Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?

I once had a heated discussion with a classical violinist about who the most known Dane was outside of Denmark. She insisted that it had to be Carl Nielsen, a composer, whom she was sure everyone would know. All her friends knew Carl Nielsen, and many of them could play his most known symphonies from memory.<p>I'd only vaguely heard of him, and contended that maybe Hans Christian Andersen would be more known, since Disney had adopted his fairy tales and made them into stories that every child around the world would know. Or maybe Niels Bohr, since his contributions to atomic science were so great.<p>She would have none of it, and insisted that everyone she talked to, both in Denmark and abroad would instantly recognise Carl Nielsen, but only some would recognise Bohr, and a few didn't really know Hans Christian Andersen, and certainly didn't know all his stories by heart like they knew Carl Nielsens symphonies.<p>She lived in a bubble: Her friends and the people she worked with were all musicians, composers, or were otherwise deeply into classical music, so she made the obvious mistake of thinking that Carl Nielsen would be widely known, since everyone she met seemed to know him and his music well.<p>If you asked people on HN who the most famous Dane is David Heinemmeir Hansson might be mentioned. Or maybe Bjarne Stroustrup who invented C++, or Rasmus Lerdorrf who invented PHP, or maybe Anders Hejlsberg who invented turbo pascal, Delphi and C#, or Lars Bak who developled the Chrome V8 javascript engine and was developer lead on Googles Dart language.<p>You need to look beyond your own bubble to see who is notable in the general public. Ask a random stranger on the street how many pornstars he can name, and then how many scientists he can name and you'll see that the author lives in a bubble.

The notability requirements for academics: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics...</a><p>The notability requirements for pornstars: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(pornographic_actors)#Pornographic_actors_and_models" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(pornograp...</a>

Name a porn star from the 1800s.<p>Name a scientist from the 1800s. A bit easier, isn't it?<p>People who can't name scientists from earlier times can't name porn stars from then either.<p>Science isn't about popularity or notability. It's about satisfying your curiosity about nature, honestly reporting your results, and experiment. At least it is for me, which is why I got a PhD in physics. Porn stars thrive on publicity.<p>A scientist without notability is like a fish without a bicycle.

Wikipedia is not to blame any more than MTV is to blame for Jersey Shore - they are both simply catering content that reflects how their audience wants to expend attention.<p>Looking at the numbers for perez hilton, farmville, facebook, television, porn, etc - paints a picture that the average mass consumer does not consider scientific knowledge to be notable.. or the inventors of this knowledge.<p>I blame Edward Bernays. Watch the BBC documentary 'The Century of Self' which provides a historical context for why the amygdala of the typical consumer suckles all the attention, while the neo-cortex sits waiting like the runt of the litter with only a vague notion of scientific knowledge present in daily life.

I find it perplexing that someone with a science background could have said this: <i>"Gary Martin and Sean Ekins are personal friends so YES, I have close connections with the subject. And I believe I can objectively write a good article about them."</i><p>He may have good information, and it's great that he's sharing that information. But being friends with the subject immediately rules out the authors objectivity. That information needs to be corroborated.

Because most porn stars have publicity agents, and most scientists do not.

Because pornstars are more notable <i>among the masses</i> than scientists.<p>I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is true. Ask most people to name a scientist, the only one they can name is Einstein. Ask most men to name pornstars, they can rattle of Jenna Jameson, Asia Careera, Ron Jeremy etc. For women, it will be the authors of romance novels.

Because Wikipedia notability isn't a ranking function.

Because man has an evolved urge to reproduce which is far stronger and more prevalent than the urge to do science. 100% of my ancestors have had sex. I doubt more than 0.1% have done any science.

Because there are probably fewer brand name pornstars out there than people who hold a professorship of some kind?

I've noticed that social media experts (some of them whose blog posts rise to the front of HN) get their own pages, merely for having won awards or recognition in some social media BS ceremonies. In their case, I think it's the combination of online media savviness and the likelihood that no one will actually read their page that keeps their pages from being deleted.<p>For how much Wikipedia is assumed to be a tech-geek lair, I'm surprised that being big in computer science/programming/etc doesn't guarantee you a spot. CoffeeScript has its own page but not its creator, for instance.

The problem is that real, paid for encyclopaedias used to use real, paid for experts in the field. Wikipedia repeatedly goes wrong when it insists on applying processes that work with subject matter professionals to well-meaning amateurs.<p>There's not really any way they've got for resolving the situation where the intersection of motivated people and those whose work qualifies for inclusion is empty.<p>And yes, Nielsen is definitely notable. But give me Sibelius any day.

Sometimes, as is the case regarding 646 Pokemon, Wikipedia articles are suitable based upon completeness rather than notability.<p>Historically, pornstars were somewhat rare and an readily accessible catalog compiled to pseudo-academic standards is an undertaking which is well facilitated by Wikipedia, while listing every chemist is a much more problematic task.

Because, if you'll excuse the vulgarity, <i>most</i> people don't whack off to videos of scientists

Honestly I don't care who invents quantum teleportation as long as someone does (asap preferably).<p>When googling a pornstar though, I'm looking for info on that specific person.<p>Just put them all on wiki &#38; call it a day. Add low search weighting to the un-notable ones if necessary.

Is a few bytes of text that expensive?? Why shouldn't they include an article about every person, place or thing someone cares enough to write about? It's not like it all has to fit in a volume on my shelf.

The reason is they <i>are</i> more notable! As in, More <i>worthy</i> of attention or notice; remarkable. As a group, we certainly pass more remarks about pornography starlets than theoretical physicists.

Because Wikipedia is the social media of encyclopedias. Sometimes you get really good stuff, but you also lose the serious but boring people and you get a weird social rules system.

because pornography is more intimate when you know about the people having sex, but knowing about Rømer won't change the speed of light.

Same reason there is more literature on Hitler than on Gandhi.

One reason is because scholars will look up to the list of biochemists to know significant discoveries in that area; but the people looking lists of pornstars... they are just wasting time.<p>The little relevance of the subject makes easy for a pornstar to create his/her own webpage on Wikipedia.

Chemists don't do anal.