I’m also doubting the relevance of the ancient distinction between foxes (which know many things) and hedgehogs (which know one big thing). The important thing isn’t whether you know one thing or many things, but whether you what what’s relevant and what’s not.
I do like the fox/hedgehog distinction, but I think Chris's point is valid. A lot of trivia is not materially more useful than only a handful of trivia, and a lot of valid wisdom is far more powerful than both a little wisdom and any amount of trivia.
On the other hand, fox/hedgehog may never have been intended as an important distinction in the sense of which method is more useful. The reason for making the distinction is about understanding how different people can see the world, and to what end. Some people see a forest, some see a few trees. If you know what inclination that person has, you have some idea of how to approach them, how to interpret their interpretations of things.