appreciated - this deletionism mentality, i feel is slightly incorrect. would it not be better to have an attitude of accuracy? whereby ensuring the content is accurate. if the wikipedia servers cannot handle the strain of amassing the knowledge of the world then should we feel comfortable with their role as custodian of this knowledge?
It's an ongoing living project, the largest of its kind in the world. The problem isn't the accuracy of any article at any one moment in time; the problem is the difficulty of ensuring the article remains accurate, so that 2 years from now, when people stop caring about the WP article about T.P-W, the project can still be sure that what's on that page (and thus the top of Google's SERPs) is accurate.
As an aside: I'm not sure you're entitled to be comfortable with Wikipedia's role. They didn't ask your permission to start the project; they just did it. The Wikipedia project, it seems to me, is entitled to set its own norms. If you don't like them, start a competing project. There's a whole big Internet out there to build on top of.
Many of the problems hackers seem to have with Wikipedia seem more like problems hackers have with encyclopedias. For instance, hackers want facts and ideas that they can verify from first principles to have a home on Wikipedia, but encyclopedias are never supposed to be venues for original research (they're supposed to be guides to the existing research). So, before you chime in and say "Wikipedia has an insurmountable first-mover advantage as the Internet's encyclopedia", ask, "do we want to be investing the content we're hoping to build in an encyclopedia, or do we want to create some kind of new venue that wouldn't even compete with Wikipedia but instead augment it, instead"?