Wikipedia (and other anthropological databases) standards for citation and notoriety means that it underrepresents the culture of the poorer classes, which is maintained through oral history and not published documents.

Well, that's why we have Urban Dictionary. Not everything has to be in Wikipedia.

Although often hilarious, Urban Dictionary now pretty much allows people to make shit up.

It's a shame as I'd like something that fills it's former boots (i.e. there has to be at least some attempt to record reality rather than invent it)

> Although often hilarious, Urban Dictionary now pretty much allows people to make shit up.

Which is precisely what happens when you don't demand citations to good sources. You can't really have it both ways.

It does, at least, have Stone Soup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup

Ever heard of a rubber biscuit?