The addition of anime to a LOT of pages, whether through "In Popular Culture" additions or other spurious ways, is a key reason Wikipedia is not taken as seriously as it could be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture#Popular_Culture_in_Popular_Culture
The prolific infestation of specific "internet cultures" and other minor groups - big maybe on the internet and certainly in the editorial staff here, but trivial and pontless in a scholarly sense - detracts from the resource as a whole.
Where someone with actual information misses out on having a chance to share it, X number of editors get to water down a page with their own trivial crap, or moderate it for their own purposes.
This is why I and many others will never donate, This is why Wikipedia is NOT taken seriously. _ImmortalYawn|Talk 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
One of these things is not like the others...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crucifixion_in_art&oldid=329786869
Why is a single scene from a single episode of a cartoon only shown in a country in which crucifixion bears no important meaning is relevant to be used as an example on an encyclopedia page on crucifixion? By their own admission in the previously included text, the scene was cut from the English version of the show and the director had only added the scene because he liked how it looked.
It is, by any measure, completely insignificant and exemplifies absolutely nothing that adds to the understanding of crucifixion, or art, or even animes.
.jpg)
ImmortalYawn|Talk 08:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)