Wikipedia is useless as a reference source itself. It is usefull to find links to other sites.
If you don't know, how it works, you may find it interesting to surf on over there and post an article. Within days, if not minutes, your article will be turned around, inside out, upside down, and come to postulate the the exact opposite of what ever you said about any thing you care to mention.
It is the revisionist's dream, and the historian's nightmare because anything posted is subject to revision by any know-nothing with a chip on his shoulder. It is usefull only for those things that contain no controversy at all.
That it would be more popular than CNN is not supprising.
I found some good info there on the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenalin axis.