If it's not found on Wikipedia, using an AI to learn is quick, easy and pretty much everything not found on Wikipedia can be found. But not everything.
The place that inspired the start of this blog can be found and studied using a CHAT GPT now
You still have to know the name, but the info is there.
I no longer need my own private Wiki, the uncensored AI chabots (like GROK) can explain almost everything.
Almost
Unlike some slang, like mudda fukka, 4 teh lulz only has a redirect, to a page that doesn't even mention 4 teh lulz
That would be the LOL page. While the following definition isn't complete, if you actually don't know about 4 teh lulz it will help
"4 the lulz" means "for the laughs," essentially indicating that someone is doing something just to cause amusement or stir up a reaction, often with a slightly mischievous or playful intention, and is typically used in online contexts where "lulz" is short for "laughs."
You have come across one, (some would say I am one!), but Wikipedia has nothing
Like so many things found on Wikipedia, we don't actually need an article on this. Because the meaning of the two words is obvious.
A pundit is a person who offers opinion in an authoritative manner on a particular subject area (typically politics, the social sciences, technology or sport), usually through the mass media.
Explaining it could be viewed as condescending. (condescending, that means talking down to people like they are ignorant). (<-- Bob Newhart joke)
Should Wikipedia have articles on common phrases, or even words that everybody knows?
Well, like so many things, some are OK, and some are not allowed. "Soapfish" is an obscure term for a type of fish, but an article on "soapfish" cannot be found.
But "water" has a very long article.
"Daisy flower" has no article, nor does Daisy have a redirect to Bellis perennis, which is actually the article for daisy. It gets complicated and stupid (of course) at this point. Because Wikipedia doesn't actually have an editor.
Originally daisy had an article, and Bellis perennis redirected to daisy
Now the daisy article, which was about the flower (the origin of all other daisy names and such) is a page with a hundred different things on it.
It's wikigroaning level annoying.
Boba Fett, a fictional character has a very very long and detailed article, Even though most people in the world never heard the name.
While The Subway Vigilante, or Bernhard Goetz, no article. A billion people know those names. No article.
If you think that's absurd, then you are probably a sane rational person who doesn't trust Wikipedia already.
While you can read about it, Wikipedia doesn't have the actual comic or the panel or the actual script published.
While the "official version" of the comic (with the f bomb whited out) appears as the historic version of it, the actual version can be found here.
But not on Wikipedia.
(which has extensive article on Fuck off, and Fuck you, but "go fuck yourself" redirects to fuck)
