[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as culturally assumed

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:

> On 11/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> imaginable records in there.  A trivia section is good in and for an
>> article because it keeps this information separate from the rest of the
>> article.  The importance or value of the information depends more on the
>
> What kinds of trivia do you think are best in their own section? I
> think we can distinguish between:
>
> 1) Generally pertinent information that could be integrated somewhere.
> e.g., someone's childhood best friend was the famous author xxx.
> 2) Real trivia that simply isn't that interesting, e.g. the fact that
> someone won some event on whatever day was only the 3rd time that's
> happened since blah blah blah.
> 3) Trivia that's only trivia for ignorant teeny boppers (there was a
> reference to this extremely well known painting in whatever episode of
> the simpsons, or there was a character named after this extremely well
> known 17th philosopher in whatever computer game).
> 4) ...you're proposing a category of trivia that is interesting but
> can't or shouldn't be integrated?
>
> (Personally, I hate 3) the most. They make me grind my teeth.)
>
> Steve

3 isn't trivia, it is cultural references. May I ask what is wrong with 
letting
as you put it "teeny boppers" know how what things are referring to? I've seen
kids become more interested in history and other subjects after they learn how
many references the Simpsons, Family Guy and similar shows make to elements of
the Western canon. So what is wrong with such sections other than that you
don't like reading them?