&quot;Mourn the fall of Wikipedia&quot;? Who is Wikipedia losing to? What was it before that it isn&#x27;t anymore?<p>I last spent significant time on WP in 2007, and &quot;deletionism&quot; was very much the mainstream principle of the site back then.<p>Wikipedia has <i>extensive</i> coverage of Pokemon; it covers Pokemon better than it covers abstract algebra! What it doesn&#x27;t do is cover every single aspect of Pokemon in its own article.<p>The reason it does that is because there&#x27;s a tradeoff in managing an encyclopedia between reliability and expansiveness, and Wikipedia has tacked towards reliability. If you&#x27;re going to have a reliable encyclopedia, where there&#x27;s a pretty good chance that any sentence in the site is true, then there&#x27;s a negative externality to forests of related articles: each one of them is an <i>independent</i> entry point to the site from Google, and each will attract its own edits, and all of those edits need to be policed to make sure they aren&#x27;t lies.