WW Stephen Colbert D?

My Wikipedia entry is truly atrocious. I think you people should go fix it.

"Fix" could mean "fill with hilarious lies". That works for me. Or it could mean, fill with facts that are less weirdly myopic and scattershot than what's there now. Surely I'm more interesting than whoever it is that this page is describing? It doesn't even mention that I enjoy movies and long walks on the beach.

See if you can get 3 or 4 more different spellings of my name in there, too.

Go to it. The world is waiting.

Tags: , , , , ,

23 Responses:

  1. Jeff says:

    Huh. I would have thought there'd be more than two short, separated sentences on the whole nightclub thing. I mean, George Foreman's article has a whole sub-section slugged "Business Deals", wherein his grill is prattled on about for an entire paragraph.

  2. Spouse Richard Stallman

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That totally made my night!

  3. Have you given interviews to easily-citable publications? Given the Wikipedia rules against original research and citations, I'd guess that the random nerd trivia of your life winds up being easier to cite. (Although there are a bunch of citations to your /gruntle pages there, so you'd think that citing your blog posts re: DNA would be easy enough.) Plus, your throw-away opinions about nerd topics are probably more interesting to the average Wikipedia editor than your nightclub business.

    • pavel_lishin says:

      He's interviewed pretty extensively in Coders at Work.

      • Yeah, I keep meaning to get a copy of that (it's been sitting on my Amazon wishlist). I note that someone cited a blog post of Seibel's, but not the book itself. I guess internet sources >>> everything on Wikipedia.

      • Carlos says:

        That would be a good source for Info...but it seems nobody took any of that book.

    • Rick C says:

      I don't think the Wikipedia editors would let links back to this site count as citations.

  4. LionsPhil says:

    Looks like people are doing good work already.

  5. Adam A. says:

    Wikipedia editor Infrogmation is a party pooper.

  6. Otto says:

    Yeah, that never works. As soon as people start messing with it too much and it gets noticed, Wikipedia editors will simply protect the page and start monitoring the changes, reverting any obvious incorrectness.

  7. It's not so much myopic and scattershot as laser-focused on providing a citable "expert opinion" that C++ sucks. "See, boss, this guy invented Netscape and he thinks we should be using Java!"

  8. Ben Brockert says:

    What do you think the notable points are?

  9. blainemono says:

    And they didn't even mention the Dali Clock!

    The nerve of some people!

  10. Chris Davies says:

    15 or so edits? Your fanboys are weak, old man.

  11. P.B. Maxwell says:

    I'm disappointed that this edit didn't last. It even has a reference!

  12. Tim McClarren says:

    Looks perfect to me.

  13. Owen says:

    However, ahem, nobody has touched the DNA lounge page at all.

    Just saying.

  14. fantasygoat says:

    You're perhaps a bit too "long tail" to get the real edit bombing.

  15. Carlos says:

    The article looks fine, but there's no picture of you...Jamie you should give them one, they are asking for it.

  16. mediapathic says:

    Ha! Your page links to Greenspun's 10th law, which includes a link to "Zawinski's law of software envelopment", which just goes back to your page, wherein your Law isn't even mentioned!