Clicking on "random article" and going from that article to Jesus by only using the links in the text. You have to do it in 6 clicks or less, its based off of the Six Degrees of Separation and seriously if you didnt get it then you screwed up cuz its possible from everything. Also when you are taken to something that isnt specific and lists things that are more specific, then picking one of them is not a click. And if you look at the Contents box and click something, it doesnt count.
Guy: "Dude I jus got from Bethesda, Ohio to Jesus in 4 clicks in the wikipedia game!"
Other guy: "...do you want a cookie?"
Other guy: "...do you want a cookie?"
by captain hoebag January 20, 2009
"Oh John, how do you know so much about everything?"
"I'm a Wikipedia scholar; I spend my free time reading Wikipedia pages."
"I'm a Wikipedia scholar; I spend my free time reading Wikipedia pages."
by Man Sheck August 30, 2012
The act of losing between 45-120 minutes while performing click-throughs from the initial Wikipedia page you were interested in.... often leading you to knowledge that has no relationship what-so-ever to your original search.
Man, I was lost 2 hours and missed a meeting because I went down a Wikipedia Rathole. However, I do now know that Richie Sambora is was born in Woodbridge, NJ.
NOTE: Original search was snow fall amounts in the NE.
NOTE: Original search was snow fall amounts in the NE.
by spaceman2004 October 29, 2009
The inevitable result of trying to do serious research on wikipedia. Consists of clicking on random links in articles until you get as far away from the original topic as possible. The results must then reported to the closest person you know.
I was researching Warren Buffet for business class. Sure enough, I got into a session of the wikipedia game, and 9 pages later, I was on Louis the XIV of France.
by Danstu January 07, 2007
The state of continually clicking links from article to article on Wikipedia following topics that grow progressively further from the search you started.
I started out on a Ford article on Wikipedia and ended up on an article about Animal Farm. I was in a wikipedia loop.
by Benny123 November 09, 2015
1. An article on wikipedia talking about wikipedia and how it is not a reliable source for fact checking.
2. When a site disses itself for falsehoods and trolls
2. When a site disses itself for falsehoods and trolls
1. "Do not use wikipedia as a source of information for wikipedia"
2. Did you hear that Wikipedia outed itself as unreliable?
No.
Well I like to call it the Wikipedia Paradox
2. Did you hear that Wikipedia outed itself as unreliable?
No.
Well I like to call it the Wikipedia Paradox
by catchingfire3 January 25, 2020
the best type of moderator in the entire internet, these guys are very hard working, they have to reverse vandalism in wikipedia, the largest encyclopedia in the world, these guys get all the bitches , no fucking doubt, they write articles about something which can take lots of hours of research to just write one line of text, they have to moderate images in wikipedia too, they have to make sure it's appropiate, helpful and accurate, without a doubt, they are the most based out there
wikipedia mod: hey i moderate for wikipedia
a hoe: HOLY SHIT PLEASE DATE ME YOU ARE SO BAD AND COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111
a hoe: HOLY SHIT PLEASE DATE ME YOU ARE SO BAD AND COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111
by Order of Malta September 04, 2023