Oh Wikipedia, how amazing you truly are!

I've always liked to point out how Wikipedia manages to have separate articles on every Pokemon, with subsections that include biology, appearance and their role in various media forms. All 493 of them, including ones that are unreleased in North America.

It becomes all the more hilarious while doing ISUs on Canadian authors; if Wikipedia were to be used as a indicator of the impact of subjects on the general public (which may not be as farfetched as it sounds), then Bulbasaur would completely school them all in its significance by many magnitudes (it even has "Statistical Analysis of Bulbasaur" under citations)!

For the critics, yes I do use Wikipedia for formal assignments provided that I follow these rules:
1. Never cite it as a source. Ever.
2. Never write something from it without a legitimate source backing up its claims.