The internet is 70 per cent pornography, 7 per cent people on chat-boards calling each other “loser”, and 23 per cent Wikipedia.

Of course, all the above statistics are entirely made up, but feel kind of right - all of which would make it, fittingly, the perfect Wikipedia entry. For those who have not yet had recourse to use it, Wikipedia is the internet-defining online encyclopaedia, whose two million-plus entries have all, uniquely and divertingly, been written by the public. Wikipedia's founding belief is that everyone has one subject (dropping the gearbox out of a Ford Ghia, the life and works of Morton Harket of A-Ha, making wild-berry chutney), on which they are an expert - and could, therefore, then contribute an entry on said subject to Wikipedia.

There is, of course, a pivotal instability in this reasoning. For while everyone has a subject on which they think they are an expert, in reality they are almost always a bit fuzzy on one crucial element (it being the blue wire on the left, brown wire on the right; him coming from Norway, not Denmark; the seeds being extremely and instantaneously lethally toxic etc.) In addition to this flaw, every entry in Wikipedia can also be erased or amended by any other member of the public - many of whom are often mad, drunk or bizarre. The most notable instance of this was on the night Barack Obama won the American election. I found that his entire, detailed entry disappeared for nearly an hour - to be replaced with the one-line entry, “Barack Obama is the new SOCIALIST President of the United States of America.”

But the interesting thing about Wikipedia is that, unlike a similar printed resource, or an online equivalent written by a small group of necessarily time-restricted experts, its entries are, theoretically, unlimited. If someone has it within them to write 20,000 words on, say, the different types of tarmacadam available, then they may write, and then post, those 20,000 words.

This jump into infinite detail proves, over the pages of Wikipedia, to be deeply revelatory about the nature of humanity. Take, for instance, the entry on Waitrose. It appears to have been written by someone who believes passionately that one of the crucial, stabilising forces of the Universe is disseminating as much information about the uniform policy of Waitrose, and to as many people as possible. The detail is merciless, and unending.

“The current uniform for male non-management partners is a green shirt with a green and grey patterned necktie and grey trousers and option apron - while for females the uniform is a heavily patterned blouse and a choice of grey skirt, trousers, and optional tabard,” the entry drones. Section managers, assistant section managers, acting assistant managers, senior branch management and duty managers: if they have an outfit that has the Waitrose logo embroidered on it, Wikipedia has it covered.

You should be aware that these are changing times at Waitrose, however. “It is expected that, in the future, ties will be made optional,” the uniform section cautions; with the same air as Gandalf saying “So mote it be done.” Similarly, anyone seeking information on, say, “Wolverhampton”, “the Oxford Street branch of TopShop” or “spoons” could not be disappointed by the level of detail Wikipedia offers them. In the poundingly comprehensive entry for Wolverhampton, every Wolverhampton knowledge need is catered for. The city's central library - called Central Library - gets more than 800 words, with a bafflingly detailed description of its appearance (“The terracotta exterior has a tripartite theme of distinct, yet related themes... with a small brick and concrete extension to the rear, built in the 1970s” - yet not mentioning the main fact that any resident of Wolverhampton remembers about Central Library: a tramp called Barry the God used to sit on the steps outside, and call you a c*** if you looked at him). Even leaving Wolverhampton as quickly as possible is covered in movingly comprehensive detail: “By car, it can actually be quicker to access Manchester Airport, on the M1 north, due to traffic delays on the M6 eastbound to Birmingham,” Wikipedia notes, palpably restraining itself from going on to talk about the continually vexatious bottleneck on the A449 through Kidderminster.

“Spoons” is roughly the length of a small pamphlet, including an absolutely unquestion-able and yet unsettlingly specific: “Many people use spoons for mixing certain kinds of powder into water, to make a sweet and nutritious drink”. “Oxford Street branch of TopShop” runs to more than 1,000 words, and includes the fact that, “customers can access Miss Selfridge, which is situated next door, through the sweet shop”. The entry for “Baked Potato” is my favourite. I am genuinely moved that there was someone who stood up and said: “Mankind, I swear to you I am going to nail this motherfreakin' subject.” If you were in any way allergic to hot potato information, you would surely be dead by the end of the 2,000-word passage on baked potato serving variants (“some people remove the skin and eat only the softer and moister interior, whilst others enjoy the taste and texture of the crispy skin.”) Then there is the international variants in fillings, which concludes, “Britain's fillings tend to be more varied than they are in America.” IN YOUR FACE, UNCLE SAM.

However, perhaps the most revealing entry on Wikipedia is that for “Love”, which suggests that, currently, the world's pessimists have wrested control of Wikipedia from the world's optimists.

“The discourse on love is commonly reduced to a thought terminating cliché,” Wikipedia's love expert has written, dolorously, before continuing, “Lust exposes people to others. Romantic attraction encourages them to focus their energy on mating... attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear the child into infancy.” They might just as well cross-link it to the entries on “Divorce,” “Futility”, and “Foreigner (band) (single) (I Want to Know What Love is)”.

Times Recommends

• Ted Hughes was a prophet of climate change
• Health & safety can damage your reasoning
• It’s Big Brother’s stupidity that scares me