wikipedia

Seriously.  Can you believe he earns a living doing that?

Alright, now I gotta go find a pic on Tumblr and write one unfunny joke about it.

[via It Makes No Sense]

Ah, this clip harkens back to the good old days when our Wikipedia page was not locked.

If they ever pull the protection off that page again, god help us all.

Leave your suggestion for next week's Fan Favorite video in the comments!

Over 3.6 million articles exist on Wikipedia.  And they are always trying to improve.

One of Wikipedia's "WikiProjects" is to get spoken articles on the site, making it more accessible.

Sadly, from those 3.6 million written articles, a mere 1,226 spoken articles exist.

But on a good note, a fine British chap (named Simon, no less) has you covered on two very important topics: "Mammary intercourse" and "Pegging (sexual practice)."

That's right.  If you've ever wanted to hear a British person explain in an English accent that "Pegging is a sexual practice in which a woman penetrates a man's anus with a strap-on dildo," the place to go is Wikipedia.

Now you know what the consummation of the Royal Wedding was like.

[via Reddit]

Scoleciphobia is the fear of worms or anything that looks like a worm. So it makes perfect sense that the accompanying photo on Wikipedia would be of a kid losing it in the presence of some Gummi Worms.

How do we know he's not just afraid of trans fats?

[via reddit]

Wikipedia isn't just a wonderful place for vandalizing the hard work of unrewarded nerds with too much time on their hands.  Occasionally, it's a source of valuable information.

For instance, remember the year 1994?  I was 15 years old and a little song called "Regulate" as performed by Warren G featuring Nathan Dogg was popular on the radio at that time.  I believe a friend of mine had purchased a compact disc containing the song as well (seeing as piracy had yet to be invented).

But as a young, confused, underage-drinking teenager from the suburbs of Philadelphia, I had no idea what that song meant.  Thank god Wikipedia has finally set me straight with its extremely sophisticated synopsis, part of which includes this…

"Nate goes on to note that if any third party smokes as he does, they would find themselves in a state of intoxication daily."

Ah…  Now I get it.

[via The Daily What]

Whatever you do, don't click on the image above!!

And DON'T CLICK HERE!!

Both links take you to a sickening, NSFW website known as Wikipedia.

That's right: In Wikipedia's article on "strip poker" [DON'T CLICK THAT!], the Wikipedia community thinks it's acceptable to publish an image of a bare-breasted woman playing poker as if this is some sort of National Geographic article on the tribes of New Guinea.

Where I am from, we call that pornography.  Well, we also call it "TITTIES!"  But "TITTIES!" is a form of pornography that has absolutely no educational or research value, especially if people are trying to learn about the despicable act of playing strip poker.

Due to Wikipedia's complete disregard for public decency, I will no longer be using Wikipedia …to fap to.

It's the least I can do.

[via @Breakcom]

Mashable reports that on the 4th of July, Wikipedia — "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" — went down for a number of hours.

There's been a lot of speculation about how this happened, but I think I've stumbled up on the answer.

Someone edited the entry for "Wikipedia" on Wikipedia to read like this:

Wikipedia is NOT a free,^[3] web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

Unable to process the definition of itself, the site immediately crashed.

A similar incident happened in 2005 when a prankster changed the site's entry to read "Wikipedia is my balls," and the entire site became replaced with an image of my balls.

That time it wasn't reported that the site had "gone down."  Instead, it had "been sacked."

The blog Bits and Pieces revisited this Wikipedia image above showing countries that have officially adopted the metric system (in green) and those who have not.

As stated on Wikipedia, "Only three nations have not officially adopted the International System of Units as their primary or sole system of measurement: Burma, Liberia, and the United States."  Like it's some sort of guilt trip or something.  I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased!

Haven't we gotten over this whole metric system debate?

Let me reiterate, anything that's good enough for Myanmar is good enough for me.

And also, what about Antarctica?  Yeah, the giant gray area at the bottom of the map?  Why isn't anyone giving them shit for not adopting the metric system?  If that map is to scale that place is like 100 thousand furlongs wide!  Why's no one on their case.

Here's what I'm thinking: The U.S. will adopt the metric system when Antarctica does.  Deal?

Ha!  April fools!  Those guys are never going to unlock our Wikipedia page because you savages don't know how to control yourselves.

And I'm sure this post certainly won't help matters any.

Haven't you guys learned that Wikipedia is serious business and not a place for pranks?  Without the integrity of our Wikipedia page, how would people know that "Within 10 weeks of its premiere, Tosh.0 became the second most watched cable network show in its time slot among 18-34 year old males, a sought after advertising demographic."

That is serious business!  Titties!

There's a new campaign afoot to bring video to Wikipedia.

The website VideoOnWikipedia.org is actively encouraging people to add new videos to the site by including instructions on how to upload video and why they believe it is so important.

This seems like a bad idea to me.

One, you can't cut and paste video from Wikipedia into a report, thus making the life of every lazy student that much more difficult.  Who wants to watch a video and transcribe?  What a pain in the ass!

Two, one of the beauties of Wikipedia is the back and forth of additions, changes and deletions that can happen — sometimes over the course of hundreds of iterations — before an article reaches that perfect balance of informativeness and objectivity.  But if someone just plops down an 8 minute video, what's supposed to happen?  People will download it and re-edit it or add a new voice over or add subtitles?  Even worse, what about vandalism?  It's one thing for some jerk to type "BALLS" into the middle of an article, but it's a totally different thing for someone to slip a clip of their balls into an otherwise legitimate looking Wikipedia video.

Let's start a different campaign: Keep humans literate.  More written word for everyone!  Balls.

[via Mashable]