Comments on: Wikiality – The controversy rages on Wikipedia http://www.nofactzone.net/2006/08/01/wikiality-the-controversy-rages-on-wikipedia/ Stephen Colbert and 'The Colbert Report' News Blog and Fan Site Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:52:07 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: admin http://www.nofactzone.net/2006/08/01/wikiality-the-controversy-rages-on-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-81 admin Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:34:59 +0000 http://www.nofactzone.net/?p=90#comment-81 Ned, You are correct. It is in Wikipedia, just not as prominently mentioned as some would like. I will most definitely make a post stating corrections today, a post-mortem if you will, of the Wikiality Wikipedia issue. I have been following it most closely and would like my documentation of the situation to be correct. Ned,

You are correct. It is in Wikipedia, just not as prominently mentioned as some would like. I will most definitely make a post stating corrections today, a post-mortem if you will, of the Wikiality Wikipedia issue. I have been following it most closely and would like my documentation of the situation to be correct.

]]> By: Ned Scott http://www.nofactzone.net/2006/08/01/wikiality-the-controversy-rages-on-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-80 Ned Scott Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:16:28 +0000 http://www.nofactzone.net/?p=90#comment-80 Wikiality IS mentioned on Wikipedia. Just because something isn't its own article is a technicality. It is often mistaken that if a subject shares an article with other subjects that it is less important, but this is not so. While there are many articles for what most would consider non-notable facts, events, and people, that's mostly because someone hasn't gotten around to cleaning those articles up yet. Most topics such as this should share an article until the content of that section grows large enough that it's own article document would make sense. It is not an indication of importance. [[Wikipedia in popular culture#Vandalism of Wikipedia in popular culture]] and [[List of The Colbert Report episodes]] episode 2096 are two such places where Wikiality is already mentioned, and it will likely be it's own section of [[The Colbert Report]] soon. Saying that Wikipedia is stopping it's inclusion is completely incorrect. Wikiality IS mentioned on Wikipedia. Just because something isn’t its own article is a technicality. It is often mistaken that if a subject shares an article with other subjects that it is less important, but this is not so. While there are many articles for what most would consider non-notable facts, events, and people, that’s mostly because someone hasn’t gotten around to cleaning those articles up yet. Most topics such as this should share an article until the content of that section grows large enough that it’s own article document would make sense. It is not an indication of importance. [[Wikipedia in popular culture#Vandalism of Wikipedia in popular culture]] and [[List of The Colbert Report episodes]] episode 2096 are two such places where Wikiality is already mentioned, and it will likely be it’s own section of [[The Colbert Report]] soon. Saying that Wikipedia is stopping it’s inclusion is completely incorrect.

]]> By: Tom http://www.nofactzone.net/2006/08/01/wikiality-the-controversy-rages-on-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-49 Tom Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:12:26 +0000 http://www.nofactzone.net/?p=90#comment-49 "To not mention Wikiality is an ironic manefestation of the wikiality of the situation itself." Very, very true. It deserves a nice litle article. “To not mention Wikiality is an ironic manefestation of the wikiality of the situation itself.”

Very, very true. It deserves a nice litle article.

]]>