T Nation

Hilarious Wiki Error

Read underneath Gere’s picture where it says “Spouses: 1991-1995”

I couldn’t stop laughing at it. Nevermind WHY I was looking at it, LOL.

OUCH!

Of course, if his middle name is really Tiffany that explains a lot.

[quote]Kruiser wrote:
OUCH!

Of course, if his middle name is really Tiffany that explains a lot.[/quote]

LMAO, nice catch. Someone must really hate him. I bet Tom Cruise’s is pretty fucked up too…

[quote]Kruiser wrote:
OUCH!

Of course, if his middle name is really Tiffany that explains a lot.[/quote]

It seems to be. I just googled it.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Kruiser wrote:
OUCH!

Of course, if his middle name is really Tiffany that explains a lot.

It seems to be. I just googled it.[/quote]

No wonder gerbil left him…

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Is that story about the gerbil/hamster/small rodent actually true?

Is there even any way of confirming that it’s not just a malicious lie?

Bushy[/quote]

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Is that story about the gerbil/hamster/small rodent actually true?

Is there even any way of confirming that it’s not just a malicious lie?

Bushy[/quote]

I’d never even heard this, which made the wiki error even more funny!

And instead of fixing it, you’re all here laughing about it? Ever heard of vandalism? Some jackass from Maryland (or using a US proxy) put that “gerbil” bit over there.

Just reverted it. I don’t care if you call me a party-pooper, but the integrity of the best thing that happened to the internet is not worth whatever pleasure you guys are deriving from Wiki-vandalism.

[quote]lixy wrote:
And instead of fixing it, you’re all here laughing about it? Ever heard of vandalism? Some jackass from Maryland (or using a US proxy) put that “gerbil” bit over there.

Just reverted it. I don’t care if you call me a party-pooper, but the integrity of the best thing that happened to the internet is not worth whatever pleasure you guys are deriving from Wiki-vandalism.[/quote]

I am sure Richard Gere will thank you for you service ma’am…

Now what did the page say?

[quote]lixy wrote:
And instead of fixing it, you’re all here laughing about it? Ever heard of vandalism? Some jackass from Maryland (or using a US proxy) put that “gerbil” bit over there.

Just reverted it. I don’t care if you call me a party-pooper, but the integrity of the best thing that happened to the internet is not worth whatever pleasure you guys are deriving from Wiki-vandalism.[/quote]

It’s not the best thing that has ever happened to the internet. It gives pseudo-intellectuals an easy place to grab useless, inaccurate info and hold it up as truth.

This is the very reason anyone spouting proof from wiki should be banned from debate.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
Is that story about the gerbil/hamster/small rodent actually true?

Is there even any way of confirming that it’s not just a malicious lie?

Bushy

Very interesting, thanks.

Bushy[/quote]

It would be better if it were true.

[quote]lixy wrote:
And instead of fixing it, you’re all here laughing about it? Ever heard of vandalism? Some jackass from Maryland (or using a US proxy) put that “gerbil” bit over there.

Just reverted it. I don’t care if you call me a party-pooper, but the integrity of the best thing that happened to the internet is not worth whatever pleasure you guys are deriving from Wiki-vandalism.[/quote]

Jesus you are uptight. Vandalism is funny, obviously.

To the person who asked what it said, “Spouses: 1991-1995 gerbil

I looked at it and thought “WTF?” I thought maybe there was some uber-hot Danish model named “Gerbil” or something. So when I clicked on the word it just led me to a page about the rodents, so I cracked up.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

It’s not the best thing that has ever happened to the internet. It gives pseudo-intellectuals an easy place to grab useless, inaccurate info and hold it up as truth.

[/quote]

Pretty good point, though I admit I use wiki for all manner of information gathering. It’s usually pretty good. I think it’s surveyed fairly regularly, for accuracy. But your point is valid nonetheless.

Someone went and fixed it already :frowning:

[quote]rondastarr wrote:
Someone went and fixed it already :([/quote]

Yea, it was boring old lixy.

Oh well, I’ll say it again…

GERBIL!

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Jesus you are uptight. [/quote]

Don’t blaspheme :slight_smile:

That was funny. No going around that fact.

What pissed me off is that nobody bothered doing something about it for hours, even though it was obvious vandalism. The same moron who vandalized the page undid my correction in a matter of minutes.

A wiki entry is as strong as the references it provides.

It’s obviously not as good as peer-reviewed journals (who can afford those?), but the quality is usually in par with the most prestigious print encyclopedias.

Plus, I dare you to find info about TC in Britannica.

[quote]lixy wrote:
The same moron who vandalized the page undid my correction in a matter of minutes.[/quote]

Yeah, but since you IDed it as vandalism, the page will be monitored closely. There have been 9 other edits since you fixed the link and Cindy Crawford is back as of right now.

Will someone be sure to list “2007-2008: Firmly Planted Rigid Stick” under the “Spouses” section for lixy’s wiki page.

You know, for purposes of theoretical integrity.