[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias (was How didthis happen (comixpedia??))

[Bryan Derksen]

geni wrote:

>If popular culture/Trivia are so important why does [[Hurricane
>Katrina]] (to chose a random example) not include either word?
>  
>
Maybe it's too recent a subject to have any material out there in pop 
culture to warrant such a section? Maybe there's enough material, but no 
editors have thought of adding it yet? Or they did, and it's scattered 
elsewhere in the article rather than being gathered into a section? 
Maybe it was already split off, or is in some more generic "major 
hurricanes in pop culture" article somewhere?

More important, though, is the question of why the absence of a pop 
culture section in any particular article is a reason why there 
shouldn't be one in any _other_ particular article. Once upon a time 
Wikipedia didn't have any articles about hurricanes at all but nobody 
objected on that basis when the first one got added (or if they did, 
they obviously had no effect).

>Lets consdir the situation:
>
>The problem: This article is to big and there is no obvious split
>Solution. Remove stuff while doing the minium posible damage to the article.
>
>That tends to result in the popular culture/trivia section being the
>first to go.
>  
>
If there's such a big "pop culture" section in the article, how can you 
claim that there's no obvious split solution? Take the text you've just 
highlighted for deletion and copy and paste it into a new article 
instead. Easy and obvious. Deleting it may not "damage" the article 
itself any worse than splitting it off would, but it does damage 
Wikipedia as a whole more.

I suppose I must be a rabid inclusionist or something because I simply 
can't understand why you'd rather delete a section like this than split 
it off into a child article.