Hacker News Reader

Today I learned, while reading about "fancruft"[1], that there are 500 Wikipedia pages devoted to individual Simpsons episodes.[2]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fancruft

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Simpsons_episodes

View on HN

500 is too many but the Simpsons at it's prime really was that good

See also: Pokemon test[0]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pok%C3%A9mon_test

And thanks to Wikipedia culling all the fancruft (including pokemon articles), we now have 10,000 ad-ridden wiki clones, one for each fandom.

I REALLY can't imagine this was the best decision in the long term.

>Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research.

I think wiki clones have more to do with people wanting to run their own advertising.

Advertising is why people want to run/host wiki clones.

Not having the complete timeline/backstory/abilities/etc of every One Piece character/Pokemon/Simpsons episode is why people want to use wiki clones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com