"== EF ==

Were the major content-kill edits reversed?  
See your talk comments on the page linked in this section header.   
OK, I was waiting to see if things had been fixed before tackling anything. - - 

 WikiProject Community

...You are a brilliant individual. If you don't join WikiProject Community, I will hunt you down and make your life a Living Hell. •  

Oh crap! did I type that? I think I had a bit too much rum! My apologies. What I want to say is that I've had, since I been at wikipedia this notion of a ""sense of community"". I thought a community writing about ""community"" would be a popular idea, and catch on, but if you look at the project page history and even the talk page, you'll see that I'm the only one there. Look at WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan it's like a beehive! Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles is probably the most innovative and productive organized group at Wikipedia. It's silly that the ""community builders task force"" is really just one guy. I feel like deleting the whole thing, sometimes. User:Sj was interested and encouraging for a while, when we first started it, but he's doing wikimania and many other things. 

Anyway, the community article is coming along very well now. I've created a list of sources at the bottom of the list of community topics and I'm listing more as I find them.  

[the following is copied from CQ's talk page]

Ah, rum.  Here I thought wow, somebody finally recognizes my unique brilliance!  Oh well...  I don't think that two makes a community either, but I've been meaning to sign up. I've been involved with communities of various kinds for many years. Community is an ephemeral thing, really. It is the oxygen we breathe and most of us don't stop to think about it. I guess that's why there isn't a stampede.  It is like the way that people avoid talking about process. But let's see, Michigan = community of place.  The Beatles = community of interest.  Hummm.... something topical.  Well there is interest in intentional communities of all kinds... and, of course, ecovillages. So maybe that is an angle to begin with... Anyway, I'm in.   

Now you're talkin' Sunray! ) Two heads are better than one. I think once  and the others see progress on Community articles by quality, they may rejoin the effort. I'm heading over to Virtual community to start shaking things up over there. It's an attractive topic and the article is nearly as big a mess as community was. Hopefully I can recruit a few members from over there. 

Now that the tools are in place, we can approach the list as a series based upon importance and public interest. Feel free to drop the {{WikiProject Community}} tag on as many articles as you like. Do you know of a tool that tracks ""hit counts"" for wikipedia articles? I suppose talk page activity is a pretty good indicator. It would be nice to have a tool that can quantify that.

Talk:Virtual community has a {{onlinesource}} tag on it, so I think it's a good next focus. I'm threatening to bump that article down to 'stub-class' and stick a {{rewrite}} tag on it. Maybe that will furrow a few brows. I'm also thinking of bumping Community up to A-class but i would like to find another article that can get quickly to B-class. (Take a look at Vital articles) Any ideas? •  

P.S. I meant the brilliance comment )

The brilliance comment certainly got my attention.  Seems to me that the next step is knowing what the individual's unique brilliance is, hence you begin to get at motivation. Positive feedback would then reinforce that motivation. I'm learning to watch not only what people contribute to, but how they contibute. Sometime, you might tell me what it was you saw that made you say that.     

There should be lots of action on ""Virtual community"" and related pages. The trick will be distinguishing the serious contributers from the drive bys.  Wikipedians are browsers and grazers; they keep moving through those links; watchlists grow and grow