Wikipedia talk:Editing of Wikipedia by the media

User:71.204.149.100
I wouldn't say Colbert encouraged or told people to vandalize the article on elephants. He stated that he was doing it, but didn't say, instruct, or even strongly imply that others should vandalize Wikipedia. He did express that he wasn't a fan of Wikipedia itself, but he didn't go out and tell people to tear it apart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.204.149.100 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe he said "you can make anything true," with the phrase "you can" being seen as encouragement. 71.216.188.161 01:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
And yet, this is in dispute. Quite remarkable how the first discussion was overturned in controversial circumstances, now, isn't it? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do in case of ironic edits?
What happens if a media personality 'vandalizes' this page itself by adding themselves when they had not previously vandalized Wikipedia? Do you have to remove it and immediately add it back again? Because the minute you consider it inaccurate, it becomes accurate. Maybe it's a good thing Godel isn't still around...

72.1.186.174 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

title
Is it just me or does the current title of this article "List of media personalities to vandalise Wikipedia" sound like it is in future tense? It sounds like a prediction. Perhaps a more general title such as "Media personalities and Wikipedia vandalism" would be better, though I half think that this content should be a section at Criticism of Wikipedia. - BT 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that half of them are hardly critics, so I don't believe that it is appropriate in that article. It does show how one section of the media has reacted to Wikipedia though. It's interesting to see how many journalists have vandalised the site... - Ta bu shi da yu 15:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Penny Arcade
The following was added: However, are Penny Arcade "media personalities"? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The web comic Penny Arcade published a cartoon of Skeletor vandalizing the article on He-Man. While neither Jerry Holkins or Mike Krahulik personally edited the article, the cartoon prompted a number of editors to imitate it.
 * I suppose the first question is, are web comics media? I think so; in which case web comic creators are media personalities. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Good point. However, I was more thinking of people of the press when I came up with the title. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the other incidents are by comedians or joke columnists. A web comic would seem to be the same sort of thing.  My first reaction upon learning of the article was, "why isn't that incident in there?"  - Smerdis of Tlön 03:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Penny Arcade writers are considered a "media personality," might the incident in which he cited wikipedia as evidence that his grandmother was a horse fit on this list? While there was no official confirmation, evidence would suggest that it was he who made the edit... 04:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Readers?
I don't know how many people spend hours reading their radio but I certainly don't. I think, unless it's referring to the Radio 1 website, the reference to the Radio 1 "readers" should be changed to "listeners". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madeinsane (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

John Byrne?
Comic book writer/artist John Bryne engaged in a length and acrimonious edit war over his own Wikipedia entry? Should this be added? - CNichols 01:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit wars aren't really vandalism. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

show edits
I think that it would be a good idea to show the vandalizations, just to verify that they actually happened. Starhood` 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a good idea, too. They're available in the edit history for each particular page, no?  Wouldn't it be fairly easy to link to them?  71.216.188.161 01:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Vince Demitri's IP address
According to the history for the Vince Demitri article, 63.163.57.20 was the first IP to vandalize the article to say he has 27 children, so technically his IP is logged, even though it's just the IP for a proxy server for NBC. He wasn't singled out for IP logging though, which is what the news article seems to suggest, so I'll change this page to reflect that. Ziiv 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Every topic in the universe except chickens
Is it worth mentioning this too? It was created alongside a Dinosaur Comics strip about the same subject.

I've gone ahead and written a short thing about Ryan North. - henryfish

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Move Duja ► 10:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote on Requested moves, it's an interesting article, but we're not that notable that this would warrant its own article, so I'm proposing a move to the Wikipedia namespace. --Conti|&#9993; 20:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. -Will Beback · † · 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree too. --Blisco 18:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colbert
Because Stephen Colbert's (in character) vandalism is of a wholly different nature than the rest of this list - not meant mearly as comedy, self promotion, or absurdity - I've moved his list entry to the top and bolded his name. He's not only the most notable character to have vandalized wikipedia, but did so for the purpose of social commentary on how information is distrubuted and believed or disbelieved; how "facts" can be manufactured.

So now we merge it
OK, so how are we going to merge it? And how can we make sure the merge sticks? After all, we want the article kept right? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't get this. Can I oppose the merge? How do I do this? Can I ask people to come here to oppose it? If one person now says that they want to merge it, and the other doesn't, then that really isn't consensus! As to how to merge it without losign the fact that it is distictive vandalism by the media, and so not entirely lose the distinctive characteristics of the article and thus satisfy the more than few people who wanted it kept - well, I throw up my arms! What a stupid situation we now have. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al
I was looking at the article on Weird al, and it occured to me, Wikipedia does not support the type of Word Art in Editing Pages, So that Isn't Really Vandilisim.68.173.12.180 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC) NOTE: A actually am User: Samnuva, I'm Just not logged in right now.

Proposed move
I propose this is moved to Editing of Wikipedia by the media. Who would like to do the honours? Carcharoth 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give this another day or two, then I'll move it. Carcharoth 01:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a process wonk, but could you put this on WP:RPM? This would be most appropriate, and would give the most amount of exposure to the move. And least amount of problems :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia → Editing of Wikipedia by the media — More neutral name - allows this 'Wikipedia' article to expand outside just vandalism to cover other aspects of editing by the media. See below for more details. Carcharoth 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Support - see nomination reason and further details in the discussion section. Carcharoth 10:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - so long as it doesn't remove the cited examples of vandalism, I don't have a problem with it. Sounds like a good idea to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. -- Exitmoose 06:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) Oppose make a separate generalized page, keep one specialized on vandalism. 132.205.44.134 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:


 * This rename nomination follows a turbulent history for the page. There are no technical reasons the move cannot happen (it is not over a redirect or a page with history), but it was requested that a formal discussion be started, as happened the last time the page was moved. This page started out in article namespace, survived an AfD, was later moved to Wikipedia namespace, and then underwent an MfD, DRV and another MfD before being kept. These deletion discussions are listed at the top of this page. Alternative suggested during this process including merging in some way to Wikipedia in the media (no consensus reached on that), and now this proposal, to rename the page. This, it is hoped, would make the page more neutral, and not so focused on vandalism (a common complaint of those participating in the deletion discussions). A more detailed history (by me) can be found towards the end of the deletion review. A longer explanation of the reasoning behind the proposed page rename (by me) can be found at the second MfD. If the rename was successful, and the page was balanced out with other examples, I would then add the page to InPrint. Carcharoth 10:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Editorializing
I'm uncomfortable with the following text:


 * "This is particularly surprising, given that a journalist or media commentator would not do the same thing in real life. For instance, they wouldn't go to their local train station, spraypaint the seats, then write an indignant article that the security was was so lax that they were able to perform acts of vandalism! Nevertheless, many media personalities do feel that they have the right to vandalise Wikipedia."

To me, this constitutes completely unnecessary, blatantly POV editorializing. Does the fact that this page resides in the Wikipedia namespace rather than in the main space make it "okay" to indulge in rambling editorials? I think not. Can we remove this language?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's nothing to say we can't have this. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense would dictate that such preachiness is out of place in an otherwise useful reference article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * However... it's not really a reference article as it's not in the main namespace. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please add dates, plus suggestions
The references give the dates, but the dates should also appear in each entry. I've also found the following examples from scanning through the other "in the media" pages and a brief Google search: Just for starters. Carcharoth 13:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Jimbo Wales and The Chaser
Jimmy Wales was given the "Mr. Ten Questions" treatment by Andrew Hansen of The Chaser on The Chaser's War on Everything in early May. He got 4/10, which is pretty good. Here's the video - the file was uploaded legally as it's an Australian Broadcasting Corporation series. Hansen claimed to have vandalised Jimbo's article to read he was a "teenage druglord from Malaysia". An edit to this effect was made in late April - here's the diff. Other edits of similar content were made for the next few days by various users. I don't know how to cite this though as it was a TV episode and is not yet on DVD. It's discussed on Talk:Jimmy Wales. ~ Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo Wales != Wikipedia, and you can't edit Jimbo :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you maybe missed that Hansen claimed to have vandalised Jimbo's article to read he was a "teenage druglord from Malaysia". An edit to this effect was made in late April - here's the diff. Other edits of similar content were made for the next few days by various users. ~ Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, however the Chaser might have noticed this and just made up a question to that effect. In other words, I don't necessarily believe that they did this. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Major change to article structure
This edit was really not the best. We don't need a chronological structure like this, too many sections with not enough text. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Helen Razer
On 26 August at around 12:30 am UTC+10 on her radio show, Helen Razer claimed to have edited the Moon article to claim that "The moon is made of cheese" in a segment criticising Wikipedia in a manner similar to the concept of wikiality. She claimed that "... for an hour, the moon was made of cheese." In this diff, it shows that an edit of this kind was made shortly before this time which did indeed make this claim. Swi tch  (✉ ✍ ☺ <font color="#800099">☒ ) 09:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a Dodo IP address, it's quite possible that she did this. Is there a podcast? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Rory Cellan Jones edit
It's pretty clear if you look at the changes that the edit Rory Cellan Jones did was a frivolous one, with no real malicious intent. Shouldn't this be made clear? The same applies to the Radio One edits. Is there a distinction to be made between deliberately introducing untrue information about oneself to give a misleading picture and simply having fun?

Nick Reynolds (BBC) Nick Reynolds Nick Reynolds (BBC)

Why aren't there sections for 2008 and 2009?
That is odd, considering there are sections for almost all of the other years that wikipedia has been in existence. Can there be information about this topic during the years 2008 and 2009 so that this page is more up to date? Thanks. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What if...?
What if a media personality vandalises this list to say he vandalised Wikipedia? Then if that was reverted the list would be factually incorrect. But if it was kept it wouldn't be vandalism so the list would be factually incorrect. Contradiction. Attinio (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Please note that WP:BLP applies to all pages. If you're going to make claims about living people that could be perceived as negative, like the ones I've just removed, you'd better have excellent sourcing to back them up. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)