Wikipedia is a great idea in theory, but in practice, most of it's a waste of cyber-ink. It's supposed to be a massive open-source encyclopedia. To its credit, it contains some quirky, interesting information not found anywhere else. However, it also contains factual inaccuracies and political garbage. The bulk of its most influential contributors (the ones with power) are ideological morons, each of whom has to put his/her opinion into every article, even on topics like Norse mythology or basket-weaving. Petty squabbles dominate while factual integrity and cooperative production are made tertiary priorities. The worst aspect of Wikipedia is the "cabal" of like-minded, influential, long-standing contributors who dress their views up as "consensus" and use their sysop privileges to bully anyone who disagrees with them. As an interesting footnote, the encyclopedia was also implicated in a 2004 character assassination effort by a band of anonymous right-wingers against Mike Church.
by Anonymous February 26, 2005
An online pseudo-encyclopedia that is run by a bunch of pimply-faced teenaged nerds and 40 year old obese virgins living in the mothers' basements. On this particular website, truth isn't based upon the facts but rather upon majority opinion.
by Jake in NYC January 25, 2008
an online encyclopedia, started at 2001, made by user contribution and translated to many languages. visit wikipedia.org
contribute to wikipedia project !
by alireza January 6, 2004
Teacher: Now i want a 5 page essay on medicine in by Friday!
*Student searches medicine on Wikipedia...*
*Student searches medicine on Wikipedia...*
by bender92 August 23, 2006
Basically it's Urban Dictionary but with all the entries based around sex-realted slang replaced by intellectual thought. A good proportion of it may or may not be written by crazy people in caves who haven't seen sunlight in years, and as a result believe that "splinkard" is a real world.
by Chris February 23, 2005
by Peevee April 25, 2006