 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
A look at some of the snowclones of "Wikipedia has more information on Pokémon than on the Bible".
The metric varies: information, articles, pages, but the theme is always that some ephemeral piece of pop culture is better covered than some serious academic "encyclopedic" subject.
The implications vary among:
- Weird but true!
- All Wikipedians are otaku/teenagers/kids/fanboys....
- Wikipedia is biased.
- Wikipedia is crap (because it covers pop culture, because it doesn't cover "serious" stuff, or because its priorities are all wrong).
And any combination of the above.
There is never any suggestion of what the ideal situation should be – How many chemists we should cover? Should we delete some of our coverage of Britney Spears? And of course never any offer to leap into the breach and help. (One early example says no-one will read Wikipedia anyway.)
Apart from the logical fallacy (assuming that because X is better covered than Y, Y is badly covered), these claims are often – as I like to say – plain wrong.
In the sections below references to "now" or "currently" should reflect the numbers (more or less) at the time of reading.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search