A purchase cheapest azor delivery person may want to talk with a healthcare professional about order viagra in us joining a clinical study to help advance new, potentially helpful order generic amoxicillin treatments. To diagnose ADHD, doctors will ask questions and make generic diovan withdrawal observations about symptoms occurring over a period of time. Adults buy cheap cephalexin online can help a child who has experienced a traumatic event find discount tizanidine by helping them feel safe and cared for. Older research cheapest generic glucophage suggests people may exhibit the lowest rates of depressive symptoms buy cafergot online in summer and the highest rates around winter. Anti-aging face get discount flagyl massage may help promote better circulation, temporarily plump the skin, buy vibramycin and offer a relaxing experience. To discover more evidence-based information buy cheap advair online and resources for headaches and migraine, visit our dedicated hub. atarax no rx To learn more about the cost of Lynparza compared with kenalog online cheap other treatments for your condition, talk with your doctor, pharmacist, cialis purchase or insurance provider. For more information about the potential negative effects.

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.