just fine.

Unless we set an age limit for those entrusted to run this site, Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as a source for verifiable, reliable information. It will always be thought of as a school-yard clique -- as it is now.Shelburne Kismaayo 02:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

1) you are a little late 2)there is no way you are going to be able to confirm ages 3)We know that sub 18 admins can do a perfectly good job 4)admins don't really run the site. Individual admins really don't run the site 5)we judge every admin so if lack of maturity is a problem they will not make it to adminship. 6)adminship is no big deal 7)you are far less likely to kill people in the role of a wiki admin than driving a car.Geni 03:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well said. →Raul654 03:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Shelburne, let me tell you one thing right now. I find your statement insulting, baseless, and ill-informed. And my college professors take Wikipedia rather seriously; in fact, they're intrigued by the fact that I'm a Wikipedia admin. They all tell me "we LOVE Wikipedia! It's one of the first places I look". So... do you have a purpose for this rant besides crying because the RFC against Redwolf isn't doing you any justice? Linuxbeak | Talk 03:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, he might be a trouble user, but you're making his case for him. Geni's reply was reasonable, yours lookslike the sort of rant I'd expect from... well Shelburne (and his related socks). Every critical message does not demand a harsh reply, take a look at the other replies here... --Gmaxwell 23:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The main reason the real world defines thresholds in terms of arbitrary ages is that society can not really afford the time and expense to certify whether or not any given individual has the skills and maturity to deal with situations like driving, smoking, drinking, voting, etc. So as a society we set some arbitrary boundaries and hope that most of the people that have reached that age are qualified for the rights and responsibilities being bestowed upon them. Frankly, it is fairly crappy system as it, since there are inevitably some "kids" that are substantially more trustworthy than some "adults". Unlike society at large, Wikipedia does take the time and effort to judge the qualifications and attributes of each candidate. In the process we (hopefully) weed out the immature candidates of all ages through a process of peer evaluation that is certainly more effective than any arbitrary age barrier would be. Dragons flight 03:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the main differences between wikipedia and real life is that age matters much less here, though IMO the significant, active admins tend to be adults. I would do like (apparently) the Roman senators did and make the age bar 42 but, as Geni says, we never ask admins or anyone else to give personal information away, and that is as it should be. Trying to changer that would be major policy change anyway. I believe ione of the bureaucrats (who officially appoint the admins) is 13, and there is perhaps something commendable in giving such responsibilities to young people, SqueakBox 03:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I recently noticed, he turned 14. Dragons flight 03:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this thread be somewhere else? I had thought I was on the Rfa talk page, SqueakBox 03:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think an age limit of 18 is a fine idea. Then we could get rid of all the corrupt administrators that are older than 18. --Zephram Stark 03:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
There are many, more important reasons why Wikipedia will or won't be taken seriously by whoever. I seriously doubt that an age limit for admins is one of them and I doubt that it would make any difference in public perceptions of this site. Gamaliel 03:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be enforced by consensus. If someone's under a certain age and you want to oppose on those grounds, feel free to do so. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 03:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think not discriminating based on age should be enforced by consensus. The only argument for RFAs being restricted by age is if someone was being immature and not respecting wiki principles- in such a case discriminating on age is pointless, since examples would abound; futhermore, this would catch a lot of innocent users in the same net, or force them to lie/withold data. Considerations on age is a bad idea. --Maru (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Maru - if someone were to discriminate on the basis of age, I would hope a b'crat would disregard it as spurious - much like discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, sexual orientation... Guettarda 04:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I misphrased what I was trying to say. What I meant to say is that, regardless of how any indidvidual feels about it (I very strongly opposed it myself, but I may be biased being 19 myself,) there's no need for such a rule or lack thereof; if one feels that it's a good reason for a user not to be made an admin, they can oppose any RFA on those grounds. There's no need for concrete qualifications for admins, period. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 04:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Whatever the case, this sort of policy will be impossible to enforce because nobody will post their true ages anymore. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Shelburne Kismaayo has proved to be a sockpuppet of a banned user (See below). Do not feed the trolls. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 05:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, trolls aside, this is quite a narrow-minded idea. I know twelve-year olds that are more mature than so-called "adults". Maturity is not determined by age, period. Besides the policy being unenforceable, it is simply a bad idea. Titoxd(?!?) 05:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And to whoever said our best admins are old: Refer to My Teenage Wikipedians essay. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 05:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be easier to refer to it if the link actually worked. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
hey, some of our admins may be young; that doesn't automatically mean that they are the people writing our articles on field theory, ancient history and literary criticism. So I don't see how our content should be taken an less seriously if our vandals are being blocked by youngsters. If we have a problem with credibility, it is not with the admin population, but with the kook/wierdo population among our editors, often sporting grey beards. If anything, the limit could be suggested for the arbcom; I would be uncomfortable with having involved content disputes judged by 14-year-olds. I have no problem with 14-year-olds valiantly protecting our content. 83.77.208.46 07:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Age limits for admins are an incredibly stupid idea. Who's to say people under 18 can't be taken seriously? I myself nominated a 15-year-old for an admin, and the request succeeded. — JIP | Talk 07:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

What a silly idea. The necessary social and technical skills to be an admin are not much different to those needed to be, e.g., a message board moderator, and plenty of teenagers are quite able to discharge that duty competently. We have plenty of very good Wiki admins who are teenagers. You have posited a solution in search of a problem. - David Gerard 11:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC) (age 38)

For the record, regardless of any trolling by originator of discussion, no age limits under any circumstances. MONGO 10:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (age: older than David Gerard)

The bulk of Wikipedians seem to be young. ''I'm 48, probably double the mean demographic of most Wikipedia writers," said David Denniston of Santa Barbara, Calif., who has written 400 articles on early music. ''There are a lot of people in their teens or early 20s, mostly focused on pop culture. There's an enormous number of articles on every rock band, TV show, and character you can think of."

For the young, relying on information found free on the Internet -- whatever their interests -- is as natural as taking a book off a library shelf was for their parents.

''When I need to find information about something, I usually go to Wikipedia first," said Harrison Chen, 16, a junior at Chelmsford High School. ''I like it as a reference -- it feels good that I am contributing to it, and that others will read something I wrote and find it useful. I added an article about one of the artists on 'The Simpsons' who came from Chelmsford. I know a lot of colleges don't like Wikipedia because you can edit it," he said. ''I do cite it, because most of my teachers don't mind."

He can lock down the pages most prone to vandalism - say, the one about U.S. President George W. Bush - and he can exercise the final say on the never-ending discussion about page deletions.

Oh, one other thing. Mitchell is 13.

"I don't tell people on the site my age,'' says Mitchell, who will enter Grade 8 in September. "Some will have less respect for me than they do now.''

Mitchell lives with his parents, Adrian and Darlene, and younger brother Miles.

"He has always wanted to know the wheres and whys of everything,'' says Darlene, 49, who works as a part-time real estate agent's assistant. (Adrian, 48, is an aircraft mechanic.)

The Wikipedia - Can Teenagers write an Encyclopedia? - July 31, 2007 - Sam Vaknin Ph.D.
The vast majority of Wikipedia contributors and editors are under the age of 25. Many of the administrators (senior editors) are in their teens. This has been established by a survey conducted in 2003 and in various interviews with Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of the enterprise.

The truth is that teenagers cannot do the referencing and research that are the prerequisite to serious scholarship - unless you stretch these words to an absurd limit. Research is not about hoarding facts. It is about identifying and applying context and about possessing a synoptic view of ostensibly unrelated data.

Moreover, teenagers can't tell hype from fact and fad from fixture. They lack the perspectives that life and learning -structured, frontal, hierarchical learning - bring with them.

Knowledge is not another democratic institution. It is hierarchical for good reason and the hierarchy is built on merit and the merit is founded on learning.

It is not surprising that the Wikipedia emerged in the USA whose "culture" consists of truncated attention spans, snippets and soundbites, shortcuts and cliff notes. The Wikipedia is a pernicious counter-cultural phenomenon. It does not elevate or celebrate knowledge. The Wikipedia degrades knowledge by commoditizing it and by removing the filters and the barriers to entry that have proven so essential hitherto.

Wikipdians boast that the articles in their "encyclopedia" are replete with citations and references. But citations from which sources and references to which works and authors? Absent the relevant credentials and education, how can an editor tell the difference between information and disinformation, fact and hearsay, truth and confabulation?

Knowledge is not comprised of lists of facts, "facts", factoids, and rumors, the bread and butter of the Wikipedia. Real facts have to be verified, classified, and arranged within a historical and cultural context. Wikipedia articles read like laundry lists of information gleaned from secondary sources and invariably lack context and deep, true understanding of their subject matter.

A recent (late 2006) study by Heather Hopkins from Hitwise demonstrates the existence of a pernicious feedback loop between Google, Wikipedia, MySpace, and Blogspot. Wikipedia gets 54% of its traffic from Google search results. The majority of Wikipedia visitors then proceed to MySpace or Blogspot, both of which use Google as their search service and serve Google-generated advertisements.
(excerpt)

Based on the common theme from WR that many people here criticise Wikipedia for being too young, I would suggest that WR members are generally somewhat older than WP members. I am not sure that that is true, but that would be my guess.