Random
Source Code
Random
An online encyclopedia project where anyone (registered or UNregistered users alike) can change the content at will. Often used by grade, high school or college students who don't want to write and research their own assignments and who don't care if the facts are accurate in any way.
Yo, this term paper's gotta be FIVE pages??? Unfair!!! But, no prob, Bob, I'll just copy and paste it outta Wikipedia right before class!
65👍 33👎
A way more better version than urban dictionary
Sven: I love Wikipedia
Kyle: It’s way more better than urban dictionary
3👍 1👎
A b*tch you should never use for research unless you’re using it to save your butt (and grades) in school then use that whole thing up
THIS B*TCH EMPTY
*YEET*
Me:Oh I just used Wikipedia
My teacher: YOU USED WHAT
No one has taken responsibility for all the half-assed shit you've seen here from time to time for decades. It's free, really... It cost a lot of money too, but Jimmy Wales really likes to bullshit everyone with $5. You weren't scammed, so it's free for you...
Wikipedia ia a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation
10👍 2👎
Even if you google something, the first hit will be a wikipedia site anyway.
385👍 242👎
The nasty new face of internet censorship. Bans anyone with actual knowledge of a subject and deletes articles about sites that criticise or parodies it. Nothing more than a tool to push the American POV and "American" (lol) English as being the correct form.
Editor-"Mr Wales, why do you ban people who have actual knowledge?"
Jimbo Wales (owner of wikipedia) - "because they upset my legion of 13 year old admins and makes them feel inferior"
154👍 93👎
Wikipedia is a great idea in theory, but in practice, most of it's a waste of cyber-ink. It's supposed to be a massive open-source encyclopedia. To its credit, it contains some quirky, interesting information not found anywhere else. However, it also contains factual inaccuracies and political garbage. The bulk of its most influential contributors (the ones with power) are ideological morons, each of whom has to put his/her opinion into every article, even on topics like Norse mythology or basket-weaving. Petty squabbles dominate while factual integrity and cooperative production are made tertiary priorities. The worst aspect of Wikipedia is the "cabal" of like-minded, influential, long-standing contributors who dress their views up as "consensus" and use their sysop privileges to bully anyone who disagrees with them. As an interesting footnote, the encyclopedia was also implicated in a 2004 character assassination effort by a band of anonymous right-wingers against Mike Church.
Wikipedia is not as it should be.
363👍 241👎