tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post2584704591648364848..comments2024-02-11T02:24:22.330-06:00Comments on Nonbovine Ruminations: The Guardian gets it half rightAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04107127399494404366noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-39212515407419054412009-10-09T13:37:59.230-05:002009-10-09T13:37:59.230-05:00Hi Kelly, are you still looking for a solar powere...Hi Kelly, are you still looking for a solar powered repeater station? Check this out for low powered computing; http://fieldlines.com/story/2009/7/3/171658/3984 . The rest of the site (fieldlines) as good info on off the grid powere too; wind, solar, batteries, inverters ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-50644611718613992682009-09-08T18:53:10.967-05:002009-09-08T18:53:10.967-05:00+1 James. While I can't agree that it's ...+1 James. While I can't agree that it's #1 (because I have no data at all to support it!) I would be really surprised if it were not a significant factor.<br /><br />But— lets assume for a moment the interface was perfect and that adding references was as easy as possible: we'd still see a decline in new contributors because adding references takes more work, often a lot more work even with a perfect interface. I can tell you off the top of my head that Force=Mass×Acceleration but it would take me at least a minute to find the most apropriate citation for that something like 100x the effort required to just assert it, and I can't imagine much else being easier.<br /><br />On the flipside the increased demand for citations is good and it makes recommendations like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia meaningful. I think to say anything useful at all about the rate of change without breaking it down by cause. Only the non-productive components of the change (Citation UI) are worth worrying about, but they are quite possibly swamped by the effects of good and productive changes (Requiring Citations) which are worth their weight in lost contributions.<br /><br />The other point that media keeps missing is that rate Wikipedia's growth doesn't appear to have slowed much (it's noisy to it's hard to speak in absolutes; but the all time peak rate appears to be inside the current seasonal variation) but rather the growth of the growth has stopped. "Wikipedia is not actually going to convert all matter on earth into Wiki" isn't really a news story: the exponential growth had to stop eventually.Gregory Maxwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11296230768351202971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-74496972076041598862009-09-06T13:04:07.893-05:002009-09-06T13:04:07.893-05:00The real reason Wikipedia's growth is slowing ...The real reason Wikipedia's growth is slowing is the newbies being driven off. Why are they driven off? Because they're not told, clearly in large bold letters, that contributions without a reference will be reverted. So when they are reverted, they get discouraged and leave. The #1 thing that should be done is making it easier to add and manage references, something I can't believe they ignored in the new interface.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-160603920115695512009-09-04T17:51:26.765-05:002009-09-04T17:51:26.765-05:00I agree with you. Power struggles seem to be the &...I agree with you. Power struggles seem to be the "real" reason behind disputes, especially the power to advance their point of view. One particularly egregious example is the tendency of Wikipedians to fight tooth and nail against anything that would make it easy to force them to give up power. Metaphorically speaking, the only way some Wikipedians would give up power is if you pry it out of their dead fingers.Rob Fhttp://thewordsonwhat.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com