wikipedia is great.  all kinds of information and, perhaps more especially, attempts to untangle it and to be comprehensive.  i expect the diversity of participants is an aid to the diversity of entries.  the disambiguation page for "evolution" notes the various scientific uses(theories) from biolgocial to higher to stellar evolutioin.  there are also categories for film, games, other.  probably because it is something foreign to me, i followed the link for "evolution" a "major heel professional wrestling stable" (say again?).  [that's the other thing about wikipedia, you can actually find explanations for all those things.]    what fascinates is the photo: four muscular men, with skimpy briefs, protective gear on knees and elbows, hands raised over their heads in a sort of team victory salute, with glitzy stuff and spotlights.  there are, of course, links to each of their sites (the team itself is now disbanded) with the necessary /(?) photo galleries.  and here the - well not quite fascination, or perhaps that, but fascination borne of mystification - increases. the bottom line is: i dont get it. the excitement and hype around two or four men bashing each other on a stage - to whatever degree its 'real' or not.  [i am reminded of a story i caught on tv of a trainer/promoter who took trainees north in the winter to small towns and communities.  excitement for the communities; excitement of wrestling debuts for the travellers.  a couple of young women who were excited for the opportunity and a middling man who ended up training and who still dreamed of making it into the big time.  this, then, remined me of carney folk i worked with who had the big dream of owning their own ride and touring.] 

i could report further musings: photos of men picking up chairs as weapons,;my non-desire to even look at the gallery labeled 'sledghammers' (one hopes it's the name of a move, not a refererence to the tool in his hand); the attacks on referees; the jeering, cheering crowds - big crowds... but i'll refrain and come down to the question i 'm stuck with: of what relevance is this?  it's not really enough to say "i dont get it" (which is where i ended the discussion on "evolution" in my dissertation (which says this is not part of my dissertation?)).  how does this enter into a discussion on planning for sustainability?  it seems so far removed. (i was reading rumi last night, so much closer, so much more easily integrated.) yet i think it has to be brought in somehow.  i'm sure there are many more people in regular attendence at a wrestling match than sustainability conferences; more people watching the wwf than the new new environmentally friendly reality tv show, 'living with ed'.  but how...?  perhaps this emphasizes the 'building anew' angle; that changing our current sociocultural system is virtually impossible - what is required is development of alternatives; ones that can basically take over, either by taking over or by reestablishing something when the rest goes to pot...

and then, oddly enough, following further gets me into a whole discussion around original research, neologisms, adherence to policy prescriptions, reviewer bias, collaborative process and more. see: wikipedia: articles for deletion/professional wrestling attacks. which then takes me to discussion on research - namely wikipedia's policy on original research, reliable resources, etc. etc.