Of Wikipedia Worthiness

Now, as several of my friends are aware, I am something of a Wikipedia enthusiast. Something of a wayward adventurer of the vast, untapped knowledge that lies dormant and, for the most part, unappreciated. I can't help but click a link on that page, perhaps, two, which eventually leads me to click two or three on these two new pages. It's a chain reaction that I like to call 'falling into Wikipedia'.   On one such adventure into information vertigo, I happened upon a number of pages, all of which that were on the same web of related topics (although this means little to anyone who has fallen into Wikipedia, as some webs can go from Mother Theresa, to Van Halen, to the seventeenth century practice of rubbing the shredded skins of animals on underage children in some obscure, haphazard fashion). This web was around 50%-70% removed or 'recommended for speedy deletion' by the populace of Wikipedia. The 'Wikipedia regulars', if you would. A community of men with wells of infinite knowledge, one would assume, though it's quickly discovered that they are, in fact, just regular joes that know their way around a Google. This web of related articles was, from what I could surmise from the 'discussion' tab, being metaphorically curbstomped (think American History X, given the speed in which it was being destroyed) because of the lack of content elsewhere on the internet. I shrugged it off, not really thinking about it, though being a little irritated that I had actually, for the first time in my Wikipedia informational adventures, hit a road block. Some time passed and I once again fell into Wikipedia's grasp, one that I wish most educational systems could harness and use on today's youth, and slowly started to discover yet another web being set aflame by rabble rousing information junkies. The reason, again only roughly guessed at given the fractured form of communication that is the 'discussion' tabs of these articles, was because the arti [...]