What do you think?
Rate this book
[Citation Needed] #1
[Citation Needed]: The Best Of Wikipedia's Worst Writing
Do you need help telling the difference between a Renaissance Pope and an oracular octopus? Do you need details on what inappropriate body parts the attendees at Wing Bowl expose to one another? Do you need an accounting of which movies in the Air Bud series contain the fewest fart jokes? Fortunately, all these facts are lovingly recorded on Wikipedia, thus fulfilling the dreams of generations of scholars who worked towards a compendium of the world’s most vital information.But how can you find these details, hidden as they are among boring facts about science and history and stuff? Fear For nearly two years, the blog [Citation Needed] has sifted through The Best of Wikipedia's Worst Writing. A thousand entries later, Conor Lastowka and Josh Fruhlinger have handpicked over 200 of their favorite examples of putrid prose and collected them here. Each entry features hilarious commentary from the authors, but they're confident you'll already be laughing by the time you get to it.Praise for [Citation Needed]:"Wikipedia has long been my favored source of dubious scholarship, unverified assertions, press-release hagiography, and confusing recaps of comic books in long run-on sentences. It is not merely that this material is USEFUL to a writer of fake trivia. There is also a strange pleasure that comes in witnessing very bad writing and wondering at the human mind that conceives it, and why that mind is so preoccupied with the drama behind the scenes of House Party 4. I am just glad that I now have the best of the worst, all hilariously annotated by Fruhlinger and Lastowka, and all bound in one non-internet volume such that I can enjoy these bits of grim, awkward human poetry without feeling tempted to get into a huge online fight over the weight of Mr. Belvedere." -John Hodgman"You will not be surprised to discover many of Wikipedia’s worst writing comes from entries with nerdy subjects, include Care Bears (and their suspect genders), Adult Diaper fetishes, bizarre assumptions about He-Man characters, and more. I’m convinced Topless Robot readers will love the hell out of it...Frulinger and Lastowka are not nearly as mean-spirited as I am and about five million times funnier. The book is available here at Amazon for $11. If you have a Kindle, the ebook is only $1, which is the most absurd entertainment value I’ve seen in quite some time." -Rob Bricken, ToplessRobot.com
222 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 14, 2011
39 people are currently reading
224 people want to read
About the author
Conor Lastowka
8 books57 followersConor Lastowka has written two comedy novels, The Pole Vault Championship of the Entire Universe and Gone Whalin'. He's also co-authored two anthologies of terrible Wikipedia writing, [Citation Needed] Vol. 1 & Vol. 2
He works as a Senior Writer-Producer at RiffTrax.com.
He co-hosts the podcast book club "372 Pages We'll Never Get Back" with Mike Nelson.
He lives in Burlington, VT with his wife Lauren and can often be found performing at Vermont Comedy Club.
Find him on twitter @clastowka and instagram @conorlastowka
He works as a Senior Writer-Producer at RiffTrax.com.
He co-hosts the podcast book club "372 Pages We'll Never Get Back" with Mike Nelson.
He lives in Burlington, VT with his wife Lauren and can often be found performing at Vermont Comedy Club.
Find him on twitter @clastowka and instagram @conorlastowka
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
January 24, 2014
This was a quick and amusing read, highlighting selections from some really ridiculous writing actually found on real wikipedia articles. The passages are always followed by a snarky italicized commentary. I frequently laughed at the commentary, and was entertained by the variety of odd writing. Everything from unfortunate word choices that gave the selections a twisted double meaning, to obsessive pedantry about ridiculous topics, to out-and-out awful, nearly unreadable writing rounds out the types of things you can expect to laugh at in this funny collection of bad, bad writing culled from the internet's seventh largest website.
January 30, 2012
The book version of the blog. I didn't think it was as funny as reading bad amazon reviews on my own so I stopped reading it about a quarter of the way through. It was not funny in the same way that the blog with pictures of Kim Jong Il looking at stuff is not funny. By which I mean, some people think it is hilarious. I don't get why it is funny. All attempts to explain it to me will make it even less funny. You will like it if you like the blog.
May 25, 2013
In the mood for something humorous, light, and snarky, perhaps as a palate cleanser between more serious fare? Look no further than this book.
Wikipedia's incredibly useful as a way to learn about pretty much any topic you'd care to investigate. Yet because it's user-edited, it's easy to find horrible writing, obsessive attention to irrelevant details, and aspirations to authoritative style that fall flat. (Which isn't to say that user editing is bad on the whole, just that it has its demerits.) The authors link to and excerpt a couple hundred instances of Wikipedia editorial failure, offering brief comment on each. (Although, not to a particular revision containing the quoted text. Even still, I was surprised by how many of the handful of linked articles I viewed still contained the quoted text, and had not been cleaned up by subsequent user edits.)
The style of humor is classic Internet snark (not surprising as the book is a spinoff of the [Citation Needed] blog). If that appeals to you, you'll probably enjoy this for the hour or two it takes to read the entire thing. If it doesn't, get your daily dose of humor somewhere else.
Wikipedia's incredibly useful as a way to learn about pretty much any topic you'd care to investigate. Yet because it's user-edited, it's easy to find horrible writing, obsessive attention to irrelevant details, and aspirations to authoritative style that fall flat. (Which isn't to say that user editing is bad on the whole, just that it has its demerits.) The authors link to and excerpt a couple hundred instances of Wikipedia editorial failure, offering brief comment on each. (Although, not to a particular revision containing the quoted text. Even still, I was surprised by how many of the handful of linked articles I viewed still contained the quoted text, and had not been cleaned up by subsequent user edits.)
The style of humor is classic Internet snark (not surprising as the book is a spinoff of the [Citation Needed] blog). If that appeals to you, you'll probably enjoy this for the hour or two it takes to read the entire thing. If it doesn't, get your daily dose of humor somewhere else.
June 8, 2017
Very light reading, which may be worth getting if you find it very cheap. No surprises there.
What I'd add is that this book seems to me like an interesting example of doing creative work while imposing some artificial limits on yourself. What I mean by this is, the authors could have taken their premise--making fun of some bad examples of writing--in many directions, but they chose to follow a specific form: a quote from Wikipedia, followed by a short and hopefully clever remark. There is a certain restriction in this, kind of like when writing a haiku you have to follow certain restrictions; although, of course, this book's form is not as restrictive as haiku rules.
That aspect made me curious and was one of the reasons why I ended up getting this book. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece but I thought, if I could find interesting ideas on how to approach simple humor, that would be enough. I found some of that, so no complaints.
What I'd add is that this book seems to me like an interesting example of doing creative work while imposing some artificial limits on yourself. What I mean by this is, the authors could have taken their premise--making fun of some bad examples of writing--in many directions, but they chose to follow a specific form: a quote from Wikipedia, followed by a short and hopefully clever remark. There is a certain restriction in this, kind of like when writing a haiku you have to follow certain restrictions; although, of course, this book's form is not as restrictive as haiku rules.
That aspect made me curious and was one of the reasons why I ended up getting this book. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece but I thought, if I could find interesting ideas on how to approach simple humor, that would be enough. I found some of that, so no complaints.
April 19, 2012
This book gives examples of really bad Wikipedia writing, along with the authors' snarky commentary.
I found out this was available for free as an e-book this week. I used to read this blog, and I have to say that the e-book was a better method for enjoying the material.
Almost since the web started, there have been sites making fun of stupidity on the web. On the one hand, there's a lot of stupidity out there, and it's pretty funny. On the other hand, it sometimes depressed me and makes me feel like a jerk for laughing at people who mean well.
So I don't read this blog any more, but it was enjoyable to revisit the concept for the hour or whatever it took me to read the e-book on a plane. Some of the entries were laugh-out-loud funny, and some were just disturbing. Overall, a good light snack in between heartier reading fare.
I found out this was available for free as an e-book this week. I used to read this blog, and I have to say that the e-book was a better method for enjoying the material.
Almost since the web started, there have been sites making fun of stupidity on the web. On the one hand, there's a lot of stupidity out there, and it's pretty funny. On the other hand, it sometimes depressed me and makes me feel like a jerk for laughing at people who mean well.
So I don't read this blog any more, but it was enjoyable to revisit the concept for the hour or whatever it took me to read the e-book on a plane. Some of the entries were laugh-out-loud funny, and some were just disturbing. Overall, a good light snack in between heartier reading fare.
March 26, 2012
What it says on the tin. These are moderately amusing snippets of entries on Wikipedia that fall into categories like "sentences that probably should never have been written" or "paragraphs that started off okay and then veered off toward Crazytown" or "oddly detailed anecdotes not entirely related to the topic at hand." This was a perfect book to read on my phone as each entry took up just about the space alloted by my screen, so I could page through a few entries here or there when I was bored.
Read
August 21, 2015This was so much fun! I didn't really know what to expect, but the format of the book made it easy to read snippets here and there between other tasks. You get a very short excerpt from every kind of article you can imagine--and a few you probably couldn't--followed by brief comments by the authors. They are delightfully funny, and they are definitely humourists, not satirists. There is no venom in their commentary, only amusement.
February 20, 2012
This is an easy read; it's a collection of odd snippets from wikipedia with humourous commentary. The commentary is very funny; sometimes the entries themselves are funny in a sort of tragic way. As far as writing goes, I really don't see giving it more than three stars for a handful of funny paragraphs.
I do think it's a good way to spend an lunch break, though.
I do think it's a good way to spend an lunch break, though.
January 4, 2014
This is an entertaining diversion that I would classify as bathroom reading material if I didn't get this for free on the Kindle and if I thought reading materials of any kind are best stored in the bathroom. There was too much of an emphasis on crude subject matter for my taste, although I admit that the seriousness which the original authors approach their unsavory material is amusing at times.
November 4, 2014
This Book Made Me Laugh Out Loud!
I really enjoyed this book. I am currently reading Gone Whalin' with my husband and we are loving the writer's style. Thank you Rifftrax for introducing us to Conor Lastowka! I hope we can expect future books!
I really enjoyed this book. I am currently reading Gone Whalin' with my husband and we are loving the writer's style. Thank you Rifftrax for introducing us to Conor Lastowka! I hope we can expect future books!
October 31, 2011
A book of horrible writing on Wikipedia, with short pithy comments. Some of it is pretty damn funny. I paid a buck for it on kindle, and it was worth at least twice that.
January 17, 2012
A great book. Funny. Easy to pick up and read a couple of pages when you don't have time to read a lot.
January 29, 2012
Pleasant, mildly amusing quick read.
March 30, 2012
Very funny and a quick read. Thoroughly enjoyed the quips added, which often made the bad writing even funnier.
May 4, 2012
Funny, but not much content. It does add amusing commentary to the blog's simple quotes, but there's only a quote and a line or two of commentary per page. Worth the dollar I paid for it, though.
April 29, 2012
Got this for free from the Kindle store last week on the advice of a friend. Was definitely worth the read! Hilarious stuff.
Only negative was that it was so short (though, I know there's a blog).
Only negative was that it was so short (though, I know there's a blog).
April 30, 2012
Didn't live up to the title.
July 21, 2015
There are some real gems of humor in this book. But they are mixed with entries where the authors come across as narcissistic.
July 19, 2013
Probably would not have read, but got free on kindle. Some of it was so bad, it was funny.
February 13, 2013
Among books that poke fun at inept royalty-free content, this one is not very long!
August 17, 2013
Very entertaining, very quick read. Author commentary is hit or miss.
January 13, 2014
Amusing read that works really well as an eBook due to its linking to the Wikipedia article.I won't pick up the sequel, while the first was ok, it started to outgrow its welcome.
September 18, 2014
The Best of Wikipedia
This book contains the reason high school teachers forbid you to use Wikipedia as a source: many of the writers are idiots. A must buy for all e-book readers.
This book contains the reason high school teachers forbid you to use Wikipedia as a source: many of the writers are idiots. A must buy for all e-book readers.
December 22, 2015
A quick, fun, breezy read.
abandoned
June 22, 2017DNF. In the world of fake news we've devolved into, the fleeting humour of this collection just feels depressing to me now.
August 10, 2018
Pretty funny
This book has some really hysterical parts.
I was totally cracking up through most of it. Not everything was funny, though.
This book has some really hysterical parts.
I was totally cracking up through most of it. Not everything was funny, though.
December 9, 2018
Loved it. Check out my review:
http://thewretchedreaderblog.blogspot...
http://thewretchedreaderblog.blogspot...
March 11, 2019
Funny.
Quick read. Funny quips, if you like sarcastic humor. I recommend it if you're looking for something fun to fill a couple hours.
Quick read. Funny quips, if you like sarcastic humor. I recommend it if you're looking for something fun to fill a couple hours.
April 8, 2025
This is the book equivalent of a lazy Youtube react channel. The funniest parts are the ones pasted from Wikipedia - not the ones actually written by the authors (unless you have the humor of a 13 year old boy). And most annoyingly: the authors link to the current Wikipedia pages instead of the versions they refer to, which have been subject to many changes since then. Avoid - read (and improve!) Wikipedia instead.
November 11, 2020
Hilarious
A light and hilarious journey through the quirky parts of Wikipedia. Definitely worth a buck, especially if you're a fan of Rifftrax
A light and hilarious journey through the quirky parts of Wikipedia. Definitely worth a buck, especially if you're a fan of Rifftrax
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews