A couple of years ago I watched a video involving 2 comic book writers (Morrison & Way) discuss among other things, an hypothesis on pop culture. Finding nothing on Wikipedia about it I decided to add it and was surprised when it was accepted. I only meant to do several edits after that, branching out from the original article into its origins. But I got carried away & did a few hundred more – often for unrelated material. So like most people I'm happy to have done my bit and moved on.
I loved Encyclopedia Britannica as a child, so I think that's why I have doubts over Wikipedia. I've nothing against the biographies of celebrated people but I don't have time for pointless gossip on which house they live in. It's not right to turn celebrities' families into zoo exhibits. Nor do I agree with cramming an encyclopedia full of OOP references from the 1800s on obscure estates and old houses. At this rate it's morphing into a giant web reference maintained by people with silly nicknames, not an encyclopedia. So I haven't developed any close attachment to the project.
If you're a newbie, expect to have your personality judged by what you edit. Perhaps the more diverse your edits, the less that naive people will attempt to identify you with the subject matter involved. Funniest thing I've seen on Wikipedia – editors who collect & arrange their stars, medals and awards into a big display on their home page. Is this a deep seated need for parental approval or is it a wish to impress other 5 year olds?