Hoi, Thank you :) The big thing in these edits is that they have been part of a learning process and, I have always done my best to comment about this on my blog. It is how I come to conclusions like the notion that red link support in Wikipedia at this time is easier and more effective now than info boxes [1]. This is the eleventh year that I am blogging about wikis. Many of my positions have not been disputed but have been ignored and, this is quite normal. The notion that massive numbers of changes are problematic is a typical Wikipedia thought. We have tools that are really good in predicting the likelyhood of vandalism and there is still a massive room for improvement. Given that Aaron and Amir are collaborating on this makes it a sure thing that this will happen. Wikidata may be a tool to learn if particular subjects are well developed or not. I have been working on psychiatry recently [2] and it is obvious how Wikipedia and Wikidata manifest the stigma associated with psychiatry. Given the prevalence of psychiatry it is at least as relevant as the gender and sex diversity issues. Any way.. the things that matter are not always the same thing everybody talks about. My blog is for me more relevant than my edit count these just happened as part of the process. Thanks, GerardM [1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-f… [2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/12/wikidata-wilma-boevink-and-stigm… On 6 January 2016 at 00:33, Asaf Bartov <abartov(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: