NSLog();

4 Comments »

4 Responses to "The Second Coming of Bob Saget"

1. | Reply Justin Williams
   Posted 03 Aug 2006 at 5:15pm #
   

   Only difference is comedic style. Saget is the dirtiest comic there is. He would make Colbert blush.

2. | Reply Dave
   Posted 03 Aug 2006 at 7:17pm #
   

   I'm simply enjoying the link - and the comments on it. For example:

   "Wikipedia is a better source than 90% of the sources out there... And the more people are interested in the information, especially in a disputed area, the more accurate it is going to be."

   Yes. But. At what point does Wikipedia need to ackowlege the inherent weaknesses that were there since day #1? Colbert loves to parody how every Christian seems to simply accept the Bible as "truth". How is this blind acceptance any different?

   "Cobert replaces humor with ample amount of asshattery as it's the only form he knows. Wikipedia is as accurate, if not more, than Britannica* thanks to the VOLUNTEERS that run it."

   Ooookay. So this ccomment seems to say we should believe this 2nd hand source more than George W. Bush. Got it. Since there is SUCH a difference in credability - and accountablility too.

   "The reason we techs are better than everybody else is we actually get the joke. By the way, 'the joke' is about you."

   Now, this one is so much better in the context of it being a reply to::

   "I have a suspicion when Colbert skewers their sacred institution it's OK, but when he skewers the geek's sacred institution, he's gone too far."

   The blind leading the blind?

   "The main point in my geeky eyes of Colbert's call for wikipedia vandalism is that nobody should rely on just one source for information."

   And then there's that one comment that ccuts through the BS. You know, makes sense to anyone who understands that EVERYBODY has some kind of agenda.

   Colbert? He's a comedian who is especially good at satire or right-wing talking head shows on cable. Wikipedia proponents? They want to hope they have a better "open-source" way of telling the truth than those cclosed networks.

   "How did a two-bit background guy from the daily show become one of the most significant counterculture icons in America within like a year?"

   Because he found a niche.... right-wing satire that is close enough to the truth that the White House Correspondents actually belived he was sincere.... sly enough that even an unopposed Republican was willing to joke about using cocaine because it was fun, and funny enough that every Amercian could - and many can - "get it".

   This, from the above commentor, after others posted where Colbert real background is....

   "Ha, I will consider myself set straight. Serves me right for, uh, learning everything about Colbert from wikipedia..."

   I could continue for MUCH more. My point is....

   Colbert dealing with Wikipedia was so DEAD ON that it elicited comments that go beyond that one skit and speak to BOTH him and Wikipedia and what they are about.

   And yes, he comes out ahead. Big time.

   LIke Saget. Or in some ways, dare I say it, Lenny Bruce.

3. | Reply CipherSwarm
   Posted 03 Aug 2006 at 11:06pm #
   

   I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia in the past few weeks, mostly patrolling the "New Pages" and "Edits by New Users". I'd say about 15-20% of edits in either category are total garbage, and probably about 75% of the "Edits by New Users" are by a few vandals who are: 1. Repeat offenders (using sock puppet accounts), 2. Random people looking for ten seconds of excitement, or 3. Newspeople trying to write the "OMG Wikipedia is lies!" story from another angle.

   I understand everyone's critiques. Most, if not the vast majority of hardcore Wiki editors believe wholeheartedly in the unquestioning truth of Wikipedia. Having repaired edits by vandals, and seeing they were in place for days, I know this isn't the case. It's a great place to start research on a topic, but as a sole source, I wouldn't recommend it.

   On a side note, I reverted one user yesterday who made several random edits to articles, adding random facts about elephants, and had a fascination with "triple" or "times three". Now it makes sense...

4. | Reply jen
   Posted 28 Aug 2006 at 1:09am #
   

   I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THEY LOOKED IDENTICAL! LOL