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 article was for an item created by the original poster of the article. My memory escapes me, but I want to say it was a webcomic. It wasn't a particularly good one (in fact, it could have possibly been one of the worst ones I'd ever seen), but it was certainly a piece of information which, from what I understood at the time, was the entire point of Wikipedia.

I was under the impression, disillusioned though it apparently was, that anything could be posted on the site and added to the planet of information forming around what your friendly neighborhood Goat can only assume is an overstuffed blackhole reaching far into dimensions we can only begin to understand.

But, no, apparently...one must be 'worthy'.

However, one has to wonder, what makes one worthy of an article on Wikipedia? I see fluxuating standards. I see a webcomic's wikipedia, several as a matter of fact, while the one I mentioned before was set aflame, stones and spears thrown at its creator as he ran out of it to escape the fires and smell of his own creation burning. He was then raped. However, we're straying from the topic.

Why does one webcomic deserve an article on Wikipedia while another gets the country of Poland treatment? Is it because of site hits? Because of popularity (and no they are not necessarily the same thing)?

The former seems possible, though incredibly irresponsible. The latter seems more probable, but take a look at some of the incredibly unpopular articles on Wikipedia. I'm sure you know what I mean. Those little tidbits of information you find at 3:27AM, something about the fiber of a pubic hair, or an ancient ritual involving the ritualistic sacrifice and/or consumption of baby manta rays.

Given that these two things are, for the most part, debunked or improbable, one can only point the finger at one factor that determines the worthiness of an article on Wikipedia.

Human opinion.

So, tell me, where does opinion fall into the realm of fact? Where does opinion begin to effect what has happened or what is happening, or, at the very least, the distribution of such knowledge?

I find it remarkably elitist for Wikipedia to deny any factual article. If I have the desire to post about a false religion, such as the religion of the deity of self-satisfaction who imprints his grim visage on the palm of fervent masturbators, or the history and deep, intricate plot of a comic about two circles and a yellow, asian triangle, I should be able to distribute this information to the world. Who are you, Wikipedia regulars, to tell me what facts I can and cannot post on a universal encyclopedia?

Oh, you're the guys that can actually get it all removed by complaining to the administrators for hours on end until they adhere to your cries and unjustly remove articles without a second thought?

Well...

...damn.