On the English Wikipedia, I enjoy doing antivandal work, helping at DRN, and helping users on IRC--to name a few. It's been an interesting experience for me to engage in understanding the nuances of WP:Verifiability and how verifiable information gradually instills personal and intellectual confidence within readers and fellow editors. Unlike how Wikipedia readily provides information to people around the world about a variety of topics, unfortunately, editors contributing to Wikipedia don't always have the resources they need to write highly-detailed, highly-technical articles to further the rich repository of information we label as "Wikipedia" today.
skills: Quite frankly, I think Wikipedia's Library is one of those hidden gems--not at the forefront of editors' awareness, but definitely very valuable. As an account coordinator, I holistically analyze editor impact and behavior, while exercising AGF. On the other hand, I am well aware of how frustrating it is to have resources missing from a library, i.e. seeing an editor take off with an access code with no contributions made (their sense of responsibility wanes). A metaphor of this to more general Wikipedia editing: it's almost as if an editor added a substantial amount of information to an article's section, did not adequately source the information to meet some level of verifiability, and other editors are not willing to revert the contributions because the information added seems somewhat plausible (yet, the original contributor can no longer be contacted). This, then, can be frustrating. As a volunteer of the library, I try to maintain such balance.