Thanks, and I hope you are right, but...

As I think I recently mentioned somewhere, at one point in 2006 I was listed in the 500 most voluble contributors to the English language Wikipedia, and sadly I concluded by Fall 2006 that my efforts there had indeed been a colossal waste.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillman/Archive and please note well:

0. I focused my efforts in WikiProject Relativity, a pedagogical initiative which I founded but which never really got off the ground. One aspect of this work (which I shared with two other active members) which would be difficult to document today is the careful attention we paid to trying to carefully categorize old and new articles in this area.

1. I am citing specific versions of articles I created or completely rewrote, namely the last versions to which I contributed and therefore the last ones for which I bear at least partial responsibility,

2. I used various "templates" which are now defunct, so many of these early versions will now appear rather ugly. Nonetheless, you should resist the temptation to read the current version (at time T) instead, at least if you wan to assess the nature and quality of my contributions.

3. In many cases, more recent versions have been edited in ways which change a correct equation to an incorrect one, exhibit "edit creep", have been slanted by a dissident promoting a cranky theory, or suffer from other quality-control problems. Some may have course also been -improved-, at least in some ways. In many cases, articles might have been improved in some ways since my last edit, and also damaged in others.

4. An often quoted item of wikifaith holds that Wikipedia articles "monotonically approach perfection". Not only is this claim inherently implausible, observation clearly shows, IMO, that it is completely false. All but the most fanatic Wikipedians in fact tend to acknowledge this.