That's very amusing, because the exact opposite bias can be found in traditional encyclopedias: > The other day I read a dozen thousand words about Assyrian ar

That's very amusing, because the exact opposite bias can be found in traditional encyclopedias: > The other day I read a dozen thousand words about Assyrian archeology in my DVD copy of Encyclopedia Britannica, but when I wanted to read about the Xbox 360, there wasn't even a single entry, so I gave up. http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3154537/paul-miller-offline-hard-to-binge http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3154537/paul-miller-offlin... > Wikipedia's editors (or, perhaps more accurately, humanity) have a bias in thinking details in the present are more important than details in the past. I don't know if that's entirely true. I think it significantly depends on what those "details" are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games