unless you take the obvious extension to how humans process worth, significance, interest, and unusualness in order to derive "famous."
in which case it is clear that the topic asks why porn stars are more famous than scientists.
and that it is also clear that the topic asks why porn stars are considered more significant than scientists given the numerous noble achievements given to mankind by scientists.
let's take a step back for a second and see if we can re-read "noble achievements given to mankind" without snickering.
In short, whatsoever gets attention on wikipedia deserves attention by dint of it having gotten attention. that's the whole point, innit?
So we're really just complaining when we try to draw more attention to scientists. Just as we're complaining if we're irritated that pokemon trivia gets more lengthy treatment on Wikipedia than important historical battles/chemical reactions/poems.
in which case it is clear that the topic asks why porn stars are more famous than scientists.
and that it is also clear that the topic asks why porn stars are considered more significant than scientists given the numerous noble achievements given to mankind by scientists.
let's take a step back for a second and see if we can re-read "noble achievements given to mankind" without snickering.
In short, whatsoever gets attention on wikipedia deserves attention by dint of it having gotten attention. that's the whole point, innit?
So we're really just complaining when we try to draw more attention to scientists. Just as we're complaining if we're irritated that pokemon trivia gets more lengthy treatment on Wikipedia than important historical battles/chemical reactions/poems.