I used to -- quite heavily -- to the point that I've gone through the process of creating featured topics (not just articles, but collections of articles) and I'm still in the top 50 Wikipedians by number of featured articles.

I haven't contributed in any significant way for a number of years, however -- style guidelines keep changing, and it's a hassle to stay up to date when I have to cross-reference a ton of pages just to figure out the preferred way to deliver citations or refer to a person/place/thing.

I don't because of the experience described by Timothy Messer-Kruse. Wikipedia's policies weigh quantity over quality. As an editor noted to Messer-Kruse: “Wikipedia is not 'truth,' Wikipedia is 'verifiability' of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that." This seems antithetical to historians' work - secondary sources should always be revised and readdressed given new primary sources. Nor do I think Wiki editors are qualified to be "gatekeepers" of knowledge.

You might be interested in this previous discussion.

Oh forgot to say. I do edit sporadically, and I have a about half of a complete re-write of the Caffarelli article in my Google Drive. I haven't had any free-time lately to work on it really, and a lot of my current research on Caffarelli cannot really be used there. My Wikipedia username is Caffarellino as some scrub had already registered Caffarelli. I suspect it was someone who actually uses that name IRL because it is a real last name so I can't be too salty about it.

Yes, sporadically, on topics in which I have a current interest. In my experience it is less contentious, better moderated, than in past years. Moderators are tiresomely obsessed with citations to things that are common knowledge, and links attached to every noun. But Wikipedia is important, and still a starting point or sole resource for many.

If I encounter style issues, slightly off info, or artifacts of an older, bad edit, I'll change it. As for contributing new information, my desire to do so is directly inverse with the extant information/interest in the topic. I've created two new articles simply because there wasn't any to begin with. These are the areas where there are barely even enough scholarly sources for there to be a majority view. As /u/CanadianHistorian referenced, editing anything that's not obscure for the general populace is often a waste of time. I'd rather make an in-depth answer here, where people actually care about the quality of sources you're using.

I've tried from time to time, but tired of reversion battles. The actual published holdings of supreme court cases were dismissed as impermissible "original research," while an erroneous interpretation of the decision by a grad student in art history was fine because it appeared in an obscure secondary source.

Since many people have mentioned Wikipedia's moderation and posting guidelines as reasons they don't contribute, I have a follow-up question: What changes would you want to see to Wikipedia's policies that might make you more open to editing/contributing?

No.

It is too time consuming to correct many of the errors I come across; and often they are not wrong per se, but are instead distortions or half-truths or based on the citations of old books and long disproved theories. Most often for me the articles that I know the most about are just temporary or only exist in French (though sometimes I find english versions that are just the French put through google translate).

I would love to find the time to fix more of the issues I come across and add to wikipedia; but I am yet to find the time/value ratio which would inspire me to sit down and use wikipedia as a form of outreach... that's what reddit is for!

*edited for embarrassing spelling.

I used to, but not for years now. When I was doing my BA I found it really useful for broadening my knowledge and keeping my writing skills sharp over the holidays.

I stopped partly because I got fed up of argumentative "problem editors" with an axe to grind, but mainly because I had less free time and found other outlets (e.g. this subreddit) for casual writing practice. I feel like I should start editing it again because every time I look there seem to be more and more terrible articles on my field – most recently an article appeared on a site I'd actually excavated at which was disturbingly misleading – but the sheer size of the task puts me off.

Still, I do think Wikipedia is a worthwhile use of any academic or would-be academic's time. Like any social effort though, if you dive right in without learning how things are done you shouldn't be surprised to get bitten. It's really depressing that a few academics who had that happen to them felt the need to making sweeping generalisations about the project in the media, putting off thousands of potential contributors.

I don't. It'd take far too much time, be far too contentious, and be a waste of time trying to argue secondary sources, as described elsewhere in the thread.

Then again, my specialty reads "like a George RR Martin" novel (according to some people I've spoken to) so that probably doesn't help.

I'm not historian, but have changed some things that were obviously BS (I'm an archaeology major, so I know my fair share of history haha). I don't make a habit of it, though.

I've really only bothered with stuff like minor spelling corrections or pages that were citing admitted hoaxes as fact. Anything halfway contentious is a lot of work and going to be reverted by an admin with an agenda anyway.