No, I'm pointing out that collective 'judgement calls' do not, in fact, work.
People cannot but disagree, and, what's more, it's something that's nearly impossible to be objective on. You can't just decide how 'relevant to the universe' something is...it's always what's relevant to you.
You can actually notice this lack of objectivity when it comes to sci-fi....nerds do a disproportional amount of editing, ergo, sci-fi is massively over-represented.
Actually your point was that they don't follow rules. You didn't mention "judgment" at all, not even indirectly; it was complaining about inconsistent application of rules.
If you now want to change your point to say that you question their judgment in applying rules, fine, but that's a different argument. I actually agree with the revised argument, at least the specifics, as I implied in my post (I'm the AC in the GP). I don't think an animated show deserves multiple entries, and I don't think an ideal encyclopedia should include implementations of algorithms in code just because a lot of editors are apparently undergrad comp sci majors.
But disagreeing with judgments being made doesn't mean they aren't being made, or even made consistently. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with many worthwhile articles but, among other flaws, over emphasizes science fiction and popular television" is IMHO an accurate description. The 1912 Britannica was a good encyclopedia with its own emphasis problems, plus some incredibly embarrassing mistakes about non-western history (such as not knowing when the Mughals came to power in India) because of the biases in *its* editorial pool.
The problems don't invalidate either project, let alone in concept (as you seem to be arguing) or the idea of a "notability" standard. They do affect the utility and the enjoyment of both.
Empirically, your are probably right that if Wikipedia tried to be more assertive it would do a bad job. But they could certainly change standards from the ridiculous 'cite needed' when making critical judgments (which discourages people who actually *know* crap from editing, and encourages Dunning-Kruger sufferers who read one book on the subject once and believed it) and be more encouraging about cutting marginal articles to the bone. In the theoretical space for 'collaborative projects', this could reach a stable equilibrium of sorts, with people cutting stuff out and fixing bad claims. But in practice? I doubt it's worth trying.
OTOH, I'm not entirely sure why they don't let everything in currently, but I'm sure there's a reason.
I assume their reason is to mimic a traditional encyclopedia. Personally my preference for less is based on two things: A 200-word article is more useful than a 2000 word article if you want a short introduction; and, length in a traditional encyclopedia does convey valuable information about the overall importance.