As a source of academic knowledge, Wikipedia is, of course, useless. It's an open source encyclopedia, and even if it is fairly well moderated, there's still the possibility of you editing an article, then citing your own edit in a paper or something. So professors aren't a fan of it.

However, there are plenty of things Wikipedia can offer that real encyclopedias can't. Here are...

Five Things to Love about Wikipedia

- This picture. The picture itself isn't funny, but read the caption. What kind of real encyclopedia would ever run that?
- Hilariously unnecessary articles. Here's a good example. Where else can you find a succinct yet comprehensive source of famous moustaches, moustache styles, and the history of moustaches?
- Highly specific local folklore and inside jokes. That particular article is a glorious monument to the deep-seeded hatred of my university's administration, as well as a testament to how much people can actually do with their free time without actually accomplishing anything (says the guy writing a blog article, I know, I know).
- Coverage of current events. Ever want the back story after reading a newspaper article that assumes you already know it? Type it into Wikipedia, and voila! And Wikipedia doesn't have enough journalistic integrity to stop themselves from linking to accused murderer's former xanga sites, either.
- Above average coverage of music. They may not offer in depth reviews (although they do link to them), but have you ever read a pitchforkmedia article that listed every sample DJ Shadow used for his first record? You can't beat that.

So there you have it. I promise I won't get into too much of a habit of making unnecessary lists, but two in two days isn't encouraging...