Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wikipedia bans Stephen Colbert

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:05 PM
Original message
Wikipedia bans Stephen Colbert

August 3, 2006 4:11 PM PDT
In the wake of "Colbert Report" host Stephen Colbert waxing philosophical about Wikipedia, making changes to entries on the air and urging his viewers to edit entries to include details he knew were false, an editor of the site has banned the comedian.

According to Newsvine, a Wikipedia editor locked the entries Colbert had exhorted his viewers to edit and banned the account "Stephencolbert."

http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6102088.html?part=rss&...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Harsh. But fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Is Wikipedia run by Americans?
I wonder if they didn't get the joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zreosumgame Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
35. I bet they did
and when they realize THEY were the butt of the joke that is when they banned him. Damm is nobody else disturbed by the idea of wikipedia being taken seriously as a reference source?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I am continually amazed -- ney, STUNNED -- at the number of people I see citing Wikipedia as a source for ANYTHING. An encyclopedia that you can write yourself is NOT an encyclopedia. It's a diary. Wikipedia is a fucking joke as a reference tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuttyFluffers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #38
57. can i get an AMEN!
it ain't no clearer than that, folks. wiki is wacky. mental masturbation, diary, graffiti board, take your pick. it's a mild distraction, nothing more. scholarship requires a higher standard. if i were a teacher i'd give an instant F- to any paper citing wiki as a source; i'd give at least an F+ to one who used Reader's Digest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
46. Wikipedia is based in St. Petersburg, Fla., & was founded by an American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #46
61. Yeah? So? The point about it being a genuine/good /unbiased
Edited on Fri Aug-04-06 01:50 AM by Mind_your_head
reference source, would be what?

on edit: adding "unbiased"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lautremont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't even know why anyone would look at that site,
much less rely on it for information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. because on many issues,
I compare what I find there with my handy dandy Enc. Brit and find little difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lautremont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. But why should you have to? If the Brittanica is handy, stick with it.
The chance of getting wrong information is not worth the convenience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Maybe if you're publishing, but Wikipedia covers topics Britannica
Edited on Thu Aug-03-06 07:54 PM by Vidar
doesn't & updates a hell of a lot more often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redneck Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
48. What if your topic isn't in Britannica?
Say you want information on White Wolf's meta-plot, Britannica (or most other resources) isn't going to be very useful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNewtown Donating Member (703 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. A study found wikipedia is as accurate at Enc. Brit
So your experience has been confirmed by a study comparing the two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. I like it...
but it shouldn't be the only source of information either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. It's good for a quick look up
of something, as long as it isn't political or controversial, it can be pretty accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. Actually, you should look at it.
I wouldn't rely on it for life or death questions, but it is a terrific reference for further research.

I would definitely avoid any hot-button topic, but if you want to know just about anything else -- just because you're curious, or because maybe you're writing something and need a place to start on a topic, it is really quite good.

Recently I looked up a writer because I wanted to know what order their books had been published in, the musical term "circle of fifths" because I wanted a concise way to explain it, and the national suicide rate, because I wondered if it had gone down since anti-depressants have been introduced (it has; I corroborated the information elsewhere).

I use it almost daily for stuff like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
33. I've found it's reliable for cut-and-dry stuff
Almanac-type stuff. Less reliable (and more "opinion" than "fact") when you get into current events or hot-button topics like, say, religion, abortion, high-profile politicians, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. So, basic information you should know anyway is reliable?
But the stuff that you might actually need to "research" is probably tainted.

Gotcha.

Get the Funk & Wagnall's set at the grocery store, $3.99 a volume with your purchase. You'll get reliable information -- and food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. No, not necessarily "basic information you should know anyway."
I said cut-and-dry stuff, and not, i.e., a highly controversial subject.

And no, I wouldn't suggest using Wikipedia as a direct source, but it can be helpful to give you a START on REAL research, in *real* sources. I sometimes have read a Wikipedia article on a topic that I was researching to give me kind of an overview to give me an idea of what to look for when I went to the library.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redneck Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. No, for obscure, largely irrelevant to most folks, information...
it is reliable.

Say you want info on an obscure pop culture topic, chances are some obsessed fan of said pop culture topic has put info into wiki. If nothing else it gives you a place to start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blurp Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
37. Because it has relatively accurate and up-to-date information
Seriously.

And you mostly get all points of view, citations and bibliography, unlike cable news or the newpaper, for example.

Oh, and you can see what they do with trouble-makers -- even those with popular television shows. :)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redneck Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
47. Because for pop culture or other obscure topics it can be...
incredibly useful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thank you Stephen Colbert!
Excellent. Well done, sir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. Ooooh, now I'm SURE they'll be put ON NOTICE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. No, they will be "Dead to him!"
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. ROFL!!!
Steve is a REBEL!!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. Release the Bears!
That'll learn him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jara sang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Wiki is the best source for finding obscure facts about the porn industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. And goatse, too
Someone here at DU linked to it yesterday. I was educated in ways I was so not prepared for. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
56. And everything you need to know about pro rasslin
Did you know Classy Freddie Blassie made a special appearance on an episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show called "The Twizzle"? Well now you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DRoseDARs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
11. Good. Wikipedia has had this problem before...
...of people not playing by the rules and changing articles willy-nilly to suit their mood and whatever falsehoods they wished to post. Shame on Colbert for this little stunt, he should know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsrobert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. That's exactly his point
People can misrepresent facts. He's pointing out it's not a good reference and should not be relied on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I like how he drew parallels with the misrepresentations about Iraq
Edited on Thu Aug-03-06 07:27 PM by Lisa
He pointed out that most Americans believe untruths about the Iraq War (WMDs found, Saddam involved in 9/11, etc.) -- so just because most people happen to support an explanation, it doesn't make it true. (Although I imagine it might be a criterion for "truthiness", perhaps?)

"Truth by consensus" actually becomes a plot point in the recent film "Manderlay" -- after people in a community decide to their official vote, based on a vote for what time they think it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DRoseDARs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. But, as others have pointed out it can be reliable if you utilize other...
...sources too. He speaks as if by virtue of saying it that he and Stewart are a more reliable source of news than FOX News. Both media are subject to their participants' whims and interpretations. Wikipedia is no different than the regular media, so Colbert is calling the kettle black.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
43. But why not just use "the other sources?"
I don't get it. If you can't rely on Wikipedia as a primary source because you know it tends to be full of crap, what benefit is it as a source at all? It sounds like reading Consumer Reports AFTER you've already purchased the washer and dryer, just to see if you made a good choice. Wikipedia is worthless if it is only good as a third or fourth reference source. Because at that point, if Wikipedia didn't agree with your other "legitimate" sources, which information would you ignore? Encyclopedia Britannica? Comptons? Funk & Wagnalls? Or Wikipedia? Jesus, people. Wikipedia is not to be used for anything but trivia and amusement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DRoseDARs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. Because relying on ANY single source would get you a lower grade...
...on any research paper. Wikipedia is to be used as a online reference. Standard old-world references can't be updated remotely as quickly nor can they adapt to current events as they happen. It's up to the reader to have the intelligence to know to double check facts and check multiple sources. Whining about new media is simply crying over spilt milk. Go pour yourself a new glass and move on with your life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Go bite me and get on with yours.
Edited on Thu Aug-03-06 11:40 PM by Atman
What the hell makes you think I need to "get on with my life" just because I don't agree with some kids who think Wikipedia counts as a reference source? Wikipedia is part of the general dumbing down of America, IMHO. Using it as a reference source is just intellectually lazy. ALL the major encyclopedia publishers have versions online which are updated regularly. And none of them allow middle school dweebs surfing porn on the internet to edit and write their research material.

On edit: I do agree that Wikipedia tends to have accurate information on obscure topics. But then, how would I really know? They're obscure topics. If I were a teacher today, I'd deduct points on any report which indicated Wikipedia as a source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuttyFluffers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #51
60. i disagree about obscure topics, too.
Edited on Fri Aug-04-06 01:38 AM by NuttyFluffers
some of my big hobbies is anime, sub-culture music/fashion/expression, RPGs (such as WW meta-plots, as has already been mentioned), etc. and have found EVEN THOSE WRONG. remember, just because it is an obscure topic doesn't mean it's safe from opinion-meisters. in fact, because of the nature of obscure topics, you often find far more rabid and neurotic opinion-meisters. did you even know that there are rabid fans that are "haters" of everything even remotely considered "the competition" of their beloved? like pre-teen girls screaming over their favorite boy band, you have relatively socially isolated adults who obsessively fixate on their diversions as whole defining factors to their personality. imagine that often neurotic, incestuous, back-biting, spastic world of teen idol fan clubs mixed with people who can wield the power and money of adults (edit: this means computers, time, etc. for those don't get it).

no, wiki is an utter waste of time. and this is from someone who *knows* about their favorite obscure topics. a source like that is the very last thing on earth you want to give such fans. they're a lot more devious than they appear (y'know, the mousy one in the far off cubicle? the one that goes off when no one expects it?) and have a fanaticism that blows most others out of the water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #43
53. It needs a peer review system
Or an official cross-checking system, or something of the kind. This could actually be a good project for a philanthropist or some such, if any still exist... Wikipedia could be fantastic if its information could in some way be considered irrefutable as fact.

As is, it's merely conveniently useful. Completely reliable?

No way. Not yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. welcome to DU!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. It's a very stupid system!
I say KUDOS to Colbert for pointing out the folly!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
12. Oh, right. Colbert can't be trusted
but the rest of us can be... how stupid is that?

As soon as I learned that anyone could change "facts" on that site, it was immediately useless to me.

Really dumb of them... all the way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. We wouldn't tombstone Colbert, would we?
For all we know, he could be around. I did see a "Truthiness Inspector" the other day...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
19. their "information" on political issues is so biased
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adenoid_Hynkel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
40. their lucianne goldberg entry has been whitewashed dozens of times
taking out her death threats to bill and public claims that he 'finger-fucked' chelsea
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
21. Um...is Wikipedia SURE or is this one of the "open to debate" posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
22. "Stephencolbert" isn't blocked at this time. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
23. ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
29. How can they be sure that "Stephencolbert" is Stephen Colbert? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNewtown Donating Member (703 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. The edit to the George Washington entry
Edited on Thu Aug-03-06 09:36 PM by JackNewtown
The edit came at exactly the same time Colbert was saying he was going to edit out GW having slaves on his show.

Note: I am a big fan of Colbert ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #31
42. The show isn't live. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNewtown Donating Member (703 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #42
52. Ah, good point
Edited on Fri Aug-04-06 12:13 AM by JackNewtown
I can't believe I forgot that!

Whether it was the real Colbert or not, the joke is on wikipedia. Colbert can easily create another account, or better yet, simply direct his legion of fans to occassionally raid wikipedia. Look at the wikipedia entry on "latchkey", the latest in this battle, along with the "elephants" page. The former has been "semi-protected" so new users can't edit it and editing of the latter has been temporarily suspended. The Colbert Report page has also been "semi-protected."

Colbert is a genius at getting free publicity. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #31
45. VERY INTERESTING...because Colbert's show is TAPED.
Hmmmmmmm. I wonder how he pulled that off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #45
54. He looked at the airing schedule for the network
Come on. That would be the easy part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lectrobyte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
32. For a while, I didn't see the genuis in Stephen Colbert. I really didn't
think anything on TV could be subversive. I was wrong on both points. A tip of the hat to Stephen. A wag of the finger to Wikipedia, I can see the editors now, slightly huffy: Stephen Colbert, you are dead to us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnnInLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. I saw the genius, but at first, didn't think he was funny at all
He seemed so nervous and unsure of himself. Now, of course, I laugh out loud all during the show.

Did yall hear the late-great Giraldo diss Colbert and Stewart on the O'Reilly show? It's up at Media Matters. That means tonight is going to be great....hope they destroy Giraldo (who I mistakenly thought had died.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #34
55. And you just KNOW he'll mention this suspension
Edited on Fri Aug-04-06 12:19 AM by kgfnally
edit: well, maybe not, since it's TAPED....


I too keep forgetting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peekaloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
36. LOL!
:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spacelady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
41. That is a well earned Stinking Badtch of Honor!!!!!! Yay Colbert's Balls!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hatalles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
58. This thread wouldn't be complete without this classic toon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WernhamHogg Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #58
62. LOL!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
59. The articles on Wiki are only as good as their sources
sometimes there is a lot of good reference material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
63. Wikepedia is bullshit
As a source to check unimportant topics that you don't really care about, it may be marginally useful. But if any of my students use wiki (I'm a university lab instructor/grad student), and I see it all the time, I automatically deduct marks. That shit may pass in high school, my friend, but in university, Wiki doesn't cut it, not by a long shot. I know profs who automatically fail reports that use Wiki as a primary or secondary source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. Wikipedia on "Bullshit"
Bullshit (often abbreviated to BS) is a common expletive. Its meanings include unacceptable behavior or ludicrously false representations. As with many expletives, it can be used as an interjection (or in many other parts of speech) and can carry a wide variety of meanings.
As it contains the word "shit", the term is sometimes considered foul language, hence the use of the euphemistic abbreviations "bull" and "BS". However the term is prevalent in American English and, as with many words, the term is used in a variety countries some dating back to approximately the same era WWI. In British English, bollocks is the equivalent expletive. In Australian English, Bulldust is another equivalent but less popular expletive, In Australia the phenomenon Bulldusting does not exist whereas Bullshitting, Bullshit filters and a number of other Bullshit based derivatives do.
While bullshitting and bullshit can be used in a deprecating sense, the term 'bullshit artist' may imply a measure of respect for the skill required to bullshit effectively. It is by no means necessary to be inaccurate or wrong to be bullshitting, simply being overly pompous, presumptuous, or putting on excessively academic airs, may also be labelled in some cultural subgroups as bullshitting.




Seems pretty accurate to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 04:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC