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

A person that acts like Wikipedia aka a know it all

A topical progression that leads into infinite topical regress which begins with an inquiry into factual content about one specific topic that leads into factual content about multiple related sub-topics, sub-sub-topics, and ad infinitum sub-sub-topics.

Something that is a salad by Wikipedia’s definition, or any combination of ingredients usually with a raw ingredient.

A game played using wikipedia in which most of the good words from the urban dictionary are entered into wikipedia to see if any of the results will be funny (most of them are)

When you're looking up something on Wikipedia, but while reading about it, you encounter several other concepts you are not familiar with. Naive internet users will proceed to also look up those concepts on Wikipedia (said concepts are usually written as links when mentioned in the text, and therefore intrigue readers enough to click on them). They, in turn, lead to other Wikipedia pages, and before you know it, you've gone from reading about string theory, to studying dinosaur erotica in incognito mode.

Something that has enough importance to actually be on Wikipedia, in contrast to what you can find no trace of on there. Hence, "worthy of Wikipedia," or Wikipedia-worthy. Since users from across the world can edit or add to Wikipedia, the lack of information on a specific topic marks its sheer unimportance or obscurity.