http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...-Cup-award.html

Sepp Blatter accidentally called 'Bellend' on World Cup award

Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president, received an award from the South African government under an unwelcome nickname after his Wikipedia entry was apparently sabotaged.

The 74-year-old was recognised with the Order of The Companions of O R Tambo for his contribution over the World Cup.

However, an official website announcing the accolade referred to the Swiss as “Joseph Sepp Bellend Blatter”.

It is thought that Blatter’s profile on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, was targeted by pranksters who altered his name, which was then copied onto the government website.

Both websites have since been amended, removing the reference, which is a slang term for a penis.

The joke follows criticism of the football chief for refusing to allow goal-line technology in the tournament, which would have proved Frank Lampard scored against Germany.

Online football forums were awash with comments about the blunder after it spotted on the website for the South African presidency.

One England fan remarked: “It just goes to show that 50 million people are not wrong!”

Another added: “So is this the first official, presidentially sanctioned bellend in history?”

Blatter received his Gold award at a gala dinner on Monday South African President, Jacob Zuma.

The accolade is one of the country’s highest distinctions and is bestowed on foreign citizens for contributions to peace, co-operation and the active expression of solidarity and support.

Announcing the award, Mr Zuma said: “After FIFA awarded us the opportunity to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup on 15 May 2004, we embraced the tasks that you entrusted to us, working together as a nation.

“The hosting of the 2010 World Cup has helped us consolidate the gains we achieved after attaining freedom in 1994.”

Oliver Tambo was a former president in exile of the African National Congress (ANC) and played a significant role in mobilising international opposition to apartheid, setting up the first liberation movement missions in Egypt, Morocco, Ghana and London.

Accepting his award, Blatter said: “I just have to express my thanks but my emotions are now overcoming my voice.

“I'm touched by this honour. I would like to thank President Zuma and all the people of South Africa for this gesture. I take it for FIFA, the football family and my own family.”

Asked for a comment about the name blunder, a spokesman for FIFA's Swiss HQ told The Sun: "I need to communicated the meaning of the word internally first."

Read more: http://astonvilla.vitalfootball.co.uk/foru...0#ixzz0tjhz67Pk

Dang, it's in the Urban Dictionary and everything!


Right, but I think the real question is, would the erroneously-disallowed goal merely have made the score 4-1 in favor of Germany, or would it have ignited a massive scoring spree for England that might still be going on at this very moment, if it hadn't been cruelly stopped by Mr., uh, Bellend?

I guess we'll never know.

I'm just disappointed that the World Cup was won by Spain, instead of the Detroit Tigers, who I was sure would pull it out in the end.

Had a rummage through and couldn't see a version with bellend, but I skipped around bit.

What is slightly interesting is that flagged revisions seem to be in place, with lots of "automatically accepted" revisions logged.

What a putz.

This is happening far too often. People going straight to the internet without doing any further research. Schools may be partly to blame. Kids need to be taught how to use libraries and books, and learn the research process, and only taught how to use the internet last.

I would suggest that rather than blaming the entire "internet" for these types of errors, it is a question of looking critically at sources of information. This applies equally to books, websites, and online encyclopedias that anyone can edit.

Well the number one result in the near universally used search engine returns "an encyclopedia" entry hosted on a top ten website which spends millions a year to present itself as creditable and nothing at all to assure quality. But the resounding verdict of the internet libertarians (even some fairly moderate ones here) is the guy who retrieve the vandalized name had a personal duty to investigate the unbelievably inaccessible labyrinth of inner workings of this fraudulent "encyclopedia."

Not to mention, you have good-faith editors actually ASKING other editors to reinsert the Bellend name, if they'll only find a source for it.

I have it on good authority that the term “bellend” refers to the end of a man that points toward a belle, kind of like a compass.†

† Some exceptions apply. See gaiomagnetic orientation.

Jon

In all seriousness, this is a fine example of Wikipedia admins screwing up big-time.

Anyone should have been able to see, within 30 seconds, that the article needed indefinite full protection from a coordinated group of IP's and single-purpose accounts. It needed it on June 27, and it needed it again on July 13 - there was no judgement call to be made, no need for discussion - just protect the damn article.

What were they thinking? I have no idea - maybe they figured it was in the middle of the World Cup tournament and Blatter might do something important that would have to go into his BLP right away. Uh, no, sorry WP'ers - the middle of a World Cup tournament is precisely when you don't want things going into his BLP right away.

I just don't see how even the most brain-dead/washed/challenged "open editing" advocate could possibly have failed to such an extent, unless maybe they were also the ones doing the vandalism or something. It's like they're determined to do the wrong thing, wherever and whenever they can.

My network of "cripple them from within" moles seems to be working!

Has it actually been confirmed anywhere that this came from Wikipedia? Did anyone find the diffs yet? Could be a very interesting case study.

See the link in my post to this thread on July 15th. Of course it came from Wikipedia.

If Jimmy Bellend Wales had allowed for a system of better protection of any BLPs on WP, other than his own and people who could embarrass him because he knows them personally, this wouldn't have happened.

But I guess WP really doesn't care if they're the butt of jokes. Until time to ask for corporate welfare grant money, at least.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

There was a very clever vandalism, actually confirmed by user Swarm (look for his name in the July 13 page history).

Heh, for some reason I thought it was actually inscribed on a cup, so vandalism on the 13th seemed too recent. Pretty lame of the SA site to only make their write up a day or few before the award.

They've got laser cutters for that stuff now - takes no time at all. The only real question is, was the laser cutter plugged directly into the Wikipedia page when the inscription was made, or did someone have to go and look it up manually?