“The Unhinged Depths Of Wikipedia” — 34 Tweets
I use Wikipedia the way most people use it: I have a question, I type it in, I get my answer, I close the tab. Capital of Burkina Faso. How long a giraffe’s neck actually is. Whether that actor was in the thing I’m thinking of.
In and out. Clean transaction. Knowledge acquired.
But every so often — and this is the part nobody warns you about — you take a wrong turn.
You’re three clicks deep into an article about medieval agriculture and suddenly you’re reading a fully sourced, neutrally worded paragraph about something so deranged that you have to stop. Scroll back up. Read it again. Confirm with your own eyes that yes, a real human being wrote this down in the calm, encyclopedic tone normally reserved for tectonic plates, and yes, it has seventeen citations.
That’s the feeling @depthsofwiki has built an entire account around.
Depths of Wikipedia goes where the rest of us are too scared to click, surfacing the entries that prove the world’s largest reference work is also, secretly, the world’s funniest.
Below are some of the ones that made me read twice — and then immediately send to everyone I know.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
