wikipedia it
In an argument, stating 'Wikipedia it' is the equivalent of giving someone a middle finger
Person 1: There are only 8 planets in the solar system.
Person 2: No, there are 9 planets.
Person 1: Wikipedia it!
Person 2: No, there are 9 planets.
Person 1: Wikipedia it!
wikipedia
Savior of high school students everywhere
Example? Pretty much every paper I've decided to hand in.
Wikipediaing
The act of using Wikipedia
Friend: Whatcha doin' there buddy?
Me: Nothin' much, just wikipediaing!
Me: Nothin' much, just wikipediaing!
Wikipedia
The best argument against democracy.
Wikipedia is full of edit wars, elitist admins, and non-peer reviewed information.
Wikipedia
A project to create the most accurate and complete free-content encyclopedia on the Internet. Written as a collaboration of users across the Internet. Basically, the UrbanDictionary.com version of an encyclopedia, without the witless comments.
An article on Wikipedia helped me write my Astronomy paper.
Wikipedia
A kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment a person relies upon the encyclopedia's discordant fucking mob for information.
Wikipedia is the most useless source of information on the planet - things change every second.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia has some serious problems. Wikipedia articles/entries that are about History or Politics are often unreliable, extremely biased, and incredibly one sided. There are many examples of Wikipedia articles totally contradicting each other and presenting the contradictions as fact. There also many examples of Wikipedia articles stating totally FALSE information with weak citations and evidence that readers think is factual.
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, content can be changed by anyone for any reason, so each article will most likely be written by someone who has a passion for the topic and therefore a bias for or against it. Wikipedia administrators are shadowy figures that can have very strong biases, and they control what you see and read on Wikipedia, effectively altering public opinion to fit their narrative and beliefs. Take what you read on Wikipedia with a huge grain of salt.
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, content can be changed by anyone for any reason, so each article will most likely be written by someone who has a passion for the topic and therefore a bias for or against it. Wikipedia administrators are shadowy figures that can have very strong biases, and they control what you see and read on Wikipedia, effectively altering public opinion to fit their narrative and beliefs. Take what you read on Wikipedia with a huge grain of salt.
You read that on Wikipedia? Ha! No wonder it's not true.