View text source at Wikipedia

User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections

↑ To top of page
Shortcut

This page is about experienced editors reflecting on their own experiences, with a specific emphasis on what it was like to be a new editor. It was inspired by my experience meeting people at WikiConference North America and wanting to recreate that feeling onwiki. It's been thrilling to see the perspectives of so many Wikipedians. I think the best way to approach all this is to read it for yourself as open-ended answers and authenticity can never truly be summarized the way a simple survey with yes/no answers can.

On a somewhat frequent basis, I issue invitations to participate here. This is not a requirement and people are free to pitch in without a formal invitation as long as they consider themselves to be an experienced editor. Please note that this page has gained widespread interest (there are more than 90 page watchers) and some people from the Wikimedia Foundation have expressed interest in reading these reflections. If you're not comfortable with other people reading what you have to say, you do not have to participate.

Add your answers
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Questions

[edit]

Archives

[edit]

Incredibly large pages can be difficult to load. To prevent such issues, I will be keeping archives of every 100 interviews. These can be seen here:

User:Project Osprey – July 12, 2024

[edit]

September 28, 2012 (so, over 11 years ago)

I got into Wikipedia shortly after finishing my PhD thesis. I'd written introductory chapter on oxazolines and I knew that it would likely just sit on a shelf and never be read again. The existing page was pretty basic and I figured I could improve it very easily by just copy-and-pasting across some general information.

There were certainly things I did wrong at the start, mostly to do with getting the tone right. Writing science articles for Wikipedia is very different to writing for scientific journals, and it took me time to learn and appreciate that - but that doesn't mean I had any particular trouble I needed help with. Some things can only be learned by persistance.

I can't say that I did. Occasionally I'd take something to WP:Chem

Something dramatic would have to happen to make me stop

Not really. It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how well it works in practise. Some years ago WikiEd was viewed as a bit of a menace. The chemistry editing community of en:wiki is small, I would estimate fewer than 20 frequent editors. WikiEd class sizes could be upwards of 50 and being students their assignment pages would all appear at the same time (presumably the deadline day). This would cause a lot of bother for the community, because the new pages were often of a poor quality and needed heavy editing, merger or deletion. However, the students were being marked on these articles and were of course resistant to any of that. The experience was regrettably negative for all concerned.

The present situation is less severe.

No, never. I imagine you could make simple edits: a typo, a reference, a short sentence - but writing substantive content via a phone sounds like no fun at all. I don't expect I will ever try.

  • Like many I still dislike the new layout.
  • I really wish someone would fix [Graph module]. Wiki is the worlds most popular encyclopaedia - but we can't render statistical information as graphs. Madness.
  • The think the notability guidelines for living people need to be severely tightened.

In 11 years this is first time I'm been surveyed. Wikipedia still feels like a Web 1.0 kind of a place - I don't think it understand it's content creators anywhere near at well as webpages with a similar ranking. That might be the secret of it's success, with obsessive people just being left alone to do their thing, or is might be a problem - truly, who can say?

User:JuniperChill – July 13, 2024

[edit]

User:Peaceray – July 13, 2024

[edit]
  • Not really. I know Sage Ross & am acquainted with Frank Schulenburg & LiAnna Davis. I have used the Outreach Dashboard. Several years ago I sat in panels of editors for a couple of classes at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Peaceray (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Sennecaster – July 17, 2024

[edit]

I started editing in March 2021.

I found some wrong info and updated some numbers as an IP, and then went in with the intention to write about fiddling and my local history a couple months later. I am not editing about fiddling (lack of RS) or my local history (privacy) lol.

I jumped into a pretty complex area of Wikipedia (copyright cleanup) at a very early point in my editing. Having a better grasp of social situations and not being so impulsive and impatient would have done me wonders in my first six months. I had a handle of most policies surrounding content, and became pretty experienced in copyright in my first six months, but I didn't have the social aspect down and made a few blunders. They were somewhat due to being less mature and clearly inexperienced, but they were blunders nonetheless and I do not intend to make those same blunders.

I joined the unofficial Discord also pretty early on, so yes! I had lots of help. I think most of the help worked, since I was asking questions in project channels (#wpcci mostly). Furthermore, I edited Fandom for a while, and I also edited a game wiki that used MW software, so I was already fully aware of the editing aspects and just needed assistance with WP-specific policy. What didn't work was WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. I couldn't figure it out.

Hopefully! I work in some pretty thankless and tedious areas so my motivation can wane and wax, but I enjoy editing. My main limiter is my IRL obligations, but I do end up being mostly active.

I had the opportunity, but the professor seemed uncommunicative when I reviewed the course, and I was already experienced. You could call my work on WP:CCI/IEP involvement (WikiEd predecessor in its "menace" era as Project Osprey put), and I end up cleaning up and sometimes interfacing with WikiEd instructors/WMF liasons about plagiarism and copyvio due to my work at WP:CPN and occasional Copypatrol.

Yes, I edit on desktop view with Vector 2022 on my phone using source editor. I do not do this often, I think it's really hard because of the screen size, but I find things like reverts and quick talk page replies to be okay to do while on the go.

I'd love to be able to time travel and change how we handled copyright enforcement back in 2000s and early 2010s. We have a couple old problems cropping up and the way everything was set up then is causing problems today in the tediousness. Plus, we had things like Billy Hathorn, where we had edits spanning from 2006 to 2021 and multiple expansions because of extensive socking.

Other wishes include:

It feels like with every major drama that happens, the enjoyment I get from my interactions with others decreases here. But I always will come back, because the people I have met because of Wikipedia are truly amazing. I respect the people I interact with a lot and I am honored to call some of them my friends. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Rusalkii – August 1, 2024

[edit]

User:Isochrone – August 7, 2024

[edit]

I registered my account in 2018 and made some edits then, but really I started editing in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I wasn't very knowledgeable about what Wikipedia was and how it functioned and I found myself just wanting the satisfaction of knowing that I was making a difference. Knowing that people would read my work was great, even if I slightly misunderstood how the project worked back then.

I really missed the baby steps; I never knew about the tutorial nor any of the newcomer pages available, and my knowledge came from slowly accumulating information from my mistakes(!) The newcomer mentoring is great, even if I do sometimes get some interesting questions from my mentees; I definitely wish it was around when I joined. Just having someone to guide you in your Wikipedia journey can be so beneficial to making you a better editor.

For my first two years of editing, no. Later, I joined the Wikimedia Discord. I have no doubt that being surrounded by experienced editors, who would take the time to answer my every question, was the only reason I decided to stick around. It quickly became an invaluable resource for me, especially when I began editing in copyright. I was also very fortunate to go through NPP School to improve my knowledge in other areas.

I hope so :) My editing may fall over time, but I doubt I'll ever leave completely.

Not yet.

I edit quite a lot on mobile, but almost exclusively for more minor edits. I basically only use Minerva, which makes any bigger edits difficult. Honestly, I'm a bit scared to edit on mobile at times due to how easy it is to make a mistake.

In my own editing, copyright cleanup is a constant pain. A lack of editors, the steep learning curve, and an active hostility towards many who have to do the gruelling task of working through copyright violations does not help.

This may sound slightly childish, but sometimes I wish Wikipedia could just be a friendlier place. So many disputes, arguments and blocks over often meaningless issues; sometimes, it really feels like there is so much anger, pent up in this project. I am guilty of not doing so myself, but sometimes I wish that people could follow that one rule of netiquette: "remember the human".

One comment has stuck with me from when I had my NPP right (rightly) revoked. Nick ended his note with the following: Wikipedia should be a fun hobby for you to participate in, and my removal of your permission should not be seen as a rebuke, just a gentle reminder that you're being a little too enthusiastic. Well within his rights to scold me, he chose to end in a manner that encouraged me to keep going.

(Also, congratulations on Wikimedian of the year!)

User:DanGFSouza – August 7, 2024

[edit]

2005-6

As much as Wikipedia at that time seemed to cover a multitude of topics (compared to paper encyclopedias), there were still many things it didn't have, especially about my country. So, I started to put my contributions there, creating articles, fixing typos and adding sources.

If some sort of tutorial like TWA existed then, it would be an easier experience.

No. I learned as I went through, reading the policies, the Manual of Style, and *countless contradicting* user essays

Yes, as long as I can.

No.

Yes, but mainly small and quick edits. For larger edits and article creations, desktop is still unbeatable.

Edit conflict is still a pain.

Congratulations for your Wikimedian of the Year award. Your Editor Reflections is an invaluable space for sharing our experiences within Wikipedia and attests the strength of this collaborative project.

User:Salvio giuliano – August 20, 2024

[edit]

User:HumanxAnthro – August 22, 2024

[edit]

Anyways, thank you so much for the opportunity for me to do this! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman – August 26, 2024

[edit]

GiantSnowman 16:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

User:ClaudineChionh – September 3, 2024

[edit]
2001 or maybe 2000; that pre-MediaWiki history was lost to the great UseMod in the sky. My user ID on the current system is #221. I drifted away after a couple of years due to IRL busyness and came back with a vengeance around 2020–2021 (maybe the lockdown did it).
Cast your mind back, if you can, to the turn of the millennium and what we now call Web 1.0. Web pages were still hand-coded in HTML with plain text editors or the early generation of web-oriented GUI editors. Perl with its CGI module was making the creation of "interactive" elements more accessible to casual programmers. Interactivity until then had meant web forms for things like guestbooks or rudimentary content editing popularised by GeoCities. The original WikiWikiWeb introduced the radical concept of allowing anybody with an internet connection to edit any page on a wiki website. The possibilities felt thrilling and a little dangerous.
Maybe Generation X was the last one to define an encyclopaedia as a (usually) multi-volume series of printed books that attempted to summarise all of human knowledge and experience,[a] with new editions published regularly but not more frequently than once a year, because printing fancy hardcover books is expensive. Some guy came up with the brilliant idea of applying the wiki idea to an encyclopaedia that anyone could edit, regardless of academic qualifications or job titles.[b] As a recent graduate considering my career options and feeling constrained by the strict boundaries of academic and professional disciplines, the idea of Wikipedia promised a world of collective learning and sharing, open to everyone, where wannabe polymaths could contribute to whatever subjects interested us without having to present credentials.
This is a tricky one for me to answer because when I was new, almost everyone was new. I don't remember whether WikiProjects were on my radar back then. According to the WikiProject feature in the Signpost (2013), the first WikiProject was created in 2001, but as it was dedicated to sport I might have just ignored it. Coming back to a much larger Wikipedia, I do appreciate WikiProjects as a means of focusing efforts on a broad topic and helping identify relevant resources.
Everyone was learning as we went. It was a much smaller community in 2001, and there really was a sense that most of the regulars got to know each other through interactions on-wiki and the mailing list. Coming back to regular editing after more than a decade away, I see that the movement has a lot more structure and bureaucracy – necessary when the project has grown so huge – but also more systematic efforts to welcome complete newcomers. I sometimes miss that 2001 feeling of a tiny, scrappy collective of nerds, but I appreciate that the Wikimedia community today is a whole lot more diverse and representative of the whole human population.
I hope so! I went through a few career changes between 2001 and 2021. I went back to library school in 2000 when the problem of misinformation had become so much greater. I'm not currently working in a library so I now consider Wikipedia my volunteer library job. And I do have some plans for introducing Wikipedia edit-a-thons and workshops into my day job.
No.
These days I do most of my casual and some non-casual editing on an iPad (in fact, a tablet is my preferred device for most of my non-$dayjob computer time). I use Safari and Vivaldi and always force desktop mode. It's good enough for adding new content (which I usually draft in an external text editor), gnomish editing, and using scripts and gadgets for semi-automated jobs like citation cleanup and undoing vandalism. I use a desktop computer for major rewriting or restructuring of existing articles, and for citation cleanup jobs on articles with large reference lists because Zotero makes this easier.
I briefly looked at the Wikipedia iOS app and I can see that it could be useful for reading and casual editing but not so much for "power users". Similarly, I'll look things up on the website from my iPhone but wouldn't want to edit from a phone. In general, I am trying to spend less time attached to a smartphone and I find editing lots of text on a small screen frustrating.
(I might come back to this one later)
Thanks for running this survey! It's taken me down memory lane a bit and I've enjoyed reading other editors' thoughts. It also reinforces what I said on my user page, I've been a Wikipedia editor for longer than some Wikipedia editors have been alive, and I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that.

Notes

  1. ^ Which we now know means "all of middle-class white male experience, with some outliers".
  2. ^ Notwithstanding Sanger's later turn away from the values of Wikipedia, he and Jimbo really kicked off something amazing and it was an exciting time to be involved, even in a limited way.

User:Florificapis – September 3, 2024

[edit]
I began seriously editing Wikipedia on October 2021, although my first test edits date back to September 2020.
I noticed that Wikipedia was missing a lot of articles about Christian monks, ascetics, and saints. I started off with the Desert Fathers and eventually created dozens of new articles about Athonite monks and Greek geographical features. The rest was history.
I'd say that everything worked out well for me as a new editor.
It was pretty much a autodidactic experience. Read up on Wikipedia project pages, follow others' examples, and be bold and edit.
Yes, absolutely! I'd like to keep editing Wikipedia for at least the next several years.
No.
No, even though I often read Wikipedia on mobile. It's too inconvenient to edit on mobile other than fixing minor typos. I prefer to type with a keyboard while using a desktop computer.
Making Wikipedia more egalitarian. Somewhat less stringent policies, and increasing inclusion and diversity.
Keep on editing!

User:The wub – September 4, 2024

[edit]

User:NatGertler – September 4, 2024

[edit]

2006. I have an account as of September 2006, but suspect I did just a couple IP edits before then.

Because something was not quite right!

Here's the trick - if I could travel back in time, I might never have started editing at all. A fair portion of my earliest edits were in matters in which I had a conflict-of-interest, and even though I was not editing in a promotional way, had I had in my the conflicts in mind, I might never have built up editing momentum.

No. I mostly learned by looking at the article markup, recreating what seemed appropriate, then slowly learning my way around the procedues and guidelines.

Well, yes, in that I've tried to basically stop and found myself leaking back into the effort.

Not directly, although I've certainly dealt with editors on WikiEd programs, correcting their editing and trying to show them the proper path.

Yes I have, although it is certainly not my preferred choice... which is not the fault of any attempt to make Wikipedia editable on mobile, and more that I'm an old, and a smartphone keyboard doesn't come as nicely to me after my five decades at actual physical keyboards. I tend to use code editor (I'm a former programmer), not visual editor, and getting to the angled brackets or other such markup items is cumbersome.

There are some cultural things. There tends to be far too long a leash for the useful-but-problematic editors. I came close to leaving entirely after dealing with one such and getting no real support where such support is supposed to exist.

I think Wikipedia is three imps: impressive, important, and imperfect. That last is inherent, for this is a human endeavor. I regularly see people suggesting ways to rework Wikipedia at its core to make it better, but they always involve taking away some of the very things that makes this massive volunteer knowledge project thrive.

User:PamD – September 11, 2024

[edit]

9 June 2006

A former colleague, the late User:GuillaumeTell, suggested that I might enjoy it. (There are a lot of librarians, and retired librarians, editing Wikipedia: sharing and organising knowledge goes with the territory).

I can't really remember. I've just accumulated knowledge about different useful things as I go along (and I keep a "Sandbox" file with reminders for myself about useful templates etc)

No formal mentoring, just constructive interactions over the years with various helpful editors (including two who were later blocked: the sadly-missed User:Eric Corbett and User:BrownHairedGirl, two lively-minded, very knowledgeable, non-US editors who fell out with the wrong people).

Yes

Yes, in making constructive comments to some badly-taught (or non-learning) students, and in mopping up after poor student editing. It's annoying to see teaching staff, sometimes totally inexperienced in Wikipedia, being paid to let students loose on the encyclopedia as if it was a student lab/playground, expecting the rest of us to clean up after them. I doubt that any significant number of the students who are editing for grades ever continue as constructive editors. Encouraging these bright young people to become editors is a great goal (but not necessarily the teacher's goal), but needs to be handled very carefully, with better teaching and supervision than we sometimes see.

I do, a lot (minor fixes, not article creation and rarely anything involving adding refs), and it's difficult. I seem to drop in and out of several different interfaces randomly, watch list experience is haphazard, I can't edit Wikipedia Talk pages, various aspects of articles are hidden in some views, it seems a muddle and a mess. (Using an Android phone with Chrome)

More effort/money put into improving the software for both editors and readers, responding to the community wishlist in weeks or months rather than years. How long have we beeen waiting to VE to start to use meaningful reference names rather than ":02" etc?

I'm hooked on editing, and ought to spend less time on it - but there's always another rabbit-hole to fall down. I've described it as an infinite jigsaw puzzle, with always another piece to fit in, or to link up, or to rearrange where someone's got it a bit wrong.

I wish that some Americans would remember that it's an international encyclopedia, not a US one, so everyone needs a nationality stated (can't be assumed to be American by default) and every place needs a country (no, I can't always remember whether a particular state is in US or somewhere else: why should I?)

I worry about the fact that Wikipedia is going steadily out of date. How many dead people are listed as still alive? How many places have population figures for the last census-but-one? How many articles have been subtly vandalised with no-one noticing? How much misinformation are we including because things have changed but no interested editor has updated the article - more recent books by an author, demolition of a building, etc? The editor who created an article may have stopped editing (died, in some cases), and there's no system which could keep track of the currency of every article, as the ratio of articles to active editors is steadily increasing (and would be, even if the number of active editors was steady).

As an example, Elizabeth Gaskell, major English novelist, was edited in good faith but poor English and wiki-savvy (US spellings, "correcting" words within a quote, change "bibliomemoir" to "bibliometric" because their spellchecker didn't know the word, etc) and I happened to spot it two years later (when I was puzzled by "bibliometric"). The same editor had gone on a spree of similar edits, which I found in articles on a range of subjects: some had been corrected, others not. (He hasn't edited since 2022, fortunately). How many other articles have been damaged with no-one noticing? How many readers have been puzzled or misled by rubbish introduced into articles either by good-faith editors or by unnoticed vandals?

User:Oceanflynn – September 14, 2024

[edit]

In October and November 2006, I made some enthusiastic but misguided contributions that were quickly caught by more experienced editors. I appreciate their patience as I learned the ropes. I'm surprised that one of my articles managed to survive deletion.

As a curious learner, I'm always eager to learn and help others access reliable information. I'm thankful for my early exposure to Web 1.0 and the wonders of Web 2.0. While many early platforms didn't survive, I've been amazed by Wikipedia's growth and improvements. I hope to contribute, in some small way, to this ongoing digital revolution that connects and informs people worldwide.

AI search tools could have been helpful when I was new to Wikipedia editing. They might have made it easier to find specific how-to guides and basic template examples, which can be overwhelming for beginners. The wealth of information available is great, but sometimes simpler instructions are more useful for newcomers.

Some of the editors who helped me the most weren't the best communicators. When they pointed out my mistakes, I often turned to their edit history to learn from their best practices. It was frustrating to realize they were right, mainly due to their extensive experience.

Absolutely!

No.

I haven't edited on mobile; I prefer using basic source codes to spot errors more easily. I often work with multiple windows open, including relevant Wikipedia articles, reports, tools like Zotero for citation templates, Notepad, and Roam Research for organization, sometimes using Google Drive No, I have not edited on mobile. I prefer to work with basic source codes as it is easier to find errors. I work with many open windows, including relevant Wikipedia articles, relevant reports, articles, tools such as Zotero—a bibliographic database that generates Wikipedia citation templates, Notepad, Roam Research for keeping track of everything, sometimes Google Drive.

I sometimes feel lost when dealing with sensitive topics or assertive, experienced editors. While the talk page is a great tool for resolving issues, I wonder if there might be a way to help newcomers feel less intimidated. Perhaps providing examples of best practices in talk page engagement and edit summaries could be helpful for new editors.

I truly wish more people could experience the satisfaction of volunteering to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia and its sister projects like Wikidata, Wikisource, and Wikimedia. Engaging with these platforms not only enriches personal knowledge but also helps create a vast repository of shared information for everyone. And I believe everyone has the right to learn and gain knowledge.

User:Eric Schucht – September 18, 2024

[edit]

I created my Wikipedia account on October 26, 2018, which just so happens to be two days after my birthday.

I had just finished journalism school, did some internships over the spring/summer, and then in the fall started my first job as a reporter at a daily newspaper in rural Nebraska. Throughout that time I noticed a few of the people I profiled had their own Wikipedia pages. I thought that, surely, someone one would see my writings and cite it as a source. When that never happened I took matters into my own hands. From there I began editing the pages of the different newspapers I worked at. Over time that expanded to me editing anything newspaper-related. I got sad whenever a newspaper would close or get sold and their pages were never updated. So now doing that is my hobby.

Hmm, I dunno. Maybe some training videos or step-by-step how-to-guides with graphics. I learned everything through Googling and trial-and-error, and that worked well enough for me.

I was on my own, aside from looking at what work other editors had previously done. I do wish there were other Wikipedians who shared my interest in journalism. It would be nice to collaborate on projects and share ideas.

As long I as I'm having fun, why would I ever stop? I've even written some news articles related to Wikipedia, links to examples here and here. It's a great resource and I love contributing to it.

No. I've never heard of it.

Maybe once or twice, but it was always for something small like a typo I spotted while browsing on my phone. It's easier to write and edit on my laptop. I prefer having a mouse and keyboard.

I'm not familiar enough with the site to give a good answer. Maybe I'd make it harder to add new pages. There are so many current events or articles on living people that aren't noteworthy a year or two after the page is created. So I wish it was harder to make pages and easier to delete them. There's a lot of articles from circa 2008, the wild west days of the site, where poorly written pages were snuck on to Wikipedia and now no one wants to delete them because they're old, or people simply forgot they existed. So I'd like to clean out the clutter, especially any promotional material.

Thank you for the invite to contribute to this project. I'd love to grab coffee with you or any Wikipedia editor if they're ever in my neck of the woods. Meeting new folks is part of the reason why I became a journalist in the first place. So if you're ever in town, the first drink is on me.

User:GeogSage – September 20, 2024

[edit]

I started editing Wikipedia March 10th 2022.

I was preparing some sources for an IRL project and saw that there was an error on the page for Spatial analysis. I fixed it.

I have made plenty of mistakes out of ignorance, but the answer was always SOMEWHERE on Wikipedia. I don't know how, but a better organization of information related to templates, formatting, and where to seek help. For example, the process of merging pages took me a while to figure out.

I had some help from anonymous strangers. What helped the most were editors following up on pages I created and formatting them properly. This let me know what I was supposed to be doing for future pages.

Yes. I use Wikipedia to help me with general literature review. My job involves a lot of focused literature review, but I need to do a general literature review to ensure I'm not missing something and have sufficient background on topics. Wikipedia editing and creating pages allows me to deep dive into topics I otherwise wouldn't make time for.

No.

I tried it once. I didn't like it.

  1. Editor1 changes the status quo.
  2. Editor2 reverts the change and opens the talk page. Editor2 has one revert.
  3. Editor1 reverts the revert, and ignores the talk page. Editor1 has one revert
  4. Editor2 reverts the revert, and again points Editor1 to the talkpage. Editor2 has two reverts.
  5. Editor1 reverts the revert, and again ignores the talk page. Editor1 has two reverts.
  6. Editor2 reverts the revert, and again tries to bring the discussion to the talk page. Editor2 has three reverts.
  7. Editor1 reverts the revert, and again ignores the talk page. Instead, they send a template to Editor1 on their talk page telling them they appear to be engaged in an edit war. Editor1 has three reverts.
  8. Editor2 can not revert the changes made by Editor1 without breaking the three revert rule. The page now has defaulted to the changes introduced by Editor1, who has refused to discuss them on the talk page. No other editor is interested in this page, so Editor1 has "won" and the change sticks. If Editor2 attempts a revert after 24 hours, the cycle repeats itself.
  • Wikipedia is not a democracy, but the policy actively discourages minority views even in a 2vs 1 scenario. For example, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines tell users to "Read before commenting," "Be concise", "Avoid bludgeoning", and "Avoid repeating your posts." In theory, these rules sound good, but in practice, they stifle minority and well-cited opinions in a discussion. While users are told to read before commenting, that is impossible to enforce. Experts and well-cited opinions on a topic can be overwhelmed by people who disagree based on a gut feeling. Attempts for the lone user to change peoples opinions and engage in the discussion process are ultimately seen as disruptive. The guardrails on talk pages favor the majority opinion by limiting how a person who disagrees can respond. The following situation can happen:
  1. Editor1 opens talk page discussion to propose change.
  2. Editor2 replies with well-cited and thought-out text on why the proposed change not only violates outside literature and conventions, it spreads dangerous misinformation.
  3. Editor3 agrees with Editor1 because it sounds good
  4. Editor4 agrees with Editor1 because they like the idea.
  5. Editor2 replies to both Editor3 and Editor4, explaining the literature and citing sources. They try to reiterate that this exact situation is referenced in the literature as a potential information hazard.
  6. Editor3 replies to tell Editor2 that in their opinion it doesn't matter either way. Editor4 agrees with Editor3, and tells Editor2 they aren't reading their "textwalls."
  7. Editor2 replies to tell them it is actually a big deal according to the outside sources they previously cited. They explain that evidence shows this has had serious implications in the past.
  8. Editor1, Editor3, and Editor4 tell Editor2 to be more concise and stop bludgeoning them. They declare consensus and accuse Editor2 of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. They tell Editor2 they will report them if they don't stop the disruptive editing. Editor2 disengages.
  9. A person IRL points to the Wikipedia page to justify ignoring the literature cited by Editor2. People die, but at least Editor2 stopped being disruptive by annoying everyone on the talk page warning about this possibility.

User:Raydann – September 21, 2024

[edit]

About 4 years ago. Before creating this account I occasionally fixed typos, grammar, punctuations etc. and sometimes even reverted vandalism as an IP editor.

For a long time I did not even notice the edit option and was unaware that articles could be edited by anyone. When I did notice it, I edited some article and broke a few things. Then I received a message pointing me towards different wiki guidelines. I opened one of those guideline pages and started to get curious about the depth of Wikipedia. That was the catalyst of my editorial journey.

I think having patience as a new editor is a big challenge. At first, any new editor might get overwhelmed with so many guidelines and policies and back away from Wikipedia. That is one of the reasons why I believe that there is low editor retention. It requires a lot to have patience to comprehend the complexities and understand that you cannot become a perfect editor who is able to follow all editorial rules right away. This was true for me as well; I made mistakes initially, but had the patience to understand where I went wrong and tried to fix those issues. That is why I am here today.

Reading Wikipedia policy pages surely gave me insights and prevented many possible mistakes that I would've made along the way. Still, it was always better when an editor explained to me what I did wrong and pointed the appropriate guidelines to me when I did make some mistake. Constructive criticism by other editors worked for me and made me learn quicker and become a good editor. I disliked getting templated when I went wrong somewhere and that's why at some point I added a 'Please do not template me' tag on my talk page. User warning templates are necessary, no arguments there, but I thought that for me to learn quicker, having an editor explain a situation to me worked in a more efficient way than what templates did.

Yes definitely. Although I am extremely busy in real life, I would continue to take some time out for Wikipedia.

No I haven't. I have little knowledge about that.

I think half or even more than half of my edits are done from my mobile device. I find editing on mobile extremely faster than my laptop. But I should mention that I edit from my phone using the desktop layout. I've installed a user script that always loads wikipedia on my phone in desktop layout.

The wording on donation banners that make it seem like Wikipedia would shut down anytime if we didn't donate.

Sometimes, I edit Wikipedia even in my dreams. Responding to talk page messages and checking for vandalism. In this one particular dream, I saw that I received a barnstar from Rosguill. When I woke up, I checked my talk page and realized that it was just a dream. What level of WikiAlcoholism is that? ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 07:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

User:DimensionalFusion – 21 September, 2024

[edit]

I created this account on 16 November 2021, although I'm fairly sure I had an account before. I started to get into editing Wikipedia in the summer of 2023, though I had created some pages in late 2022 also.

I began editing Wikipedia because I liked the idea of expanding something that everyone could use. What might take me 20 or 30 minutes could save 100 people about 5 minutes each. It's mathematically guaranteed to succeed.[citation needed]

Probably finding new areas more quickly. As a newbie editor, how do you know that the Wikipedia: namespace exists? To access any resources, find communites, WikiProjects or what have you, you need to type "Wikipedia:" in the search bar to find anything policy related. The only way to find it is if you were to luckily stumble upon an editor who notices you're new and sends a talk page message, or to luckily click one of the links at the top of a talk page onto a WikiProject or whatever

I mostly learnt through trial and error. I had some (somewhat) early help from the folks on the Wikipedia Discord Server but after I got banned so after that I had to find a community. I bounced around from GA and various WikiProjects until I found DYK. Which is where I'm at now.

The future is always unknown so I'll say: Probably.

Honestly no - this is the first I'm hearing of it. Apparently it doesn't get much broadcasting cross-wiki.

I have, and I must say I did not enjoy it: the visual editor is very clunky so the only way to get anything done is through the source editor, which can't be very friendly for new editors.

Probably RfA: the process is hostile to both candidates and participants and creates uneccessary contention.

Whilst I've created some (probably important) articles like 2024 in politics or Next United Kingdom general election, the articles that stick with me are the ones that I enjoy researching and curating.

User:Sir MemeGod – September 25, 2024

[edit]

I started editing Wikipedia 4 years ago (and made 5 edits in a 3-year span), but did not start making constructive edits until February of 2024.

I'm actually not really sure. I think it was more out of boredom than anything else (97 out of my first 100 edits were just me playing around with my user page).

One of the biggest things that I saw a lack of was people being welcome. This obviously doesn't apply to all of the project areas, but I did see a very high level of hostility from several users when I would have still considered myself "new", and now that I know more about the guidelines it's gotten better, but I still see it on many talk pages.

I did not have much help as a new editor (I'd classify that as ~1,000 edits or less for me), I was actually involved in several conflicts as a result of my actions as a new editor who didn't really understand the guidelines. One of the biggest things that "worked" for me was the ability to use talk pages to communicate, as it made me feel like I was part of the community and actually allowed me to express my thoughts with others. :)

I think I will. I've been very active here, and don't plan on slowing down until it's actually affecting my day-to-day life, which I hope never happens. I really like it here, and I'm allowed to edit in my area of interest, something you can't really do with things like school, where there are set topics you learn.

I have not, but have seen editors who are and it definitely seems interesting to me.

I have, and it's terrible (I must not tell a lie). I am not able to add images on my mobile device, the reply button never works, every time I open the app (or website) it logs me out, among a plethora of other issues which I'm sure have already been heard by the Tech Team.

If there's one thing I could change, it would have to be the signature limit. I know, it's a subpar complaint, but the limit on signature size in "Preferences" is a tad bit annoying. (I cherish the small things). :D

I love how our notability criteria are never too strict or too relaxed, it allows for people to make articles without hundreds of AfDs being filed daily, and most of the inclusion essays are usually very easy-to-read (I'll add that), something that I find nice. And TornadoInformation12, if you see this, I forgive you. Is Wikipedia becoming an addiction for me? :D

User:ShelfSkewed – September 26, 2024

[edit]
March 2006
I was reading articles about authors and books I'm interested in and saw mistakes and missing information, so I fixed some things and...just kept going.
Honestly, that was so long ago that I can't really remember what stumped or frustrated me back then. I suppose I would advise myself to keep in mind the long-term goals and not get too worked up about minor, short-term annoyances or setbacks. Everything can be fixed or improved in time. (I still need to remind myself of this, so maybe speaking to my younger self would have done little good.)
I got a standard welcome message from BD2412 (talk · contribs), who also kindly answered a couple questions I had, but mostly I was a self-starter, I think. For a while, I used the article List of American novelists as, I guess, a personal vehicle for teaching myself how to edit. Working back and forth between that list article and the articles for the books and authors, I built up a body of knowledge—how to reference, create basic tables, and so on.
Yes
No
No. I mean, I do all my editing these days on my iPad, but I edit in the desktop view and still use the old MonoBook skin. It's what I'm used to and comfortable with, and I haven't had any impetus to change.
I do think from time to time that perhaps an account should be required to edit. As much as I like the "anyone can edit" ethos, Wikipedia is so large now that I wonder if it's possible to keep up with the vandalism, crank edits, and plagiarism. Removing IP edits from the equation might make this more manageable.

User:IagoQnsi – October 6, 2024

[edit]

User:Jaireeodell – October 6, 2024

[edit]

I started in December 2016, according to my contributions log, but I think I had another account from a few months earlier ... but I lost track of it.

I am an academic librarian. A former colleague in my library mentioned the #1lib1ref campaign. I love open knowledge and this seemed like a fun direction to take that was also related to my day job. I didn't edit much, though, until a different, former colleague introduced me to Wikidata. For awhile I edited more Wikidata than Wikipedia. It took me three years to get up the courage to create an entry!

My first entry was created during a COVID-times, virtual editathon. I learn by doing, so that was a great introduction. COVID was terrible, but the increase in virtual events helped me develop the skills I needed to become a better contributor to Wikipedia and Commons.

My former colleague was an excellent mentor for Wikidata contributions, but I didn't have too many people that were interested meetups in my community. So, it took me awhile to find in-person help with Wikipedia. After the worst days of COVID subsided, I met two experienced Wikipedians in Indianapolis. They have taught me so many things that I probably wouldn't have learned from just attending virtual editathons.

The future is hard to foresee, but, yes, absolutely. I am in my 50s and I see Wikimedia contributions as an exercise in lifelong learning.

Yes. As a librarian I worked with a college class that used WikiEd. I also have student employees that work on Wikipedia. I use the WikiEd modules to provide them with basic Wikipedia training.

Yes, but only when it's a short and quick edit. Sometimes I am away from my laptop and the phone is the thing that I have in my hand. Sadly, it's just so clunky and frustrating that I often wait until I get to a computer. (By the way, I got your invitation on my phone and then waited until I had time to sit down with my laptop to respond to this interview.)

I am working to contribute to content that includes the diversity of my communities. So, I'm trying to change the gaps in content. Beyond that, I wish that the people that think in Wikipedia abbreviations would be a little more thoughtful and careful with new editors. I also wish that there were "administrative" roles for users that do not want to do the technical bits. I think consensus is warped because the people that are the quickest at the technical stuff are the first to comment and drive the direction of decisions. Wikipedia needs more diversity in the kind of thinking that is done when the "community" makes difficult choices.

It was great to meet you! I am glad that you are here.

User:ZachMcDowell - October 7, 2024

[edit]

User:Nick Number – October 8, 2024

[edit]

I created my account in May 2006, though I had very few edits until 2010.

Initially I just wanted to do copy editing. I've always been particular about spelling and grammar, and it was satisfying to be able to fix some of the errors I saw. Over time my interests expanded.

I might have gotten more involved if I'd found WP:DPL sooner, or another project which attempts to gamify relatively simple fixes. But maybe not; I might have needed to build up confidence by fixing uncontroversial typos before I felt comfortable moving up to disambiguating. It also would have helped to figure out that I could search on WP: and a keyword and usually find relevant guidelines and Manual of Style entries. I don't think that's readily apparent to new editors.

No, I mostly blundered through on my own. The occasional encouragement and feedback I received on my talk page was helpful.

Yes.

No.

Only rarely, and for very minor fixes. Regardless of any limitations within the app, I really prefer having a full-size keyboard and monitor.

From my perspective, things are pretty good. There are a couple of minor peeves I have, but I recognize I'm in the minority and don't care enough to actually try to change them:
I'd go back to making Wikidata labels the default rather than requiring manual {{Short description}} tags, and in general to focus on remediating the concerns some enwiki users have with Wikidata so that its contents can be integrated into more infoboxes, etc. It just makes sense for some types of information to be stored in a central, structured location and pointed to as needed.
I'd also make date format something governed universally by user preference rather than set manually per article. For those not logged in, maybe set the default based on the country of the IP.

User:Adamstom.97 – October 25, 2024

[edit]

User:BarntToust – October 26, 2024

[edit]

Took up Wikipedia editing maybe when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, as an IP that did edits on random topics, I only really locked in and did serious editing with an account 6 or so months ago (if that makes any difference).

Having an influence on what the anglosphere sees is an intoxicating concept. I created an account because Pedro Pascal is daddy. And I didn't really want to wait on AfC processes to create articles. Pedro Pascal on screen and stage was my first work as a serious editor, even though the AfC submission was accepted before my account became autoconfirmed.

Jeez, created an account sooner? (For probably fine reasons) people don't like seeing IP edits or redlinked names because that can be (and often happens to coincide) a sign of "random vandal" or someone who has no clue just what in the heck they are doing. As an IP that's dynamic, you essentially f**k over anybody who wants to communicate on a serious basis about the project, as your talk page is inconsistent. WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU was maybe a problem for me, and most of it would have been solved by pressing the blue "create account" button on a laptop.

As an IP, you get the basic talk templates when you're new and then enough of those pop up and you don't get any new ones. I mean, it helped that I knew CSS from the gate so I was good with adapting to this system's markup. But really as a noob, the thing that didn't work was understanding WikiProject consensus when you decide to be bold and do stuff your own way, now that was a subject of a few talk templates, lol. But people helped when I was doing stuff like that for enough times.

Hell yeah! gotta work on the new DC Universe articles.

Nope.

Used to make all my edits as an IP on mobile. One day I opened Facebook's built-in browser and found Wikipedia. It was not fun because simply that is not the way to edit things, and Facebook's browser is faulty. I know THEYCANTHEARYOU is bad, but Facebook browser editing would have been worse.

"{{citation needed}}" is the lazy way out of dealing with WP:OR and other problematic content. Screw that template, clear out the crud.

If you treat other wiki editors just like how Keanu Reeves treats random strangers, you would be contributing to a beautiful atmosphere. Please do that. BarntToust 00:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

User:AlphaBetaGamma – October 31, 2024

[edit]

I made an account on jawiki around year ago. Started being active around Spring 2024.

To update my hometown's page. My scope ended up covering Wikiproject Japan, and then Wikiproject Trains in Japan.

User:Sungodtemple did help me quite a lot in my mentorship program run. Nothing else Wikipedia provided me with worked, so it was a lot of trials and errors. Tbh that's the issue with editor retentions.

I'll probably go inactive in 2025... IRL issues.

No, although I was forced to request salting on someone's assignments after persistent G11 draft creations, which forced the student's assignments to be changed. If you have any advice on what to do when a student assignment is promotional but doesn't quite stand for G11 please give me one.

I always edit on mobile, but I sometimes edit in my laptop. I constantly switch between desktop and mobile as TW is unusable in mobile view, so that sucks.

I'd expand the definition of personal attacks on Wikipedia by including excessive outing in RfA candidates and off-wiki harassments where the user off-wiki is clearly connected to the existing Wikipedia account. The standard for this would be similar to administrators confirming sock puppets without a CheckUser, so if their standing and stuff ambiguously matches they can be assumed the same individual, which prevents shitty issues in ANI where everyone is throwing in the oil into the fire by sparking off-wiki attacks without any punishment. I got my hands burnt because of a recent one, don't wanna EVER do that again.

I do stuff around AIV (around 200 users sent, most of it got indeffed), UAA, and also patrol abuse logs. I also expand Japanese articles, do DYK reviews, and review pending changes, mentorship, you know... but I just wanna point out that edit counts do no shit beyond 500, and the terrible habits of assuming someone isn't set for something because of edit counts, despite their understanding of policies should be warnable as biting newer editors.

User:UnsungHistory 15 November 2024

[edit]

User:Knitsey – November 25, 2024

[edit]

10th August 2022

Too long a story but, I suffered a life changing injury and had a long recovery time. I always enjoyed reading Wikipedia but I started to look at what happened behind the scenes. Up to that point I didn't even know article talk pages existed. Upshot, I spent about 10 months reading talk pages, editor profiles, notice board discussions, SPI, admin talk pages etc. I decided that I should register an account and see where it led.

Look for more advice from experienced editors. I didn't have the choice of a mentor when I registered. I didn't know there was such a thing.

Some help, people left me advice and I think that because I was open to that, more advice came in which helped with editing.

For sure, I enjoy it. I actually do not think that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Everyone has their reasons for editing. I find it relaxing and there is something new to learn every day. I think Wikipedia (to a small extent) kept me sane during a boring and painful time. When the pain was too much or I had more surgery, then I knew well enough not to edit. Hence a couple of long breaks.

No, I only have train the trainer qualifications. It's not really something I'm interested in.

All of my editing is on my mobile phone. I've never edited from a computer/laptop.

We need to find ways of being less toxic. The noticeboards are great but they are sometimes quite toxic. Certain character types enjoy that type of thing. For me, the occasional toxicity is totally off putting. To the point where I will pester an admin rather than use the boards. Don't get me started on the state of RfA's. Hopefully, that might change. 'Feel free to also share anything else you wish to :)

User:Seefooddiet – December 12, 2024

[edit]

Around late 2022 and early 2023.

Initially fixing typos and prose. This moved to content additions by accident and gradually.

More feedback from others. The topic area I edit in had/has a really small community. I managed to compensate by being proactive and asking questions. The discord has been really helpful for this; learned a good chunk of wikipedia style in there and still learn from it basically every time I open it.

Other than by accumulating micro feedback from others' offhand comments or edits, not really. I was largely self taught and few have ever significantly revised my edits.

Yes, as long as the community is patient with me and my foibles. I want to be helpful to the community but my mouth is a magnet for my foot. Lot to do and Wikipedia is an important global tool.

No, but I frequently encounter the output of it. I think it's great.

Yes but only minor things. It's hard to juggle multiple tabs and texts. The lack of live preview (visual editor doesn't capture everything) is a hindrance. I can't do things like find+replace with regex (that I know of) either.

My perennial complaint: fixing the Japanese Wikipedia. Have already written on this at length (sorry; I'm a bit too blunt and impatient about it). But the core of my message I'm confident in. They are causing serious harm.

Thanks for everything you do, Wikipedia needs as many uplifting people as it can get. I can play bad cop but not everyone responds well to that.

User:Certes – December 12, 2024

[edit]

2007

I spotted and corrected a typo, realised that there might be a few other errors elsewhere, and became a wikignome.

We didn't get a standard welcome then, so that would have been helpful.

Little help was thrown at me, but most things were well documented and colleagues were always helpful when approached.

Not in any quantity. I'm semi-retired.

No. It's a noble project but a separate one.

No. I get the impression that it would be much harder than on a PC.

I would reform the relationship with the WMF, diverting funds raised via Wikipedia to improving Wikipedia.

I recently stopped significant editing, for reasons shown at the top of my user page.

User:Loopy30 – December 12, 2024

[edit]

User:Eewilson – December 13, 2024

[edit]

10 April 2007

Looks like I saw something missing in an article and decided to add it.

That's a hard one because in the beginning, it was just very sporadic editing – punctuation and grammar. I created a couple of articles in the first two years. I didn't really know what I was doing in terms of what Wikipedia expected. I immediately used the source editor because I'm a software engineer, so that felt most familiar to me. Interestingly, one of the early articles is nearly the same as it was at creation, and still a stub – since 2009. It was nearly 6 years later before I edited anything again, unless I did something while not logged in. In April 2018, I worked on a series of short articles for townships and other localities in Iredell County, North Carolina. But, I may not have thought of myself as a Wikipedia editor until I created my user page in September 2020, and that's when I got involved with plants articles and where I have stayed.

I wish there were a way to provide instructions when someone starts an article. I wish there were a way not to let really bad articles through. I think poor writing and grammar is worse than poor sourcing, to be honest, so it would be helpful if new article reviewing took both things into account. Some articles should never go into mainspace.

It worked to have a project to join – the Plants project – where I could find standards and ask questions. The MOS and WP namespaces are helpful. It's good to find editors with more experience who are willing to answer questions, and I was able to do that. Acronyms to Wikipedia guidelines don't help unless they are provided with Wikilinks.

Yes. I may take a Wikibreak sometime again, but I'll keep editing.

This fall, I discovered a plant species article that a few years ago had come through a WikiEd class and was 100% cheating. It was horrible. In the end, I reverted everything, initially trying to clean it up, and after realizing what the student had done, I reported it to the WikiEd project. After that, I decided to start following some plant species articles that have been used this semester. Some of the kids write like 5th or 6th graders. Some like they are still in highschool. Some school groups seem worse than others. My experience so far is that it just creates more work for existing Wikipedia editors who care – so far it's just a whole lotta cleanup. I have not read everything about the WikiEd project or it's purpose, but student editors are, for the most part, not here to build an encyclopedia. They are here to pass a class. I don't know how we can justify supporting that.

I do it all the time using the desktop version in a browser on my phone. I read, review, and edit some things. I think it's great to be able to do it this way. I have never used the visual editor, so I don't know how that would work for people. There is a problem following long threads on talk pages. Once you get to five or six indents, the text "disappears". This is a problem. An easy solution would be automatic outdents upon saving once the indent gets to a certain level. The software ought to be able to do that. It also should be capable of rendering the display so that all levels are viewable.

Yes: it's frustrating when there are policies and guidelines out there that I can't find. It's frustrating not to know about changes. It's frustrating when discussions occur on project talk pages, people decide that the conclusion on the talk page is the way they will do it, but nobody changes the write-up/instruction/policy/guideline to reflect that. In other words, it's not an official change.

I would like to see something better in the way of citation formatting. I am a big fan of citation templates and citation wrapper templates. I wish there were an automatic way for the software to convert a citation into its appropriate template depending upon what type it is.

I do think things work themselves out eventually, but we don't always make it easy on ourselves. I think the Wikipedia concept of consensus is a good one, it's just that it's often misunderstood. I have recently learned or realized that our guidelines are not completely made in advance, they are written in response to in-practice consensus, and that there is more than one way to have consensus.

I don't know if any of this is helpful, but feel free to follow up if you wish. I think it's a good community, and I'm glad people care. Sometimes I wonder why I'm here, though I remember that for over 30 years, I've spent most of my time on the computer in one form or another, so why not this? I use Wikipedia everyday even if I'm not editing, so this is a way to give back.

user:czar – December 18, 2024

[edit]

User:Masterhatch – December 22, 2024

[edit]
June of 2005.
A friend of mine told me about Wikipedia so I checked it out and noticed a gaping hole on hockey related articles. I made a few edits on hockey and got hooked. I used to read encyclopedias as a kid for fun and I now I am able to help build one.
I'm not sure what could've helped as it was truly the wild wild west back then. Possibly a better dispute resolution mechanism? But we have a pretty good one now.
Nope. No help.
Yes.
No.
Most of my edits are on my mobile. There are some minor bugs with mobile (like the page "jumping" when editing) and I find adding references difficult. I usually add a bare url with my phone and when I can get to my PC, I fill it in (sometimes that's days later). I create most of my articles in my sandbox on my phone too. And when I get home (I'm on the road a lot) I will publish them from my PC.
Ummm... I used to be in the camp of only logged in editors (no IPs) can edit. But I'm not there anymore as I've seen a lot of good edits from IPs. I'd like to see stricter rules about which users can create and move articles, such as a high main space edit count with quality edits. For example, a reverted edit wouldn't count towards the total. Neither would a bunch of minor edits designed to boost the count. I think that would help with afd and nuisance article moves that have to be all reverted.
This was fun. Merry Christmas!

User:Prosperosity – December 23, 2024

[edit]
Around 2007, I think?
I started off doing music articles, mostly Japanese music related.
That's an interesting question. A lot of the skills that are useful to have (e.g. Wikidata) weren't really part of the Wikipedia ecosystem then.
There wasn't really a lot in the way of help offered back in 2007/8.
I do.
I haven't!
I have, usually if I notice a typo. It's fine! A little clunky, but that's what I expect for mobile.
I'm drawing a blank, but if you asked me about certain aspects of Wikipedia, I'm sure that I'd have lots of opinions.

User:Synorem – December 24, 2024

[edit]

December 2022, two years ago now!

My local police force had recently undergone a change in management, and I noticed that Wikipedia was not yet updated to reflect this, so I thought I'd be the one to do so.

Probably just policy reminders when editing, as I mainly learnt about Wikipedia's editing policies through being warned by other users. Stuff like "You changed XYZ without providing a source, are you sure you wish to publish these changes?" and small stuff like that.

It was bittersweet. I learnt through my mistakes, thankfully there were other users who were able to politely correct or inform me of how things work. WP:BITE was nice to learn about: it felt nice not being treated any different because of my account age or edit count.

I recon so, yes. There's a learning curve, but once you get the grips of how to properly edit on Wikipedia, what and what not to do, you're pretty much set. I suppose burnout or disinterest is inevitable somewhere down the line, but I hesitate to prognosticate when.

I have not, but I've seen a lot of other editors get involved with it, and I think it's rather interesting!

Indeed. Certainly not my cup of tea - The user interface, the functionality, and just getting the hang of using a different UI is all a bit bothersome for me.

Not that I can think of! I know there's a lot of raised-eyebrows to the WMF's management of this site (see here and here for prime examples) but other than that, I think it's done pretty well for itself, given the fact the vast majority of editors are entirely unpaid.

User:History6042 – December 24, 2024

[edit]

User:Abishe – December 24, 2024

[edit]

February 17, 2017 (On a side note unknowingly my first edit anniversary coincides with the birthday of former South African cricketer AB de Villiers who is my all-time favourite cricketer)

It's also because I wanted to represent my country Sri Lanka through Wikipedia by way of creating articles related to Sri Lanka. I achieved my goals by creating biographies of prominent Sri Lankans who have excelled at different fields. My first ever Wikipedia article Sri Lanka national blind cricket team itself symbolises my patriotic feelings. I also started editing Wikipedia because I somehow got that interest naturally to write articles and I also began editing lot of cricket related topics besides Sri Lankan focused content. My aim is to keep pushing beyond boundaries and share knowledge in whatever way possible. I really developed many thought providing ideas through Wikipedia where I gained more general knowledge. My ambition was also to create articles in order to make viewers read my content and through that I attained personal satisfaction.

To be honest, I made a lot of grammatical errors in the beginning where I even failed to put space after the fullstop to start a new sentence. Considering the fact that I hail from Sri Lanka, English is arguably the third language to all the Sri Lankans living here. I did have a tough transition having to figure out a way on how to write lengthy articles without grammatical errors and most importantly using the correct tenses to specify the details.

First of all, apart from Wikipedia community giving insights on how to start editing Wikipedia, I learnt the art of editing all by myself. Interestingly, none of the people in my social circles know how to edit Wikipedia articles and when I told about my attempt, they felt odd and confused as they clearly did not have a proper understanding on how to write effective articles. Initially yeah there was excitement, but I had been nervous too considering it was a new territory with zero exposure and I was brimming with confidence when I successfully published my first ever Wikipedia article. Teahouse helped me where as a novice during 2017, I asked questions about how to edit Wikipedia and I received substantial support from fellow experienced editors. Some genuine editors sent me welcome messages making me feel special and that gave me a good impression about Wikipedia community and it gave me a level of comfort to start the proceedings and lay a solid foundation to my Wikipedia career. I then had some temporary setback when some of my articles such as List of Day Night test cricket records, International cricket records, Ganindu Nanayakkara had been deleted due to notability concerns. It was bit of a learning curve after realising that my article content was not upto the mark and failed to comply with WP:GNG. Despite the stumbling blocks, I had a dream start to my Wikipedia editing career as I finished my debut calendar year with a prolific stellar record of 10,405 edits (still ranks my highest edit count in a single calender year and I love to have statistical career record like these just like how batsmen in cricket are so obsessed with total career runs scored.)

In fact, Wikipedia provides me a glimmer of hope in terms of understanding my core strengths. I am hopeful of continuing it for a foreseeable future, as I consider it a fulcrum of my life trajectory since I predominantly use it to create plenty of articles. In November 2024, I took part in Wikipedia Asia Month contest where I knocked it off the park by creating 57 articles (which makes me to feel that I have performed underwhelmingly, as I could have done a lot better after having managed to muster only 29 points for those articles considering the fact that I did not live up to the weight of expectations of the judges). I did find my range during the contest that I can still deliver content on any subject matter. In the last 2 and half years, I haven't accumulated much edit count since I am actually busy working in corporate office. I only find sufficient time in weekend and in weekdays after office hours, but I also manage to optimise the availability of time to edit Wikipedia whenever I get spare time. It also helps when I don't go out socialising as I am somewhat of an introvert, but ironically I do go for Toastmasters to craft my public speaking skills. I have a ray of hope that Wikipedia does not become defunct, because it is where I found my knack of writing and developed a formidable interest in editing articles.

Unfortunately, I have not so far.

Well, I predominantly use my Samsung mobile to edit and write Wikipedia articles. It's actually not suitable compared to a desktop or a laptop, but I prefer using mobile to edit due to the attribute of the portability. I too have edited some articles even at office thanks to mobile (laughs). Even if I suddenly get an idea to create a quick Wikipedia article if I am not available at home, I will make sure to use my mobile to create a draft article at least in my hand held device and in fact I use email since I can always assure that even if the mobile phone is dead due to low battery, whatever written content prior to the mobile phone battery low message pops up in notification, I still can have a sigh of relief since email always makes sure to save the draft version.

I would certainly want to see Wikipedia giving recognition to all the countries in the world by inducting All of Fame elite list of editors based on their achievements and editing history. I know this is usual to ask but I would love to see something like this.

Maybe I can tell to my grandkids if I live up to that many years that I have created a legacy to myself by writing up many Wikipedia articles for viewers to read and gather knowledge. When I started passionately to edit Wikipedia, I restricted myself only to Sri Lankan topics and cricket, but later on I diversified my interest ranging from Indian Tamil films (being a Tamil myself obviously played a reason to contribute to many Tamil film articles), African films (thanks largely after participating in WikiProject AfroCine/Months of African Cinema/2019. So I came out of the initially intended mindset to expose myself to write up articles covering other fields as well. I obviously have enormous passion towards Wikipedia and sometimes that is well and truly articulated even at my corporate office where I write up lengthy mails in Microsoft Outlook, an habit of writing lengthy answers I picked up through contributing to Wikipedia.

User:ZLEA – December 25, 2024

[edit]
I started sometime in late-2016 as an unregistered IP. I finally created my account on January 5, 2017... Wait, has it really been 8 years? Still feels like yesterday.
I have always had a love of aviation (in fact, I unofficially hold an aviation record that the FAA wouldn't like). My first edits ere of course to aviation-related topics, as have most of my edits since then.
It definitely would have been a big help to know that mw:Help:Magic words existed. I feel like my template-crafting abilities skyrocketed after I discovered it (though I have mostly used them on Commons).
Well, I didn't have a WP:MENTOR or anything, but I don't know that I needed one. The welcome template was a big help in familiarizing myself with the policies and guidelines, and I was lucky enough to have a great WikiProject that could help me when I was stuck or did not understand things.
I sure hope so. I have quite a lot of ideas for articles that I have yet to write, and that number will only grow. As a plane spotter, I have on more than one occasion spotted an aircraft type that did not yet have an article, so I wrote one for it.
I unfortunately have not. I am currently enrolled at Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University, though time restrictions have prevented me from attempting to set something like this up there.
It has at times been a great convenience, but the app's talk page interface is severely lacking. While the reply feature is a good idea on paper, I have on occasion accidentally broken indentation or signed a post twice. Whenever I need to use my phone to participate in a discussion, I usually just use a browser and perform a source edit to the talk page.
I think we should take WP:NOTBURO a little more seriously. We shouldn't have to go through multiple noticeboards to deal with obvious disruption from clearly WP:NOTHERE editors, yet myself and others have wasted a lot of our time jumping through hoops for weeks at a time just to prevent singular POV warriors or people who "know they're right". I'm not saying we should create an WP:AIV for non-vandalism disruption, but cutting down on the bureaucracy would undoubtedly save a lot of our time.
I do hope my contributions to Wikipedia helped inform someone. I don't have much more to add. Thanks for the opportunity and have a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year! - ZLEA T\C 03:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Bunnypranav – December 27, 2024

[edit]
Created this account in 2021, but only seriously started contributing from mid-2024.
First edit was to remove a test edit and for the rights of saying I edited the Wikipedia. Now it is more for contributing my share to this wonderful project, which I use often to find information, and just having fun.
Knowing of all the stuff that needs fixing, i.e. backlogs and such, would have helped a lot. Simpler compilations of major policies without overlinking of their larger version would have helped a lot, see below for rationale.
I tried to ready the many policies here, but the overwhelming amount of content, and even more content after following the links did discourage me from going through them thoroughly. I relied a lot on the Task center as a newbie, and it did help to an extent.
Yes, but my streak might get affected. Contributions will happen though.
Yes. There are somethings that are good, but mostly bad if we look at the mobile app. The reply to feature for the talk pages is nice in the app, but thats all. I share many problems that Clovermoss experienced. Due to this I limit my mobile contribs to talk page replies only.
In the off-chance I have to do a more complex edit, I have to go though the cumbersome process of opening it in a web browser, changing to desktop view, and pressing the tiny buttons with my fingers. My love of userscripts prevents me from using even the mobile view in the browser. :(
  1. Admins do not need to be content editors. System Operators (sysops)/Administrators, in the wordings itself and the rights they have express that they are backend contributors. We as a community need to acknowledge this and not oppose non-content creator RfAs.
  2. WMF should start using more budget for developing software and making the life of volunteers better.
  3. Make the English Wikipedia more diverse, i.e non-US centric content, ideologies, volunteers? etc.
  4. Better recognition of the volunteer editors by the WMF staff (borrowed from User:Peaceray)

Thanks Clovermoss for the interview, and inviting me! :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

User:JIP – December 27, 2024

[edit]

In February 2005 when I was doing my non-military national service.

I had read some articles on Wikipedia and thought it looked interesting and fun.

I would have taken some more time to read Wikipedia and get to know the established conventions instead of just diving straight in like I pretty much did back then.

Yes I had help. Other, more established editors contacted me via my talk page and I could also ask them questions on their talk pages. I also found the Wikipedia Help Desk very useful.

Yes I will, for quite some time, at least several years. Way back when I was a new editor I edited Wikipedia at quite a fast pace but my pace has slowed down since then.

No. I don't even know what WikiEd is.

No. I read Wikipedia on mobile quite a lot, especially when I am at some other place than my home or my workplace where I don't have access to Wikipedia on a desktop computer. But I find editing Wikipedia on mobile too cumbersome because of the smaller screen and less tactile keyboard.

Not as such. It's a good thing Wikipedia is one of the few websites around any more that doesn't include any advertising, instead its costs are funded with donations. Any great changes to Wikipedia policies would have to come from the users, there's really no central overall authority to unilaterally establish new terms.

I don't think I have anything to add here. I usually don't write anything in the "anything else" part of surveys overall either.

User:FortunateSons – December 29, 2024

[edit]

September 2023, while I was doing an exchange semester.

I had a boring class and started browsing Wikipedia pages as an alternative to paying attention to the professors. After I saw mistakes on a few pages, I thought it was best to correct them and make some structural changes while I was at it.

I feel like there isn't much in terms of barriers to entry that aren't inherent to the medium. In a perfect world, improving the accessibility of some areas, particularly BLP and ARBPIA, might be a worthy pursuit, but I have no idea how to do that without reducing quality and increasing abuse.

I watched and read a few tutorials, and asked a few questions at the appropriate avenues, with the latter being really helpful. There were some minor bite issues, but nothing that permanently discouraged me from editing. In general, I believe that a sort of "drinking from a firehose" approach works best for actually learning the ropes, something that causes errors in some cases, but also contributes to creating skilled editors.

I hope so. I'm entering a very stressful stage of my studies, so I wouldn't bet on the next few years, but if we're counting in decades, absolutely.

No, but I think it's great.

Yes, I mostly edit on mobile and therefore experienced many of the issues encountered by Clovermoss. Editing on mobile is a lot of fun, and significantly reduces the barrier to entry. Having said that, I do anything complex on my computer, which is probably the clearest indication of the limitations imposed by mobile editing. My dream would be an actual functional app, but dream is the operative word here.

I would like to increase the protections for non-public persons who qualify as BLP, particularly by allowing for the deletion of their pages upon request. It is my view that the current model is at best a few legal changes away from having a rather serious problem in jurisdictions with strong privacy laws, and Wikipedia shouldn't be used to amplify harm (morally justifiable or not) towards BLP.

You have my sincere gratitude for creating this project!

User:Davidbena – January 1, 2025

[edit]
I started editing on Wikipedia in 2013.
At the time, I felt that there were still many topics not yet covered by Wikipedia's online encyclopedia, and which I felt I might be of some use in making these topics known.
As a new editor, I made many mistakes and it would have been helpful if someone told me not to be discouaged by WP editors who attacked me for making those mistakes. We learn from our mistakes, but there should always be a cordial atmosphere.
Very rarely would I be helped by other editors who would give to me an 'encouraging word', such as not to despair. I came across much friction in the Arab-Israeli conflict area, where there were often "opposing views" on this topic of interest and how it should be handled on Wikipedia.
I certainly hope so.
No.
No. I am unfamiliar with the program.
Wikipedia is a good, educational platform. If I were in a position of authority, I would appoint special overseers having complete authority to overwrite edits in all WP pages written on the Arab-Israeli area of conflict, and this only to maintain an air of neutrality. As the situation stands currently, such articles tend to certain biases, although Jews and Arabs have always lived together in the same country, especially before 1948. While wrongs may have been committed by both sides of this conflict, often there is an over-emphasis on Israeli aggression. There should be a balance.
I am generally happy when writing about subjects that reflect on the people living in the Land of Israel (aka Palestine), and have a love for this place and its people and culture.Davidbena (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Carlinal – January 1, 2025

[edit]
  1. I feel experienced enough to somewhat understand how hard it is to encourage new editors to register. It's easy as hell to make a new account out of the blue, but then comes your establishment as an editor. Some admin must be looking at all the newborns on the farm like a tired white-collar and is jaded after many, many bad interactions with more...childish editors who couldn't be impersonal enough to let Wikipedia's policies open their minds, and I don't mean the vandals. I mean the thousands of one-off comments or dragged conversations of very misunderstood usernames getting a fuss over some minor detail that really is minor in the complete picture. I encounter this stuff even today; don't get me started on how many of these editors I find in any animation or Internet-related subject. shudders
    But so what? I see how after finding certain patterns in the inexperienced, someone whips out the mop a little harsher than usual, but it's not in Wikipedia's core character to police like that. It just makes the veterans look even more like jackoffs as our reputation gets more scratches. I think a lot about what kind of word about us spreads from which corner I almost can never find. If we're so dedicated to improving articles and information, how hard is it really to do the same with those with good intentions? There should be this community of sages or something who are wise enough to show these editors what it means to have a second chance. It would be really difficult to execute this idea, since every last one of these inexperienced have their own problems with ego and lifestyle that has no consistent solution, like depression; each user needs to get themselves resolved in their own way. But I don't think that's impossible.
    Also, I'm convinced there's at least three conspiracy theorist YouTubers with 10K+ subscribers and 1K+ videos who started out as a little snot with one bad day after pushing the buttons of a frustrated admin. That does horrify me. Most aren't aware of the underground filled with these people.
  2. Simple English Wikipedia is pointless. I don't really get its depth in purpose beyond "elementary reading version of OG-Eng WP". If a teacher or translator or nerdy frat boy wants to simplify an article for reading it's so easy for them to do it themselves. It comes off as this Baby Einstein or Cocomelon kind of learning platform; I bet if a foreigner stuck with Sim-Eng to learn English prose, it will never be as fast with growth compared to reading with OG-Eng. There's no struggle to encourage growth. Speaking of growth, Sim-Eng is less popular than whatever minimum it needed to be in, and too many articles look abandoned because they'd have to rely on their OG versions to leech on, with this short description approach applied top to bottom. Jesus, even the current FA for this one is underdeveloped. Why should we give a damn about this?
  3. Now for the politics. I get Wikipedia's mostly apolitical, but there are times when this is unavoidable and somebody has got to address it. If I can't do this, who can?
    Just recently the WMF got into a tangle with this rotten publication in India accusing them of defamation and, rather than leave the site blocked by the country without risking Wikipedia's free speech, a lawsuit resulted in an attempt to win India's favor despite the country's anti-free speech state, spanning several months and greatly risking the privacy of three users who edited the article on said publication. With what is likely the first article to remain taken down from pressure by an outside party, WMF v. ANI is the most frightening and horrible thing in this website's history, and will go down as the WMF's biggest screwup. I believe they likely lost the support of many Wikipedians and denting that of many more, and regardless of whether a subsequent phase of this would happen, it should not be forgotten or dismissed as any sort of hoo-hah.
    Yet the lawsuit is not the center of this section, despite its impact. Because while it would be remiss to not acknowledge it, WMF vs. ANI could not come at a worse time regarding free speech in the WMF's home country, including what would happen to the Foundation (and thus us) now that Donald Trump won his second term, becoming even more aggressive in his proposals compared to his 2020 campaign. My connecting him to Wikipedia comes from the ideals of Trump and his administration, which consists greatly of social conservatism and misinformation. As we're this independent website in a country colored by the First Amendment and all that crap, you'd think his upcoming second-term administration would leave us off the hook, but let's face it, our motives have grown to be inherently against theirs. For everyone's sake, Wikipedia appeals to no one but itself. We do not self-censor and no heavy subject has been handled without consideration, critical race theory for instance. We make decisions on consensus, not polls. We make our own judgements on popular news sources for reliability, and a crucial bunch of conservative news sources have been ruled out. We do not embrace claims from anonymous sources, and refrain from relying on primary sources or an editor's own findings, especially since we're not breaking news. We call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories, and hoaxes hoaxes. We banned a long-standing editor for throwing out Jordan Peterson-based sexism. And we are pro-LGBTQ, as I think of many great trans editors whom I worry about for their protection. Wikipedia stresses a neutral point of view, but we're progressive neutral about it.
    I wasn't surprised by how much ire the site design got from right-wingers online (Like, we've had this rep since at least 2006?) especially since their "journalism" uh..."evolved" to shoot their own feet increasingly each decade. But now I'm worried about what the right would do to us. Like now, you take this big cheese, a plastic "entrepreneur" in denial, have him call us a bunch of "far-left activists" and discourage donations, have that comment receive 50M+ views and 150K+ likes, and then have Trump give him a position in the American government. And the only response the WMF gave so far? Throwing shade and asking for more donations. You think Munsk won't take control outside his initial position? How many have assumed we're gonna get by 100% intact this time, after so many rattling events... Thinking about all of this, I'm a little confused and exasperated on why I haven't seen much discussion on this website's future or amount of preparation or activity. Or some counter-essay against accusations of liberal bias titled WP:LIBERAL or WP:ISAJOKE or whatever.
    We have to stop considering today's "Republicans" as Republican and today's "conservatives" as conservative. Simply put, the right-wing has grown too extreme to be even considerate of anything that's not on their vibe. Charles Foster Johnson of all people realized this 15 years ago. How should we tolerate the Trumpists and nationalists trying to leave footprints here? I don't know every answer to this but I want to at least attend whatever discussions would result from all I just said. And in regards to the future sayings that it's all gonna be just fine, I don't think there's much evidence or statements that Trump and his gang will come after us, but I don't believe there's much saying they won't, either.

User:Totallynotarandomalt69 – January 2, 2025

[edit]

21 January 2023

Seeing a lot of pages that weren't well-maintained (but should have had a lot more information)

Definitely read a lot more about the conventions, I think I rushed to correct things without using a proper style or template – I think at this point I'm at a level where I'm comfortable with rules

Not really, but even nowadays I'll still find myself coming back to those Wikipedia help pages and checking I've got the right style/template/etc

Absolutely

Haven't actually hard of it until now

The Wikipedia app over the last year has been pretty good, it's been frustrating not to have the ability to edit an entire page without going in and out of edits (ie you can edit "short description" or "introduction" at the top of the page but not all sections in once)

Not that I can really think of specifically – I think more conversation is broadly needed, whether that's with surveys like this or just a lot more discussion among editors before things like revert wars start

Happy New Year! This was really fun to do and I appreciate it, almost a bit nervous for me to be considered an experienced editor after barely two years alongside editors who have been here since the early 2000s but I really enjoyed the opportunity

User:Btspurplegalaxy – January 2, 2025

[edit]

User:Northernhenge – January 2, 2025

[edit]

As a registered user, Christmas Day, 2007. Before then, I'd made minor changes as an IP to familiarise myself with the system.

To create an article for a locally important historic site.

With hindsight, the time I spent as an IP was really helpful, finding out how to edit and also finding out about the politics! I'd recommend that to anyone.

As I was creating my first article, I saved it and carried on. The next time I saved it, I noticed someone had deleted the article and that, by saving it again, I'd be re-creating it, so instead I carried on without saving it until it was ready to be judged. The editor who had deleted it later got in touch to explain what had happened and why, and I learned from that about using a sandbox. It was a bit stressful to be bitten as a newbie, but it worked out OK in the end.

Four years later, someone dumped a large quantity of advice to newbies on my talkpage. By that stage, it felt patronising but I wondered if I'd broken a rule somewhere. I assume the adviser was intending to be helpful, but it was too much content, delivered too late.

I've occasionally dropped into the teahouse and similar venues to ask questions and they've always been answered, normally in a friendly fashion.

Yes. These days I'm working on cataloging fairy tales and that will probably go on forever. Also when I look at pretty much any article I see sentences I don't really understand or sections that have no references to reliable sources, and I'll probably always want to fix those kinds of problems.

I was a bit concerned about what happened with BrownHairedGirl who was driven away despite all the good work she'd done. I avoid conflict on Wikipedia – there's enough in real life – but if I ever got drawn into a conflict beyond the point where I could pull back, maybe I'd disappear for a few months and then maybe think about coming back under a fresh start account.

No, I only discovered it from this question.

I tried but it was too easy to make mistakes. On newer phones, I haven't even stored my password so I wouldn't be able to log in to edit.

I think notability should just be about keeping the lunatic fringe out of the mainstream. As it is now, there seems to be a lot of trivia that counts as notable, like episodes of TV series, and quite impactful scientific work that lacks notability because it doesn't attract much media attention. I haven't studied this much, but I imagine people who say women scientists are excluded by notability have a valid point.

Normally english language wikipedia does a really good job of including all the different cultures that it embraces. A few times I've felt that notabilty isn't as well dealt with. I remember years ago there was some discussion around duck tours (amphibious boats), essentially arguing that only a US one was notable and the rest were just imitations. More recently, I wanted to say that a band was signed to a UK record label which only had an article for the label's US business. I created an article for the UK label and eventually US editors decided the UK label didn't exist and that all the UK sources I'd given must really be about the US label. In the end we compromised and the UK article was merged into the global holding company's article, not the US subsiduary, but it wasn't ideal. My change would be to require notabilty guidelines to recognise cultural differences. (We already do that to an extent with articles about under-represented parts of the world where it would be difficult to get a high volume of third-party sources in a country with no publishing industry.)

I ran a mediawiki server at work for a while and we often found it useful to include article text within category pages, so Category:XYZ would be an article about the category, with the list of members appearing automatically as usual at the end of the article. That's not within current policy on Wikipedia, and that can leave folks guessing about why a category page exists and what should be included in it. One change would therefore be to allow category pages to include articles within the category page itself, a bit like a list article but maintained by the software. I don't think that, currently, category pages are even supposed to contain references, and that makes if difficult to justify what a category represents and why it exists.

A bigger change to categories, which would require software updates, would be for each entry to know why it was included. As an example, there was recently some discussion of deleting a musician category called something like "Female-fronted bands". The argument for deletion was that it was sexist, disrespectful, non-defining, and had no single clear meaning. The argument against deletion was that it's a common description used in the media. A couple of us said that, if that's the case, articles should only be included if notable sources said they were female-fronted. The problem, though, is that it's an enormous category so checking every entry for validity would be a major exercise. If editors could somehow attach a reference to the "[[category:" then unreferenced inclusions could be automatically deleted, or at least marked as tentative. Maybe something like that could already be achieved via wikidata, but who knows?

Nothing at the moment. I've added too much to this page's length already. It would be good to revisit this in a year or two.

User:Quxyz – January 2, 2025

[edit]

I think I made a poor edit as an IP editor when I was eight to a toad article, I haven't been able to find it though. On this account, I have two main points I count from when I consider a beginning. I made my first edit in January 2021. However, I don't like that as I made 102 edits from then to August 2022 (5.1 per month). My activity then shot up after August 2022, which I use for when I look at any statistics with my account.

I honestly really don't remember why I made this account. I think it has been about just giving me stuff to do that's research based or being able to customize something. I may have also been annoyed at my friends since I frequently hear them confuse Wikipedia being unreliable as a source with Wikipedia being an invalid source.

August 2022 I believe is when I found out that the Bee Branch Creek, did not have an article. I was astounded, especially since there was a lot of sources on it. Looking at my edits, I think I was trying to replicate the fun I had expanding Many-colored fruit dove. While my attempts at getting into ornithology didn't go anywhere, I kept editing about Dubuque and eventually became entrenched in my sections of the encyclopedia.

I think the thing that could have helped me would be better navigation and a way to see what is chronicled. It is a particularly acute issue with WP:WPTC as I joined in the 2020s. That means that there is a decade and a half of documentation that I didn't or don't know about. For example, I am still not super familiar with creating track maps despite this being my third season of being involved. I think there is a page somewhere, but I can't find it (I think I actually managed to find it through Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki while snooping around one time).

The Teahouse was extremely useful. Very kind folks even though I went back to it like a thousand times. The Help Desk on the other hand... I think the two or three times that I have asked a question there it was either not answered or not fully answered. It was also extremely menacing as there are so many compartments to it. I'd honestly rather there be just one help desk.

Assuming something doesn't happen between now and June, I will likely go through the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season at least.

No, my teachers were too lame for it.

I occasionally edit on my phone's browser if I get bored on a trip. I do not usually add significant content to articles as the phone can be quite frustrating. However, I will do talk page and projectspace related stuff.

I think Wikipedia could be the most improved by increasing manpower (so long as the culture doesn't worsen because of it).

(slightly tangential ranting)

I think if the Foundation wants to increase in more diverse areas though, they would almost have to build and maintain infrastructure in developing nations. I think most of Africa is uncovered by Wikipedia, not necessarily because people there haven't heard of it, but because they are underdeveloped and lack most of the infrastructure to write about local African topics such as reliable news agencies or widespread access to the internet. Though, these are just my yaps and I really don't know what the Foundation does to encourage more people to join.

I can't really think of that much more. If anyone has any questions they can message me on my talk page. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Di (they-them) – January 3, 2025

[edit]

User:Dcw2003 – January 3, 2025

[edit]

Around 2015, although I had read wiki for many years prior to that.

I had written a lengthy history of a relative who seemed suitable for a wiki page. I had trouble at first learning the ins and outs of how to upload a page to wiki. The wiki documentation was a bit technical and often difficult to find, despite the fact I had been a software technical writer for decades prior to working as a wiki editor, and had published articles on how to write online documents.

I've learned best by talking to experts on the phone or preferable in person. This option was absent from my introduction as a new editor, although people were helpful and friendly online, it was difficult to communicate exactly what kind of help I needed by repeatedly sending messages rather than speaking to someone in person.

Yes. What helped and how I learned was often trial and error. And studying other editor's work carefully. This worked, but speaking to experienced editors in person or by phone would have been faster, and less painful. I was also blocked once for uploading photos whose copyright as public domain was disputed. I'd done a good bit of research, and had very lengthy explanations as to why I believed they were public domain. I've also had many, many, problems with viruses in my research for information after accessing so many websites that contained trojan horses and other viruses. I've used Bit Defender as a filter which is very helpful, but its expensive, and occasionally considered a Virtual Private Network which also causes a wiki block.

Yes, but I'd love to see a few changes that would make learning easier.

Not really.

Not on mobile. I prefer a real keyboad and a large screen.

Learning and instructing should occasionally be by phone or in person if possible. There are thousands of wiki editors who may have the experience to fulfill this role.

User:Boredintheevening – January 3, 2025

[edit]

I started editing Wikipedia around 2010 as an IP user, before making this account in June 2013 - 12 years ago now. I got more involved in the last couple of years, I think because it lined up with my increasing involvement in higher ed.

It's a fun way to pass the time and feeling that you're contributing to something helpful for others. I believe in the overarching mission of providing a repository of free abs reliable information, and it takes very little effort to make a difference towards that goal.

Nowadays, I do genuinely think of Wikipedia editing as a way to push back against the rise of misinformation/censorship. And being an active Wikipedian is a way for me to give energy to counteracting what I see as quite a worrying time when it comes to information/technology.

I think that learning the manual of style and getting to know general editing guidelines are most important for new editors. I think that there's a lot of information to take in as a new editor, and that can feel overwhelming. Having easy access to more short form descriptions of core elements of the manual of style/guidelines would have been helpful back when I started.

No, I didn't receive help. To speak very generally, I think that helpful interventions are about following good pedagogical practices, and helping well intentioned users figure out how to navigate the space - rather than disciplining or attacking.

I guess finding community earlier on would have been a big help, just to feel move involved with a wider network of activity or a longer term structured project.

Yes, it's one of my favourite hobbies and I think I'll keep going for quite a while longer. I've been getting increasingly involved in more structured activities within Wiki, and I think that's helped to keep me interested and make my contributions more consistent over time.

No, but I have come across plenty of edits by students taking part in the program. I think that it's a nice idea but it does often end up generating content that needs to be significantly reworked or ammended.

I've been thinking about doing something similar with my students in the future, but I'm still thinking through how I can best pull it off.

Yes, I frequently edit from my mobile phone (I'm doing it right now). I have some links setup on my home screen that pull up random articles that are either poorly sourced, promotional, or tagged as having unclear notability. It's good to be able to edit while on the move, or when I'm trying to avoid doom scrolling on social media.

I really don't like the Wikipedia app, so I just work from the Chrome browser on my phone. The only major issue I find with mobile editing is that my phone's autocorrect can introduce errors, and sometimes it's easy to fumble and hit the wrong button while using this small screen.

I would love to find out more about ways people are working to improve the mobile editing experience, or tips others have. I do think it's a great way to get a bunch of small tasks done when otherwise I'd just be standing at the bus stop or scrolling Instagram.

Not particularly, I think it's a great project and going in a good direction. I think diversifying editorship is probably the most important goal, everything else seems to flow from there for me.

I think it'd also be nice to find other ways that editors can send each other positive signals. Getting the little "X thanked you for your edit" notifications is always nice, and maybe there are ways we could build in more of those kinds of simple interactions.

I'm working on a research article about wiki editorship, but in a very different vein to this interview series. I might get in touch down the line because it'd be interesting to hear your perspective, and the perspectives of other editors.

User:Pokelego999 – January 3, 2025

[edit]

I created my account back in 2021, but didn't start editing actively until about 2023, and mainly started contributing actively in 2024.

In 2021, I got bored and thought making a Wiki account would be funny on the off chance I needed it. I used it on and off, primarily for vandalism (Stuff like writing shitpost-y phrases on talk pages. Things like "Obama" and the like. Don't do that anymore, don't worry). In 2023, I got very unhappy with the large amount of non-notable articles associated with Doctor Who and initiated a mass-AfD spree. As a result, I accidentally partially crashed the system over the 4th of July weekend. I learned my lesson very quickly and didn't repeat the incident, but I did stick around AfDs and learned about policies in greater depth than the basic Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:SIGCOV I was aware of. I soon found my way into the Pokémon sphere on Wikipedia, and I became involved with Wikipedia:VGCHAR soon afterward, and through my work with them, learned how to edit properly and constructively. I made my first GA nomination, Ash Ketchum, early in 2024, and began my crusade of improving Pokémon articles to a quality level from there.

Getting a bit rambly at this point, but I started primarily out of a distaste for non-notable subjects. After some learning experience, I began to edit out of a desire to make and create quality content that would genuinely benefit readers and the encyclopedia at large. Given my background, I very much am a stickler for making sure subjects meet notability criteria and satisfy every box, and so I hope to create the highest quality articles on subjects that I can with what information I can access.

Knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia's backstage. I had no knowledge of this and missed out on a lot of key Wikipedia functions in my early days. As a new editor, this made Wikipedia feel daunting and often meant I left various different actions incomplete or argued things incorrectly or from a bad stance. I would have appreciated some sort of easy crash course, as it would have eased me into Wikipedia's processes much more smoothly.

For my first few months I mostly worked on my own and figured things out by myself. I figured some things out, but it wasn't until I met members of VGCHAR that I really was able to figure out and perform editing. They taught me a lot and helped me learn a lot. Ash Ketchum and all my subsequent Good Articles wouldn't have been possible if I hadn't been taught proper citation styles, editing processes, and general reliable sources, among other things, though them. Resources like the Wikipedia Discord also helped, as it allowed me a resource to get quick answers to my smaller questions on Wikipedia's inner workings. They definitely were preferable to reading through Wikipedia policy pages, which were confusing and largely unhelpful for my education.

Definitely. Wikipedia's like a hobby for me at this point, and I've met a great community through it. This is something I genuinely enjoy doing, and until I get burnt out of writing these subjects entirely, or I'm kicked off because I'm too much of a nerd, I'll probably keep working on improving articles as long as I can.

Nope. If I ever get a WikiEd course in the future, I will smoke everybody.

I've tried it once or twice, but the fact visual editor is busted means so many articles just don't work. GANs and AFDs literally are unable to be used by me on mobile, while other content is hard to edit, or stuck in source mode, which is harsh and unforgiving on people who don't know how it works. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone starting out, and it's very counterintuitive even for experienced editors. Compared to the ease of use of editing on computer, mobile Wikipedia is a huge downgrade in every way.

I would add a genuinely good explanation of how the website worked. Wikipedia's back pages are hell to discover if you're casual, and even more hellish to try and understand. The way the rules are set up are archaic and like studying for a driver's exam. I understood very little of how anything worked. If it weren't for the fact I had a group of editors willing to help explain these things to me, I would probably have quit my editing just out of sheer confusion.

I get our rules are in-depth and thorough for a reason, as it minimizes confusion and specific "what if" circumstances and the like. But this really only benefits people already familiar with Wikipedia who know these policies through experience and wish to make sure a stance is clear to them. To a casual or new editor, none of this is explained in a way they would understand. I'd add some sort of "Wikipedia for dummies" or something, just explaining key concepts in simplistic terms in a step-by-step process. Something like "Here's how you use templates, here are some important ones, a full list can be found here. Here's how to cite a source properly..." etc. I'm aware there's some things like that already, but they are very obscure, and as a newer editor, I had no knowledge of their existence at all even though I'd browsed the site a shit ton in the past.

There's so much of an information overload when you use any template or read any editing guide that it can be confusing. The best way to help gain new editors is to make sure there's a good way to ease them in that's easily accessible and advertisable, while also explaining the core mechanics in a way that means they enter the field with experience.

I know I'm technically new-ish (My account may be old but my editing history isn't) but I feel I can call myself experienced with the amount of work I've done within my past little over a year or so of editing. I still have lots to learn- I plan to begin tackling articles as a New Page Patroller soon, and I hope to wrap my head around BLPs at some point soon (Don't ask me how I haven't worked with them yet, but that's what happens when I'm a nerd primarily editing fictional element articles). I've gained a deep familiarity and presence on this site I didn't have when I first started. I hope to continue growing and learning on this website so I can be experienced in more and more subject areas and be someone newbies can rely on when they hope to start.

I've been performing necromancy and trying to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon from the dead over the past year. It's still mostly an effort by myself and only a few other editors, but I've helped contribute around half of its current quality content articles in the past year alone. I'm hoping to continue my work in expanding this oft-neglected subject area among a wide scope of its subjects (Dreading having to improve some of the manga content lmao). If anyone watching this is a Pokémon fan, any extra hands would be greatly appreciated in the continued improvement of content in this subject area, as right now there's really only a few of us doing any work on articles in this area.

Pokémon is only one of my many projects; I do frequent work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who, where I've been working to improve the fictional characters and elements of the Project (Which are in a shoddy state and haven't been worked on in eons) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video game characters, where I occasionally drop in and improve a character article here and there.

I'm glad to leave my thoughts here for others to read, and I hope it provides some good insight. To anyone reading this, hope y'all are having a good day! Happy editing gang!

User:CaptainAngus – January 5, 2025

[edit]
Late December of 2020.
Was always interested, never took the plunge. I found myself wanting to add to the Octonauts page, but since it was semi-protected, I needed to make an account and have 10 edits before I could do so.
Maybe not much, a lot of 'editing know-how' simply comes from learning by doing. There is so much information and meta-information and policies and how-to guides that it is very hard/intimidating to make sense of it all. Over time, I've grown more confident in how to find answers and get guidance from everything that is out there.
I learned by looking at existing articles and edits and other examples. And since no one is shy to point out when you do something wrong, I learned a lot that way too. :)
Yes, I plan to.
I have not, but I've come across a lot of "school assigned page" and I'm really impressed. (I assume what I've seen is what you're asking about? This: Wiki Education Foundation?) Regardless, it seems like a great outreach program and effort.
No. It's a valuable capability for the wiki as a whole, but I prefer lots of screen real-estate and multiple tabs and other 'desktop' features to enable making proper, thought-out edits. I would struggle on a smaller mobile device. That being said, I do plenty of reading of the wiki on a mobile device, but not editing.
Promoting more positive communication and dialog between editors would be a nice change, if not required for the project to grow and thrive in the future.
Thanks for reaching out for my feedback!

User:TrudiJ – January 7, 2025

[edit]

I started in January of 2018.

I was very interested in the idea of hosting an Art & Feminism Editathon that year along with members of my academic department. There was a lot to learn quickly.

A mentor. While I was particularly delighted several years later to have the extraordinarily knowledgeable and helpful @NickMoyes agree to adopt me as a mentee, I felt like I was flailing at times early on. The Teahouse is a great place to get answers, but I wanted to learn more about the how and the why behind things. I was very impressed by the help I received in the Teahouse, but at times I wanted to get the bigger picture.

I guess my previous answer addresses this to some extent. I found the Wikipedia Adventure freeing, and the Article Wizard also helped. These resources were written in ways that I could easily grasp, whereas some help articles were way over my head. I understand that they aren't all meant for new editors, but perhaps for a curated group there could be both the existing article and a version written for newer editors.

Absolutely!

Yes, I have, and it was a great experience. For seven semesters, I taught a college course that used this program. My course focused on information literacy and specifically metaliteracy. Metaliteracy focuses on the learners (all of us) as ethical producers of information, and involves four learning domains: behavioral, cognitive, affective, and metacognitive. Being a Wikipedia editor draws upon all four of these domains in a very visceral way. Students were surprised to be asked to contribute to Wikipedia, as their other professors had mostly warned them to stay away from it. Going through all the stages required of an editor was daunting, but a number of students were extremely proud of what they accomplished. I taught primarily seniors, and many of them were philosophy students, who had been trained to read, critique, and write quite well. They were being given a chance to share their knowledge of the field and sources in the field with others. However, some had qualms about their role as an editor, and this article written for the WikiEd blog by one of my students captures what I think a number of us may have grappled with as new editors. By the way, I think the WikiEd program has developed some great training materials and modules, and an interface that works well.

No, I haven't. The small screen deters me.

As I mentioned earlier, having some help documents on trickier but still common features/tasks that would be easier to understand would be much appreciated. Even after editing for 7 years, I can easily see myself using them.

Now that I've retired, I appreciate the opportunity to continue to engage in the research and writing that were a big part of my career, and that I've always enjoyed. Being able to select topics that capture my fancy makes it fun. And having what is primarily a truly helpful community available to engage with is critical.

User:Shortiefourten – January 8, 2025

[edit]

It was this edit - at the Chehalis, Washington article - August 25, 2019. I made no other edit for a month out of sheer fear I wasn't Wikipedia material, and then did not make another edit for five more months.

The desire had been there since the late 00's but a lack of coding experience, time, and know-how was a prevention. After finding it difficult to find decent Wikipedia articles of substance about communities, landforms, and historical sites around me and my interests in Western Washington, I nervously signed up, blood pressure not good.

Support. A rallying-type support, I mean. My early days were unhappy, with edits judged and my presence made to feel as unwelcome.

It wasn't until I was perhaps in my late-to-mid triple digit editor count that fellow editors of great help and comradery began to pop up and be of great support. The early few months though were similar to being lost in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Early editing was simply looking at prior edits or going into an edit page, scanning for how things worked and why. Basically, press a button and see what happens. Keep in mind, not all older, more experienced editors appreciate when you hit Publish instead of Preview, but it was a help to me. The WP's and MOS guidelines are overwhelming at first, and I would encourage any newer editor to just hang in there...you'll get the gist of it. I'm about 1.7% of the way there!

Oh, hell yes, absolutely, definitely, no question, without a doubt. This place is fun and my desire to fill in forgotten or overlooked places in Washington state is still years from being completed.

No, but I've happened upon articles connected to the Pacific Northwest/Puget Sound that have been edited by students, and, well, they've been unwelcomed - sometimes straight out. I wish that changed. New editors are what Wikipedia needs and being rude, dismissive, or flat-out uninviting is the opposite of that. So they made an error and set your to-do list back 19 seconds...who cares? It's just punching the new person in the face and then walking away, high-and-mighty - I saved Wikipedia from the scourge of new editors! Christ almighty...

This program should be a marketing boon to our participatory editor count, not as a way to keep people out. So far, I've witnessed only one student of WikiEd who remained as a (barely) active editor, out of perhaps four or so dozen I've come across? Not good.

Nope, and probably not ever. First, as my GenX body ages, I can't see squat on a tiny phone anymore. Plus, the few times I read Wikipedia on my cell...it's underwhelming. Most photos, navboxes, and layouts are either wonky or just don't show up. I feel mobile readers are losing out.

Since my area of editing focuses on regional places near my hometown and county here in the Pacific Northwest state of Washington, I encourage any editor who is even remotely interested in what I have to say - please take the time to research your hometown, or a region where you grew up or live now, and help fill out those articles that are sorely lacking. Plenty of attention on sports and politicians, but where we come from is what made us today. Jeez, that sounds like a bad recitation of some other bad quote. Well, either way, articles of our small towns and communities, and all things attached to them, need our help. Honestly, if every one of us active editors undertake a few hours of online sleuthing about our local communities, rural or suburban,...wow, what a difference it'll make.

My thanks to Clovermoss for this invitation. It means a lot to me.

User:Bloodofox – January 9, 2025

[edit]

I started editing Wikipedia in 2005, around 19.5 years ago.

I used article creation as a research tool. By building Wikipedia articles, I became more and more familiar with this or that topic that drew my interest. It was a rewarding experience that also helped both me and others. One discovery led to another.

Better access to sources would have helped me early on but at least some of the databases we use so often for this today were not available.

I don't remember receiving any help as a new editor but this was also almost two decades ago.

Yes but in a more limited fashion. Many articles could be improved and some, such as those on hot button topics, can be very time-consuming to edit. It's easy to get sucked into related talk pages, especially if the result would positively or negatively impact many other articles and the results can be important, but we only have so much time to volunteer here.

I don't think so although I have seen classes (usually very lightly) editing articles.

Yes. The user interface was frustrating and limited so I avoid it.

First, I would dissolve the Wikimedia Foundation and institute a completely new system dedicated solely to improving Wikipedia. No more deceiving site visitors and funneling donations to pet projects. Enough is enough.

Second, I would redesign the site's user interface and prioritize reducing barriers for new editors. I remember being very confused by the site before I became an editor.

I would also prioritize researching how best to minimize friction between editors. There must be a better way to facilitate editor interaction that promotes less conflict between editors.

I can't think of anything. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Tarlby – January 9, 2024

[edit]

When did you start editing Wikipedia?

I created TheUsernameTarlby sometime in early January 2022. I don't know what I was trying to do with this account, but I definitely had thoughts about editing if I had made it. I actually started making typo-fixing edits in December 2023 as an IP and made this current account as TheWikiToby on December 29 2023. I mainly drive-by tagged a bunch of random articles in the early stages using Twinkle.

Why did you start editing Wikipedia? I accidentally managed to completely skip this question somehow. I'm answering this on January 11.

I've been using Wikipedia often for a few years by the time I started IP-editing. I thought, "why not contribute to the thing that educates me so much! It would be a fun hobby!" In hindsight...

it was.

If you could go back in time, what do you think would've helped you as a new editor?

A memory I always come back to was this one time where I uploaded two screenshots of Lethal Company directly to the article. I knew nothing about copyright at the time, so I basically just lied my way through the Commons wizard and both images got deleted that same day. If I could go back, I would tell myself to learn more about the licensing of images. I would also need to know not to treat this place like Fandom where anyone can basically just do whatever they want. Wikipedia is much more professional than Fandom.

Did you have help as a new editor? What worked and what didn't?

Not much. I recieved the usual welcome message and some useful advice from Bsoyka, but I was basically on my own to figure things out. I didn't have a mentor and I didn't go looking for one. I learnt the policies here by reading them on my own. Good thing I did that.

Although I didn't have my own mentor to personally teach me things, my advice for mentors out there is to always treat new editors with respect and patience. If I was a new editor and had a nasty mentor, that might'e not gone well for me.

Do you think you'll keep editing for the foreseeable future?

Definitely. My editing has slowed down from what it was a few months ago, but I'm sure I will always come back here eventually. I like reading drama from AN or ANI for entertainment. By doing that, I think I'll just naturally have something to edit by wandering around like that.

Have you ever been involved with WikiEd?

Nope.

Have you ever edited on mobile? If so, what are your thoughts on it? If not, why not?

Some of my edits were definitely made on mobile. I avoided mobile editing (on the actual Wikipedia app I mean) because Visual Editor isn't available; I obviously had no knowledge of Wikitext at the time. The more I edited though, I eventually learnt the code and got used to it. While I prefer to edit with the visual editor, I can function on mobile now. And then I found out the mobile-browser version has visual editor, so I use that occasionally too.

Is there anything you would change about Wikipedia? (Question added June 13, 2024)

Can't think of anything right now. Maybe I can come back to amend this later.

Just kidding actually. Reading the interview right above mine, I would abolish the stupid fundraising banners that decievingly act like Wikipedia is going to collapse soon. I find them annoying and I've seen a lot of other people complain about this too. I also think there should be some better way of teaching newer editors on the policies here. I have no idea how we'd exactly improve this, but I don't think it's really a good idea to just pray that new editors actively choose to read the guidelines on their own.

Feel free to also share anything else you wish to :)

I hope people keep donating to keep this place alive. I hope editors keep being productive so that readers donate. Thanks for reading y'all. Tarlby (t) (c) 21:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Viatori – January 11, 2025

[edit]

I started editing Wikipedia in late 2020, I didn't have anything better to do during the Pandemic.

I live in Sedgwick, Victoria, and I'd always look at the Wikipedia article, which was only a few sentences, yet I knew it had a bit of a history. I was hoping one day someone would add that history to the article, however I eventually realised that if no one was going to do it, I would have to do it myself. I started editing other suburbs around Bendigo and eventually got completely hooked and now I edit articles related to Victoria and improve them as much as I can. I'm sure many editors have a similar story.

That's a tricky one, I think learning to write in the "Wikipedia voice" that we're all familiar with takes a little bit of time to learn and get used to. It's easy as experienced editors to cite the hundreds of manuals of styles Wikipedia has, but as a new editor it can be overwhelming. Wikitext also takes time to get used to, for the first few months I mostly used the visual editor, before I transitioned into mainly using source editing. I think engaging with the wider community can be extremely daunting when you're new as well, especially if you're shy like I am, my first experiences commenting with other editors were generally quite negative and aggressive, I still get the chills to this day whenever I have a new talk page message. Experienced editors like to trample on newer ones, and I wish our community didn't have that sort of culture because it pains me to think about how many new editors have been discouraged from editing because of negative experiences, when they could have become very valuable contributors. I know that was almost me.

Nope not really, I was all on my own, most of my edits and work went unnoticed for a long time.

Certainly! Unless Wikipedia has some sort of major controversy, or stops existing, I'm sure I'll be editing until I'm gone. I have a mental to-do list that is thousands of items long. So many articles that need fixing and creating.

Nope.

If I sit down and decided "I think I'll do some editing this evening" its always on my laptop. However I do sometimes read on my mobile (particularly in bed) and if I see a sentence that reads a bit oddly, or a typo then I'll edit it from my mobile. Just small things like that. I think editing from mobile is fine for minor edits, but for most of the more complicated stuff I do, which requires lots of wikitext, then a computer is a must.

Probably...? Although I don't think I'm smart enough to be trusted with changing things on a website as big and complicated as this one. That being said, I wish there were more young people editing. Often I'm discussing something in a thread and I'm the youngest person there by a good fifteen or twenty years. Perhaps its just the corner of Wikipedia I'm in though.

Thanks for inviting me! I apologise if I've rambled a little bit.

User:Mir Novov – January 16, 2025

[edit]
  • Organise and clean up many aspects of the Wikipedia namespace (and general "backroom" stuff) so they've more approachable and organised for new users.
  • Standardise little inconsistencies where there's already a de-facto standard, like the citation format.
  • Give the main page a fresh coat of paint.
  • More investment by the WMF in the editor experience. Stuff like DiscussionTools is great.
  • Less unfriendliness and WP:BITEiness by old-timey editors, especially towards new users.