I have a strong bias to admit. I can't stand the "In popular culture"
heading that certain articles have, which which become a hodgepodge
list for every time a major historical event or theme is mentioned in
a TV show, movie, Japanese cartoon, video game, rock song, or science
fiction novel.
Does this make me a bad person? Do others feel this? I feel as if
these sections should be hunted down and exterminated. They could, of
course, be broken off into separate lists (as I did for [[Mad
scientist]] => [[List of mad scientists]]), but is that list then
encyclopedic? It is feasible that it will ever be comprehensive? Would
there be a point to a list of instances in popular culture of the
[[philosopher's stone]] -- a common and reoccuring theme since at
least medieval times?
[[Nuclear weapon]] is another entry which has such a section. I've
tried to make it, over time, less of a list and more of a descriptive
paragraph. But it still is quite unpleasant and not very useful. I
feel somewhat bad cutting a whole list out of an entry, though. With
something like "nuclear weapon" (a major cultural motif of the late
20th century), it feels ridiculous to try and add every instance of
its being invoked. But where to draw the line? I edited out a line
somebody added about the fact that the prog-rock band Rush wrote a
song about nuclear weapons on the basis that this was hardly notable
enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. But is "Sum of All
Fears"? "Godzilla"? I don't know.
Do these sections help you understand the article in question? I don't
think they do. I'm happy with the article for the movie "Sum of All
Fears" saying that it involved a nuclear weapon, but the other way
around seems quite silly. My general feeling is that this is an issue
of "importance" (very subjective) and "specificity" (less subjective);
"Sum of All Fears" (the movie) is far less important than "nuclear
weapons" (writ largely), and while the "Sum of All Fears" invokes the
larger trope of the "nuclear weapon", the opposite does not, in my
opinion, occur (most people do not see the word "nuclear weapon" and
think, "Oh yes, that movie!").
I think that if the subject of an article really warrants a section on
its impact in "popular culture," it should be something more along the
lines of describing the way it is invoked (i.e. "Nuclear weapons have
commonly stood as metaphors for the harnessing of the powers of nature
by science, and are often invoked as apocalyptic symbols, etc.")
rather than a list of occurences.
Is anybody else with me on this? Have I lost my mind? Should I be more
respectful to aspects of "popular culture" that I obviously disdain?
Am I a cruel and unfair editor? I'm interested in your thoughts. This
is clearly a matter of taste (and perhaps a little reasoning), though,
and I'm not proposing any hard policies.
I do understand the *reason* such sections exist: a lot of users don't
have a whole lot to contribute to an article on "nuclear weapons", for
instance, besides their associations in popular culture. Everybody
wants to pitch in, as best they can. However, "all contributions are
equally valid and must be kept" is clearly not the Wiki philosophy
(egalitarianism here is reserved to the ability to contribute, not the
information contributed itself), though I feel bad saying, "Look
buddy, I'm sorry you don't know anything about this except that it was
featured in an HBO weekly show. I understand you want to help. But
you're just not up to snuff, if this is the only information you can
offer." I'd feel like such a snobby academic historian saying that
sort of thing, a very un-wiki sentiment. Alas! Does anybody have any
thoughts?
FF