In buy ampicillin the middle and advanced stages of dementia, people may require viagra cheapest price around-the-clock care to keep them safe and provide more intensive generic norvasc online care. The lab will then send the report to a levitra without prescription doctor or may provide results to the person via an buy generic amikacin no prescription usa online, secure portal. If you test positive for TB or acomplia canada other infections, your doctor may prescribe medication to treat the order cialis on internet infection before you can start Amjevita. Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders buy viagra in us refer to a group of conditions affecting the temporomandibular joint, cheapest kenalog which connects the jawbone to the skull. It is worth cheap aldactone tablets noting that survival rates are based on the stage of discount atenolol cancer when a person first receives the diagnosis, and they buy prednisolone online australia may be based on older, possibly less effective treatments. Symptoms colchicine overnight delivery Symptoms may include a round or oval shaped lump on order natural acomplia no prescription the wrist or other parts of the body, as well as.

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.