Catherine Munro wrote:
I'll admit, my editing tends to go in spurts:
I'll spend a day or
two creating swathes of new text (creating or greatly expanding
articles) -- then I'll spend another three to ten days doing
"housecleaning" - typo patrols, Cleanup pages, disambiguation, lately
the Orphaned Categories page. Why? Because I hope against hope that
the major contributions I made will be at least be noticed to the
extent that someone fixes a typo or adds an external link, and I
wait, patiently checking my watchlist, for a few days before I'm
convinced (and discouraged) that a new article has vanished into the
ether. It certainly feels like the housework gets more credit; at
least, I'm more likely to get feedback when I clean up someone else's
article. (I know, I know about article ownership.) I'm not
exemplary about complimenting people either (and it's always easier
to do so via the edit summary than actually going to their user
page), but I'll make more of an effort. I just wanted to add my two
cents -- I've been a steady editor for a year and a half, and I know
exactly what others are saying about feeling like giving up sometimes
because no one notices what you do unless you're a troll, or
deliberately seek out controversial areas, or participate in every
policy discussion.
I know what you mean - sometimes new articles generate interest from
other people, sometimes not. I've written a bunch of stamp stuff
partly in the expectation that there would be visitors coming because
of WP mentions in the philatelic print media, but there haven't been
many, so realistically I'm doing it for my own entertainment right now.
Also, I've found that it may be several months before anybody "notices"
new material, so I think of those as seeds planted without knowing the
germination period. Even if it takes a year, WP is still further ahead
because of the bits I added before.
I've noticed Stan's philatelic efforts, and I mostly agree with what he
has done. In this context, that's the problem. (Sorry Stan, but I
really do want to respond more fully about the numbering question.)
I've often seen Catherine's names in article histories, but Unlike
Stan's, I can't remember a single identifiable instance. They must be
terribly non-controversial. The housework does not necessarily get more
"credit", but it does get more attention. The kind of attention that
you would get if you did good work on something related to the
Israel/Palestine conflict would not be worth it, because it would be
lost in controversy. In a more local context, it's the murders that get
the headlines, even though our personal interest in a particular murder
is seldom more than vicarious. Keep up the good work Catherine.
Ec