Now usually I see Wikipedia as pretty reliable, but there are sometimes edits like this:

From the Article 'Meaning of Life (disambiguation) wrote:Another translation to the meaning of life that heralds from the "new age" movement, revisits and reinvents the doctrine of Hedonism. Hedonism an ancient Greek philosophy that states pleasure is the highest attainable good. In a literal sense attaining the ultimate please. Pleasure meaning different things to different people makes this idea ambiguous. For most people either rotting their brain out in the quickest way possible, or sticking one of their bodily appendages in a blender. One the pleasure has been attained it could be said that one has experienced the meaning of life.

:D

Anyone got any other good ones?

I once found some very obscure stub about a place saying that once a year baby turtles migrate there, followed by "yeah its awesome"

I've never seen such funny mistakes in Wikipedia. Most of the articles I read seem to have links for the really important points, so I don't see the need not to trust it. I think it is fine to use Wikipedia for really general topics (as in, not Meaning of Life which is pretty ambiguous, but information on places, types, things, laws etc.), but for specialized ones, it is better to refer a book or a specific site.

And what wiki says about itself.

My school made the rule that you can't use wiki for projects, cause i failed a demonstration in design and tech from false info.

I actually used Wikipedia way back for my big elementary school project. And hey, I'm here aren't I?

I never use Wikipedia for working models or anything. The last time I used it for college stuff was when I had to write a paper on SARS. It was pretty useful as there wasn't any book on it in my college. And the information was correct too, as they showed links for statistics and the other important points.
But yeah, my department too doesn't put a lot of trust in Wikipedia. They don't believe it is very accurate, but I think the main reason is that they want to us to research from 'good books'.

They always tell us "It can be edited by anyone." That pretty much is the base of their argument.

SevenPentacles wrote:They always tell us "It can be edited by anyone." That pretty much is the base of their argument.

Well you do have to admit it is a pretty strong argument.

The Wikipedia/Facebook crossover is really creeping me out

I don't see anything particularly funny about that
Edit: Got it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ominations

YES. I love you random editor!

FuzzyLobster wrote:YES. I love you random editor!

This.

David Cat wrote:

FuzzyLobster wrote:YES. I love you random editor!

This.

Are you even fully aware of how ****ed up Bieber is, not being Canadian?

Nero wrote:

David Cat wrote:

FuzzyLobster wrote:YES. I love you random editor!

This.

Are you even fully aware of how ****ed up Bieber is, not being Canadian?

I know enough to dislike him :P

Half the girls in America are in love with him. The other half realize how fail he is.

Although it is funny, the stupid editor didn't even bullet it, an obvious formatting faux-pas that would have slided this under the nose of a sleep-deprived recent-changes patroller.

It's been changed. I have the historical article there.
There's also the history of the article about that cricket umpire who wasn't very good.

SevenPentacles wrote:Half the girls in America are in love with him. The other half realize how fail he is.

How about the allegedly female Americans who struggle to remember what he's famous for? :P

This may not be deliberate vandalism. But is hilarious unless you are a rather specific biologist.

"The prostomium of Nereididae bears a pair of palps that are differentiated into 2 units, the proximal unit is much larger than the distal unit. Parapodia are mostly biramous (only the first two pairs are uniramous). Peristomium fused with the first body segment, with usually 2 pairs of tentacular cirri. The first body segment with 1-2 pairs tentacular cirri without aciculae. Compound setae present. Notopodia are distinct (rarely reduced), usually with more flattened lobes, notosetae compound falcigers and/or spinigers (rarely notosetae absent). They have 2 prostomial antennae (absent in Micronereis). Pharynx, when everted, clearly consists of 2 portions, with a pair of strong jaws on the distal portion and usually with conical teeth on one or more areas of both portions. Most genera have no gills (if present, they are usually branched and arise on mid-anterior segments of body). The larval body consists of four segments."

Yes Jimbo Wales, we understand your message. BURN THE VATICAN!