"The primary function of the Wikipedias is to educate in the sciences, philosophy, technology and all that truly useful stuff. Nevertheless there's an argument for a Featured Article on South Park because it brings in new blood. Such an article can pique the interest of teens and twenties and get them involved. Discuss." My reply would be: There's a difficulty in that you get trapped. At the moment, the task I've set myself is to review Featured Article candidates. You might set yourself a task and find yourself dealing with stuff that, frankly, isn't very educational. I proofread an article on a Bob Dylan album because it came up for review. But should I really be proofreading articles on biology, chemistry and physics? I don't have expertise in those areas but I may at least change an "its" to an "it's" or vice versa. I think at the heart of the question is; do you find yourself sticking to a routine without questioning the relative value of what you're doing? Is fighting vandalism on a South Park article equal to fighting vandalism on science? We all only have a certain number of hours in the day. User:Bodnotbod