Disparity of biography articles Options

[EricBarbour]

Yet another example of the profound idiocy of "crowdsourcing" encyclopedia articles.

You have the WP bio of Hans Bethe, legendary atomic scientist, Nobel winner.
8 notes, 3 references, total length 27034 bytes.

And you have the WP bio of a fictional scientist on a sitcom, Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory.
75 references, total length 43670 bytes.

And no doubt, many of the Wiki-assholes reading this will go "that's perfectly acceptable".

[Tarc]

Yet another example of the profound idiocy of "crowdsourcing" encyclopedia articles.

You have the WP bio of Hans Bethe, legendary atomic scientist, Nobel winner.
8 notes, 3 references, total length 27034 bytes.

And you have the WP bio of a fictional scientist on a sitcom, Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory.
75 references, total length 43670 bytes.

And no doubt, many of the Wiki-assholes reading this will go "that's perfectly acceptable".

Wait, so you mean that on the internet, people gravitate more to throwaway pop culture than actual science?

What amazing insight, Professor Barbour.

[Peter Damian]

Wait, so you mean that on the internet, people gravitate more to throwaway pop culture than actual science?

What amazing insight, Professor Barbour.

What you say about the internet is true. But this is, or is meant to be an internet encyclopedia. You will object that an internet encyclopedia by its nature will gravitate to the pop culture and the throwaway. I reply: that is not what an encyclopedia by its nature should be (whether it is on the internet or not).

There is this great confusion among Wikipediots between 'is' and 'should'. I hear that argument about pop culture all the time. Yes, Wikipedia is this or that. But should it be this or that? That is the question.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Sxeptomaniac]

Wait, so you mean that on the internet, people gravitate more to throwaway pop culture than actual science?

What amazing insight, Professor Barbour.

What you say about the internet is true. But this is, or is meant to be an internet encyclopedia. You will object that an internet encyclopedia by its nature will gravitate to the pop culture and the throwaway. I reply: that is not what an encyclopedia by its nature should be (whether it is on the internet or not).

There is this great confusion among Wikipediots between 'is' and 'should'. I hear that argument about pop culture all the time. Yes, Wikipedia is this or that. But should it be this or that? That is the question.

I would question what things that should be can realistically be addressed? The internet is the internet, and there's little that can be done at this time to change that.

I am willing to accept that WP will always be best used as a pop culture reference, and some light information on other items. Why worry about things that can not be changed? Accept what WP is, and use it in that vein, or don't, and avoid it as best you can. When it comes to this particular issue, that's really your two most sane choices.