Jump to content

Talk:Latchkey kid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Macarion (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 9 August 2006 (He didn't tell them to do it.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
On August 3, 2006 the article page associated with this talk page was the target of vandalism inspired by The Colbert Report, a television show.
All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

Colbert-inspired Vandalism

This article was mentioned on the television show The Colbert Report. Wed. Aug 2, 2006 on Comedy Central. He jokingly suggested that Latchkey kids grow up to be serial killers and referenced this page at which point hundreds of viewers pointed their browsers to this page, some with the purpose of changing the entry to fit his argument. Fritsky 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

latchkey smatchkey

Just in case anyone was wondering, it took approximately 13 seconds from the point when Colbert made his statement for the site to be "protected." User:Dragonstrider 04:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Colbert holds a personal grudge against WP. This is the 2nd time in 2 days that a spur of vandalism has errupted because of his show. Maybe his page was vandalized and he viewed it one time. Jds10912 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was Hirshman who brought up WP on the show -- SC just spun it into a joke

Why can't Colbert's opinion on laychkey's be voiced?

Cause the moderators here suck. (68.32.79.169 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
No, because Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge, not pop culture references from a television program, no matter how good or well produced it may be. --Omaryak 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Referenced on Colbert Report - beware of more vandalism - can an admin protect the article? - Tanman 03:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

already protected. alphaChimp laudare 03:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, crazy, do we have nothing better to do than watch Colbert and wikipedia stuff? -Dewdude

Is there anything better? OK, yeah, but it's a short list. Phaedrus420 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, 9 out of 10 Latchkey kids really do go crazy and kill people, I feel it in my gut. Typical liberal media bias. -Deb4ser

Not to encourage Colbert vandalism, and not to insist that he's right (like the elephant people), but are there are sources that point one way or the other? I mean, it's one thing to take down, "LATCHKEY KIDS IZ NUTZ AND KILLZ THINGZ," but I think it would mean a lot more to put up, "And Latchkey Kids show only a 1% more likelyhood of going crazy than a child raised by their parents (see reference" (Note, I made that number up with no foundation and do not mean to imply that it is fact in any way.) So does anyone know what the actual statistics are?Elbow 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Some related articles, such as Nanny and Day care, are also seeing instances of vandalism. --Omaryak 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm watching this with amused interest, as we appear to be entering an era whenever anyone on TV makes a joke about Wikipedia pages have to get locked down. -- Boradis 08:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing incidents like this almost make me wish Wikipedia could have articles like this one work with a "stable version" and a "working version." That way there could be a stable version that gets updated periodically and is seen by users who come to the page, and a working version which is free for anyone to edit. Since no individual page seems to be able to survive media exposure without getting locked down, in some cases it might help to have a way to still work on the page.--BigCow 02:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

Aside from the Colbert Report vandalization (you should also check "latchkey"), this page seems unbalanced. I think it casts so called "latchkey kids" in a negative light which is not merited.

i'd like to see a little more of the positive side to latchkey children. i was always one, and reading this makes it seem like my mother was a terrible person and my childhood was screwed. i turned out just fine, with none of these negative effects. balance people, balance. JoeSmack Talk 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The protection on this article will be reduced/removed soon. In the meantime feel free to start using this talk page (although it's a little busy tonight) to start writing any updates. — xaosflux Talk 04:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any process / approval cycle if someone (like me) wants to reorganize the entire page into sections of Background (e.g. where the term came from, standard use), Psychological Effects (both good and bad), and "Random Facts" such as the book reference? Or does someone just go for it and see if it sticks? Thanks! Jonemerson 07:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Be bold! /blahedo (t) 05:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Borden page...

...might also need protection, just reverted 3 Colbert vandalisms there. NawlinWiki 04:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The strange, strange Internet world of the future. Someday we'll look back on these days and decry our loss of innocence. --Bfoaz 04:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free PR

Not only does this give the Wikipedia community some free PR, in some twisted way in points out the problem of "real" news oulets using half-fact and opinion to back some statements up.

Heads up - Colbert Report repeat tonight

According to the main Comedy Central web site, the episode with the Linda Hirshman interview that mentions this Wikipedia article is set to rerun tonight. Nofactzone 22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watching that episode tonight led me to this talk page... Vash The Stampede 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latchkey_kid&oldid=68704916"