Wikipedia:Wikipedia has more...: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:26, 20 July 2024

Latest revision as of 16:38, 20 July 2024

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 15:

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.

==Wikipedia has more information on ''Pokémon'' than on the Bible.==

Line 47 ⟶ 49:

* Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1402278002-VnQc7BHJc54ytGL3s4L2SA ''The New York Times'']

* Verdict: Apparently true at the time (January 2011), not true now.

* Reason: ''The Simpsons'' characters are easy to write about. All 45 articles have existed for years. Moreover, they are easier to categorise. At the time of writing we have 493,560 articles about writers, far more than all our fictional character articles. Note however that most, if not all, of the items that have been added to the writers category since, already existed either on English WP, or Spanish WP. (Thanks to [[User:Rosiestep]] for translation.)

"Is a category with five Mexican feminist writers impressive, or embarrassing when compared with the 45 articles on characters in ''The Simpsons''? "{{Break}}

Note the MFW's now number {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Mexican feminist writers}}, while the SimpsSimpsons are still at 45. And why not compare American feminist writers at {{PAGESINCATEGORY:American feminist writers}}.? How many notable Mexican feminist writers are there? Who is capable of writing about them, without serious research? Why are those people not contributing – how come we are (implicitly) blaming the people who ''are contributing''?

Pop quiz: name as many Mexican feminist writers as you can. Name as many ''Simpsons'' characters as you can.