This is a photo of the official Cambridge Press Dictionary definition of the slang word “skibidi”. The word is derived from the YouTube web series Skibidi Toilet (2023–present), which took the word from the 2022 song "Dom Dom Yes Yes" by Bulgarian singer Biser King. 

“Internet culture is changing the English language and the effect is fascinating to observe and capture in the dictionary,” says Colin McIntosh, lexical program manager at Cambridge Dictionary, the world’s largest online dictionary. This statement reflects how language, once seen as fixed and standardized, is now understood as something constantly reinterpreted by its users. 

More specifically, this object illustrates that knowledge initially belongs to a specific community of knowers, but over time becomes universal. The word “skibidi” began as part of Gen Z’s community of knowledge through their online culture. Within that community, its meaning was understood through a collective interpretation; its value came from how Gen Z perceived and used it, not from any formal definition. As the word spread beyond Gen Z, different generations reinterpreted it, sometimes viewing it as a symbol of how online culture shapes language, and other times as meaningless internet noise. These contrasting interpretations reveal how knowledge shifts when it moves between communities: what one group understands as creativity and shared identity, another might dismiss as nonsensical. Yet it is precisely through this diversity of interpretation that knowledge evolves and gains broader recognition. When Cambridge Dictionary officially added “skibidi,” it represented the moment when those differing perspectives converged as knowledge once confined to Gen Z became accessible to a broader range of generational communities.

This is a printed indulgence from the Princeton University Library’s Inside the Milberg Gallery exhibition, displaying an official document once issued by the Catholic Church in exchange for the remission of sins. Indulgences were central to late medieval Catholicism, functioning as both spiritual assurances and a financial system that supported the Church’s power. 

The knowledge claim guiding this object is that some forms of cultural knowledge remain exclusive to specific communities of knowers because their meaning is inseparable from the cultural and institutional perspective that produced them. 

Within the clergy, indulgences were understood through a theological and administrative lens. Church leaders believed they had divine authority to reduce the punishment for sin after confession, an idea grounded in the doctrine of the “treasury of merit,” which allowed the Church to draw on the spiritual merits of Christ and the saints to aid believers. Yet indulgences also became a method of raising money for Church projects, such as the reconstruction of St. Peter’s Basilica. 

For clergy, these documents were spiritual tools but also mechanisms that reinforced institutional control and financial stability. The wider Catholic community, however, lacked access to this more profound knowledge. Most laypeople could not read Latin or study doctrine, so their understanding came from sermons and cultural beliefs. They saw indulgences as visible acts of devotion and a way to secure forgiveness for themselves or loved ones, an interpretation grounded in faith rather than theology. 

However, despite these differences, both clergy and laity still shared a level of cultural knowledge that outsiders did not: they operated within the Catholic perspective that gave indulgences their meaning in the first place. Because the Church controlled the context in which indulgences were created, taught, and practiced, it also controlled how far that meaning could extend. 

This contrast shows how meaning is shaped and contained by cultural and institutional perspectives, and how some knowledge remains bound to the community that sustains that perspective.

This object is a screenshot of an Instagram comment exchange in which the producers of the song “I Run” by HAVEN respond to criticism by explaining the role of artificial intelligence in its creation. It illustrates how differences in access affect how knowledge is understood and accepted between different communities of knowers. 

For most listeners, their knowledge of the song was limited to how it sounded and how it made them feel. Early reactions were shaped by the assumption that the vocals belonged to Jorja Smith, which contributed to the song’s positive reception. Based on this incomplete knowledge, the song was judged primarily on its musical qualities, with little attention given to questions of authorship or production.

In contrast, the producers (Waypoint) possessed direct knowledge of how the song was created, including the use of AI to modify vocals. This knowledge was not immediately shared with the public, creating a gap between those who made the song and those who consumed it. The Instagram comment represents an attempt to transfer this insider knowledge between these separate communities.

As information about the use of AI became more widely known, public interpretation of the song began to change. After the song was taken down and re-released with proper credit given to a real artist’s voice, skepticism still remained among listeners. This shows that even when knowledge is shared between different communities of knowers, barriers to accessibility and trust can prevent it from being fully accepted, meaning that knowledge does not move freely or equally beyond the community in which it originates.