The quality of Wikipedia articles is, er, highly variable. I'm a huge fan of MAD magazine, and the Wikipedia article about MAD is one of the best articles I've read in that famous online encyclopedia. It seems clear that somebody close to the magazine put a lot of work into it. My only quibble is the discussion about MAD's decision to accept advertising in 2001, which broke a fundamental agreement between the magazine and readers, but is glossed over in the wiki article. Of course, I know how to fix that: it's Wikipedia, so I should make the change myself by quoting some of the criticism that appeared at the time.
But that's a minor objection. Overall, it's a really great article, and you can learn plenty about MAD by reading it.
Comments