Don't get me wrong, I love me some New Yorker, but the mag's online division missed an easy opportunity to use the interweb for what it's best at -- being an interweb -- with this new article on the woes of Wikipedia. (The piece, by Pulitzer-winning writer Stacy Schiff, is great otherwise.) Take the paragraph that begins "Apparently, no traditional encyclopedia has ever suspected that someone might wonder about Sudoku or about prostitution in China." Apparently, the traditional magazine in question has never suspected that someone reading the article online might like to have the actual Wikipedia entries on Sudoku and prostitution in China handy for hours of procrastinatory fun. So I've linked-up the whole paragraph for you after the jump. Enjoy!
(Sorry, I couldn't annotate the whole article for obvious copyright reasons, although if someone at the New Yorker wants to give me an online content-enrichment job, I can be had for a price.)
Apparently, no traditional encyclopedia has ever suspected that someone might wonder about Sudoku or about prostitution in China. Or, for that matter, about Capgras delusion (the unnerving sensation that an impostor is sitting in for a close relative), the Boston molasses disaster, the Rhinoceros Party of Canada, Bill Gates's house, the forty-five-minute Anglo-Zanzibar War, or Islam in Iceland. Wikipedia includes fine entries on Kafka and the War of the Spanish Succession, and also a complete guide to the ships of the U.S. Navy, a definition of Philadelphia cheesesteak, a masterly page on Scrabble, a list of historical cats (celebrity cats, a cat millionaire, the first feline to circumnavigate Australia), a survey of invented expletives in fiction ("bippie," "cakesniffer," "furgle"), instructions for curing hiccups, and an article that describes, with schematic diagrams, how to build a stove from a discarded soda can.