Is this a joke? I don't get it.

*remembers this joke from Roseanne*

remembers this joke from 320 BC

Well, you're older than me.

Thing is, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so why would there be?

Or is that the joke and I'm still not getting it?

it works better as a joke if it said



gullible is not on the website dictionary.com

im older than everyone but littlem

Hahaha at this.

It would be alot more funny if it wasnt in the dictionary but I can settle for wikipedia, after all they have articles on everything else.

thats pretty funny =)

?

*is confused*

stubby43 on Feb 01 '10 at 6:11pm

It would be alot more funny if it wasnt in the dictionary but I can settle for wikipedia, after all they have articles on everything else.



Articles yes, but not definitions of words. I bet there aren't entries for most adjectives.

The joke is



Theres no deffinition for the word gulliable in the dictionary but if you believe that there isnt that means your gulliable, the deffinition of the word.



This subverts it because there really is no definition of gulliable on wikipedia, a source of knowledge known for having everything.



Its not that funny when you explain it.

Yeah, Bramish is correct. The -pedia in Wikipedia refers to the fact it's like an encyclopedia, which wouldn't have gullible in it, either.

Haha. I know the dictionary joke. But Wikipedia isn't a... oh never mind.

There is no dictionary entry for Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski.

way to take all the humor out of the blog with your logic bramish

I'm just going to assume that this link leads to a Rick-Roll.

Bramish on Feb 01 '10 at 6:25pm Haha. I know the dictionary joke. But Wikipedia isn't a... oh never mind.



Sorry I wasnt replying to you Stu, I was replying to kashlen.



I know its a stretch of the joke but having said that wikipedia isnt always an encylopedia, an encyclopedia used to be about stuff that has finished happening but when a major event happens liked Hati its updated in real time, there are articles whilst stuff is happening.



Its really odd, espeically when you take it from a news point of view, according to the journalistic code news is supposed to be neutral but the reality is it isnt.



Because wikipedia is an encylcopedia one of its founding principles is to be neutral, they might be the last strong hold of neutral news.



That sounds less impressive when written drunk but it got me top marks in my dissertation.