:The funny thing there is that my dissertation topic is pretty darned obscure.  You know how we inherited (even in the UK) the Yale tripartite division of 18th c. studies (18th 1 = Dryden to Pope, 18th 2 = Novel, 18th 3 = Age of Johnson)?  Well, I'm 18th 1 in that sense.  I work as well as my lights permit on 1660-1740 on Wikipedia.  However, I also have the specialist's curse when it comes to those big articles.  I have absolutely no doubt that the Johnson article stinks.  For that matter, the Swift and Pope articles are miles away from adequate.  I could help those better than Johnson, although I like SJ and got my training there, too, but I feel like there is just so much to do with Swift, Pope, Dryden, Johnson, Sterne, H. Fielding, and the others that I can't begin.  I don't want to start working on them if I know that I can't get near fixing them.  To fix those pages, I'd need to go through everyone from Mack to Bate, and that's a huge commitment.  Since I still haven't finished Dunciad (although I did make sure that we have an article, a fair one, on each and every dunce), I think I'd be wretched at trying to give an encyclopedic overview of such significant figures.   
 :Instead, I tinker about.  I make sure minor poets have articles.  I document political dissenters of the 1690's.  I write up the polemics and controversies.  The only thing I did in real depth was A Tale of a Tub, and that was my M.A. thesis topic.  My dissertation was on an unpublished-since-1709 poet.  I did Oroonoko because it was trash, but I don't feel up to messing about with Aphra Behn.  If the people at C18-L would get off their duffs and start helping, instead of complaining, I would listen to them more.  If they showed some flexibility in their understandings (Wikipedia is not reliable or unreliable; it is a starting point and the best resource on the web for a general encyclopedia: finding mistakes is easy  we used to play this "spot the errors in the 1911" game, then the "find mistakes in the OED" game, but the difference is that we couldn't fix those), I would sympathize.  Instead, they ask why Wikipedia isn't up to their most recent article.  It isn't because they haven't done anything, and the very few of us working on 18th c. topics cannot be everywhere or be asked to donate our efforts on every hole in the text. 
 :Anyway, to the point: I would be absolutely delighted to help out.  I'm overjoyed for another hand at the tiller.  18th c. is neglected in the academy, and it's neglected here, and it is one of the field where there is a chance to actually make a difference and help out the world.  Sorry for the long response.