Of course it isn't.
Do you see anything more to this lack of information than what arises from
the discursive demand to background a lot while trying to speak clearly on
what's focal for the moment?
Like a mention of the history of forks does not mention the social
practices of fork users... there is always something left out, unless the
substantial words are read in a widely inclusive sense. (It has always
puzzled me how socialization into Academia means learning to read narrowly.)
Eva