At some point as I read about Oulipo I realized that this was not some 'ancient' group, but really a quite recent (40+ years ago) experiment by some writers, some of which could still be alive today.

Anyway I looked up wikipedia.  Why has wikipedia become such a first stab repository in only 2 years or so, I am bewildered!!  Especially when it's the pastime of Mudd students to rewrite wikipedia with false information.   Anyway I  looked up wikipedia and found this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oulipo

Strange to see the list of current members as of 2006. The group also contains mathematicians, as I guessed would be necessary since combinatorics is relied on so heavily, but i figured mathematicians would be advisors to the group not members.

Anyway as an aspiring mathematician, I found the article somewhere about 2-3 levels off from a published paper in a math journal.  This made the article neither a true article, since there was a leaning to try to explain a lot of the math, nor worthy of a math journal entry, since rigour was abandoned so as to make the article accessible I guess.

I would have much preferred for the best of such an endeavour, e.g. the most coherent poem or interesting story, to also have been included, just so as to perk my interest a bit more.