Daniel, Here are my answers. Do you mind if I forward this to the Wiki email list? Stacey On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 17:36:05 -0800, Daniel Terdiman <daniel.terdiman(a)earthlink.net> wrote: Well, it isn't quite so true that I've done 1800 in the past month. That sounds like the number of edits I did back in December, which was the last time those stats were updated. My company closes down the site I work at for the week between Christmas and New Year's, so I had quite a bit of extra time on my hands. With that time I made a big push to translate many of the German language articles on Primates to English (via various online translation tools). I've only done 700 or so edits in the past 30 days, according to my "user contributions" list. I suppose knowing that the 1800 number was wrong says more about me than the fact that I editted 1800 during some 30 day period. Any of these numbers are misleading, though, as they only say that I made some kind of edit; it doesn't differentiate whether the edit was a significant contribution, a minor correction in an article I have on my watch list, or a reversion of vandalism. A significant portion of my edits are either adding or (more typically) removing a "category" tag, or making some other minor edit that is general not very significant to the article itself. "Category" tags are a relatively recent feture to MediaWiki. Some users have gone way overboard with their use, while a number of us have a more moderate approach, structuring the categories into subcategories, eliminating the need to have several dozen categories on a single article. For one thing, I care a great deal about the Wikipedia project itself. In many ways it represents the best of the possibilities in the post-hacker-manifesto world. I'd guess that a number of Wikipedians grew up after or came of age around the time of the hacker manifesto, and the concept of "freedom to do as we please" has finally begun its maturation to "responsible to do what we need". That responsibility means doing what we can, given ones interests and energy. For me, that means being active in the creation and management of some kinds of articles, and being responsible for various other aspects of the general improvement of the entire project. I'm rather proud of my placement in the list. I'd actually thought I was much further down the list, both in overall and the monthly statistics. However, I know some of the folks I expected to be above me in the listings have moved on to more beaureaucratic roles, something very needed as Wikipedia grows. In part it's out of frustration trying to find a book (or whatever) that I'm looking for. I worked in a library when I was in high school, and then again to help pay for college, so I'm sure that has had an influence on my books-out-of-order frustrations. But also, I can't understand why people would take a book off the shelf to see if they like it, and then put it back in the wrong place. It seems simple enough to me to put it back in the right place. As far as new article creation and growth, I'd have to say my interests lie primarily in primates and cephalopods. I've spent a good deal of time researching primates and cephalopods for Wikipedia, including buying a number of books that are geared more towards college degree programs than as encyclopedia source material. I've also recently gotten involved in working on NYC subway related articles. I'd find other hobbies that I enjoy. And Wikipedia isn't the only hobby I have now anyway. I enjoy hiking through the many parks and forests near where I live, I enjoy going into the city for museums and shows, and I have an active religious life, too.