Offixal Sakura Gacha Club Wiki

A ultra-cringe wiki from the bankrupt website called FANDOM.

Ben: Offixal Sakura Gacha Club Wiki is cringe.
Bill: true, very based.

by Boo Radley Game May 23, 2022

Bee Swarm Simulator Wiki

A place where people can read things about the Roblox game "Bee Swarm Simulator". And by "things" I mean almost everything.

If you see someone vandalising the pages, necroposting (oh god this is annoying as hell), being very toxic, report to the mods. (yes the mods here are actually helpful)

Also if you see this definition please don't post in the wiki's discussions because I will get pinged again

John: hey i just play bss how do i find the codes for the game
bob: just go to the Bee Swarm Simulator wiki, the other websites suck

by tedious is sexier thanyouthink May 28, 2022

project sekai wiki

Otherwise known as “Thee Weekee” the project sekai wiki is a group of people, known as Wikians, who make posts daily and talk a whole lot. They are fans of the mobile rhythm game Hatsune Miku: COLORFUL STAGE/otherwise written as Project SEKAI: COLORFUL STAGE

Person 1: What’s your favorite rhythm game?
Person 2: Project SEKAI!
Person 1: Oh, is that the one with the Project sekai wiki?
Person 2: Huhehe…

Person 1: I knew those Wikians were crazy.

by A localized breakfast item March 6, 2024

A sticky wiki

A sticky wiki is when you get punched by a wiktoria she claims its because she saw a "yellow car" but mysteriously its gone before you see it AND when you hit her back because you saw a yellow car she argues and says its green! Overall she's a bully but you have Stockholm syndrome so your scared to leave

Person 1: ow why did you punch me I can't see a yellow car

Person 2: it's gone now

Person 1: ugh you gave me a sticky wiki

by Gimmedaloot May 5, 2024

Biases of Wiki

The systematic editorial skews inherent to Wikipedia and similar wikis, stemming not from malicious intent but from the inherent characteristics of its volunteer base and collaborative process. Key biases include: systemic bias (over-representation of topics popular among young, tech-savvy, English-speaking Western males), citation bias (over-reliance on sources that are digital and in English), conflict-of-interest bias (covert editing by PR firms and political operatives), and consensus bias (controversial truths that challenge established narratives are often edited out in favor of bland, "settled" accounts that won't provoke edit wars). Wikipedia's biases are the map of the world, drawn by a specific, non-representative cartographers' guild.

Example: The Wikipedia article for a major video game franchise is detailed, meticulously sourced, and updated hourly. The article for a crucial Indigenous agricultural technique, equally significant to human culture, is a stub or non-existent. This reflects the Biases of Wiki: the contributor base writes passionately about its hobbies, while crucial indigenous knowledge languishes due to a lack of editors from that community.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Metabiases of Wiki

The biases about Wikipedia's biases. This includes the bias blind spot of the Wikipedia community itself—the belief that the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy inherently corrects for all skew, or that because anyone can edit, the result must be balanced. Another key metabias is the authority inversion bias, where critics dismiss Wikipedia entirely due to its biases, failing to see it as the unparalleled starting point for knowledge it is, while acolytes treat it as an infallible oracle, missing its curated nature.

Metabiases of Wiki Example: A Wikipedia administrator swiftly bans an editor for citing "unreliable" alternative media, believing the NPOV policy guarantees neutrality. They are blind to their own Metabias of Wiki: the policy's reliance on "reliable sources" often enshrines mainstream media bias as "neutrality," and their actions protect that systemic skew while believing they are merely enforcing quality.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Metacognitive Biases of Wiki

Flaws in Wikipedia editors' and readers' self-awareness about their own knowledge and judgment while using the platform. These biases distort how contributors assess their expertise, gauge the reliability of their edits, and monitor their comprehension of policies. Key examples include the Wikipedia Illusion of Explanatory Depth (believing you understand a topic fully after editing its article, when you've only mastered its presentation), and Procedural Overconfidence (thinking that strictly following citation and NPOV rules guarantees you've produced a "true" article, mistaking process-compliance for substantive understanding). These biases turn the wiki-editing experience into a metacognitive trap, where the act of curation is mistaken for mastery.

Metacognitive Biases of Wiki Example: A Wikipedia editor spends weeks polishing the article on "Quantum Entanglement," meticulously sourcing every claim. They develop a strong Metacognitive Bias of Wiki: the "feeling of knowing." They now believe they deeply understand quantum physics, confusing their hard-won skill in encyclopedic summarization with actual expertise in theoretical physics, and may start arguing authoritatively on physics forums, leading to embarrassing corrections.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026