My Top 5 Favorite and Least Favorite Wikipedia Articles

By Santiago Zatarain

October 25, 2023

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is one of the most popular sources of information. As someone who has spent much of their free time reading and sometimes editing articles, I’ve seen numerous articles that stand out more than others. Those articles that stand out to me do so for both the right and wrong reasons. Below, I’ll provide the 5 Wikipedia articles that I go back to all the time to read or because they’re important to me, and I’ll also provide 5 articles that I think are goofy.

The Good Ones

5. Global catastrophe scenarios

This article speaks to my morbid curiosity for the possibility of human extinction. The list describes the usual concerns like climate change, rogue artificial intelligence, nuclear war, natural disasters, and more. But there’s other scenarios included in the article like “gray goo” nanotechnology and death cults that I hadn’t really considered before. Reading this article gives you a more in-depth explanation of how certain factors can cause an apocalypse. I do advise some caution, as this article could make you feel some paranoia. Overall, a fun read depending on your interest in the topic.

4. Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

Ok, I think I owe you an explanation. First things first, Wikipedia articles that start with ‘Wikipedia:’ are articles that aren’t searchable without typing that first. Many of these articles are simply just instruction guides for editors, but others are just joke articles meant for humor (joke articles make it annoyingly clear they’re jokes). This article is one of those jokes.

The story goes that one editor was tired of Wikipedia admins reverting their edits that took them a lot of time and effort to do without giving any reason. Frustrated, they wrote an entry on a complaint board, accusing admins of being trigger-happy. They ended their complaint by stating “If I don't cop flack for this one, I will climb the Reichtag Bulding in a Spiderman outfit.” Yes, they did make those spelling mistakes. They were mad. The admins responded by creating this article and accusing the editor of violating the new rule. The editor then posted an image of them having scaled the Reichstag building in a Spiderman outfit. Or at least, that’s what I think it was. The image link doesn’t work anymore. In any case, this article is really fun. But if the editor did in fact keep their word and did actually make the climb, then the article does serve as a serious reminder to not take drastic action in real life just because of a content dispute.

3. Antonio López de Santa Anna

This article is a biography of a fairly significant figure in Mexican history. The reason I bring attention to it is because of how much he went through during his life. We may know him as the fella who tried to put down the Texan Revolution, but that was neither the beginning nor the end of the various crazy chapters in his life. It’s probably the single most interesting biography I’ve ever read. From fighting for independence to trying to stop a rebellion to exile to redemption to a lost leg to a second presidency, Santa Anna is someone whose life reads like fiction. If you have the time, read this article. It blew me away when I first read it all the way through.

2. 1930 FIFA World Cup

Admittedly, this article being included here is more of a personal choice. This article isn’t especially significant, but it is the first article I ever made an edit on. There was an ongoing edit war over whether the US or Yugoslavia won third/fourth place in the tournament. The official FIFA decision was the US placing third because of their performance in the group stage. But other editors who have no backing by any legitimate source claim that Yugoslavia is “rightfully” third because they lost their semi final match against the eventual champion, Uruguay, whereas the US lost against the runner-up, Argentina. I reverted one of those people’s edits. Then I reverted an obvious case of vandalism where someone changed the champion to be England instead of Uruguay. The article isn’t as detailed as other World Cup articles, and it really shouldn’t be this high up, but it still holds some importance to me.

1. Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7

Within the grand tale of the Second World War, you’ll find individual stories of bravery and resistance. One such story is the subject of this article. During Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union, the city of Leningrad (modern-day St. Petersburg) came under siege. The millions of people still in the city were trapped, frozen and starving. But among that population were Karl Eliasberg, members of the Leningrad Radio Orchestra, and various other civilians who were capable of playing a musical instrument. Composer Dmitri Shostakovich had dedicated his 7th symphony to his hometown of Leningrad from which he had been evacuated. The ragtag orchestra made it a point of honor and courage to perform it.

Reading this article, you’ll see the numerous obstacles the musicians faced in trying to make the hour-long symphony possible. You’ll see the grim situation the performers lived through and Eliaberg’s desperate efforts to keep the orchestra functioning despite grief, deaths, starvation, and the ongoing fighting near the city. This performance was a huge morale boost, and even the Germans expressed their surprise at its success. I know every detail of the article, but I can’t help but reread it. Trust me, it’s a good of a story.

The Bad Ones

5. Jordanhill Railway Station

This is a fairly short article about a random railway station in Glasgow, Scotland. There’s no issue with the article itself, and I have nothing against Scotland, Glasgow, Jordanhill, or railways. So what’s the problem? This is actually the one millionth Wikipedia article! Look, I understand that it’s impossible and not very encyclopedic to time the one millionth article to be something more relevant to the website. The only reason this is on here is because the one millionth Wikipedia article is something so unassuming, and I have a problem with it. It’s my list, m‘kay?

4. Battle of Agusan Hill

This article is about a battle that took place during the Philippine-American War. It is made up of one infobox and one paragraph. That’s it. I’ve looked up this battle, and literally every other website with an entry on this battle has the EXACT SAME PARAGRAPH. Even worse, this article cites ZERO SOURCES. Having a pile of sources at the bottom of articles is the main reason Wikipedia is a good starting point for research. This article completely ignores that. I also want to know where that one paragraph originated from.

3. List of lists of lists

This article is so goofy it’s actually hurting me as I write about it. Let me explain why this article is pointless. Let’s say I want to find a list of fantasy novels. There are two ways to do this: Either look up that list specifically or go to the article called ‘Lists of books.’ Why would a reader ever use a list that is twice removed from the list they’re looking for? The ONLY reason I can think of for this article existing is that editors can organize all lists of lists. But even that reason falls apart when you realize that tools like that already exist in the form of articles that begin with ‘Category:’ or something else. So why?? There is no serious reason for this article to exist other than a weird looking title.

2. Catarina Hurtig

Here’s another example of an article that is just bad. This article is tagged with ‘This article has multiple issues.’ This article has 13 books in its bibliography, all of which are in Swedish, but is only two paragraphs long. In those two paragraphs, there are no in-line citations besides the two that I added after discovering this article. Also, the tag on the article states that “a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.” Big red flag for any article that discusses a living person, since that can be a source of bias. Overall, this article is just a textbook example of a poor quality Wikipedia article.

1. Person from Porlock

I need to start with the origin of this so that I don’t come in ranting. The story goes that Samuel Taylor Coleridge was under the influence of opium and conceived an entire poem in a haze. He began to write out the poem, which he called Kubla Khan, and finished 54 lines of it before being interrupted by a visitor from Porlock, England. When Coleridge returned to his poem, he had lost his inspiration and couldn’t finish the poem. Somehow, this incident warrants an article about that visitor.

Why is there an article specifically about that ONE RANDOM GUY? Why couldn’t this just be a part of the biography section of the article for Samuel Taylor Coleridge that ALREADY EXISTS? HOW IS THIS A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH PERSON TO HAVE HIS OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE? These are great questions, and I’m going to answer all three with one answer. ‘Person from Porlock’ is apparently a term used to describe “literary allusions to unwanted intruders who disrupt inspired creativity.” I have never heard of this. The least they could’ve done is include literary examples, but there aren’t any. This is easily one of the most pointless articles on the entire website.

Wikipedia depends entirely on the effort of random internet users who write and edit articles. Not every article is created equal. I hope you’ve enjoyed reading this list of my favorite and least favorite Wikipedia articles. I highly recommend reading the articles on the good list and staying away from the abominations on the bad list (except Jordanhill Railway Station).