The cialis pharmacy main differences between these drugs relate to how they're given order clonidine and what they're approved to treat. In an image-guided biopsy, buy cheap xalatan online a doctor will use a CT scan or ultrasound to get zyprexa guide them on where to place a needle to take dangers cheapest norvasc get tissue samples from the ovaries or the omentum. During this ventolin online review time, careful management and lifestyle adjustments may be necessary to celexa no prescription prevent complications. However, this side effect has been reported by diovan for sale a few people who have used Nexplanon since the drug buy generic pyrantel pamoate was approved for use. Other than having a higher-than-usual amount viagra internet of ketones in the blood, there may be no other buy asacol without prescription specific symptoms associated with ketonemia. However, without a previous history of.

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.