Like most people, I love Wikipedia. I especially love it because it is not blocked at work and is a site that there could be about a million good reasons you're visiting (unlike, say, TiB). Librarians and teachers may bemoan its unreliability, but honestly, it's pretty fucking reliable and most librarians would bring back card catalogs if they could. Thankfully there are few really subtle trolls out there, and so it's generally a good bet that when you're reading an article on Feudal Japan and you come across a sentence in the middle of the text like "jenna sloat is a fucking cock sucking whore olol" it's the only thing on the page that's questionable. While everyone is distracted by the question of whether the information in Wikipedia is reliable or not, most people are missing the really interesting characteristic of Wikipedia: it's an encyclopedia run by a cadre of demagogic sperglords who rule over their microscopic intellectual fiefdoms with thundering iron hands. This has been picked up on from time to time. I personally love Wikigroaning, where you find two articles on ostensibly similar topics - one serious and weighty and one that is the obsession of a small but dedicated band of sperglords - and compare the level of detail in them. For example: the article on Star Wars, the 1977 George Lucas film, is 30% longer and has 3X as many references as the article on Star Wars, the United States Strategic Defense Initiative that employed tens of thousands of people and was the result of more than $100B of investment. One thing about Wikipedia is that it's nearly constantly improving in areas where people actually go and read - things people care about. Some small group of people care about Feudal Japan, so it's unlikely that Jenna Sloat will remain a slut for very long. But I have the most fun with articles that, even after much editing, remain completely spergged out and incomprehensible except to a chosen few. I'm not talking about articles that are inherently complex due to the subject matter, like Quantum Mechanics. Rather, I'm talking about articles about things that you shouldn't have to have a graduate degree in to understand. Some examples: Pachinko is a type of game machine popular in Asia. A sample quote: A favorite of mine (now largely cleaned up) was the massive edit war that surrounded the segment on Crucifixion in Anime (old revision of the page before the edit war). After seeing the documentary Resolved on HBO, which is a look into the kooky world of modern high school debate teams, I wanted to find out more about how it worked. Naturally, I went to read the Wikipedia article on Policy Debate. Policy debaters shout right and left that their debate experience, however kooky, makes them better at expressing thoughts and arguing points. It is thus deliciously ironic that the article on policy debate is basically incomprehensible to anyone who isn't deeply involved in that community. Occasionally, however, someone sneaks some genuine comedy past the sperglords by disguising themselves as a fellow sperglord. Consider this ultra-detailed summary of the Internet parody "The Juggernaut Bitch!!" (sadly no longer available on Wikipedia, but I assure you it was up there for a while). FOCUS: What's your most egregious Wikigroan? What Wikipedia articles are the worst articles ever? What articles have WAY too much detail for their subject matter? ANTI-FOCUS: What Wikipedia articles are the awesomest?