For pure, distilled, idle curiousity - how many Dopers are also Wikipedia editors/contributors?

Just wondering - how many Dopers have contributed articles to Wikipedia?

I haven’t, but I’m thinking of it…

I have an account on Wikipedia. I’ve only used it to correct spelling and grammar errors thus far, though.

I recently edited an entry about a freeware computer program that I developed in order to give credit where credit was due to a fellow programmer who was involved with its origins.

It was actually a bit disconcerting that I was able to go right in and edit the article. Makes me a bit concerned about using Wikipedia as a source site, actually, as I could have said basically anything and it would have been immediately displayed.

Zounds! You don’t say! You should alert others about this developing situation.

Topic: I have an account but have only used it for minor edits. I did add some tomato varieties to the tomato cultivation page a while back.

I do. I started by correcting spelling and other minor errors. Then I found that I thought that certain subjects deserved better articles than they had, so I tried to improve them. I’ve also created a few articles from scratch. I’ve gone as far as visiting the library or ordering books from specifically for source material. My “watchlist” (the list of pages for which I’m notified of all changes) has 58 pages on it. That’s actually a very small number compared to other editors.

I’ve corrected errors in spelling and punctuation, plus a factual error of some sort (don’t recall offhand) in the article on my neighborhood), but don’t have an account.

I’ve contributed pages of stuff on some books I’ve read, made minor corrections to pages on Treasure Island and several Trek episodes, and other stuff here and there such as the village I grew up in.

OK, disconcertment (sp?) resolved. After writing the above here, I went back and looked at the current entry for that page and it has been edited by the powers that be to remove both the old section that I’d modified and the text I’d replaced it with. The edit history on the article contains an entry dated December 4th that says “Accuracy of history is disputed, therefore removing until properly cited”.

So now neither the old, incorrect text nor my new, correct (says I, an entity totally unknown to the Wikipedia Powers That Be) text is being displayed until someone they know and trust resolves the issue. And that’s a Good thing.

I’ve added a few things here and there, but have only one original article to my name. Most of the text is mine (someone streamlined it a little awhile back).

I’ve authored one page (a short entry about a local geographical feature) and edited 14 others. Most edits were either removing vandalism, correcting spelling/grammar, or deconvoluting really bad writing.

I have done major re-writes and have added several (maybe 15 to 20) articles on firearms, mostly older muskets but a few others that were a bit more modern.

I also contributed most of what is in the article on pop pop boats.

I’ve added a few engineering related articles as well, like the articles on magic tees and rat race couplers. I also did some edits on the article for offset binary. Most computer and engineering subjects that I am fairly knowledgeable about tend to be fairly well covered and I haven’t felt a need to edit any of those.

I also added a bit to the articles on Wheeling WV (where I grew up) and Hanover PA (where I live now).

ETA: My watchlist has 91 articles on it, so that’s how many I’ve apparently edited. I’ve created only about 15 to 20 of those though, I think.

I’ve created five articles, all a few years ago. I used to do a lot of editing too, but now I only do it if I’m reading a page and notice errors that are easy to fix.

I’ve basically maintained one particular page for several years, and I make changes, corrections, and additions as I see fit. I don’t know if that makes me an editor, though.

I’ve done some Wikipedia editing, no heavy duty rewrites, but I’ve made a “one sentence” mark on hundreds of pages.

Although I did create the page for Max Brooks, I’m pretty proud of that.

I’ve edited a few articles and have good intentions to work on some more, but still find the markup system (especially for citations) a little clumsy.

I keep wondering whether to change my account to use my real name. I’d like to hear others’ thoughts about that issue. Yes, some part of the reason would be vanity, but I’m also a minor expert on certain subjects and there might be some value to seeing the same authorship in Wikipedia as appears in more traditional printed encyclopedias for which I’ve done entries.

The page for the town I live in listed the wrong name for mayor. I fixed it.

I rewrote the layman’s introduction to the article on the Lambda Calculus. I’ve also started a number of other articles, and contributed to quite a few more.

Me. I have lots of edits, have created one article and for a while did the vandalism patrol thing. At some point I stopped using the user name associated with that page I created and switched to one that feels more anonymous - another editor was turning something into an edit war that I ultimately stepped back from and requested admin assistance on, but I switched to a more anonymous name.

I do copyediting mostly. But it’s more than just spelling errors and stuff–I will rewrite articles that are poorly written, though less often than I used to. I also fix technical stuff.

I also used to be pretty active in the political side of the wiki. I would act as a hardcore inclusionist, because that seemed the best way to counter the hardcore deletionists. But I burned out pretty easily, as I just didn’t care to get into fights while having to conceal any actual anger due to the policies. Fortunately, it’s gotten a little better since then, as a lot of the deletionists have also burned out.

The main reason I don’t actually write anything now is time, but before the bigger concern was having to cite every sentence. Seeing as I’m the type that collects information over long periods of time, I tend to just write what I know, and then I have to go find citations to back it up. And that can take a while and be quite tedious.

I’d only do it if you are planning on getting involved with the new experts program, assuming it’s still ongoing. The idea is to be able to help with stuff for which there are not that many freely available online sources. It’s an interesting experiment. If they can keep the calls to authority minimal (as quality citations should be sufficient in most cases) it may be useful.

Also realize that, by putting real information about yourself out on the web, you will be giving the trolls information they can use against you. At the very least, create a brand new account to tie into your real name, and do not tie it to any email that would tie you to other sites. Wikitrolls can be mean.

The thing is, that’s really not some nebulous powers-that-be, but just the average editor. That’s what the policy says to do if there is conflicting information. Though, I am impressed with how quickly they got on it.

Also, disconcertment is a word, despite looking strange.

I’d be surprised if a lot of dopers don’t at least edit wiki pages. I’ve only created a few pages (mostly related to albums and book series) but I “fix” pages fairly often - most recently pages on Thanksgiving and Christmas TV specials that contained incomplete information.