They purchase synthroid online will consider a person's general health, current medication, and supplement vibramycin for order use before recommending dong quai. To ensure the most effective discount flagyl use, people should consult a qualified TCM practitioner before taking cheap clomid dong quai. After analyzing a sample of cervical cells, doctors cheap sale no rx can determine a person's risk of cervical cancer. Laboratory tests buy cheapest buy might come back with the result that someone has cervical buy methotrexate side effects work cancer or is at a higher risk of developing it. azor medication People may still need to use condoms or other barrier buy order methods to protect against sexually transmitted infections (STIs). A reduction cheap lumigan in estrogen causes a higher rate of bone cell turnover, purchase cheap buy without prescription india which results in bone loss over time. Although this treatment buy cheap arcoxia online does not necessarily have the aim of affecting estrogen production, buy cheap estrace online it can cause a complication known as chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure (CIOF)..

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.