On 11 December 2010 10:49, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
You weren't wrong about that, in the sense that
the twittersphere has
attracted (at leas some of) those mostly driven by instant updating.
Leaving an adequate but hardly overmanned reference utility that is
actually used by tens of millions daily to look things up. We appear to
have avoided the death spiral, and it is even possible that a somewhat
smaller workforce that had higher median clue was what the project needed.
Our edit rate is about *half* what it was in 2005 - across all
projects, not just the huge ones.[1] This suggests it's something
about the Internet, not us.
Coincidentally, I understand that the number of active users on
LiveJournal is half what it was in 2005.
The usual site blamed is Facebook, which is the place where Internet
humanity goes to babble rubbish about nothing in particular at each
other. LJ is currently working really hard to enhance its usefulness
as a satellite of Facebook.
Suggestion: you know the Wikipedia mirroring on Facebook? Ask for a
link: "See a problem with this article? _Fix it!_"
- d.
[1] citation needed