Wikiality – The controversy rages on Wikipedia

There is quite a controversy raging on the Wikipedia discussion pages of the Stephen Colbert page and The Colbert Report main page. The argument revolves around what, if anything, should be posted about the Wikiality reference on The Colbert Report on July 31, 2006.

Originally, this definition was posted on the Stephen Colbert Wikipedia site:

===Wikiality===
- In “The WØRD” on the July 31, 2006 episode of the ”Report”, Colbert featured the term “wikiality”. Having proclaimed himself a non-fan of either reality or encyclopedias, Colbert thanked Wikipedia for allowing him to “change facts”. This world of changing of facts he termed as wikiality, being a blend of the words “Wikipedia” and “reality”. He went on expanding his thanks saying we all should have the ability to change facts, and all that should be required to do so is some person or group loudly disputing a factoid. Colbert presented an example of wikiality by contending that Africa has more elephants today than it did six months ago. He encouraged his viewers to edit the Wikipedia article on elephants to include an erroneous claim about a dramatic increase in the elephant population in Africa. (Needless to say, any such changes would run counter to Wikipedia’s policy of verifiability.)

After multiple edits to the Wikiality entry, it was finally removed by some of the editors of the Wikipedia site. Currently, if you go to the Wikipedia site, and type “Wikiality” into the search engine, it redirects you to The Colbert Report main page.

The anti-Wikiality camp makes these points about the exclusion of the word on the pages:

I understand that you are not arguing that the Wikiality segment was significant simply because it involves Wikipedia. Rather, you argue that the segment reflects an important viewpoint of the show; in particular, that the subjectivity of the truth is so great that – especially in the modern era of Wikipedia type information sources – mass agreement upon a point a priori marks it as fact. However, even if this viewpoint is a fundamental part of The Colbert Report, it is still unessential and against wiki guidelines to inculde Wikiality in the article before it is externally established as notable. Not only is it against guidelines, but the argument can be explicitly mentioned elsewhere – I would argue that it moreover already is implicit in other sections of the article, including “truthiness.”

Of course, the true “wikiality” of the entire Wikiality experience was best expressed by Cyde Weys:

Attention Colbert vandals: the joke’s on you

---

Dear everyone vandalizing at the behest of Stephen Colbert: the joke’s on you. You’re being played for fools. Dr. Colbert purposefully chose something really absurd to see how many mindless drones would go out and add nonsense, each thinking it was really cool and original to do so. This is meta-humor at its finest. All Stephen Colbert has to do is mention something really absurd, hint that it should be added to Wikipedia, and then laugh all the way to the comedy bank as people who can’t think of anything funny on their own repeatedly try to insert the same rubbish into articles.

As I noted to the editors on Wikipedia, they need to acknowledge is the wikiality of the entire Wikiality episode, as it were. Last week, Colbert did a bit in his show that featured morning newscasters talking about Colbert’s interview with Robert Wexler. He stated essentally that not only was he reporting news, but now he WAS the news. The same principal is true of adding Wikiality to the pages of Wikipedia. Even though the word Wikiality has not had the time to filter through the pop culture zeitgeist, it is still relevant because its own creation has fostered the necessity for its definition into Wikipedia. To not mention Wikiality is an ironic manefestation of the wikiality of the situation itself. Not mentioning the word does not make it irrelevant – in fact quite the opposite. The clamouring of the blogosphere for Wikiality to be included into Wikipedia both creates its existance and justifies its existance at the same time.

While the word itself has not yet had time to implant itself in the English language, the existance of the word necessitates its representation in Wikipedia because it is in fact a reflection on the influence of Wikipedia in the mainstream. The Colbert Report is a comedy show with a growing reputation of both influencing and reflecting the opinions of much of the cutting edge of popular opinion. To not acknowledge the topical nature of a segment of the show that directly references Wikipedia is to negate the influence of Wikipedia in pop culture. Most importantly, this page documents the important milestones in The Colbert Report. The people defining these milestones are the fans themselves, just like the fans who maintain the site. And here we go back again, full circle, if enough fans say it is a moment of historical documentable significance, its wikiality has been established, and should be published on the Colbert Report Wikipedia page. The fact that the argument has been made for it is evidence enough that it should be on this page. Am I using circular logic? You bet. But that’s the beauty of wikiality. That’s the reason it needs to be on this page – at least in my humble opinion. To go against the wishes of the fans of the show who have clamored for this word to be put on Wikipedia is to deny the importance of this particular Wikipedia article itself. Plus it would be good to set the record straight on why the word came into existance in the first place.

• Stephen Colbert in the Zeitgeist – March 13, 2010
• Stephen Colbert in the Zeitgeist – March 3, 2010
• Please don’t sue us – An open letter to Tony Fox, PR rep for Viacom
• Eye Candy: Stephen Colbert at Christ Child Society’s Great Gatsby Gala