I wrote:
Our rule-boundedness is relevant in another way, as well: though it's loved by pedants and petty bureaucrat wannabees, it's absolute death to the truly intelligent and creative writer/editors who could really make our content sing -- and in more areas than just a more-readable writing style.
Here's another thing to watch out for: nowhere is it written that Wikipedia must be as stodgy and officious as a Real Encyclopedia. Yet the way some people denounce and carry on about anything that smells remotely like fun, you'd think this was up there as a fourth pillar of the triangle.
On the contrary, it is Okay to Have Fun. It's okay for us as editors, and it's okay for our readers, too. In fact, it's more than okay, it's downright better, if it motivates us as editors, and if it makes our product easier to read and more enjoyable for our readers.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't have Trivia sections -- isn't that a good enough reason for us *to* have them? :-)