Fannage: Difference between revisions

Line 4:

{{quote|''I like that the wikipedia article on House Targaryen is longer than the article for sickle cell anemia.''|The Podcast of Ice and Fire (Sadly still true.)}}

Fannage usually exists on nonspecialized wiki, where things appealing to pop culture attract larger degrees of fannage than more mundane if relevant topics. According to wiki law, this shouldn't be a problem, as it encourages a larger number of people to edit. Likewise the opposite isn't bad either, if a handful of people are hopefully interested in a single topic to make good entries even if [[Hedge Trimmer~~|Hedge Trimmers~~]] complain about [[There Is No Such Thing as Notability|superfluous articles being longer]]. On one hand, you don't have to look at the fan-tacular articles. On the other hand, Wikipedia's $12,000 funds drives every couple of years seem to be mostly going towards rewriting the [[Star Wars Expanded Universe]] in Encyclopedia form.

'''Fannage''' usually exists on nonspecialized wiki, where things appealing to pop culture attract larger degrees of fannage than more mundane if relevant topics. According to wiki law, this shouldn't be a problem, as it encourages a larger number of people to edit. Likewise the opposite isn't bad either, if a handful of people are hopefully interested in a single topic to make good entries even if [[Hedge Trimmer]]s complain about [[There Is No Such Thing as Notability|superfluous articles being longer]]. On one hand, you don't have to look at the fan-tacular articles. On the other hand, Wikipedia's $12,000 funds drives every couple of years seem to be mostly going towards rewriting the [[Star Wars Expanded Universe]] in Encyclopedia form.

The danger occurs when topics with high amounts of Fannage lead to a larger pool of ''unskilled'' editors. More importantly, things that attract fandoms can start getting filled with [[Weasel Words]], [[Fanon]], and other mess in an attempt to fit into the format.