Medical buy clonidine online News Today has made every effort to make certain that order betnovate in us all information is factually correct, comprehensive, and up to date. buy remeron without prescription If a person notices a mosquito bite and feels any amikacin online stores flu-like symptoms or a fever, they should seek medical treatment lipitor online stores immediately. The lower esophageal sphincter (LES) is a muscle found buy viagra online at the bottom of the esophagus, where it meets the viagra order stomach. AML in pregnant people is rare, and more research cheapest amikacin is needed to determine the survival and delivery rates of order viagra cheap online healthy newborns. This is because dialysis removes protein waste from purchase cheapest levitra online the blood, so a person may need to eat more order prozac protein to maintain a safe blood protein level. In the cost of betnovate earliest stages, cataracts may not cause noticeable symptoms, so attending cheap zoloft price dangers regular eye exams is important. A person may also consider order cialis lowest dosage cheapest price different telemedicine companies with practitioners licensed to treat in their location..

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.