@Aspect of the Morning star I do think that a misunderstanding occurred with the recollection of my words. I am not claiming that users are making a personal aesthetic. It has little, if nothing to do with what I had said. But rather explaining that aesthetics are being created without many pictures; and given that, are hard to understand. They have many words and explanations, yet no solid examples to view and/or listen to. And recalling my reference to the blind men and elephant, you cannot wholly understand an aesthetic without examples. Countless times when exploring this wiki, I have come across pages with quite interesting history and such; but with little to no pictures to show what the aesthetic is. Imagine Cottagecore (a quite popular and in depth page) without pictures, you would have an understanding of it to some theoretical point. But in order to adapt and fully understand the aesthetic, you must have examples and photos to get a feel for it. And to acknowledge your point that the viewer can make a google search, well I beg to differ for one reason alone.
To put it simply, if an aesthetic was discovered and then 'created' or put together on this wiki, there are no examples under the name of that aesthetic. For example in my search for photos that go under the aesthetic page that I created, most photos were an accidental occurrence. With unintentional bad lighting, etc. which made it 'aesthetic.' So to further explain, some photos that would go under an aesthetic would not show up in a query on Google (based off of it's search engine function)
I never claimed these things to be a matter a fact or endgame. I was just reporting what I had noticed frequently, and decided to voice my concerns and find out if anyone else was noticing the same issues.
And when writing that 'post' I did not claim that this was a "dire" issue. I believe that with something so reliant on visuals on an information source such as this wiki, there should be more photos or some form of other media.