Wikipedia is the ultimate social network. One's contributions to the encyclopedia convey a full spectrum of interests, goals, desires, and level of honesty (or lack thereof). Minor details speak volumes; they are more revealing than a gallery of photographs, more meaningful than your favorite color, more intimate than dirty socks.
What really delineates our ability to meaningfully communicate and form social bonds? Common interests in art, music, and books all play a role, as do cultural similarities. They are limited in scope, only defining the surface of our interactions. Tilting the rudders of our interpersonal discourse, though, are the most minor, infinitesimal details -- an order of magnitude more prescient than your race or political affiliation.
I don't know about all that -- but the main idea is that wikipedia really should be the center of something much bigger. (A good start would be a page where people can discuss the topic itself, not just its article.)
This is why, every time someone deletes an article because it's not notable, it feels like somehow, somewhere, there was a great disturbance in the force, like a kitten was put through the blender. Information can be moved, damnit. It should be flowing outward from wikipedia to somewhere else (somewhere more everything2-ish*).
Do you hear this, WP deletionists? It's the general public. They don't like it when their hard work is painted over with white-out. (Or sealed up in an unadvertised lockbox, which amounts to the same thing.) Use the annex.
* Print this one out and read it. Some of the most beautiful stuff I've ever encountered is on e2.