Yeah but then, do you want "whimsy" in sensible articles like political/religious/ethical related ones? Then would one expect wikipedia editors to enforce this policy on top of the work they already do? And using what criteria?

No, Wikipedia is not set up for whimsy. This kind of thing has to come from a single author with a point of view, not from a crowdsourced article with conflicting points of view.

In the same way as any encyclopedia that's not deliberately whimsical (in which case its general utility of obtaining knowledge may be more limited than, those multi-tome things or, well, Wikipedia).

But the best encyclopedia, Brittanica, had flights of whimsy. Sentences like "Bostonians are incorrigible jaywalkers." Wikipedia killed Brittanica, and ultimately is far more valuable to the world, but I miss those sentences in Brittanica.

I'd say Wikipedia is generally less dry than the average technical book.

It's less whimsical than some blog posts, sure, but Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia (roughly speaking).

I wouldn't say it's taken all the whimsy, but the community attempts to keep an "encyclopedic" tone.

In same cases it's turned into overcorrection from the good old Wikipedia days when, for example, the article about vampires was mostly not about actual vampire bats, or even about folklore vampires, but about a self-proclaimed "lifestyle" of people who supposedly consider themselves "real vampires". I remember those days! It was fun to see the rampant edit wars between serious and fringe editors.