wikipedia

Wired Sciencereported yesterday that, starting this fall, Wikipediawill be adding an optional feature called " WikiTrust" that will "color code every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page."  Wikipedia hopes this system will help clear up ambiguities in the reliability of their articles.

This idea is genius!  In fact, it immediately inspired me to suggest a similar system to the Tosh.0 blogging team:

• GREEN - You have to be reallyhigh to get this joke.  Like ridiculously high.  But trust us, if you take the time to handle your business and can still figure out how to log onto your computer, you'll be laughing until tears stream down your cheeks.
• MALTY - We were hammered when we wrote this joke.  As professional comedy writers, we spend most nights drowning our sorrows in a mix of whiskey and TiVoed daytime television (the shows we used to watch during the previous 18 months that we were unemployed).  Putting back a fifth of Jack every evening means you usually wake up about as drunk as you went to sleep.  Typically anything posted before noon can be considered to have been written under the influence of alcohol, but with the new color-coding system, you'll know for sure.

See the rest of the color-coding system after the jump… more...

These cartoon versions of popular websites have been making the rounds today. As The Daily What points out, these written descriptions from a Reddit user are much more accurate:

Facebook would be a middle-aged woman using company time to play text-based games and sending people invites to shitty applications.

Twitter would be a self-righteous douchebag with a speech impediment.

MySpace would be 13 year old brat, doing free advertising for porn stars and their friend?s shitty bands, be covered in stickers of ?sparkly? cartoon bimbos (that resemble transvestites), butterflies or some shit. It sure as fuck wouldn?t be using headphones because it?s rare to see a myspace page where annoying music doesn?t turn you away.

Wikipedia would be getting molested by hundreds of thousands of random hands.

Deviant Art would actually be a 19 year old guy drawing generic anime characters, furries, and slutty pictures of their favorite cartoons.

YouTube would just be a picture of Dustin Hoffman from Rain Man. He has a special talent but everything that comes out of his mouth is just flat out retarded. But only if Rain Man was edited with Windows Movie Maker, and if Barry Levinson called himself ?LevDog420 Studios?

Google would be a guy hard at work in a trendy lab eating a free lunch and using a pile of money for a chair. In beta.

And, the Tosh.0 blog would be a jackass who constantly hates on everyone but still hangs out with them because he's lonely.

[Internet University Cast via The Daily What]

What does the above image look like to you?

If you said "a young boy having sex with a pleasantly surprised turtle," then your head is in the same place as a Reddit user who saw this image on Wikipedia and posted a link to it, questioning, "Seriously… Is This A Statue Of Some Kid F—ing A Turtle?!?"

That is the big question…

The Reddit post generated well over 200 comments, driving traffic to the Wikipedia article on the fountain (officially known as Burnside Fountain), which was swiftly vandalized (on the web, not IRL).  Not long after the article was unceremoniously locked, with the note "Protected Burnside Fountain: Excessive vandalism: – link on popular website."

And so is the life of a Wikipedia article — at once informative and mock worthy: A balance so easily destroyed by vandals.

So, yeah, this is pretty much just a guy bangin' a turtle, right??

Republicans are scared that Barack Obama is going to socialize healthcare. What they should really be scared about: The latest study says that 50% of doctors use Wikipedia for actual medical information. So, I guess the real options are:

• doctors controlled by the government
• doctors half-controlled by volunteers who watched part of House this weekend

Wikipedia is one of the most socialized platforms on the web so, either way, we're looking at social medicine. Given that, I say, go with the option that has the most exciting medical drama and witty banter.

"The Wikipedia model" for websites has been extremely successful.  Users submit and edit content and the vetting process is primarily determined by the site's community at large who can change mistakes or remove vandalism.

But, oh, vandalism.  You devil you.  You continue to run rampant for our amusement.  Especially when sites like IMDB toss lobs.  Their parental guide feature encourages users to "help parents make informed viewing decisions by describing the facts."

The opportunity to explicitly outline what is inappropriate in a film is tantalizing to begin with.  But it can get even more exciting when users let their sick imaginations run wild.  (Click on the above image to see the whole debauchery which has since been removed.)

You're all sick.  All of you.  Please stop web vandalism before the entire Net because a giant cesspool of inappropriate………

Yeah, I think we've lost the battle and the war on this one.

[via Reddit]

For what feels like weeks now, social news sites have been trying to convince me that this is the "best shirt for a graduation."

OMG.  "Thanks Wikipedia."  Hilarious.  They don't show it, but I can only assume on that back it says "I Made It Through College Without Losing My Virginity."  On the tag it reads: "Size = Small, Self-esteem = Smaller."

This shirt has over 4300 Diggs as of posting time.  Yet, not a single person would dig you if they actually saw you wearing it.  Odd how society works.

I don't  know whether to send the Internet to it's room and make it stay home from the school dance, or to just give it a harsh talking to and giggle about what it did later with my gal pals.  But either way, what it did was naughty and inappropriate on Wikipedia after the death of Billy Mays was reported:

Internet!!!  Is that what I just think i read!?  It is!

Shame on you, Internet.  Shamwow!?  You know that's not even his thing.

Still pretty funny, but seriously.  Can't we just let the man hock garbage in hell in peace?!

1. Daniel Tosh's Wikipedia article is one of the few celebrity articles not actually self-written by the "celebrity."
2. If more people watch the show, the crew makes more money, increasing the odds that someone might finally give Wikipedia a donation.
3. The Tosh.0 website is one of the only websites that is a worse source than Wikipedia for your research paper.
4. Users can't change Tosh and that makes Wikipedia's admins happy.

WATCH TOSH.0 THURSDAYS AT 10pm / 9c on COMEDY CENTRAL!

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Except Scientologists.

The supreme court of Wikiland ruled that all Scientology IP addresses be bannished from editing Wikipediabecause of their self-serving edits. The net has been abuzz about this earth-shattering decree all day today.

The changes made to the "Scientology" Wikipedia articlein the moments leading up to the ban illustrate just how heated and controversial these edits became.

Number 3

Before ………………………………………After

ddd

Scientologists think there should be a ?main article? and ?see also? section below the history header and normal people think there should just be a ?main article? link. This is a fundamental difference between normal people and Scientologists.
more...