Well from the offerings you have made on your wiki, blog and elsewhere, you would certainly be a gem of an editor here. Your comments on the 10 commandments to save world fisheries and your notion of a Pacific Islands Fisheries Management Index move in directions I think the Wikipedia articles should. It's true that Wikipedia is more anonymous and constrains, in that you cannot present original research, but must instead back up statements with verifiable sources. It is an encyclopedia, so the encyclopediac game must be played. But still, that doesn't have to be that constraining, and Wikipedia has many advantages. The demand to be encyclopediac can often help cut through bull shit and starkly clarify where new research is needed. Important current issues that cannot be adequately sourced can still be discussed in the talk pages, and strategies can be developed so they may eventually get appropriate external sources. Well structured articles will be here to stay. They can have modest starts, but if properly framed will lend themselves to incremental improvements over time. Your articles need not drop off the edge of the blogosphere or disappear into the limbo of deceased wikis. They will have far more traffic and outreach than blogs or personal wikis can ever have. The traffic should increase with time. And of course you can still personally invite collaborators. An article on Pacific Islands Fisheries could be set up as a start to your index project, and a very nice article it could be too. We could work it up to FA. I think "commandments" for sustainable fisheries is probably the single most important topic in the Fisheries and Fishing WikiProject, and I'm sure we could eventually get that humming nicely in attention grabbing but encyclopediac ways across a number of articles.