[LyndsySimon]

I think it's a good thing.

If I'm not knowledgeable about the topic, I read the article. If I feel like I am knowledgeable about it, I jump straight to the comments. There I either learn something, or share knowledge.

It's one of my favorite types of HN posts :)

[jlarocco]

As a counterpoint, I think it drops the signal to noise ratio and makes HN less useful.

If I want to read a random Wikipedia article I can use the "Random Article" link on their website.

I don't think it's too much to ask for people posting random wiki links to explain why the article is worth reading about and discussing. Especially in cases like this one, where the linked article (apparently?) has little or nothing to do with the usual content posted.

I have no idea what the poster wants me to get out of this article.

[LyndsySimon]

> If I want to read a random Wikipedia article I can use the "Random Article" link on their website.

Ah, but that's the thing - it's not "random". It's an article that someone who likely shares many of my interests found interesting. That's valuable enough for me :)

Have you considered adding a user stylesheet that hides or minimized submissions that link to Wikipedia? It shouldn't be difficult.

[netfl0]

I enjoy not knowing their take. If they saw value, so might I.

[Retra]

Hmm. From my perspective, I've never seen a post like this that didn't refer to an article I'm already aware of. Which would tell me if you like this kind of thing, you could probably just spend more time on Wikipedia instead. It certainly wouldn't be very useful for someone like me to spam seemingly-random Wikipedia articles here.