Thank you. As someone who has tendencies toward both, and whose job literally involves both sides of this argument (well, for the most part. I'm a librarian. A large part of the job is archival and what is essentially storage of and digging through a bunch of data points that make one whole item, but I still draw on things like themes and characters and interpretations when I can really give suggestions on what I think people might like (and indeed, how to classify them. More on that later).), I think it's incredibly short-sighted to make the claim that a whole half of a theoretical two-sided matter (it's not, as mentioned prior) is "wrong".
Even in our own sorting systems, we discover our own biases and interpretations, and even archival is transformative, in its own ways. Is a book about what would be considered pseudo-scientific medicine (say... faith healing, for example) a book that should be classified as fiction or nonfiction? Is that same book something that should be treated as a "health" book and be assigned a call number accordingly? Or is it spiritual, because it's about faith? Should it be assigned a call number to begin with, should it be added to our shelves, is it knowledge that we believe would circulate should be added to our limited shelving space? Even just visiting the Wikipedia (yes, I know, haha) page for the Dewey Decimal System reveals it isn't without its own biases and controversies (and even ones untouched there. There isn't, as far as I'm aware, a proper categorization for "books on the subject of non-binary individuals", and there is still a VERY STRONG male/female binary in the system). I'm often asking fellow staff and cross-referencing the Library of Congress' database because I have my own interpretations of how this should be categorized, but maybe I'm not considering it from another angle.
Similarly, as touched on briefly: Is it worth adding? Will the information be useful, will someone like this book (do other libraries have copies of it? how many? if so, do they circulate? where do they circulate to?) or want to know the exact drop rate of an item, or the tiniest tidbit of lore about this extremely "non-important" character? If a wiki is meant to be perfection, then wouldn't it stand to reason that everything and everyone should have a page? Every battle, every location, every character even down to that one character that the protagonist walked by back in chapter 3 that didn't have a name just a brief description of what they were wearing? No, a wiki is a reflection of the authors of the wiki, of what they deem important, and of the rules laid out for it. And while this is anecdotal, most of the wikis I visit that are focused around fan culture tend to have a dedicated trivia/theories section. Hell, TVTropes has the YMMV tag for that exact reason. And honestly, I often find those to be the most fun to read x3