Wikipedia talk:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants

See also: Talk:The Colbert Report/Wikiality

All truth is a product of consensus/convention, is it not? Why do we need a new word for this when the old words (truth, reality, fact) have worked so well for so long? This is intellectual vandalism! A great amount of thought has been given to this subject throughout history and it is well documented. It is pure philosophy of the epistemological kind.

From Talk:Wikiality

This deserves a more broad definition than a simple redirection to the Colbert Report. Ulairix 03:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Wikiality is now a term accepted by many scholars within academic communities. Wikipedia should end its policy towards elitist censorship. 208.96.76.89 03:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with censorship. Do you have a verifiable source for what you claim? -- Ned Scott 05:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

When multiple newspaper articles cover "wikiality", like "truthiness", it can get its own article. Rhobite 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since if the subject matter is very small and is a sub-set of a larger topic, then it might be a part of another article. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that time is now: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2006-08-28T124244Z_01_N27277446_RTRUKOC_0_US-EMMYS-WORDS-1.xml&src=rss

) --Frantik 23

40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This deserves an article all to itself. That whole segment of The Colbert Report warrants an article as it brought about both greater awareness of Wikipedia as well as the Colbert-sponsored vandalism of several articles -- mainly George Washington and Elephants. It demonstrates the power that he has and seems quite relevant in my point of view. --MChilcote 08:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It warrants a trivia note on The Colbert Report but not it's own article. Something having it's own article does not make it more or less important. -- Ned Scott 10:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but something being important does render it worthy of its own article.--Tomsintown 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Ned Scott. I believe sincerely that the topic about criticism towards Wikipedia deserves more attention. It is already mentioned in the article about Wikipedia. Perhaps a reference to "wikiality" might be included in the critic section of that article. If not, then I´m in favour of a full, separate article. A paragraph in the Colbert article is clearly not enough. Although I like Wikipedia a lot, read a variety of articles in it and on ocassion even give some contribution perfecting articles, the fact is that there are serious academic discussions about the reliability of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that can be written by people who are not experts and about the possibility of mistakes in wikipedia passing as reality. For instance, in the subject matters that I have more familiarity with, I have on occasion found errors in wikipedia, and have corrected them. Now, suppose I´m reading an article about a subject I know nothing about, and there is false information. Of course I´ll tend to accept that as a fact, unless I have time to check it and then find that it is false. This is a serious question under current debate in some academic circles, and it deserves an article. Professor --Antonio Basto 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You're taking The Colbert Report too seriously. I extremely doubt that a parody news show was trying to make a serious point. In any case, what you are describing is already an article and has been for some time, Criticism of Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of satire is social commentary, which is usually quite serious.--Chrysoula 04:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean "Wikiality" shouldn't have its own article, especially if it turns out to be as big as "truthiness" did, which hit The New York Times. — Tomsintown 1:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the Colbert Report article contains no mention of "wikiality", shouldn't this redirect be shifted to point to Wikipedia in popular culture? --Algorithm 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality, in its essense, is simply another word for Cultural relativism. I feel that it would be logical to redirect this article to Cultural Relativism as opposed to the Colbert Report. --MSTK 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I find that too far fetched. It is not a synonym, it is not restricted to linguistics. This is an occurence in popular culture that deserves at least a stub of an article. --Tomsintown 23:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality is a new word coined for a concept that would be impossible without wiki. That we're even discussing it, and that such discussion will inevitably lead to its eventual inclusion, is a demonstration of it.--Chrysoula 04:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about it as a word, but if it's something big enough to warrant it's own article, which it's not. There are many more major subjects out there that share an article, and do so not because they are less important, but because from an organization stand point it makes sense. Having it's own article does not make it important, and sharing an article does not make it less important. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's important because it's true. The very fact that debate is raging on these Talk pages is evidence enough that some of those who live out their lives on Wikipedia esteem themselves to be the gatekeepers of reality. This is precisely the point that the real Stephen Colbert (not the character he plays) was making during the recent segment. Wikiality as a concept is as truthy as they come. Mark his words--Colbert's influence on our culture hasn't said its last yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.205.13 (talk • contribs) .

So.. how is this a response to what I just said? And, no, debating the matter on the internet does not make something significant. -- Ned Scott 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ned is right. And even if what you are saying is true (we're stretching it), it does not necessarily warrant its own article. For example, Aerobic respiration, a type of cellular respiration, is true and it's happening billions of times at once in your body. But it doesn't have its own article. While nobody can deny that it is true, it is clear that it doesn't warrant its own page. --MSTK 08:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Allenby Beardsley, worth an article. Aerobic respiration, not worth an article. Why? Wikiality. 70.179.203.73 11:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not about importance of the term which should decide whether it's page-worthy or not, the word is a portmanteaus, and all such terms seem to get their own articles w/o much discussion, the term is unique like brunch or better yet wikitionary or wikipedia (there are plenty more examples in neologisms). WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It's quite clear what the roots of the word are: wiki and reality. It is describing a type of reality, perhaps consensus reality (there are more types listed on the reality page) is closest, and that article has a philosophical meaning of the term. What was mentioned on the Colbert Report is perhaps consensual reality NOT trying to approach reality. Hence the term is deserving of it's own page, because there isn't yet another term for how "reality" can be created, changed, and percieved on wikipedia. As for verifiable sources, why doesn't TV count? -Audi100quattro

I believe wikiality deserves its own article, redirecting it to the Colbert Show is really anoying. Stop censorship at wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.24.50.125 (talk • contribs) .

It's not censorship, it's decisions needed to write a quality reference work. If you can provide reliable references demonstrating that Wikiality is important enough of a word to justify an article, then it can have an article. That has not occured. There isn't even any reliable references to support the incident being mentioned on the Colbert Report. Per WP:V reliable references are required. - Taxman ^Talk 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet we have episode guides that discuss every aspect of a show... do those also have reliable references?--216.231.49.134 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they should. - Taxman ^Talk 16:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's simpler than that, Taxman. Colbert making up a word on Wikipedia is not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Even with the influx of people editing Wikipedia under Colbert's command, it's not notable enough. Honestly, do you think anyone will remember or care about this in 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? ~MDD4696 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'll bet it is gone in 30 days. --Aoratos 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to guarantee it won't be, by saying that? --131.107.0.103 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a month or two from now, and an AFD will likely show consensus for deletion. --Madchester 22:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started my own wiki site based on this word

It's located at [http://www.wikiality.com Wikiality] (http://www.wikiality.com) and people are already starting to contribute and the site is taking off further proving there should be an entry on Wikiality that does not simply redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauno (talk • contribs)

I think offering your own brand new website as evidence of the subjects established notability is very far from a convincing argument. --Aoratos 19:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to Dauno, please don't add spam, especially to personal websites on Wikipedia. --Madchester 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Truthiness only has about 600,000 Google Results while Wikiality already has 209,000 Google Results in just over 24 hours of it's existence. It's going to stick around. It deserves a Wikipedia article. You can't hide the truthiness.

Google search - Wikiality: Zero results. Please don't make stuff up. Thanks. --Madchester 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that link given 189,000 hits just now. Shows how rubbish Google is as a guide. --Aoratos 00:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's still zero. Please don't spread any false rumours. Thanks. --Madchester 01:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're going to feel real silly soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.144.21 (talk • contribs)

Results 1 - 10 of about 228,000 for wikiality. (0.03 seconds) Your google server may not have updated yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauno (talk • contribs)

I find it interesting that a series of non-regulars are making that claim, without any evidence. Cheers. --Madchester 03:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably because the regulars believe you, the non-regulars don't check for themselves, and find out that there are over a hundred thousand hits when wikiality is googled. Image:Wikiality.jpg--BlueMoo 03:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Google results have never been a reliable source for the notability of a topic. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't duplicate my search anymore, either. -BlueMoo 03:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Although Google hits generally don't support notability (as stated above), I find it interesting that A)you didn't provide a link to your search and B) the screenshot you uploaded contains dates next to the Google search. Dates only appear under Google News searches, i.e., Google News:Wikiality, which only contains 5 total hits. Please don't falsify your evidence to prove your point. Cheers, --Madchester 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Google the word "blog" [1] and notice that some of them contain dates, and some don't. However, as Ned Scott points out below, almost all the wikiality hits are blog entries. -BlueMoo 12:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am on an American network, and my google for the word "wikiality" returned 230,000 references. In addition Dauno's site has adopted my definition from The Urban Dictionary for the word "wikiality". Irrespective of the comment that it was just a word thrown out by a notable satirist on his show that is televised four nights a week, I think you should consider that a definable news event or happening occurred the night of 7-31 and this alone should make the word worthy of being something more than a link to The Colbert Report. However, I do understand your concerns, if you agree for this word, how many other words are you similarly going to be asked to include? Might I suggest that if the word is used in media, other than online, such as magazines, or newspapers then, like "truthiness" before it the word "wikiality" becomes relevant to today's society and worthy of its own self-standing entry. Kerojack, Argenta 07:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting 209,000 results on google for "wikiality" right now. I don't really think it should have it's own page (at least not yet, but if it becomes big like "truthiness" then maybe), but it does have major google hits as of right now. I don't know why you keep getting none Madchester. The Ungovernable Force 07:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Must be something weird with Google. In any case, they're almost completely made up of blog entries. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)]

Yesterday I was still getting zero results, but today I´m already getting 228.000 pages returned. I insist that this deserves an article, and that the current protection of this page does not meet wikipedia´s own protection policy. --201.79.100.152 16:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What is amusing about this, is that the "Thought Police" and self-appointed Guardians of Wikipedia, are doing exactly what Colbert's writers are saying they would! They are saying "Wikiality does not exist", when there are 189,000 Google entries! They even are attempting to falsify reality by saying those Google results don't exist. So their very blocking and CENSORSHIP of the term Wikiality proves what Colberts writers wanted to say. That a small group of people defines their own reality, and that this is how Wikipedia works. By the way, this is also how religions work, and that is the point. So its very ironic that the Wikipedia clique is actively blocking the entry of Wikiality from Wikipedia. It proves Cobert's writers point!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.245.167 (talk • contribs) .

Hmmm...I'm trying to follow the logic here. Colbert says that he loves Wikipedia because it allows the majority to determine what is true. But we all know that The Colbert Report is satire. So what he (or the writers) really meant was that he hates Wikipedia because a small minority won't let the majority determine what is true. Did I follow you correctly? Because, that's like saying that Colbert really hates Bush because of how insistent Bush is about being factual. –RHolton≡– 04:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality doesn't have it's own article, but it is included in Wikipedia: Wikipedia in popular culture#Vandalism of Wikipedia in popular culture and List of The Colbert Report episodes episode 2096 both pretty much contain the sum of what the word currently is. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,620,000 for "Wikiality". (0.21 seconds) . That's right, I get 1,620,000 results, and yes that is with quotes around the word. VegaDark 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And still, the vast majority of those sites are blogs and/or amateur news sites (which.. are basically blogs..) and web forum posts. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if the quotes are from blogs? Blogs are of great importance nowadays. --Antonio Basto 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Blogs can be, just as anything can be, of great importance. Are most blogs of great importance? Hell no, especially when they all say the same thing. A blog is nothing more than an individual's web site in an easy to update form. What I'm saying is that these are not the results from established web sites, it's just the comments from a bunch of fans. It's like saying, because someone at a rock concert said "is anyone from Denver?" and a few thousand people screamed, that suddenly made that event of him asking an important event. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The term is used in articles on The Washington Post, CNet, MTV.com and The Boston Phoenix. Seems like the term has jumped into the mainstream to me. To quote the title of a Bright Eyes tune, let's not s*** ourselves here. - Stick Fig 01:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Each one of those is in direct relation to The Colbert Report. In other words, it was only notable because it happened via the TV show. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone thought about searching for Wikiality -"colbert report" -colbert -blog -site:wikiality.com??? I get 15.200 results. Most are nonsense, btw.-- ExpImp^talkcon 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

New redirect?

Maybe Wikiality should redirect to Wikipedia_in_popular_culture#Vandalism_of_Wikipedia_in_popular_culture. The subject can be developed in-depth there better than on the Colbert article, IMHO. --M@rēino 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, another option, Cultural relativism. --MSTK 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, consensus reality, the idealist kind which which is prevalent on wikipedia because of it's anyone-can-edit nature -audi100quattro 07:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm...I think you may have a point there, audi. --MSTK 07:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence that it has any use or importance whatever. Mentioning it was used on his show in the list of episodes article is already a bit much. That's the best redirect for now until it gets deleted later. - Taxman ^Talk 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should deemphasize the fact that Wikiality was used on the show and treat it as a legitimate unimportant term independant from the show. Its actual meaning suggests that it should redirect to consensus reality, not the Colbert Report. Shouldn't we redirect based on its meaning? In fact it might even make it less important, because it will no longer be associated to a television show but to a philosophical concept (which in my opinion is less rated by the masses). --MSTK 21:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it will be un-associated with the show anytime soon. -- Ned Scott 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Take note that even the discussion are now being censored by a couple of Wikifolks! They cannot even handle an open discussion of what is going on, and that has to be censored as well! Too much... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.246.153 (talk • contribs) .

Immature comments and personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia, that is all. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Time for a bit of introspection

I'm a long-time Wikipedian, and not an extreme inclusionist. I'll also admit to liking The Colbert Report. I'll also admit to being more than a little bit irritated by the throngs of vandals who came here as a result of that show. I think Colbert is smart enough to know what would happen. I also happen to think it's tragically ironic that so many "fans" so completely missed the point.

All of that is really a separate issue from whether and how to include Wikiality on Wikipedia. My gut reaction is to keep it off the site entirely. I think its debatable at this time whether it deserves its own page. Those of us who have been with Wikipedia for a long time understand that it's not about the gut, but about the head; not about what feels right, but about what is verifiable. We know that emotions can cloud judgment.

While I think that right now, it's debatable whether the word deserves its own page, it's becoming less debatable the longer we argue about it. I suggest letting the article stand on its own, but insist on verifiability. The worst that can happen is that we end up with a stub article, or something just a hair above a dicdef. If at some point in the future the word has lost all currency, we can put it up for deletion. Let's drop the debate for now, and trust the other Wikipedia processes.–RHolton≡– 04:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Colbert and his ilk are observing this debate with much humor. He's waiting to see if wikipedia will add a page for wikiality or not. Is the humor of this missing all of you? Wikipedia will be the better for it if a page is added. The forthriight approach is always best with free speech issues. If wikiality is not a problem then the existence of the page will reflect that. If wikiality is a problem, then there ought to be a page and it will only diminish the wikiality around here. --Greg Bard

yes, when Google has 2 million entries in 2 days, that is a sign! Look, the reason the word is being blocked is due to the fact that it is criticizing and satirizing those who are blocking it. They are even blocking open discussion on this very thread! Can you imagine, just censoring the opinions of others, for no reason? Can't the Wiki folks see that by a small group actively blocking this word, that they are proving that the word exists?

Also, the word is a satire on things like FOX News, or even religious groups, who make up a word, and then believe its true.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.246.153 (talk • contribs) .

Ironically I just said this, but I'll say it again, the vast majority of those sites are blogs and/or amateur news sites (which.. are basically blogs..) and web forum posts. The Google results mean nothing. The word is not being blocked, it has already been included in a few articles. No one is blocking discussion from this page, but personal attacks and immature insults are NOT tolerated here. No one is saying that the word doesn't exist or that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, they're just saying that there isn't enough to be said about that specific word to warrant it's own article. It's not even a new concept, as you can see in the article consensus reality. This specific article name is being blocked to prevent knee-jerk reactions by users who don't understand that the information has already been included, in places that are more accessible and maintainable to readers and editors. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ned, Wikipedia´s "protection policy" states:

"A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for: Protecting high visibility pages such as the Main Page from vandalism. Maintaining the integrity of the site's logo, press releases, and key copyright and license pages (for legal reasons). Protecting certain "system administration" pages. This includes many editorial templates, such as deletion notices and stub templates. Protecting the often-used texts in the MediaWiki namespace. (...)

A temporary protection is used for: Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request. Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user. Preventing changes to a page while investigating a possible bug in the MediaWiki software. Allowing for history-only review during discussions on article restoration. The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one.

Talk pages and user talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in extreme circumstances.

Important Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself."

Reading this the only conclusion I reach is that the protecting of this page DOES NOT meet Wikipedia´s own policy. --Antonio Basto 14:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's also be clear about something here: This is not a free speech issue. There is absolutely no "constitutional right" for anyone to contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an open forum. It is a privately run project to create an open source encyclopedia. If you don't like the way it's run, you can always start your own. Heck, you can even start with a copy of Wikipedia, so long as you comply with the GFDL. But if you don't get your way, on Wikipedia, your rights are not being violated.–RHolton≡– 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While this may be not a constitutional free speech issue, I for one expect the editors, administrators, etc, to abide by the policies dictated by Wikipedia Foundation itself. And in my view the blocking of this article is an action that violates Wikipedia´s own policy as it stands. --Antonio Basto 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Foundation dictates virtually no policy on Wikipedia. There are a few key policies that are more or less inviolet. See the four very general key policies. However, if you believe any policy is being violated, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. –RHolton≡– 14:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets make another thing clear, there is absolutely NOTHING about Wikiality that is anything more than a joke on a comedy show. Somehow people think a new concept has been created, well it hasn't. We have the article consensus reality, as well as Criticism of Wikipedia. Nothing new, at all, has happened here. The fact that this happened in connection with the Colbert Report and that it had an effect on Wikipedia has also been documented.

When this page was first protected it was done so because Wikipedia's servers were taking a huge beating from the mass vandalism. It's still protected because we are in a "cool down" period. How is this against the policy? -- Ned Scott 06:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation page?

I think this should be turned into a disambiguation refrencing subjectivism and Colbert's page PiAndWhippedCream 03:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok can you please write a definition for Wikiality? And then just forget about it. If the word dies off, then delete the entry. Otherwise, preserve it. It's so simple. Why do you insist with the redirect? --Sergio.correia 06:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 'nuff said. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirection as a form of keyword control. Hmmmm, interesting. Google now shows 777,000 hits for the word Wikiality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CalvinLawson (talk • contribs) .

It is a form of control, what's your point? Wikipedia is not a free-for-all do-anything web site; there are rules, policies, and guidelines. -- Ned Scott 10:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality has shown itself to be a valid term. While Colbert created it as a joke or in jest, the term has taken on a life of its own. To say thats its invalid simply because its not a legally recognized term or a technical term used by scholars is irrelevant. In fact, the mere suggestion that Wikiality isn't deserving of its own Wiki page because not enough people have recognized it reaks of elitist-Wikialitism. At worst, Wikiality should have a small write about its origin (with appropriate links) and a link to Consensus reality. Mr. sickVisionz 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't get it, something having it's own article has nothing to do with being important or not. No one is saying the word is invalid, or that scholars have to accept it. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. Do people actually read the talk page before commenting on it? Seriously man, what gives? The only people making an issue about this are the people who don't understand the fundamental concepts of article organization here on Wikipedia. It's not about importance or rejection, at all. Words do not get articles for being words (we have Wiktionary for that) and because people use them. Subjects and topics get articles, and even then sometimes share an article name, which is about information organization and has nothing to do with importance. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ned, I know that you believe that "Words do not get articles for being words..." but you can visit Category:Words to see the precedent set (articles such as God (word), Football (word), Man (word), and Orange (word) do nothing but discuss words). — Reinyday, 08:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone can manage to relate a topic to a word, then it's still an article about a topic. The "topic" of Wikiality is consensus reality, and it's origins and impact are events on The Colbert Report. If there was not an article already on consensus reality or The Colbert Report, then Wikiality would be a good candidate for it's own article, but those articles already exist, and are better organized this way. Also, I would not doubt that many of those articles in that category should be gone through and split/merged/moved with other articles and/or deleted. Anyone can find an article with a typo, but that does not mean we should put typos in all articles.

From WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary: "Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term." Note that this is policy and it is not optional. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"God", "football", "man", and the unrhymable "orange". And — please clarify for me — you want to add wikiality to that list? —ptk✰fgs 10:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

change redirect

Please change this redirect to Wikipedia in popular culture, where Wikiality is discussed in more detail than at the list of episodes. — Reinyday, 03:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Somebody please change the redirect. Herorev 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why not just add a link to Wikipedia in popular culture from the wikiality entry in the list of episodes? --JWSchmidt 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the 'edit protected' request because it looks like JDoorjam has made this change. --CBD 20:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are enought sources

Some one says "It's not censorship, [...] If you can provide reliable references demonstrating that Wikiality is important enough of a word to justify an article, then it can have an article. That has not occured."

Well I fell like this has indeed happened already, everyone is talking about it on the Net, just make a search on google, I provided a couple of references but the article was erased.

You fail to provide a source that says it deserves it's own page. As stated above, the term is not a new idea, it's an old idea with a new name. The new name can be mentioned on the other page, as well as on the Colbert Report page since it was a major stunt there, but it is not a unique idea and should not have it's own page. Next time get a consensus here before readding the article. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 09:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that last edits wasn't supposed to be marked minor, that was a mistake. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 09:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page move

This talk page was recently moved to Wikipedia talk:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants, an empty WP:BJAODN talk page. As this is discussion has nothing to do with BJAODN (though, yes, the particular page was for bad elephant-vandalism-related jokes) and instead is a perfectly valid discussion about where to point this redir, I've moved it back. JDoorjam Talk 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Word of the year?

I'm sorry, but being nominated for second place for "Word of the Year" by a non-notable organization does not make this "word" any more significant. Even if it did it would still not be enough information to change its significance as an encyclopedic topic, or make the sections that do cover Wikiality large enough for an article split. Topics do not "deserve" to get their own article or not based on significance, anyways, as it's only just a method of information organization. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For a "non notable organization", news agencies sure seem to have taken note. And most news organizations are presenting wikiality as as a "co-word" of the year, such as Reuter's article: "Truthiness," "Wikiality" named TV words of year:

"Truthiness" and "Wikiality" -- two of the words popularized by political satirist Stephen Colbert on his TV show "The Colbert Report"-- were named on Sunday the top television buzzwords of the year.

--Frantik 07:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They take note because it's interesting, not because the organization was notable. If someone got a tattoo with Stephen Colberts face on their chest, I bet someone in the media would cover that too. -- Ned Scott 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I have to ask, what does wikiality mean? Is it in Wikitionary? I should be if it's not. Also, is wikiality a combination of wikipedia and reality, or wikis (and not just wikipedia) and reality? Also I think wikipedia is not trush based on concensus. You need to cite sources for your information. Did Colbert coin the term Wikiality? I think one thing we do know is that he made it very popular. What other term means truth by majority voting? Did Colbert come up with the entire idea of 'truth by concensus'? I think that's unlikely. I think he coined the word, but not the idea. So maybe wikiality should redirect to an article called "Truth by concensus" or something. If we decided to create a seperate article after all, what would it say? Maybe something like "Wikiality is a term that means 'truth by concensus.'" and then you might say either "It was coined by Steven Colbert." or "It was popularized by Steven Colbert." Just some ideas of mine --Fastman99 22:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot

Huh? What's up with the redirect? Just days ago, it seems, there were less than 300,000 goofle hits for Wikiality, yet as of today there are 595,000. There certainly may be a tremendous need for denial of the reality of Wikiality, but repeated attempts to turn the page into a redirect simply underscore the sometimes humorous symptoms which the term is used to describe. While the redirects in this case may simply be attempts at humor originating from Colbert's fans or show, the term has a serious side, as a certain lack of connection with reality can be found in many places throughout the Wikipedia. Undoubtedly, the term ought to be explained at the phenomenon's ground zero. Ombudsman 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the above discussions, the topic of Wikiality IS covered on Wikipedia, but it's not notable on it's own, only in association with The Colbert Report (via Truthiness#Wikiality) and/or Wikipedia (via Wikipedia in popular culture#Wikiality). Whether or not a topic gets it's own article is not an indication of importance, it's just a matter of organization.

You seem to wish to make Wikiality it's own article to make a statement, but that's a violation of WP:POINT. There is no controversy, there is no coverup, it just doesn't need it's own article. It's one joke of many said by a show that comes up with such jokes each and every episode. Wikipedia should not give it more coverage simply because we are Wikipedia, rather, we should treat this as if we are not involved, per WP:SELF. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

609,000 goofle hits today, and the phenomenon is not going away any time soon. Rhetorical use of the term may indeed involve 'making a point', a poignant one at that. Attempting to delete a term that has not only done so, and spectacularly at that, simply underscores the necessity for providing the Wiki's readers with a rational explanation of both its meaning and the phonomenon. Ombudsman 22:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So.. what's your point? I never said it wasn't a known term. Also, Wikipedia generally does not accept google search results as a method of notability (only as a temporary measure pending further proof). No one is deleting content, no one is removing Wikiality from Wikipedia. Again, I repeat myself, a topic getting its own article is not an indication of importance. Far more known and important terms out there share an article title with other subjects, this is no different. -- Ned Scott 23:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality vs truthiness. Both or none.

Both are words that originates from Colbert's show, both should be in Wikitionary instead of Wikipedia, both have been somewhat notable, both are known just in the US and none of the words are nowhere near common word articles like God (word) or Football (word). The way I see it it's; both or none of them. (Do you got something to say about this Ned Scott? I bet you have.)--Jambalaya 20:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Both or none" is a false dichotomy. Truthiness is the Word of the Year, and wikiality isn't even close. Colbert has made up dozens of words on his show ("superstantial" anyone?). They're not all inherently notable. --Cyde Weys 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Truthiness got its article BEFORE being named Word of the Year ;-) --Jambalaya 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever said that these were topics that shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia. I'm mostly concerned with how we organize these topics. So.. it is both, they are both topics that have coverage on Wikipedia. They just don't both have articles. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

More specific redirect

{{editprotected}} Please adjust the redirect to Wikipedia in culture#wikiality. Thanks! Romperomperompe 08:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 09:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Move redirect

A new article, Wikipedia on The Colbert Report has been created. Is it possible to change the redirect so it links to this article please. ISD 13:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Done. Wikipedia on The Colbert Report is itself a redirect to The Colbert Report#Wikipedia references.

I redirected it to that, to avoid a double-redirect. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiality.com

Uncyclopedia and several other Wikipedia spoof sites have their own page. Why not Wikiality.com? As of right now, this page redirects to a section that barely mentions the site, and not even by name. No features of the site are mentioned.

This is coverage well below expectations in my mind. I propose this page is expanded to at least the content level of Uncyclopedia and similar pages.

CapnZapp (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Although that is a suggestion, the Wikiality.com spoof is not large enough to have a separate article, and last time I checked, most links I clicked redirected me to an error. But someone should mention it. I have no idea how to word that, so anyone want to include a link to Wikiality in the section? Overthinkingly (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

About flying elephants

There are zero for some definition of flying. And yes, it is unknown it is still 0 if we mean that "elephants that can fly something" (i. e. "fly" has an object). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)