By the way, Google Trends data is quite conservative in comparison to Ad words, for example.

Pick an obscure, non-IT topic, though, and the experienced Wikipedians tend to leave you alone, as long as you follow the basic rules. To learn how to contribute to Wikipedia, for example, I decided to research and write about the 9th Indiana Infantry, a Civil War regiment. To this day, only a few people besides me have edited this entry, and these have only been minor conformance edits, infobox insertions, etc. One thing did surprise me–a bot inserted a notice in the page that I hadn’t added categories. So I dutifully learned how to do that, and did so. Afterwards, someone reviewed my categories and informed me I had too many–he reduced the category list to one. I assume my list was essentially redundant.

I started this April, and continue to add to this entry, bit by bit, and have fun doing so. It’s a sort of citation-rich, objectified note page on the subject that resides in a place where everyone can see it.

The article itself is being critically and seriously looked at based on its merits, and not based on its popularity. If you had looked at the arguments and discussions taking place you would see so (due to its transparency)

Also, if you notice the article has now been redirected to “Enterprise Social Software” a much better article, possibly better title, and clearly gives credit to Professor McAfee.

Still all of this is recorded in the history of the site and can easily be read, reverted, and built upon.

Controversy. That tends to cause flux.