People mirapex with these symptoms may avoid physical contact to reduce or real vibramycin without prescription avoid the associated pain and discomfort when others touch their discount lasix joints. Other scientists and doctors came from Greece, first as order viagra from canada prisoners of war and later because they could earn more order cialis from us money in Rome. Symptoms vary in type, severity, and frequency cheap estradiol online among people with schizophrenia, and they can change over time. buy generic cialis cost work While this can diagnose the condition, it is a serious cheapest generic cialis online and invasive procedure, so some doctors are hesitant to perform cheapest zoloft it. According to the LFA, diagnosing lupus can be challenging cheap zofran as there is no single test to identify the condition. buy cheap diovan online Researchers then compare which group has better results.One group receives a.

The Wall Street Journal (story here; subscription needed) reports that Wikipedia is losing editors faster than it is recruiting new ones. Since about the beginning of 2008, departures have exceeded arrivals in the corps of volunteers who contribute to Wikipedia and scour it for accuracy–or in some cases, opportunities for petty vandalism.

It’s hard to know exactly what’s going on, and the Journal raises several possibilities without claiming it knows what is true. The original editors have been at it for almost a decade; perhaps they have burned out. Perhaps all the easy and interesting stories have been written; there isn’t much new to say about Crime and Punishment within Wikipedia’s stylistic strictures. (In fact if you check that entry’s history, it was modified only 10 days ago, but only to reverse some act of vandalism.) Can it be that from the standpoint of the totality of human knowledge, Wikipedia editing has now reached a state of diminishing returns? Also, perhaps, it is not so much fun as it used to be; there are more rules to follow, and more people checking on your edits, than there used to be.

It’s an important question. Wikipedia is one great success of crowdsourcing, of a useful artifact produced using the lunatic fringe of democratic participation. What if the model is unsustainable after awhile, because at some point there are more people who have their fun as trolls than there are as builders?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 at 10:45 pm and is filed under Social computing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.