"I order kenalog have seen local doctors dismiss people for having urine drug cheap robaxin on internet tests that showed a minimal amount of alcohol," he said. cheap generic cialis Call your doctor right away if you have an allergic norvasc no prescription reaction to Nocdurna, as the reaction could become severe. Constipation order pyrantel pamoate cannot cause a fever directly, but certain health conditions may buy acomplia online australia cause a person to experience both constipation and fever at artane internet the same time. We are learning these natural compounds may order atenolol no prescription required offer more than the widely acknowledged health advantages." Doctors may drops discount find it challenging to treat central sensitization syndrome and may cheapest viagra prices not provide a person with a specific diagnosis. If a ventolin for order person's kidney cancer has recurred and affects the kidneys, a buying cheap flovent side effects canada person may experience symptoms of kidney cancer. The drug information cheap amikacin contained herein is subject to change and is not intended to.

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.