What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last Best Place on the Internet: A Human History of Wikipedia
A playful and provocative exploration of mighty how it was built, why it thrived, and what we lose as its ideals disintegrate.
One of the keystone inventions of the twenty-first century, Wikipedia is the largest repository of human knowledge ever made, with editions in 343 languages read by millions every day—all created by unpaid, mainly amateur, and mostly anonymous volunteers. In this entertaining book, journalist Richard Cooke delves into Wikipedia's fabled creation, its extraordinary success, and its profound effects on politics, business, literature, and society. He explores the site's shifting role in establishing fact in a time of deep uncertainty about truth and authority; the often hilariously fierce debates between "Inclusionists" and "Deletionists" about what is worth knowing and preserving, and who gets to decide; and the great peril Wikipedia faces today from bots, political division, and artificial intelligence. The Last Best Place on the Internet is a fascinating journey into the hidden world of one of the most vital—and most endangered—cultural achievements of our time.
One of the keystone inventions of the twenty-first century, Wikipedia is the largest repository of human knowledge ever made, with editions in 343 languages read by millions every day—all created by unpaid, mainly amateur, and mostly anonymous volunteers. In this entertaining book, journalist Richard Cooke delves into Wikipedia's fabled creation, its extraordinary success, and its profound effects on politics, business, literature, and society. He explores the site's shifting role in establishing fact in a time of deep uncertainty about truth and authority; the often hilariously fierce debates between "Inclusionists" and "Deletionists" about what is worth knowing and preserving, and who gets to decide; and the great peril Wikipedia faces today from bots, political division, and artificial intelligence. The Last Best Place on the Internet is a fascinating journey into the hidden world of one of the most vital—and most endangered—cultural achievements of our time.
10 pages, Audible Audio
First published October 13, 2026
About the author
Richard Cooke
7 books21 followersRichard Cooke is an internationally-based writer, screenwriter and author.
He has contributed to the The New York Times, The Washington Post, WIRED, The New Republic, The Guardian, and Longreads, among others.
His work has been selected for the Best of Longform and Best Australian Essays multiple times. He is the Monthly magazine’s Contributing Editor and former US Correspondent.
He is a two-time Walkley Award winner, a former finalist in the Walkley-Pascall arts critic’s award, and was the 2018 Mumbrella Publish Awards Columnist of the Year.
He has contributed to the The New York Times, The Washington Post, WIRED, The New Republic, The Guardian, and Longreads, among others.
His work has been selected for the Best of Longform and Best Australian Essays multiple times. He is the Monthly magazine’s Contributing Editor and former US Correspondent.
He is a two-time Walkley Award winner, a former finalist in the Walkley-Pascall arts critic’s award, and was the 2018 Mumbrella Publish Awards Columnist of the Year.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
October 10, 2026
Wikipedia is written by anyone. This seemingly simple fact has been used both to praise and condemn the online encyclopedia, yet it assumes that everyone has equal access, literacy, and the opportunity to contribute. Richard Cooke’s The Last Best Place on the Internet explores the fascinating, complicated, and occasionally disturbing history of one of humanity’s most ambitious attempts to collect and share knowledge.
This book is overflowing with marvelously interesting facts. People have risked their lives to contribute information to Wikipedia. Its history involves everyone from monks to monkeys, including the infamous macaque that took selfies using a wildlife photographer’s camera. Contributors, known as Wikipedians, engage in fierce editing wars over what information deserves inclusion and how it should be presented. There are even observations about Wikipedians abandoning their editing habits after getting girlfriends, a particularly amusing detail considering the overwhelmingly male contributor base.
I was especially intrigued by the ongoing battle between inclusionists and deletionists. The former champion a more expansive encyclopedia, while the latter argue for stricter standards regarding what deserves an entry. This disagreement raises a surprisingly profound question: Who gets to decide what knowledge is important enough to preserve?
Wikipedia has always challenged traditional ideas about intellectual authority. Academics and educators have spent years dismissing it as an unreliable or unprofessional source, even while countless people have quietly relied on it for a cursory understanding of unfamiliar subjects or as a starting point for finding more acceptable references. Earlier encyclopedias were hardly immune to mistakes, but their authority rested largely on the credentials of a relatively small group of contributors. Wikipedia instead opened the door to a much broader range of voices, experiences, and perspectives.
And perhaps that is its greatest achievement. Knowledge is power, and power is being able to contribute knowledge.
Of course, democratizing information does not automatically make it accurate, equitable, or safe. Wikipedia’s enormous reach gives it the ability to influence reputations, shape public understanding, and perpetuate misinformation. The book recounts the extraordinary case of Alan MacMasters, a fictional Scottish inventor credited on Wikipedia with inventing the electric toaster. The fabricated information eventually appeared in published articles and books, which could then be cited as seemingly legitimate sources supporting the original falsehood. Wikipedia had effectively become a source for itself.
While a fictional toaster inventor might seem like a relatively harmless deception, the implications are much more troubling when similar mechanisms are used to spread propaganda, conspiracy theories, or malicious accusations.
The book also confronts the uncomfortable reality that an encyclopedia supposedly written by everyone does not represent everyone equally. Women and marginalized contributors can face hostility and harassment, particularly when their identities are known. Wikipedia may offer the promise of democratic participation, but it still reflects the inequalities and prejudices of the world in which it exists.
The relationship between humans and technology adds another fascinating layer. Although individual contributors have made astonishing numbers of edits, automated bots are responsible for an enormous amount of Wikipedia’s maintenance and editing activity. With the rise of generative artificial intelligence, the relationship between human knowledge and machine-generated content becomes even more complicated. Instead of technology merely helping humans correct and organize information, we face the possibility of humans spending increasing amounts of time correcting what machines produce. Considering how extensively AI systems have relied on Wikipedia as a source of training material, there is something deeply unnerving about the prospect of machines superseding the very human knowledge from which they learned.
I also found myself reconsidering the criticism Wikipedia has endured since its inception. In a world where even credentialed experts make mistakes, and where convincing misinformation can originate from practically anywhere, the ability to challenge and correct information seems more valuable than ever. That doesn’t mean Wikipedia is inherently trustworthy. Rather, its openness creates both extraordinary opportunities for correction and equally extraordinary opportunities for manipulation.
At the time of the book’s writing, reading the entirety of Wikipedia would reportedly take approximately forty years. I find that staggering. It is a testament to humanity’s seemingly insatiable curiosity and our willingness to spend countless hours contributing to a collective understanding of the world, often without compensation or recognition.
I know the subtitle of this book is A Human History of Wikipedia, but it seems equally appropriate to view Wikipedia as a history of humans. The information it contains documents our world, while the ways it has been created, debated, revised, and occasionally corrupted reveal just as much about the people responsible for it.
I was simultaneously entertained and disturbed by this book. Just like humanity itself, Wikipedia’s influence has been both beneficial and harmful. It is an extraordinary experiment in collective knowledge, but also a reminder that information is never entirely separate from the people and systems that control it.
I recommend this audiobook to curious readers who have the interest and patience to explore not just the history of an online encyclopedia, but the much larger questions of how knowledge is gathered, who gets to define truth, and what happens when information becomes power.
Thank you to NetGalley and Tantor Media for providing an advance listening copy in exchange for my honest review. All opinions are my own.
This book is overflowing with marvelously interesting facts. People have risked their lives to contribute information to Wikipedia. Its history involves everyone from monks to monkeys, including the infamous macaque that took selfies using a wildlife photographer’s camera. Contributors, known as Wikipedians, engage in fierce editing wars over what information deserves inclusion and how it should be presented. There are even observations about Wikipedians abandoning their editing habits after getting girlfriends, a particularly amusing detail considering the overwhelmingly male contributor base.
I was especially intrigued by the ongoing battle between inclusionists and deletionists. The former champion a more expansive encyclopedia, while the latter argue for stricter standards regarding what deserves an entry. This disagreement raises a surprisingly profound question: Who gets to decide what knowledge is important enough to preserve?
Wikipedia has always challenged traditional ideas about intellectual authority. Academics and educators have spent years dismissing it as an unreliable or unprofessional source, even while countless people have quietly relied on it for a cursory understanding of unfamiliar subjects or as a starting point for finding more acceptable references. Earlier encyclopedias were hardly immune to mistakes, but their authority rested largely on the credentials of a relatively small group of contributors. Wikipedia instead opened the door to a much broader range of voices, experiences, and perspectives.
And perhaps that is its greatest achievement. Knowledge is power, and power is being able to contribute knowledge.
Of course, democratizing information does not automatically make it accurate, equitable, or safe. Wikipedia’s enormous reach gives it the ability to influence reputations, shape public understanding, and perpetuate misinformation. The book recounts the extraordinary case of Alan MacMasters, a fictional Scottish inventor credited on Wikipedia with inventing the electric toaster. The fabricated information eventually appeared in published articles and books, which could then be cited as seemingly legitimate sources supporting the original falsehood. Wikipedia had effectively become a source for itself.
While a fictional toaster inventor might seem like a relatively harmless deception, the implications are much more troubling when similar mechanisms are used to spread propaganda, conspiracy theories, or malicious accusations.
The book also confronts the uncomfortable reality that an encyclopedia supposedly written by everyone does not represent everyone equally. Women and marginalized contributors can face hostility and harassment, particularly when their identities are known. Wikipedia may offer the promise of democratic participation, but it still reflects the inequalities and prejudices of the world in which it exists.
The relationship between humans and technology adds another fascinating layer. Although individual contributors have made astonishing numbers of edits, automated bots are responsible for an enormous amount of Wikipedia’s maintenance and editing activity. With the rise of generative artificial intelligence, the relationship between human knowledge and machine-generated content becomes even more complicated. Instead of technology merely helping humans correct and organize information, we face the possibility of humans spending increasing amounts of time correcting what machines produce. Considering how extensively AI systems have relied on Wikipedia as a source of training material, there is something deeply unnerving about the prospect of machines superseding the very human knowledge from which they learned.
I also found myself reconsidering the criticism Wikipedia has endured since its inception. In a world where even credentialed experts make mistakes, and where convincing misinformation can originate from practically anywhere, the ability to challenge and correct information seems more valuable than ever. That doesn’t mean Wikipedia is inherently trustworthy. Rather, its openness creates both extraordinary opportunities for correction and equally extraordinary opportunities for manipulation.
At the time of the book’s writing, reading the entirety of Wikipedia would reportedly take approximately forty years. I find that staggering. It is a testament to humanity’s seemingly insatiable curiosity and our willingness to spend countless hours contributing to a collective understanding of the world, often without compensation or recognition.
I know the subtitle of this book is A Human History of Wikipedia, but it seems equally appropriate to view Wikipedia as a history of humans. The information it contains documents our world, while the ways it has been created, debated, revised, and occasionally corrupted reveal just as much about the people responsible for it.
I was simultaneously entertained and disturbed by this book. Just like humanity itself, Wikipedia’s influence has been both beneficial and harmful. It is an extraordinary experiment in collective knowledge, but also a reminder that information is never entirely separate from the people and systems that control it.
I recommend this audiobook to curious readers who have the interest and patience to explore not just the history of an online encyclopedia, but the much larger questions of how knowledge is gathered, who gets to define truth, and what happens when information becomes power.
Thank you to NetGalley and Tantor Media for providing an advance listening copy in exchange for my honest review. All opinions are my own.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
I got really curious to learn more about Wikipedia itself as its always been sorta in the background for years. So requested it for review on netgally. Its not everyday I think of Wikipedia but whenever I want to look something up I often look at Wikipedia. It was very interesting hearing how it was created, how it works and much more. Engaging and never boring book.
Want to Read
October 22, 2026NY Times review by Jennifer Szalai:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/21/bo...
(Might be paywalled. I'm happy to email a copy to non-subscribers.)
Excerpt:
"In his wry and readable new book, ... Cooke calls Wikipedia “an escapee from a parallel universe, a refugee of the internet as it should have been, instead of the internet as it is.” Since few people took Wikipedia seriously at first, its experiment in collective creation became a public landmark when no one was looking, and so there’s plenty about its early days that hasn’t been properly chronicled. .... though his treatment is conceptually rich — philosophy, literature and even architecture come into play — his emphasis is on the human, with all the tragedy and comedy that entails."
I've been an active Wikipedia editor since 2006. It's been an interesting, and occasionally maddening, experience. I'm looking forward to this one. My WP page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ti... . Lots of pretty pictures! More: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us... . I'm usually around #4000 of the most active English Wikipedians of all time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/21/bo...
(Might be paywalled. I'm happy to email a copy to non-subscribers.)
Excerpt:
"In his wry and readable new book, ... Cooke calls Wikipedia “an escapee from a parallel universe, a refugee of the internet as it should have been, instead of the internet as it is.” Since few people took Wikipedia seriously at first, its experiment in collective creation became a public landmark when no one was looking, and so there’s plenty about its early days that hasn’t been properly chronicled. .... though his treatment is conceptually rich — philosophy, literature and even architecture come into play — his emphasis is on the human, with all the tragedy and comedy that entails."
I've been an active Wikipedia editor since 2006. It's been an interesting, and occasionally maddening, experience. I'm looking forward to this one. My WP page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ti... . Lots of pretty pictures! More: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us... . I'm usually around #4000 of the most active English Wikipedians of all time.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
A Deeply Researched and Masterfully Written History of Wikipedia
Richard Cooke has written the definitive history of Wikipedia that captures the important dynamics of its 2001 origin. Early in the book, he makes the key insight that Wikipedia is not only the largest encyclopedia written by humans, but also the last encyclopedia humans will ever write (without AI assistance). At the same time as Cooke emphasizes Wikipedia's importance, I appreciated how he did not gloss over the many imperfections of the project, including the human aspects and the more-than-occasional pedantry of some of the site's volunteer editors. Cooke offers an important investigation into the claims made by Wales and Sanger about who first proposed the wiki concept. Readers should know that this book focuses primarily on Wikipedia's story through 2006, but I found it fascinating how so much of Wikipedia's course was set in those relatively early days.
I enjoyed this book's propulsive writing and its fun, quirky moments, like the time dedicated to investigating the psychology of going down a "wiki rabbit hole." Cooke is honest in noting the contributions of neurodivergence to the growth of Wikipedia. After reading the book, I felt like I had a much better understanding of who Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger are as people, including their respective influences on the project and why they have taken divergent paths. Ultimately, this is an important book for anyone who likes general nonfiction or digital history. This book also serves as a reminder of the amazing value of human collaboration despite our many imperfections.
Richard Cooke has written the definitive history of Wikipedia that captures the important dynamics of its 2001 origin. Early in the book, he makes the key insight that Wikipedia is not only the largest encyclopedia written by humans, but also the last encyclopedia humans will ever write (without AI assistance). At the same time as Cooke emphasizes Wikipedia's importance, I appreciated how he did not gloss over the many imperfections of the project, including the human aspects and the more-than-occasional pedantry of some of the site's volunteer editors. Cooke offers an important investigation into the claims made by Wales and Sanger about who first proposed the wiki concept. Readers should know that this book focuses primarily on Wikipedia's story through 2006, but I found it fascinating how so much of Wikipedia's course was set in those relatively early days.
I enjoyed this book's propulsive writing and its fun, quirky moments, like the time dedicated to investigating the psychology of going down a "wiki rabbit hole." Cooke is honest in noting the contributions of neurodivergence to the growth of Wikipedia. After reading the book, I felt like I had a much better understanding of who Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger are as people, including their respective influences on the project and why they have taken divergent paths. Ultimately, this is an important book for anyone who likes general nonfiction or digital history. This book also serves as a reminder of the amazing value of human collaboration despite our many imperfections.
Read
October 26, 2026what a fascinating account of a website i have used, relied on, and edited (sporadically) for the better part of two decades, and more generally, a description of the social processes that shape the production of reference works
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Remember when Wikipedia was considered the bellwether of academic decline? That concern feels quaint in the light of the current A.I. shitshow, but it's worth taking a step back to understand the unique niche Wikipedia has carved out over the past 25 years. The Last Best Place covers multiple topics including the site's tumultuous history, the volunteers who painstakingly edit the entries, and the controversial issues that have emerged such as misogyny, accusations of liberal bias, and threats of governmental interference.
Cooke also delves into the philosophical underpinnings of encyclopedias in general. On the surface, A.I. seems like a threat to Wikipedia, but at a deeper level A.I. could completely change how we define and prioritize "knowledge."
E-ARC received from Net Galley. Quoted material may change before publication.
Cooke also delves into the philosophical underpinnings of encyclopedias in general. On the surface, A.I. seems like a threat to Wikipedia, but at a deeper level A.I. could completely change how we define and prioritize "knowledge."
Just as Wikipedia exploded our concept of "looking something up," AI is already creating knowledge machines that may usher in the end of reading as a static, mostly passive activity, creating a postliterate culture in which the end of the encyclopedic age is only a footnote...[We face} an encyclopedia that rewrites itself each time it is consulted, forming and re-forming into endless texts personalized for the reader.Cooke's writing style is informative without being too technical, with a good mix of micro and macro approaches to the material. Recommended especially if you're wondering why such an influential site is constantly begging for your $2.75 donation.
E-ARC received from Net Galley. Quoted material may change before publication.
September 13, 2026
Essential.
Proper review and interview with the author to follow.
Proper review and interview with the author to follow.
Read
October 31, 2026DNF @ 50%
Turns out I am not that interested in the history of Wikipedia.
Turns out I am not that interested in the history of Wikipedia.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
The story of Wikipedia is the story of the internet.
It germinated in the techono-libertarian spheres of the American west coast. It started as a project for people from all over the world to collaborate. It was built by volunteers who wrote articles about their home countries, historical figures, favorite sci-fi books and TV shows, and much much more, simply because they wanted to. It grew as more and more people got online, first through personal computers and then through smartphones. It became a feature of modern life.
The story of Wikipedia is the opposite of the story of the internet.
As other web-based ventures sought to make their founders boatloads of money, Wikipedia stayed an nonprofit. Those ventures crashed and burned in the dot-com bust, but Wikipedia soldiered on. While the rest of the internet enshittified (mostly due to "bottom line" thinking, AI, and the whims of the billionaire class), Wikipedia stayed more of less the same. A quarter-century later, and it's still just about the best thing on the internet.
But everything that Wikipedia has built and accomplished over the last twenty-five and a half years is in danger. Governments do what they can to ban it (or edit it for themselves). AI (which itself is largely trained of Wikipedia, and thus the contributions of an untold number of unpaid volunteers) seeks to replace it. Those AI platforms come from bad-faith billionaires in cahoots with bad-faith governments (sorry not sorry). However, the biggest threat to Wikipedia may come from ourselves. If we, as a society, decide to go whole hog on AI, we run the risk of Wikipedia becoming a footnote in the story of the AI that controls our day-to-day lives. And that would be a damn shame. The final nail in the coffin containing the Old Internet.
I love Wikipedia. I really do think it's the last best place on the internet. It's not without its problems but as an institution its about as good as a worldwide project can get. I'm glad somebody went and wrote a book about it. The Last Best Place on the Internet looks at the history and founding, how it works (and doesn't work), how it relates to and (pretty much in every single way) dominates traditional print encyclopedias. It examines the inherent weaknesses and blind spots of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit (the parts about how non-literate societies constitute a whole branch of human knowledge that just can't translate to Wikipedia was an eye-opener). And it makes the case for why we need to keep billionaire dweebs like Elon Musk away from it at all costs.
Cheers to Wikipedia. Nobody will ever make another website like it. And if it ever goes away (or become enshittified) we'll never know just how good we had it.
I read an ARC from the publisher, which I picked up at ALA. The final version that hits shelves in October may differ slightly from the version I reviewed here.
It germinated in the techono-libertarian spheres of the American west coast. It started as a project for people from all over the world to collaborate. It was built by volunteers who wrote articles about their home countries, historical figures, favorite sci-fi books and TV shows, and much much more, simply because they wanted to. It grew as more and more people got online, first through personal computers and then through smartphones. It became a feature of modern life.
The story of Wikipedia is the opposite of the story of the internet.
As other web-based ventures sought to make their founders boatloads of money, Wikipedia stayed an nonprofit. Those ventures crashed and burned in the dot-com bust, but Wikipedia soldiered on. While the rest of the internet enshittified (mostly due to "bottom line" thinking, AI, and the whims of the billionaire class), Wikipedia stayed more of less the same. A quarter-century later, and it's still just about the best thing on the internet.
But everything that Wikipedia has built and accomplished over the last twenty-five and a half years is in danger. Governments do what they can to ban it (or edit it for themselves). AI (which itself is largely trained of Wikipedia, and thus the contributions of an untold number of unpaid volunteers) seeks to replace it. Those AI platforms come from bad-faith billionaires in cahoots with bad-faith governments (sorry not sorry). However, the biggest threat to Wikipedia may come from ourselves. If we, as a society, decide to go whole hog on AI, we run the risk of Wikipedia becoming a footnote in the story of the AI that controls our day-to-day lives. And that would be a damn shame. The final nail in the coffin containing the Old Internet.
I love Wikipedia. I really do think it's the last best place on the internet. It's not without its problems but as an institution its about as good as a worldwide project can get. I'm glad somebody went and wrote a book about it. The Last Best Place on the Internet looks at the history and founding, how it works (and doesn't work), how it relates to and (pretty much in every single way) dominates traditional print encyclopedias. It examines the inherent weaknesses and blind spots of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit (the parts about how non-literate societies constitute a whole branch of human knowledge that just can't translate to Wikipedia was an eye-opener). And it makes the case for why we need to keep billionaire dweebs like Elon Musk away from it at all costs.
Cheers to Wikipedia. Nobody will ever make another website like it. And if it ever goes away (or become enshittified) we'll never know just how good we had it.
I read an ARC from the publisher, which I picked up at ALA. The final version that hits shelves in October may differ slightly from the version I reviewed here.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
I have enjoyed my limited but fulfilling additions (not deletions) to the great web Encyclopedia. This book is timely and I highly recommend reading it especially if you value knowledge, as it is currently under attack by right wing individuals especially Elon Musk.
November 5, 2026
📖 ALC Review 🎧
The Last Best Place on the Internet: A Human History of Wikipedia by Richard Cooke - Narrated by Joel Richards
In this Nonfiction, Richard talks about all things Wikipedia - how it came to be, how it's changed the encyclopedia forever, how it's developed and refined over time, and how it has changed the face of modern day life.
This is a ridiculously addictive book! I turned this audiobook on whenever I could! I'm pretty sure I was even doing more cleaning than normal just to listen to it. It is so thoroughly entertaining while also being informative.
First, I want to say that I loved this book as an audiobook! Joel's narration was great. To a certain degree, all nonfiction needs the right narrator to keep you interested if this isn't something you normally read; however, Joel had fantastic subject material to work with and his delivery added to the enjoyment and he seemed to bring a bit of character to the narration for me. Loved it!
The book itself! Wow! The breadth of topics covered was fantastic.
I never would've considered the vastly different methodologies that go into updating articles and how there are internal struggles between editors with different philosophies on what should or should not constitute a Wikipedia article or what sources are good enough to back a statement.
If I ever touched Wikipedia edits (ok, I have before , but, like once, and it was a long time ago 🤣), i'd probably go down ridiculously deep rabbit trails and would end up trying to learn an entire subject just to write an article. I applaud experts in their field who have taken the time to write up many articles which have helped so many - along with the people who realized a topic was missing and went out on their own to research and fill a hole that maybe never would've been handled without their tenacity and perseverance.
The impact that Wikipedia has had on society is pretty crazy. In a world that used to have Encyclopedia Britannica salespeople walking from house to house to sell them, and then, the few times they were actually referenced, having this information overload available at our fingertips is something many people in the past would've been ravenous to have.
I appreciate what this book brings and will probably listen to it again just because I'm sure I missed something somewhere and it was so incredibly entertaining. (This is coming from someone who absolutely loved AJ Jacobs' book, The Know-It-All, where he read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica!)
This is non-fiction, so a minute on the author's background, i.e. credentials for writing a book like this...
Richard is an author, reporter, and screenwriter. I'd also consider him a journalist as he's literally won awards for journalism. He has taught non-fiction writing and has been published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and WIRED, among other publications. The book as I heard it, wasn't littered with mentions of footnotes, so I'm not sure if there's a bibliography and/or footnotes included in the physical book as I was listening to the audio version.
You may like this book if...
💡 You use Wikipedia
💡 You like Pop Culture Non-fiction
💡 You're not typically a non-fiction reader, but you want to try one out!
Thanks to Netgalley and Tantor Media for this copy. My opinion has been given voluntarily.
The Last Best Place on the Internet: A Human History of Wikipedia by Richard Cooke - Narrated by Joel Richards
In this Nonfiction, Richard talks about all things Wikipedia - how it came to be, how it's changed the encyclopedia forever, how it's developed and refined over time, and how it has changed the face of modern day life.
This is a ridiculously addictive book! I turned this audiobook on whenever I could! I'm pretty sure I was even doing more cleaning than normal just to listen to it. It is so thoroughly entertaining while also being informative.
First, I want to say that I loved this book as an audiobook! Joel's narration was great. To a certain degree, all nonfiction needs the right narrator to keep you interested if this isn't something you normally read; however, Joel had fantastic subject material to work with and his delivery added to the enjoyment and he seemed to bring a bit of character to the narration for me. Loved it!
The book itself! Wow! The breadth of topics covered was fantastic.
I never would've considered the vastly different methodologies that go into updating articles and how there are internal struggles between editors with different philosophies on what should or should not constitute a Wikipedia article or what sources are good enough to back a statement.
If I ever touched Wikipedia edits (ok, I have before , but, like once, and it was a long time ago 🤣), i'd probably go down ridiculously deep rabbit trails and would end up trying to learn an entire subject just to write an article. I applaud experts in their field who have taken the time to write up many articles which have helped so many - along with the people who realized a topic was missing and went out on their own to research and fill a hole that maybe never would've been handled without their tenacity and perseverance.
The impact that Wikipedia has had on society is pretty crazy. In a world that used to have Encyclopedia Britannica salespeople walking from house to house to sell them, and then, the few times they were actually referenced, having this information overload available at our fingertips is something many people in the past would've been ravenous to have.
I appreciate what this book brings and will probably listen to it again just because I'm sure I missed something somewhere and it was so incredibly entertaining. (This is coming from someone who absolutely loved AJ Jacobs' book, The Know-It-All, where he read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica!)
This is non-fiction, so a minute on the author's background, i.e. credentials for writing a book like this...
Richard is an author, reporter, and screenwriter. I'd also consider him a journalist as he's literally won awards for journalism. He has taught non-fiction writing and has been published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and WIRED, among other publications. The book as I heard it, wasn't littered with mentions of footnotes, so I'm not sure if there's a bibliography and/or footnotes included in the physical book as I was listening to the audio version.
You may like this book if...
💡 You use Wikipedia
💡 You like Pop Culture Non-fiction
💡 You're not typically a non-fiction reader, but you want to try one out!
Thanks to Netgalley and Tantor Media for this copy. My opinion has been given voluntarily.
October 16, 2026
We all roll our eyes when someone cites Wikipedia as a source, and yet we all use the tool as a first line of information; perhaps now more than ever (even if inadvertently) with the rise of LLMs. This book will take you through the history, some dark secrets, and some hilarious foibles. As AI uses Wikipedia as a source, the resource is now more far reaching than ever, and increasingly impossible to control. One bit of misinformation keyed into Wikipedia has the potential to reach the masses via Chat GPT or Claude output. And, as the book uncovers, the Wiki contributors are less than diverse, which in turn impacts the biased results found in google searches and LLM responses.
Still, it's not all bad, Wikipedia has literally saved lives, predicted epidemic outbreaks, and made the "sum of human knowledge" available equitably to anyone with internet access.
My one small criticism is there tended to be some segments of the book that overstated or repeated basic concepts - I think it could have been trimmed down a bit. A small quibble.
All in all, I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to better understand Wikipedia or AI (which is increasingly cannibalizing our Wikiverse). This was an eye opening journey into a tool I open up almost daily without question. While the audiobook was a fantastic listening experiencing (excellent narrator!) I may pick up a print version if only to have a highlightable resource to easily reference later.
Thank you to Richard Cooke, Tantor Media, and NetGalley for sharing an ARC of the book. All opinions are my own.
Still, it's not all bad, Wikipedia has literally saved lives, predicted epidemic outbreaks, and made the "sum of human knowledge" available equitably to anyone with internet access.
My one small criticism is there tended to be some segments of the book that overstated or repeated basic concepts - I think it could have been trimmed down a bit. A small quibble.
All in all, I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to better understand Wikipedia or AI (which is increasingly cannibalizing our Wikiverse). This was an eye opening journey into a tool I open up almost daily without question. While the audiobook was a fantastic listening experiencing (excellent narrator!) I may pick up a print version if only to have a highlightable resource to easily reference later.
Thank you to Richard Cooke, Tantor Media, and NetGalley for sharing an ARC of the book. All opinions are my own.
October 4, 2026
If you know me, you know that I love Wikipedia - falling down rabbit-holes and buying merch (including the Baby Globe plushie). I also find it to be fascinating as a microcosm of the Internet, in its good (community, collectively checking knowledge added) and its bad (elitism, some things readily being missed and propagated as truth). This book does a fantastic job at covering both the history and culture of Wikipedia: what early Wikipedia had to contend with when finding its own identity, and how WikiEditors evolved over time. I really enjoyed how fast-paced and readable this book is, and how it stays entertaining by integrating history with some charming quirks of Wikipedia (including sharing some funny Wikipedia pages and moments, some of which remains popular on Depths of Wikipedia). I also appreciated how the book addresses the future of Wikipedia in a time we are contending with AI and the debate for what is universally "true", especially as Wikipedia is now seen as "the" knowledge-base. Would definitely recommend this book to anyone who has a similar fascination with Wikipedia's culture and history, aka the kind of person who likes opening up Wikipedia Discussion pages just to read the drama that's going down.
Thank you to NetGalley and W. W. Norton & Company for the ARC.
Thank you to NetGalley and W. W. Norton & Company for the ARC.
October 17, 2026
This deep dive into Wikipedia's history, internal culture, and impact on society was probably more than I ever needed to know about Wikipedia, but it was pretty interesting to me as a daily user of the site and very occasional editor. I recognized myself in the discussions of potential editors who may step back from participating, daunted by the expectations and unspoken/unwritten norms of veteran Wikipedians. What's more, years before I listened to this audiobook, I chose a Wikipedia username that was masculine-sounding precisely because of the sort of "boys club" I perceived the site to be, something the author touched upon several times in the work. If anything, I came away from this book with a renewed respect for the mechanisms that keep Wikipedia running, as well as a new desire to contribute in the future, should I come across any topics that I feel qualified to add to.
As for the narration, I think the narrator, Joel Richards, had a tough job with this one because the writing is pretty dry on the whole (compared to similar nonfiction I've listen to), but he managed to keep my attention.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Tantor Media for the opportunity to listen to this ALC and share my honest feedback!
As for the narration, I think the narrator, Joel Richards, had a tough job with this one because the writing is pretty dry on the whole (compared to similar nonfiction I've listen to), but he managed to keep my attention.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Tantor Media for the opportunity to listen to this ALC and share my honest feedback!
November 1, 2026
Phew! This turned into a bit of a slog for me, but I found it interesting overall. I was more interested in the earlier chapters of the book; all the fun facts about Wikipedia at the beginning were fascinating and mind-boggling. I wasn't as interested in the history of the founders, but it was interesting to eventually learn about how much Wikipedia eventually shaped politics and the ethos of the techno-optimism moment in time. I was also intrigued by how AI is scraping tons of stuff from Wikipedia and how that coupled with younger generations not reading longer articles anymore could spell death for Wikipedia.
Overall, a really interesting book, but it went on too long and really dragged at times. For a niche audience though, I'm sure they'll love every second of this!
Had some issues with the audiobook where at the end of Part 7, it said I was at 80%, then when I continued to Part 8, it said 67%. This keeps happening to me with audiobooks from NetGalley. It's frustrating not being able to know for sure how much time is left in your audiobook. Odd, but maybe a NetGalley ARC issue and not a problem with the finished audiobook. Not sure.
Thanks to the publisher and NetGalley for the ARC!
Overall, a really interesting book, but it went on too long and really dragged at times. For a niche audience though, I'm sure they'll love every second of this!
Had some issues with the audiobook where at the end of Part 7, it said I was at 80%, then when I continued to Part 8, it said 67%. This keeps happening to me with audiobooks from NetGalley. It's frustrating not being able to know for sure how much time is left in your audiobook. Odd, but maybe a NetGalley ARC issue and not a problem with the finished audiobook. Not sure.
Thanks to the publisher and NetGalley for the ARC!
October 18, 2026
I probably use Wikipedia almost every day so it's not surprising that this is one of the most interesting things I've read in a long time. I'm the kind of person who used to keep reference books in the living room so I could look up facts and details while watching TV. So now I have a lot of favorite online sites for information, but Wikipedia is probably the most important.
The wildest thing about Wikipedia, obviously, is how it even came to be a reference source when the way entries were collected was so random and unorganized. There were originally missing areas, areas with surprising amounts of info, and a feeling of distrust and unreliability.
As a librarian, I got past my distrust pretty quickly. I don't know if it's because of the kinds of details I look up, but I've found Wikipedia to be one of the most reliable sources of information. I don't just trust the pages, obviously, but I take advantage of the sources cited in the Wikipedia articles and assess them for reliability.
Thanks to NetGalley, I got to listen to the audiobook, and I enjoyed the pacing and performance.
The wildest thing about Wikipedia, obviously, is how it even came to be a reference source when the way entries were collected was so random and unorganized. There were originally missing areas, areas with surprising amounts of info, and a feeling of distrust and unreliability.
As a librarian, I got past my distrust pretty quickly. I don't know if it's because of the kinds of details I look up, but I've found Wikipedia to be one of the most reliable sources of information. I don't just trust the pages, obviously, but I take advantage of the sources cited in the Wikipedia articles and assess them for reliability.
Thanks to NetGalley, I got to listen to the audiobook, and I enjoyed the pacing and performance.
October 20, 2026
I love reading books that take a very common thing on the internet and explore its human/cultural side. i remember early days of me using the internet where every time i would finish a book, i'd go on wikipedia to read more about the book or its author. at that time i don't think i ever really understood that it was open source or volunteer run, just that it was an encyclopedia and that i was curious.
it's so fascinating to read about all the things that were happening right under my nose. the author's storytelling is so good and sort of funny. One of my favorite sections was about the people who got a lot of hate mail for purposely including entries about women. It kept getting more and more infuriating, but I don't know why I was surprised.
Either way, this is a fantastic book to be read if you're also curious about social histories.
Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the ARC.
it's so fascinating to read about all the things that were happening right under my nose. the author's storytelling is so good and sort of funny. One of my favorite sections was about the people who got a lot of hate mail for purposely including entries about women. It kept getting more and more infuriating, but I don't know why I was surprised.
Either way, this is a fantastic book to be read if you're also curious about social histories.
Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the ARC.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews