Wikipedia
Some of my fondest memories of childhood are of the countless times I devoured a box of cereal while devouring an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is the kind of thing that could have seriously deranged my childhood. I was always the type to read while I ate. It didn’t really matter what—a comic book, some poetry, a detective novel, the back of the cereal box—just as long as there was something to occupy my time while I ate. I know a meal is an end in itself to most people, but I have always suffered from boredom while eating. I’m not sure why it is that I associate food with reading, but it is a life-long habit. I can’t begin to tell you on how many occasions I would get up in the middle of the night and grab a book off the shelf and head to the kitchen for a snack. On a large percentage of those occasions my book of choice was an encyclopedia. There is something pleasing about opening an encyclopedia at random and then following the trail of cross-references to its logical conclusion. An article on King Henry the fifth leads one to William Shakespeare which leads one to Ben Johnson which leads one to Classicism which leads one to Romanticism which leads one to the Enlightenment which leads one to Voltaire which leads one to Deism which leads one to Heraclitus which is as good a places as any to stop. But you understand how addicting that kind of thing can be. Wikipedia is doubly so since the plethora of links leads one to a wilderness of new windows and branching paths of trivial encounters. I could waste days that way if I didn’t have to earn a living.
Sometimes when I’m feeling cynical and old, I stop and think about how many small pleasures there are even in a crummy day; lately Wikipedia is somewhere near the top of that list.