Truthiness Meets Wikiality

Reaction has been mixed to Stephen Colbert's awesome attack on Wikipedia (link from Freakonomics). Freakonomics liked it, but one of their commenters called it "idiotic." He argued: "It is as if I go to a park a pee all over the grass and then I claim that public parks are useless and shouldn’t be allowed because they can so easily be vandalised."

That's not a good analogy. Colbert did no lasting damage to the site. Instead, he revealed its flaws in a vivid way. This knowledge can be used for good or bad, but mostly it's important for people to understand the malleability of "truth" on Wikipedia and elsewhere. "Vicissitude" notes (on Slashdot) that Wikipedia fixed the problems rapidly and blocked Colbert. Very well, but is their response as rapid when the attack isn't broadcast on a popular TV show? That's the point.

[UPDATE: The other commenters on Freakonomics made substantially the same points, but I made them first. Look it up.]