10 Popular Wikis That Actually Work

Dan Price Updated 22-10-2019

A wiki is a community-edited website that acts as a knowledge base for a particular subject matter.


Today, there are lots of different types of wiki websites. At the top end of the scale, there’s Wikipedia. It’s the most extensive collection of encyclopedic knowledge ever collated. At the other end, there are wiki websites for niche topics such as games, celebrities, books, and almost anything else you can think of.

Here are 10 examples of wikis that are worth checking out.

1. Wikitravel

wiktravel wiki site

When you’re planning a holiday, you should give privately-owned websites like TripAdvisor a wide berth. The information on such sites can often be misleading; it’s hard to differentiate the paid promotions from the legitimate content. And that’s before you start worrying about the ongoing issue of fake reviews.

Wikitravel is a much better source of information. It’s been online since 2003 and is overseen by a team of administrators. They can roll back unwanted edits, delete pages, lock pages, and generally keep the information on the site accurate and free of spam.


2. WikiHow

wikihow wiki site

WikiHow is a popular wiki for anyone who wants to learn how to do something.

The content on offer is extremely varied. The site’s categories include topics such as Sports and Fitness, Pets and Animals, Relationships, and Philosophy and Religion.

Although anyone can contribute to the wiki website, WikiHow has strict editorial guidelines. A typical article has been edited by 23 people and reviewed by a further 16.


3. WikiBooks

wikibooks wiki site

WikiBooks makes our list of wiki sites thanks to its incredible repository of open-content textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides, and manuals. It does not include fiction, primary research, or published texts.

The books are divided across nine primary categories: Computing, Engineering, Humanities, Languages, Mathematics, Science, Social Sciences, Standard Curricula, and Kids’ books. Each group is further subdivided for easy browsing.

You can also browse the site by a book’s completion status and by reading level.


4. Wiktionary

wikitionary wiki site

Print dictionaries can be expensive. The complete Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary runs to 20 volumes, weighs 140 pounds, and costs more than $500 to buy on Amazon. Even a subscription to the OED’s website costs $90 per year.

Wiktionary, therefore, is an example of a wiki that can save you money. It is a multilingual dictionary of languages, but has a definition for every word supplied in English, regardless of the source language. Today, there are more than six million words included from more than 4,000 dialects.

5. Stranger Things Wiki

stranger things wiki site


The Netflix Original, Stranger Things, has been one of the defining TV series of the last couple of years; it’s received nominations for a whole host of Emmys and Golden Globes. The third series set a new Netflix record, as 18.2 million accounts watched the entire series within four days of its release.

The Stranger Things wiki—which is part of the Fandom network of sites—is one of the best examples of a wiki about a TV series. It includes detailed information about the cast, characters, filming locations, soundtrack, and lots more. There’s also an extensive community section where fans of the show can chat and interact.

6. Wikispecies

wikispecies wiki site

Sure, we can all recognize a dog or horse. Hobbyists might even be able to identify particular types of insects, snakes, or birds. But what about a Phyllida varicosa? Or a Pelomyxa palustris? No, we thought not.

Wikispecies is to the 21st century what “On the Origin of Species” was to the 19th century. It aims to be a complete catalog of all Animalia, Plantae, fungi, bacteria, archaea, and Protista (i.e., life forms!) in the world.

There are almost 700,000 species in the wiki. So, there’s just eight million left still to write about…

7. Gamepedia

dota 2 wiki site

Gamepedia is an umbrella brand that covers hundreds of wikis about games. Some of the most popular wikis in the catalog include Wowpedia (about World of Warcraft), Dota 2 Wiki, No Man’s Sky Wiki, and Zelda Wiki.

As you’d expect, each wiki is packed with game-specific guides, plotlines, facts, trivia, in-game images, and more. Some of the wiki sites even have their own stores.

8. Wikimedia Commons

wikimedia commons wiki site

Finding media to use in your book, video, podcast, social media content, or website is not an easy undertaking. Sites like YouTube and Facebook are taking increasingly aggressive stances when it comes to removing content that breaches copyright, even if the breach was unintentional.

Wikimedia Commons is one solution. It offers more than 55 million freely usable images, sound files, and video clips. If you decide to grab the content, just make sure you accurately follow each file’s attribution requirements.

9. TV Tropes

tv tropes wiki site

TV Tropes is yet another different type of wiki website. It collates common plot themes, storylines, conventions, and devices that are found in hundreds of works. Because it is a wiki, anyone can add their own trope to the ever-growing list.

The site initially focused solely on TV shows and movies. Today, however, it also covers literature, comics, manga, video games, music, ads, and even toys.

You can browse by the type of media or type of trope. There’s also a community discussion section.

10. Baseball Reference

baseball reference wiki site

As a sport, Baseball is heavily driven by data and statistics, so it’s no surprise to learn that it provides the subject matter for the largest sports wiki on the web.

For anyone with an interest in current and historical baseball players, teams, scores, and stats, it’s a goldmine. 20,000 past and present players have profiles, and there are complete season-by-season breakdowns for every aspect of the sport’s minutiae.

You’ll even find data from the Minor, Japanese, Cuban, and Korean leagues, as well as the NCAA Division I and summer collegiate leagues.

Baseball Reference is part of the largest Sports Reference family. The group runs similar wikis for basketball, American football, soccer, and ice hockey.

Learn More About Wiki Sites

We hope our list of 10 wiki sites has provided you with an insight into the different types of wiki websites that exist. With a bit of digging, you can find one to match whatever hobbies and interests you have, no matter how niche.

If you would like to learn more about using wikis, check out our other article on how to create a wiki How to Create a Wiki: 7 Sites That Make It Easy and Painless Do you want to create your own personal wiki? These web apps will help you make your own wiki for free (or a small price). Read More and our list of Wikipedia tools and alternatives 5 Wikipedia Tools or Alternatives for a Better Online Free Encyclopedia Try these websites, apps, and extensions for Wikipedia. They make the online encyclopedia better than ever before. Read More .

Related topics: Encyclopedia, Wiki, Wikipedia.

Affiliate Disclosure: By buying the products we recommend, you help keep the site alive. Read more.

Whatsapp Pinterest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Clement
    March 19, 2017 at 5:04 am

    where's the arch linux wiki

  2. camille
    March 8, 2015 at 8:37 am

    any updates?

  3. Chris B
    December 29, 2014 at 4:28 am

    I love this one: [*]
    The Money Making Encyclopedia.

  4. Haitian
    November 27, 2009 at 11:09 am

    This is a very nice post, this help a lot. Thank you

  5. sleeping disorders
    November 13, 2008 at 10:47 am

    this is really cool. i really only knew about wikipedia. wikitravel sounds pretty interesting.

  6. EDiot
    May 4, 2008 at 8:10 am

    Aibek you're actuly scared of ED? lulz
    if you're actuly hurt by someone you've never met saying nasty things about you on the internet then you have problems

  7. Kheoh Yee Wei
    December 19, 2007 at 7:38 am is good as well.

  8. Pedobear
    December 11, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Encyclopedia Dramatica is funny, you just don't get the joke.

    Define "ACTUAL HARM". I personally define it as physical harm, mental anguish is BS. The site is obviously entirely made up facts and if that gets to you and causes "actual harm" then I feel sorry for you.

    Internet stalking isn't real stalking.

    ED deserves to be on the list, it does work. It just works towards something you dislike. Get over it and don't go there if it doesn't interest you.

  9. Somebody
    August 26, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Offensive humor is still humor. The problem with Encyclopedia Dramatica is that it ISN'T funny, just offensive. The people there don't just say mean things, they intend to cause ACTUAL HARM to anybody they disagree with. A joke about stalking might be funny, but actual stalking isn't.

  10. Nathaniel Ezrail
    August 21, 2007 at 9:43 pm


    The lulz have returned and they are significantly stronger then before.
    I suggest that the good Aibek uncrosses the ED part and links to it once moar.
    There is things on ED that you will not be able to find anywhere else.

    Say what you will about ED's immature 'sewer' humour. It takes a certain intelligence to deliberately pull off that kind humour and you know it. Go on Aibek, do it for the lulz!

  11. Mark Levison
    May 6, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    You kind of missed an important one. Without this wiki:
    there would be no others.

    Mark - who has been using wikis since shortly before time began.

  12. Paul
    May 1, 2007 at 8:23 am

    I was party to being attacked on ED myself, all because one of their members got banned from another wiki. Its a site filled with trolls, and net stalkers, who are in the throws of puberty and haven't realised how to be responsible.

    Of course, if the community really wanted to be anything else, they'd remove this content. However they don't. They promote it.

    Isn't the point of offensive humour that its supposed to make everyone laugh at its absurdity and its ridiculousness, not just those who write it?

    Luckily the site is dead now.

  13. Aibek
    April 30, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    @ED, @Anonymous(both of you)

    I see your point guyz, and I agree that 'offensive humor' is the whole point behind ED. I have nothing against seeing how a group of people come together and call W.Bush all nice things my grandma had never heard off. It's funny, it's mean, ... and in many cases never taken seriously. Just pure fun.

    What makes it problematic, when it goes beyond being fun to derogatory.
    Steve provided couple of links showing that. But the main point, being a wikipedia fan, I am 100% sure these guyz would never try blocking it unless there is a STRONG problem behind it.

    Anyways, I have no intention in undermining one big wiki(ED) to make another one look better(Unencyclopedia in this case). They all have fans, supporters and obsessive contributors. For now, I'll keep ED out, and if majority of readers decide that I am wrong, I'll put it back. I'll be checking up on comments.

  14. Mudkips
    April 30, 2007 at 5:23 pm


    Encyclopedia Dramatica is fucking hilarious, just because I don't find Larry the Cable guy funny like you do Steve doesn't mean he is offensive.

  15. Anonymous
    April 30, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong .......

    Aibek: (this comment was shortened (approx. 10x times))

  16. Anonymous
    April 30, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    Why you removed the link to ED ?
    What, is it offensive ?
    That is the purpose of the wiki! To have offensive humor.
    It's a good wiki if you are searching for internet memes (wikipedia doesn't have any information at all about this) or recent things that happened on the internet.

    Steve is a fool, obviously he is one of the people ED makes fun of and he is insulted, well because 1 is insulted doesn't make the wiki bad.
    I find it entertaining and i find entertaining that Steve is insulted.

  17. ED
    April 30, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    You removed ED? It works though, unlike uncyclopedia. Don't be a fag because people think it's offensive, THAT IS THE POINT. Besides, how the else am I supposed to find out what "Shoop the Whoop" means? Wikipedia sure as hell will just redirect to the 4chan article...

  18. Steve
    April 30, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    @Amy: Well, the serious answer would be because the activities taking place there aren't humor, they're wrong, and decent people don't do things like that. (Of course, that makes the false assumption that the contributors there are decent people, which is laughable.) However, the more practical answer is, yes, they do want it to be a sewer, they revel in rolling in the manure they produce, and they have no reason to change it at all. They also, being the people they are, have no cognizance that running an obvious sewer while at the same time criticizing people for pointing out that it is a sewer. Thankfully, their complete lack of sense doesn't change the fact that as long as their rolling in the muck produced there, they're covered in it and completely responsible for it.

  19. Amy
    April 30, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    The whole point of ED is that it's a sewer. Why should the editors clean it up when this is their chosen form of humour?

  20. Ryan Fox
    April 30, 2007 at 5:25 am

    If you're looking to/don't mind adding to the topic-specific section, the Game Programming Wiki ( is a successful wiki about game programming. (Go figure!)

  21. Steve
    April 29, 2007 at 11:46 am

    @Joseph: Absolute rubbish. Wikis do allow anyone to edit, and it does result in inappropriate content being added. There is, however, a simple answer to this problem: You delete it and block the responsible individuals. (Take note of a wiki that is actually successful, like Wikipedia: There are hundreds and thousands of people cleaning up trash all the time, and as a result, the site's contributors are acknowledged as responsible individuals who refuse to condone the type of sewer atmosphere that thrives at ED.) If the "community" at ED banned stalking and trolling, deleted the criminal content posted there, and blocked the responsible parties from further action, then it would be unfair to lump ED contributors together. That is not the case however. As long as the type of content I've linked, and worse, is welcome and encouraged at ED, then every contributor there is a conspirator and accessory to the activities there. You don't have to be responsible for it; you choose to be by continuing to support the activities that go on there. If you want people to stop labeling ED a sewer, then clean it up, and stop letting people use it as a toilet.

  22. Aibek
    April 29, 2007 at 10:10 am


    I agree that the nature of a wiki is to allow ANYONE to edit and add articles. And as you mentioned, over time this will allow any article to reach a standard of accuracy that can be accepted by the whole wiki community.

    However, it seems to me, that in ED's case it's not about accuracy but rather about how mean can you be. I understand that this may be the main ingredient in making it funny and entertaining but there should be a limit to how war you can go with it. For instance, unencyclopedia does a good job in this respect, it's entertaining and yet not so offensive.

    As about Steve's comment, I agree he may seem rather harsh and subjective towards them, and have no doubt that ED has lots of good editors as well. I wouldn't remove the link from this post if not for the fact that Wikipedia itself banned all outgoing links to ED. Wikipedia isn't a profit-driven enterprise and if they decided to ban ED links, I have no doubt that there was a strong reason behind it.

  23. Joseph
    April 29, 2007 at 12:38 am

    I think Steve is being both harsh and rash with his comments about Encyclopedia Dramatica, especially since this article is on Wikis.

    The nature of a wiki allows many people edit and submit articles. Ideally over time this will allow any article to reach a standard of accuracy that can be accepted by the whole wiki community.

    Articles which have not yet reached such a standard or which have been submitted by members that wish to give their own perspective on a subject rather than a neutral point of view can be found in any wiki.

    I think it is wrong that EVERY member of Encyclopedia Dramatica should be slighted by Steve in such a way, being branded as stalkers, trolls and potential felons, simply because of a few select articles that they had no part in creating. If Steve's attitude were to be taken seriously then no one would ever dare post in a wiki because of the fear that something another member may post would unfairly tarnish their own character.

    Thankfully this is not the case and Encyclopedia Dramatica's large and active community freely gives of its own time to ensure that the wiki contains a wealth of up-to-date information on Internet culture and memes for educational and entertainment purposes.

  24. Aibek
    April 28, 2007 at 9:56 pm

    it's not bad, and If I learned about it earlier I would perhaps include it in the 'Smaller Topic Specific Wikis' section. Although, thanks for letting me know about it.

  25. SF
    April 28, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    How about EvoWiki?

  26. Steve
    April 28, 2007 at 9:19 am

    @Aibek: You're a good man. Excellent choices for the others.

  27. Aibek
    April 28, 2007 at 8:06 am


    Thanks Steve, that's good enough. I renamed the title to '12 Popular wikis ' and crossed over 'ED' entry

  28. Steve
    April 28, 2007 at 7:32 am


    Here's a good example: [Broken URL Removed]

    That particular case eventually caused the English Wikipedia to ban any link to ED whatsoever.

    A nice collection of people they've smeared: [Broken URL Removed]

    From that page:

    Redwolf24 is a bureaucratic fuck who independently bans users for arguing with him. He once ran for bureaucrat, but was fucked by the community. This is because he is a bureaucratic fuck. Amazingly, not even Wikipedia was enough for Redwolf24 to satisfy the needs of his bureaucratic e-penis, so he had to create an account on Uncyclopedia purely for the purpose of further whining and bitching about this website. No srsly, you won't believe this shit!

    Lovely things to say about a 14 year old.

    If that's the criteria for a "Wiki that works"...

  29. Aibek
    April 27, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Thanks for the links George. I agree with you there are many other good wikis. When it comes to my post, in it's popular section I listed only those wikis, which focus on wider topics, i.e. cars, books, dictionary, etc.

  30. George
    April 27, 2007 at 7:43 pm

    I actually think there quite a few wikis that "work". It really depends on what you are interested. If you are interested in golf, then a golf wiki might be great to you.

    My wife and I started a homeschooling wiki (broken link removed) that is slowly getting better and better for the homeschooling community. Personally, I enjoy reading quite a few of the tv wikis (like Heroeswiki).

    Just my thoughts.

  31. Aibek
    April 27, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    hmmmmm... Let me do following, I will add note near ED entry referring to the first comment entry(that's yours). If you send me couple of links proving your claims, I'll remove it completely. Hope that's fine

  32. TQuizzle
    April 27, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Great List!
    I was familiar with most, but you introduced a few new ones.

  33. Steve
    April 27, 2007 at 12:00 am

    All of these are great, except Encyclopedia Dramatica; ED started as a parody like Uncyclopedia, but has become a site filled with stalkers and trolls. ED "editors" are well known for stalking Wikipedia editors, disclosing the identities of anonymous contributors, and harrassing them at work and trying to get them fired. It's not a wiki that works; it's a felony indictment waiting to happen. It should be removed from the list immediately.