The Time article was interesting in that they are obviously wanting to show that in the long-term, Wikipedia does not really work as well as people would claim. I notice that they do not show examples of 'traditional' encyclopedias like Britannica and even Encarta - what is their article growth rate - how many articles were in those encyclopedias when they began, how many have been added year-by-year? I'm sure that they would show a similar slow-down.
Yes, the growth of Wikipedia may be slowing down, but then again there are 3 million less possible articles that could be added! In the beginning, there were millions of subjects that could be added - there are less subjects that could be added now, as many of the ones that might have been added are already there!
I am glad that Jimmy has commented on the flagged revisions issue - Wikimedia (and English Wikipedia) need to counter the falsehoods reported in the mainstream media - whether this misreporting is intentional or not, I'll leave to those who know these things better! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly surprised at the lack of real research and reporting in the Time piece. If modern news is simply about finding and repeating things other people say that sound believable, there's a major role for collaborative idea-consideration within the context of what is new and interesting. I don't know if this is what most Wikinews communities see themselves becoming, but it is needed in our society. +sj+ 22:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
