How long have you been a member of the Wikipedia editing community? - I have been editing since 29 July 2005. I started editing regularly in 2011 and became an admin in 2012. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
What types of editing do you do? - A little bit of everything. I schedule the Picture of the Day on Wikipedia's Main Page and attempt to help with the Did You Know? section, and am a delegate at Featured Lists. I try to delete copyvios and other questionable content when necessary. I spend a lot of time writing, mostly about Indonesia (especially its literature and cinema).
Is there something you do first every time you log on? - Check my watchlist for possible vandalism, comments on DYK, FAC, etc. I will usually schedule a featured picture for POTD in the morning before work.
Do you do any types of content creation? - Extensive content creation (I think I'm at 500 articles written, including 25 Featured Articles and almost a hundred Good Articles). I also do photography and image restoration... not as well as some people, but I think my contributions are useful.
Are discussions of article content a large part of your interaction with other members? - Yes; reviews at FAC, FLC, etc; deletion discussions, whether or not an article is up to par for DYK... those are the bulk of my interactions with other editors. As the articles I edit are not particularly popular ones, I rarely have to discuss content on an article's talk page (although it happens)
Is interacting with other editors a large part of your time on Wikipedia? - My Wikipedia time is perhaps 45 percent writing, 45 percent discussing/reviewing, and another 10 percent admin duties, so I guess you could say that. I also do some photography and graphics editing related to Wikipedia, but that's not quite on Wikipedia.
If you and another editor are in a dispute over what goes in the article, how do you resolve it? - I attempt to discuss with the editor on the article talk page, or at a review page if the article is subject to review. I try to balance their arguments with policy/guidelines and my own understanding. Sometimes I may get stressed, but I have been trying to avoid creating unnecessary drama with inflammatory words.
How well does discussion and the idea of consensus work overall on Wikipedia? - It depends extensively on the parties of the dispute. There are editors who are unwilling to compromise the slightest, and there are others who will bend over backwards to try and please others, as well as another fifty shades of grey between them. The discussions I've participated in have generally gone well, but in some cases (Mufaddal Saifuddin, for instance) there are too many people unwilling to discuss and unwilling to understand policy that everything just ends up worse.
How does the administration of Wikipedia fit into creating quality articles? - Blocking vandals, culling non-notable pages, deleting copyright violations, etc. help to make Wikipedia more streamlined and more free for end-users. Administrators help ensure that people can reuse content freely without violating copyright, find the information they are looking for, and reduce the damage to articles done by those with ill intentions. Administration is a necessary part of the content creation process.
Do you think Wikipedia as a whole is successful in its mission to create a quality encyclopedia? - Overall, I think it's getting there. I strongly disagree with those who say that the encyclopedia is as complete as it needs to be... several areas are severely undercovered. I could probably name ten books on literary theory deserving an article that don't have one yet, or twenty Indonesian films, or twenty novels, which have nothing on them yet. LGBT issues are undercovered, topics regarding Africa... also, articles on the most fundamental topics may have terrible coverage, which is why some editors have started The Core Contest.
What was your opinion of Wikipedia before becoming an editor? - I thought it was an interesting place to find information on fiction (this was a time when articles on all cast members of Final Fantasy VII had their own articles, among other games and novels). I slowly began to use it for information on other, RL topics.
Why did you first become a member of the Wikipedia community? - I think it was just to fix typos and phrasing in articles. My earliest surviving edit, to the article on HUNK from Resident Evil, was to phrase something in an encyclopedic manner. That day I also copyedited an article on Lisa Trevor (also from Resident Evil), though that edit is deleted. Needless to say, my focus in editing has shifted considerably since then.
What motivates you to continue contributing? - I now edit Wikipedia to spread information about Indonesian culture, particularly aspects related to my professional life. Since I am a master's student in Indonesian literature, writing articles on topics such as Amir Hamzah helps me to organize my thoughts, learn more about a particular subject (which I can use as the basis of analysis in research papers and similar), and present a review of the literature on a subject to interested readers. Acting as an administrator, I can help ensure that people learn about these things (or other subjects) without having to be shocked by vandalism, or accidentally violating copyright.
Is there anything you would like to add? - Not particularly, but if there is anything else you need, or anything that is unclear, just let me know. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
If you and another editor are in a dispute over what goes in the article, how do you resolve it?
discuss on talk page, then seek outside opinion
How well does discussion and the idea of consensus work overall on Wikipedia?
varies. The sheer numbers of people here mean that fringe positions often get marginalised, though this can be problematic in medical and some scientific content debates.
How does the administration of Wikipedia fit into creating quality articles?
My ideal would be that there would be no distinction and that most administrators would be creating content and most content creators would be admins. There are reasons why this is not so. This has been problematic at times with administration and arbitration committee not focussing enough on how content is created when considering sanctions or resolving some prolonged issues.
Do you think Wikipedia as a whole is successful in its mission to create a quality encyclopedia?
It is evolving and improving, and overall has done as well as can be expected to this point. It is at a crossroads now as it strives to improve reliability - have been meaning to write about this at length but lost my original posting of this idea. Damn....
What was your opinion of Wikipedia before becoming an editor?
Used it occasionally - was ok.
Why did you first become a member of the Wikipedia community?
I was studying general knowledge and trivia as I was going as a contestant on a gmae show and felt that active learning was better than passive learing of infomration
What motivates you to continue contributing?
Enjoyment - writing about things I am interested in. The fact that I have seen major improvements over my time here.
Is there anything you would like to add?
If I write up my thoughts, I will link. If you want me to elaborate on any of the above just ask.