
Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia? - zeppelin_7
http://www.chemconnector.com/2011/11/17/why-are-pornstars-more-notable-than-scientists-on-wikipedia/
======
mixmax
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

~~~
peterjs
That's an easy one. The best known Dane is obviously Peter Schmeichel :) The
bubble of football/soccer fans is a quite populous place.

~~~
bjoernbu
The first Danes that came to my mind were actually the Laudrup brothers. But I
guess that proves the point of how biased one is. I am a German who grew up in
the 90s. I gotta know football stars from my childhood.

However, I'm unable to think of anyone from Argentina that is more famous than
Maradonna even if I try to be as objective as possible, the only competition I
can think of is Messi.

------
smackfu
The notability requirements for academics:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_\(academics\))

The notability requirements for pornstars:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(pornograp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_\(pornographic_actors\)#Pornographic_actors_and_models)

~~~
VladRussian
>3.Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as
beginning a trend in pornography;

i bet it is much harder than produce a new scientific theory ( or may be it is
just my Math MS talking :)

~~~
kristopolous
I've often wondered who the Hitchcocks and Coppolas were of the Adult Film
Genre. I've considered the idea that there are masterpiece films, dismissed
for being erotic, that have gone unseen and unappreciated by the masses.

Alas, I have yet to find a nice thorough list, akin to the AFI top 100 for the
lewd.

* If you know where this is, maybe you can also direct me to some reputable cult list; you know, that would have Todd Haynes and Kenneth Anger etc...

inquiring minds want to know!

~~~
the-cakeboss
There's actually been much debate towards whether pornography can even be
considered art, thus calling into question whether a Hitchcock or Coppolas of
the Adult Film Genre can even exist.

I personally am of the belief that porn isn't art, due to its use and
audience. When someone views porn, the pornographic material is almost
invariably acting as a means to an end, namely satisfying sexual desires of
the viewer. Art on the other hand isn't a mean to any end. Art is to be
appreciated for what it is.

~~~
Helianthus
If you're still categorizing art into "not art" and "art" you have a long way
to go. As you say, Art is to be appreciated for what it is.

~~~
sliverstorm
Something can't be art simply by virtue of being called art.

~~~
J_Darnley
A previous discussion showed us that it can.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3284760>

------
spodek
Name a porn star from the 1800s.

Name a scientist from the 1800s. A bit easier, isn't it?

People who can't name scientists from earlier times can't name porn stars from
then either.

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.

A scientist without notability is like a fish without a bicycle.

~~~
roel_v
Maybe the irony flies over my head, or are you seriously arguing that the
absence of 'porn stars' from the 1800s makes scientists more important? 'porn
stars' didn't even _exist_ back then because the medium they use was only just
invented!

(I don't care about the actual discussion, but your reasoning is so flawed I
was compelled to respond)

~~~
dredmorbius
Go read a satirical work written from before the 20th Century. Take your pick.

Alice in Wonderland, Alice Through the Looking Glass, Gulliver's Travels,
Dante's Inferno, anything by Shakespeare.

There are endless references in those works, with varying amounts of veiling,
to popular personages of the time. Some politicians and princes, but also what
passes for the pop culture of the age, usually some mix of court
personalities, criminals, and occasionally a notable artist or learned person
("scientist" wasn't quite applicable for much of this period).

With the exception of arts, letters, and science, most of those names are all
but lost.

Porn, or gossip, or other intrigue, has a broad currency (many people find it
accessible and/or interesting), but also a very temporal one.

It's not that there weren't porn stars in the 1800s (vaudeville, "Little
Egypt" at the Chicago World's Fair), but simply that you'd have no familiarity
with their names (unless, say, you were an academic researching 19th century
and prior pornography).

Wear taller hats. You'll catch more.

~~~
roel_v
What are you talking about? "porn stars" in this context refers to (at least
somewhat somewhat) widely known performers in sex movies. There were no
mainstream movies back then, 'movie actor' wasn't a profession yet, and there
was no way to become famous by doing outrageous sexual activities and
exhibiting them to a broad audience. In fact in most of the world one would be
thrown in jail for showing in public what is nowadays shown on prime time tv.

So, once again, it's ridiculous to suggest that porn actors are less important
than scientists _only supported by the argument_ that nobody remembers porn
actors from that time. There weren't any!

(note that I'm not saying that one is more important than the other, I guess
it depends on the definition of 'important', I don't know nor care - frankly I
find the question quite trite and boring. My point is merely that the argument
is ridiculous.)

------
jonmc12
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.

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.

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.

~~~
VladRussian
after 20 minutes of staring into special relativity treatment of moving
particle field interaction (the math is simple, yet as a math major i didn't
have it as a part of my course and i'm interested in the corner case of small
scale what is domain of QM) my amygdala took over again and i'm back at HN. I
feel like my neo-cortex is complete chicken :)

------
andrewfelix
I find it perplexing that someone with a science background could have said
this: _"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."_

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.

~~~
dotBen
As apposed to someone saying _"I've spent many hours enjoying videos staring
adult performers Belladonna and Sasha Grey so YES, I have close connections
with the subject. And I believe I can objectively write a good article about
them."_...

...which by Wikipedia's standards would then be ok.

I'm pro-porn, but from my experience many of these 'fans' are so in awe of
their idols they're far more likely to write biased entries than peer-
scientists who are able to write about a notable scientist with a professional
level of rigor.

Factor in most adult performers have all sorts of controversy surrounding them
that fans will happily defend/spin you have even more room for abuse and non-
NPOV articles being written about adult 'talent' _(for want of a better word,
that is the official industry terminology)_.

~~~
roel_v
"I'm pro-porn, but from my experience many of these 'fans' are so in awe of
their idols..."

Tangential to the discussion, and maybe I live in a bubble, but do this sort
of people exist? I mean, what does being a 'fan' in this context constitute?
Collecting all movies of a certain actor/actress, or actually reading
biographies, trying to meet (maybe 'meat'? I'm the funny guy in the family)
them? I'm not even sure how that would work, do porn actors have like 'public
appearances'?

~~~
brazzy
Actually yes, many do, as it can be a great boost to their popularity (and
thus income). There are public sex industry trade fairs that feature live
performances, and some porn publishers release videos featuring the stars
"performing" with lucky fans - I imagine the latter is in part an anti-piracy
stunt and only available to registered buyers of the product.

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

------
oz
Because pornstars are more notable _among the masses_ than scientists.

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.

~~~
bane
In other words, "popular". And thus the inevitable problem with using
notability as a guideline.

Once that becomes the principle inclusion/exclusion criteria (as it tends to
be in most of the discussion in AfD), exclude lots of junk, but you also only
include things that are so common that everybody already knows about them
anyway -- thus making an encyclopedia as the "place you go to look up stuff
you don't know" moot.

This creates an irrational fear of including non-notable "false positives"
(when bits are effectively free), and excluding perfectly good information
that falls beneath some particular editor's personal interest radar.

~~~
oz
Is there a better way to solve this problem?

------
tptacek
Because Wikipedia notability isn't a ranking function.

~~~
patio11
Wikipedia notability is also a social construct created by the kind of people
who spend their time optimizing for Wikipedia cred, which co-relates with a
bunch of stuff that is different from the population at large or, say, HN.

------
codex
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.

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

~~~
darth_static
Did you even read the article? Have a look at this site:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornographic_actresses_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornographic_actresses_by_decade)
and try telling me with a straight face that all those actresses have a
greater right to a Wikipedia page than the professors that the author
mentions.

~~~
scarmig
It's a question of why notability requirements are stricter on academics than
pornstars. A fairly comprehensive list of pornstars will not be super huge,
especially compared to academics, and will have fewer cranks trying to push a
point of view through those articles. It comes down to a pragmatic point of
view, not an actual argument that the least notable porn star on that list is
more notable than the most notable scientist excluded from the list.

I personally say let them all in, but that battle has been fought and lost
long ago.

------
danso
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.

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.

------
moomin
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.

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.

And yes, Nielsen is definitely notable. But give me Sibelius any day.

------
brudgers
Sometimes, as is the case regarding 646 Pokemon, Wikipedia articles are
suitable based upon completeness rather than notability.

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.

~~~
duskwuff
The "Pokemon argument" was never considered valid within Wikipedia, and indeed
no longer applies -- a few of the best-known Pokemon have their own pages, but
most are relegated to lists.

Proof: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon>

(The links are all to the individual names -- but most of those are just
redirects to sublists, not individual articles.)

------
josscrowcroft
Because, if you'll excuse the vulgarity, _most_ people don't whack off to
videos of scientists

------
Havoc
Honestly I don't care who invents quantum teleportation as long as someone
does (asap preferably).

When googling a pornstar though, I'm looking for info on that specific person.

Just put them all on wiki & call it a day. Add low search weighting to the un-
notable ones if necessary.

------
drcube
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.

------
rudiger
The reason is they _are_ more notable! As in, More _worthy_ of attention or
notice; remarkable. As a group, we certainly pass more remarks about
pornography starlets than theoretical physicists.

~~~
yichi
The problem is, notability in Wikipedia is different than notability you are
used to in general language. In fact Wikipedia notability is a misnomer.

------
protomyth
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.

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

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

~~~
ComputerGuru
Hitler is arguably a far more important historical figure than Gandhi. What's
your point?

------
jQueryIsAwesome
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.

The little relevance of the subject makes easy for a pornstar to create
his/her own webpage on Wikipedia.

------
rjurney
Chemists don't do anal.

