Encyclopedia of Bullshit

When someone chats so much shit you almost get drowned in it. They can chat shit about any topic from A-Z. Like Wikipedia but a Wikipedia where donations are your time and self esteem.

Why can you say chicken nuggs and Quizzy 2 and I can't say shat. I can't keep up with you, you're like an Encyclopedia of Bullshit.

by Happy Potter November 6, 2025

encyclopedia dramatica

it's like if wikipedia and 4chan had sex and attempted an abortion.

encyclopedia dramatica is an interesting site to browse on.

by dagr8estgamer January 6, 2026

Encyclopedia Shitanica

When a person has infinite knowledge of worthless information.

1) You knew what the first commercial on VHS was, and showed me, you are Envyclopedia Shitanica

2) Mr Encyclopedia Shitanica lectured me on the origins of wood

3) The Encyclopedia Shitanica weighs more than the average weight of an empty beer can

by Scottneh December 17, 2023

Encyclopedia Dramatica

A more offensive and a pseudo-lulzy version of Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Urban Dictionary

"'Insert Person Here' is a femboy-fucker who repeatedly says the catchphrase of sand-niggers and what's even worse, they hate us because we are more lulzier than em!!! You could help solve this problem by putting them inside of an american school!"
- Encyclopedia Dramatica

by Zach T. Radass October 1, 2023

Encyclopedia Bias

The systemic editorial slant found in crowd-sourced or traditionally edited encyclopedias, where articles are shaped not by pure facts, but by the consensus of their most active, vocal, or ideologically motivated editors. This creates a bias toward mainstream, established, or "acceptable" viewpoints, while marginalizing fringe, controversial, or emerging perspectives—regardless of their factual basis. It mistakes consensus for truth and editorial policy for objectivity.

Example: On a major online encyclopedia, the article for a controversial political theorist is relentlessly framed with labels like "conspiracy theorist" and "widely debunked," while their substantive arguments are buried. This Encyclopedia Bias reflects the victory of one editorial faction in the "edit wars," presenting a settled, negative narrative as neutral fact.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Cognitive Biases of Encyclopedia

The subconscious prejudices of the individual experts, editors, and fact-checkers who compile traditional encyclopedias. These include professional domain bias (a historian might over-emphasize political history over social history), cultural blind spots, and unconscious allegiance to disciplinary paradigms. These personal biases are harder to spot and challenge than on a wiki, as they are buried under the veneer of singular, anonymous authority.

Cognitive Biases of Encyclopedia Example: The editor overseeing the "Psychology" section of an encyclopedia, trained in strict behaviorism, minimizes the contributions of psychoanalysis or humanistic psychology, framing them as historical curiosities. This Cognitive Bias of Encyclopedia shapes the reader's entire understanding of the field, presenting one school of thought as the definitive narrative.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Metabiases of Encyclopedia

The cultural and intellectual biases surrounding the very concept of an encyclopedia. The chief metabias is the codification bias: the belief that knowledge which makes it into a stable, authoritative, bound volume is more "true" or "significant" than knowledge transmitted orally, practically, or through non-canonical texts. We confuse the format with the fact, granting encyclopedias an undue epistemological prestige.

Metabiases of Encyclopedia Example: A student writes a paper citing an encyclopedia entry as their primary source, believing its printed, curated nature makes it more reliable than a dynamic, well-sourced Wikipedia article or a primary research paper. This is the Metabias of Encyclopedia at work: privileging the container (a vetted book) over the content and its evidence.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026