At Wikimania this year, there is a strong chance that I will be speaking. My topic will cover, amongst other things, the reasons behind the success of Wikipedia. One thing that I would especially like to include are statements from Wikipedians themselves on the subject. So, without further delay, I present you the Wikimania 2006 Wikipedian Survey!
Please read these instructions carefully. Answer every question to the best of your ability. Sign your responses. By posting your comments here, you understand that you may be quoted in whole or in part during my presentation.
I think there are those people who come across Wikipedia in a Google search, and think, "that's neat", and there's those who heckle it, but secretly come back and fall in love with the underlying model. At the same time, we have a significant proportion of our current new user intake driven here from the press, Slashdot, the Register, Digg, etc. and, I think, we're starting to see strong evidence of the "Wikipedia as a household name" thing taking off. Being curious, of course, people can't resist hitting "edit" and saving a test edit, and then things tend to spiral out of control from there. To pinch a quote from David Gerard, your first puff of wikicrack's free. Rob Church ( talk) 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
To defy their teachers and professors... -- Osbus 20:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In my case, correcting egregious errors first drew me but i stayed because i love the wiki markup language; it's so much quicker than html! Now i hate leaving wiki to go work on my own 6,000-plus html pages. Catherineyronwode 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The innate human need to procreate, and all that's associated with that mentality. —
BorgHunter
ubx (
talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't tell you. I've been editing so long, I've forgotten why I started. -- Carnildo 22:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Meh, it's something to do – Gurch 22:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My master ordered me to. -- OrphanBot 22:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I first started editing when I saw that it was possible to remove mistakes that were on some WP pages. Lincher 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The natural urge to spread knowledge and Do Good. I formerly copyedited for Gutenberg Project. This is far more fulfilling. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm excited about the potential of the project, and the availability of free knowledge for the international community, especially the developing world. I feel responsible to make it better, because it's going to be the default source for a lot of people over the coming years; errors or no, I strongly feel that with the expansion of Wikipedia APIs and other Web 2.0 tools, this work is going to be the foundation of a lot of future projects we can't foresee. I just started editing lacking articles in my own little corners of expertise and got totally hooked -- now I edit anything and everything I feel I can do justice to. I love surfing "cleanup" categories or hitting "random article" or getting temporarily immersed in some "missing articles" or "grammar fix" project, and feel a real sense of accomplishment in getting small goals accomplished. (There's a longer essay on this on my user page.) — Catherine\ talk 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It just feels right. Spreading knowledge is one of the greatest callings people have held through history, and Wikipedia lets everyone share in that satisfaction. Phidauex 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Media coverage that piques their interest. Personally, the thought of contributing to a great big encyclopedia was intruiging. NSL E ( T+ C) at 01:36 UTC ( 2006-04-29)
The desire to change the world for the better and combat the declining standards of cultural literacy by bringing the scholarly research to a wider audience. See User:Ragesoss/Manifesto.-- ragesoss 02:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a return to "the commons."
- Wikipedia feels like a happening in the 1960's sense. It feels like a movement against ownership, against the contemporary corporate mentality that anything can and should be owned. It is fascinating and inspiring because it is not theory; it is not an impossible ideal, but a real artifact of (and engine of) an alternative way of living in the world than the way that is the status quo. I think people edit it because they want to act. They want to take meaningful action in the world. Wikipedia satisfies that urge by allowing people to act, to produce something that is useful (not only polotical tracts or theoretical studies), and to act in support of a philosophy that holds the common good as a valid goal. Wow! I feel grateful to be a part of it. -NicoSuave 28 April 2006
Wikipedia makes you feel like you are doing something great by spreading knowledge. I also learn many skills here that I intend to use for upcoming copyediting responsibilities in real life. -- Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Being able to share your knowledge with the rest of the world. Being able to fill in the gaps where other people have been unsure. Alphax τ ε χ 04:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just as Jimbo Wales claimed in his beggarage, he's doing it for poor African children. As should everyone. Poor African children are orphaned due to AIDS, and haven't eaten in a month. They look like the corpse bride and are extremely hungry. FEEL THE GUILT DRIVE! DONATE TO WIKIPEDIA! — THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Because I enjoy researching obscure articles, and the lack of a decent coherent article on some topics in the Internet at large deeply annoyed me. Besides, this is a really nice place to work, from a social and technical standpoint; the feel-good bits don't hurt either. -- maru (talk) contribs 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The project allows people to actively contribute to something meaningful and something major. It doesn't hurt that you can take credit for the work you do, and that others recognise that work, but it's also that people want to correct errors or add their knowledge. Harr o 5 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
A wiki is a socially acceptable form of Communism. -- James Hales 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I like being able to be part of a form of knowledge. Even if I'm behind the scenes and don't do much article work, it just gives one that great feeling. Plus, while just randomly browsing, I learn a lot by having 25 tabs open to different articles. Finally, it's just great when a geek goes to his geek friends and says "Hey! I edit Wikipedia and I'm a pretty well-known user there!" :P — Ilyan e p (Talk) 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Being able to do something useful, and occasionally fun on the Internet. Also insanity. the wub "?!" 20:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It's free, most-of-the-time accurate information. It's a way of giving back to it's creators.-- Thnikkaman3 23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I felt like getting credit for my work. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think most users edit to feel like they've contributed to something that really matters, not drivel like myspace or livejournal but to say something that someone one day might take seriously. Personally it was a way to drive off boredom by copyeditting Richard cocks 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It's fun, it's addicting, its Wikipedia! -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't answer the general question (which isn't what you were after in an individual answer anyways), but I edit to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. TimBentley (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I found a few mistakes ... corrected them. Then found an article missing on a subject I was researching - hence my registration and start of wikicareer.
Agathoclea 23:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
To pacify my inner obsessive-compulsive copyediting self. And the fact that someone, somewhere, will benefit from my work. H e rmione 1980 23:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Despite the hype about the "interactive" nature of the internet, in reality webpages tend to be "read only" and are often either out of date or inaccurate, in addition to sometimes being difficult to find via search-engines. In contrast, wikipedia is truly interactive, up to date, remarkably accurate, and easy to search. Both the NPOV and non-Americentric natures of wikipedia ensure balanced articles. An interesting side-effect is that obsure and disappearing languages may be saved by virtue of language-specific wikipedias being easily located and expanded. Anarchist42 00:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Participating in something greater than themselves which will benefit sentient kind; and achieve a virtual immortality that has few comparisons. Wikipedia also satisfies a need for intellectual recognition and interaction in a Jackass pop-culture. - Roy Boy 800 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I was finding wiki??? come up so often when I was doing google searches (initially annoying), that when someone finally said why they were coming up, I got interested, I only started editing later, when I found something on a talk page to reply to. Terri G 16:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Boredom. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Right now, when people look up stuff on the Internet the content they find might be popularly believed but actually wrong, and if it hasn't been in the news in the past 10 years, they're not likely to find any information at all. With Wikipedia we can at least know that they will find something, and with luck they will be able to find out little-known but verifiable facts about it which they can research, all collected on one summary page thanks to the combined knowledge of a million editors. In short, we make the Internet not suck. Ashibaka tock 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think if you mean by "in the first place", "for the first time", I think it is mostly just experimenting and thinking that it could not possibly be true. If you mean "at the most basic level" I think it is the combination of the charitable mission, and the geeky addictive fun that it is.-- Jimbo Wales 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
THIS
IS AN
ENCYCLOPEDIA
One gateway to the wide garden
of knowledge, where lies
The deep rock of our past,
in which we must delve
the well of our future,
The clear water we must leave untainted
for those who come after us,
The fertile earth, in which
truth may grow in bright places,
tended by many hands,
And the broad fall of sunshine,
warming our first steps toward knowing
how much we do not know.
inspired by
This is a printing office,
by
Beatrice Warde
God knows. Force of habit? The bonds of communities? Feelings of increasing altruism? A sense of worth? Maybe all of those, and maybe none. Rob Church ( talk) 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think community has something to do with it. A bigger part, though, is participating in this great project. I mean, Wikipedia...it's genius. -- Osbus 20:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how long i *will* stay, because the area in which i work (folklore) is riddled with both racist vandalism and skeptically derisive counter-viewpoint re-writing. But i deeply enjoy comradeship with like-mnded, altruistic reference-desk personality types, among whom i number myself, so i am here for now. And, after my struggle attempting to edit at DMOZ (hierarchical dominance, cludgy software, top-down mnagement, red-tape so entangling that it took FOUR MONTHS to get agreement to start a category for African traditional religions and TWO MONTHS to get a categoy for folklore!!!!), i am very happy to find myself part of a group-effort that shines with the radiance generated by the fast-typing fingers of commons-minded people. Catherineyronwode 21:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Same as my answer above. They want to have babies. :-P —
BorgHunter
ubx (
talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not finished :-) -- Carnildo 22:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Love it. General Eisenhower 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
See above – Gurch 22:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My master hasn't let me stop. -- OrphanBot 22:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Because it is a friendly environment. Lincher 23:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel I am doing something very worthwhile here. What makes people special is their ability to store and share knowledge on a once-removed basis; a chimp can teach another to fish for termites, but only a human can write a book about it, and that knowledge, if preserved, is ours forever. That is truly worth being a part of. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh - like Carnildo said....it's not finished! I think that really sums up a lot of my own extreme Wikipediholism -- there's always something else that needs doing. Feedback is wonderful, but the vast majority of my edits float down Recent changes without any response at all. There's a real satisfaction in making things read and look better, more complete, more concise, more professional. There's joy in tidying the organization of something that's sloppy or confusing. There's the warm glow that comes when an article you "finished" so long ago you forgot you wrote it comes to the top of your watchlist -- and the diff proves that the editor isn't fixing something you did "wrong", but is just adding new features/categories/whatever to the structure you so lovingly built. And, well, if someone doesn't do it, Wikipedia will start to deteriorate, and I have the interest, and the ability, and the time....in an odd sort of way, I feel like I owe it to my kids to at least get this bird off the runway with a good set of operating instructions and community culture in place, so that it doesn't get too far off course by the time they're old enough to use it in earnest. (And you know, I think there's going to be a certain coolness in them being able to say, "oh yeah? well MY mom's been editing there since 2003..." ) — Catherine\ talk 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point, its not done yet, and thats frustrating! Of course, it'll never be done, so there will always be something interesting to work on. Plus, it has made me a better writer, a better editor, and a more educated person. I'll copyedit a random article, and, in the process, learn about something new! Phidauex 01:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Addiction. NSL E ( T+ C) at 01:36 UTC ( 2006-04-29)
The reason I stay is because I feel that the knowledge I contribute may actually make a difference to someone. It's a rush to have significant amounts of one's prose as a stable part of a high-profile article.-- ragesoss 02:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
People will stay if and only if they feel useful. Things like editcountitis detract from this by making it seem like edits matter, not contributions. If someone feels like they are really having an impact on the project, regardless of how much or how often they edit, they will keep doing it. -- Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say a combination of addiction, the good goal, and the way it provides users with a bar along with a workplace. (By "bar" I'm referring to all the community aspects, including things just for fun like BJAODN). — THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no real reason to leave. I'm enjoying it, for the most part, and it works well, and I'm doing real good here. Why would I leave? -- maru (talk) contribs 05:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
See "The power of Wikipedia" on my user page, but I think contributing to Wikipedia can be rewarding in that you can see your work and know that you've had an impact on a major pop culture movement (Wikipedia is surely alongside Firefox as the biggest project undertaken in the open source wave, which is all the rage among commentators). It's also pretty cool to see Wikipedia's page (including the ones you create) constantly at the top of Google's results. Harr o 5 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
People are happy about contributing, so they do it often. People have particular interests, so they want the articles about those interests to be of a high quality, so that other people can learn about them. -- James Hales 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Pure and simple addiction. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I like Celestianpower's answer and "It's not finished" above. Those would have to be the two for me :D — Ilyan e p (Talk) 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It's addictive, rewarding and often amusing. Plus there's always a new challenge waiting. the wub "?!" 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I belive in the project and in the ideas upon which it is based. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Addiction and that god-damned watchlist! Robdurbar 08:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
There's certainly a sense of satisfaction from making wrong/broken things right. I've tried RC/newpages patrol, which feels almost like a race at times! When it gets to voting in AfD, it's a bit more of a 'something to do' activity. Overall, though, I'm pretty proud of what Wikipedia has become, despite the odds against. -- Mithent 13:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
An excess of free time, the enthusiasm that other have for the project is somewhat infectious as well. (
Johnny Copper 14:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Addicting, we should have Wikipedia declared an illness :) -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
01010111011010010110101101101001011100000110010101100100011010010110000100100000 01101001011100110010000001100001011001000110010001101001011000110111010001101001 01101110011001110010110000100000011011010111010101110011011101000010000001110011 01110100011011110111000000100000011101100110000101101110011001000110000101101100 011010010111001101101101 -- Tawkerbot2
Because I don't have a life. TimBentley (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Because it lets me get away from my life. :-) Editing Wikipedia is more fun than studying for finals. The community aspect helps too. H e rmione 1980 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
So much to be done at Wikipedia, organic and improving. There is a real sense of doing something important and historical; or maybe its just a decent alternative to sending newsgroup/forum messages that will be lost in the sands of time. - Roy Boy 800 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've not been here long enough to really be sure I'm staying, but I imagine it will be because the articles I'm most interested in aren't finished yet to my satisfaction. Also, making knowledge available to anyone for free seems very altruistic. Finally, to get one over on Encarta and the rest for being behind the times if they think WP isn't a threat. It also gives me something to do when I get bored at work that is marginally more productive than just surfing the web. Terri G 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Losers, all. Wikipedia offers their only limited social connections, coupled with an ability to utilize their geekiness without fear of derision. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
drugs don't work anymore. User:Bastique 03:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
Because it's not done yet is probably the best answer. People stay because they know the mission is important. The free license is probably a big draw and reason to stay because you're contributing something for everyone to use. Pride and desire for recognition from others probably keeps some here too. Some stay for simpler reasons such as boredom and others out of less than honorable intentions of course too. - Taxman Talk 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think people stay when we provide a welcoming, friendly, loving environment in which differences are respected and quality work is appreciated. They leave when we fail at those things.-- Jimbo Wales 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
A new record for the number of open tabs in Firefox and a cluttered Subversion working directory. Rob Church ( talk) 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I bet I could top you in open tabs in Firefox Robchurch...anyway, I haven't really made new friends or anything, but I have improved in peer editing and writing in general. I also have learned the most random things and have learned to never underestimate the power of 10 yr olds... I also learned everything there is to know about html.-- Osbus 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A lot of experience in programming, book knowledge etc... -- HolyRomanEmperor 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Something to look forward to every morning when i go to my Watchlist. Catherineyronwode 21:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge! Derived from that, power! That, and autofellatio. —
BorgHunter
ubx (
talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Um... I've got a barnstar, does that count? – Gurch 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The mother of all headaches, and an overinflated edit count. -- OrphanBot 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Same as Rob Church... plus IExplorer crashing loads of times. Lincher 23:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Fulfillment, feeling I have shared some small part in preserving, organizing, codifying, and sharing collected knowledge with the other human inhabitants of this planet. What could be more worthwhile than that? KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, greater proofreading abilities, more knowledge of topics I'm interested in as a result of research I've done, and better interpersonal skills (sad, perhaps, but true). For example, I constantly find myself saying to myself "assume good faith" in real life, in non-wikipedia contexts. -- Spangineer [es] (háblame) 00:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Satisfaction, eagerness, focus on achievable goals. Sense of contribution to the greater world. Using skills that would otherwise lie dormant. Practice in reading, writing, editing, organizing, and in using HTML and CSS. Interaction with like-minded optimists. And knowledge of everything from pseudoscorpions to Hurricane Beulah to Chateau Chenonceaux to how many different John Taylors there are in the world -- I can get sidetracked for an hour just exploring links from an article I'm ostensibly editing. — Catherine\ talk 00:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Lots of late real-world assignments; queer looks from other historians when I go off on Wikipedia evangelism.-- ragesoss 02:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Good bits of random knowledge and lots of experience. -- Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Pride, something to think about, an1 excuse to waste hundreds of dollars... (I've even set up a pseudomicrocharity for Wikipedia!) — THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge, satisfaction. Apparently I might get paid by the Encyclopedia Project for a few articles, so there's that, I suppose. -- maru (talk) contribs 05:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge on all sorts of topics, a thorough grasp of current and historical events, and the opportunity to contribute to something significant. It's really about knowledge and input. Harr o 5 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia gives me in return the whole of Wikipedia. As long as everyone contributes just a little bit, we'll have a growing, high quality resource that is good for researching or browsing leisurely. -- James Hales 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
A vast, vast encyclopedia of knowledge. If I have a question, wikipedia is invariably the first, and often the only place I go to. 142.177.207.48 13:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge of all sorts of random interesting topics, something to pass the time. the wub "?!" 20:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The thought that I am helping compile the best "free" encyclopedia online so that people like me can continue to learn.-- Thnikkaman3 23:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge, a better eye for mistakes, and self-satisfaction. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
An 'encyclopedic' knowledge - so many facts and information is out there! -- Robdurbar 08:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
A lot of unnecessarily late nights. -- Mithent 13:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Coincidental learning, sharpening of my skills and it keeps my brain ticking over (
Johnny Copper 14:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Its given me Wikipedia and a wife who would rather I didn't spend so much time on Wikipedia. -- MarkS 16:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Nothing Richard cocks 20:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Friends, a timekiller and more -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge from reading random articles. TimBentley (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The impetus to switch from Internet Explorer to Firefox, adminship, two barnstars, awesome pictures, and the satisfaction that I'm doing something productive in my free time. H e rmione 1980 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Too much information on copyright issues; and some place to release my overabundant expertise of long tail subjects. - Roy Boy 800 04:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The random article button, can distract me for ages, I don't necessarily read that many, but it always amazes me what range of topics there are and sometimes find something really fascinating. Terri G 16:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
A better question is what it has taken away. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i wish there was more information about how a regular user such as myself can get help deciding whether to RfD something. I am new, and i don't want to start feuds or get into trouble, but i have a short list of vanity pages that just bug me; i have seen more legitimate pages than these get deleted -- so why are they still online? Catherineyronwode 21:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Blah blah blah? That about sums it up. As for the above question: be bold!™. You won't get into trouble*, the worst that can happen is that one or two people get mildly annoyed, and if so – if you think they're out to insult you, ignore them, it doesn't matter.
* Well, not unless you do something really stupid, anyway... – Gurch 22:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I cannot think of anything right now... I need to check my watchlist anyway! Good luck with your presentation. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I like Wikipedia's diversity. Wikipedia isn't just the sum of all human knowledge, it is almost like the sum of all human experience too. -- Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Great goal. Great idea. What's best is that they don't strive for perfection: just do your part, and people can correct you. IAR. For the win. — THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Many people have edit counts which scare me. -- Mithent 00:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Send me LSD. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I find it hard to communicate with other users, there's a definate lack of a socialising area ( Johnny Copper 14:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Small numbers. My calculator can do the rest so I can be lazy. TimBentley (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
When can articles be presented as stable versions so I spend more time adding content; rather than reverting vandalism and mediating edit wars that impact live articles? - Roy Boy 800 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
We've all seen this plastered on everyone's user page: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -- You Know Who. And that is completely overoptimistic, and entirely doomed to fail. Anyone who fails to see this is either full of shit, or needs to take off the rose colored glasses. Why bother, then? Why not? What we are doing is a big deal and is worthwhile. And it gives us something to do, really. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
-- Lhademmor 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that age can be irrelevant; a contributor can be judged on their editing history. Wikipedia also provides an opportunity for new and old guard to interact on any number of issues. Both, I think, learning from the experience. - Roy Boy 800 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
On average, once every hour -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I had edited quite alot, actually. The past month, however, has shown a precipitous drop in my contributions and administrative actions following an epic April 1 with far more than 500 edits and actions accross 25 hours. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Rouge admin of little consequence. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
At Wikimania this year, there is a strong chance that I will be speaking. My topic will cover, amongst other things, the reasons behind the success of Wikipedia. One thing that I would especially like to include are statements from Wikipedians themselves on the subject. So, without further delay, I present you the Wikimania 2006 Wikipedian Survey!
Please read these instructions carefully. Answer every question to the best of your ability. Sign your responses. By posting your comments here, you understand that you may be quoted in whole or in part during my presentation.
I think there are those people who come across Wikipedia in a Google search, and think, "that's neat", and there's those who heckle it, but secretly come back and fall in love with the underlying model. At the same time, we have a significant proportion of our current new user intake driven here from the press, Slashdot, the Register, Digg, etc. and, I think, we're starting to see strong evidence of the "Wikipedia as a household name" thing taking off. Being curious, of course, people can't resist hitting "edit" and saving a test edit, and then things tend to spiral out of control from there. To pinch a quote from David Gerard, your first puff of wikicrack's free. Rob Church ( talk) 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
To defy their teachers and professors... -- Osbus 20:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In my case, correcting egregious errors first drew me but i stayed because i love the wiki markup language; it's so much quicker than html! Now i hate leaving wiki to go work on my own 6,000-plus html pages. Catherineyronwode 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The innate human need to procreate, and all that's associated with that mentality. —
BorgHunter
ubx (
talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't tell you. I've been editing so long, I've forgotten why I started. -- Carnildo 22:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Meh, it's something to do – Gurch 22:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My master ordered me to. -- OrphanBot 22:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I first started editing when I saw that it was possible to remove mistakes that were on some WP pages. Lincher 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The natural urge to spread knowledge and Do Good. I formerly copyedited for Gutenberg Project. This is far more fulfilling. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm excited about the potential of the project, and the availability of free knowledge for the international community, especially the developing world. I feel responsible to make it better, because it's going to be the default source for a lot of people over the coming years; errors or no, I strongly feel that with the expansion of Wikipedia APIs and other Web 2.0 tools, this work is going to be the foundation of a lot of future projects we can't foresee. I just started editing lacking articles in my own little corners of expertise and got totally hooked -- now I edit anything and everything I feel I can do justice to. I love surfing "cleanup" categories or hitting "random article" or getting temporarily immersed in some "missing articles" or "grammar fix" project, and feel a real sense of accomplishment in getting small goals accomplished. (There's a longer essay on this on my user page.) — Catherine\ talk 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It just feels right. Spreading knowledge is one of the greatest callings people have held through history, and Wikipedia lets everyone share in that satisfaction. Phidauex 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Media coverage that piques their interest. Personally, the thought of contributing to a great big encyclopedia was intruiging. NSL E ( T+ C) at 01:36 UTC ( 2006-04-29)
The desire to change the world for the better and combat the declining standards of cultural literacy by bringing the scholarly research to a wider audience. See User:Ragesoss/Manifesto.-- ragesoss 02:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a return to "the commons."
- Wikipedia feels like a happening in the 1960's sense. It feels like a movement against ownership, against the contemporary corporate mentality that anything can and should be owned. It is fascinating and inspiring because it is not theory; it is not an impossible ideal, but a real artifact of (and engine of) an alternative way of living in the world than the way that is the status quo. I think people edit it because they want to act. They want to take meaningful action in the world. Wikipedia satisfies that urge by allowing people to act, to produce something that is useful (not only polotical tracts or theoretical studies), and to act in support of a philosophy that holds the common good as a valid goal. Wow! I feel grateful to be a part of it. -NicoSuave 28 April 2006
Wikipedia makes you feel like you are doing something great by spreading knowledge. I also learn many skills here that I intend to use for upcoming copyediting responsibilities in real life. -- Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Being able to share your knowledge with the rest of the world. Being able to fill in the gaps where other people have been unsure. Alphax τ ε χ 04:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just as Jimbo Wales claimed in his beggarage, he's doing it for poor African children. As should everyone. Poor African children are orphaned due to AIDS, and haven't eaten in a month. They look like the corpse bride and are extremely hungry. FEEL THE GUILT DRIVE! DONATE TO WIKIPEDIA! — THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Because I enjoy researching obscure articles, and the lack of a decent coherent article on some topics in the Internet at large deeply annoyed me. Besides, this is a really nice place to work, from a social and technical standpoint; the feel-good bits don't hurt either. -- maru (talk) contribs 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The project allows people to actively contribute to something meaningful and something major. It doesn't hurt that you can take credit for the work you do, and that others recognise that work, but it's also that people want to correct errors or add their knowledge. Harr o 5 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
A wiki is a socially acceptable form of Communism. -- James Hales 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I like being able to be part of a form of knowledge. Even if I'm behind the scenes and don't do much article work, it just gives one that great feeling. Plus, while just randomly browsing, I learn a lot by having 25 tabs open to different articles. Finally, it's just great when a geek goes to his geek friends and says "Hey! I edit Wikipedia and I'm a pretty well-known user there!" :P — Ilyan e p (Talk) 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Being able to do something useful, and occasionally fun on the Internet. Also insanity. the wub "?!" 20:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It's free, most-of-the-time accurate information. It's a way of giving back to it's creators.-- Thnikkaman3 23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I felt like getting credit for my work. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think most users edit to feel like they've contributed to something that really matters, not drivel like myspace or livejournal but to say something that someone one day might take seriously. Personally it was a way to drive off boredom by copyeditting Richard cocks 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It's fun, it's addicting, its Wikipedia! -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't answer the general question (which isn't what you were after in an individual answer anyways), but I edit to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. TimBentley (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I found a few mistakes ... corrected them. Then found an article missing on a subject I was researching - hence my registration and start of wikicareer.
Agathoclea 23:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
To pacify my inner obsessive-compulsive copyediting self. And the fact that someone, somewhere, will benefit from my work. H e rmione 1980 23:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Despite the hype about the "interactive" nature of the internet, in reality webpages tend to be "read only" and are often either out of date or inaccurate, in addition to sometimes being difficult to find via search-engines. In contrast, wikipedia is truly interactive, up to date, remarkably accurate, and easy to search. Both the NPOV and non-Americentric natures of wikipedia ensure balanced articles. An interesting side-effect is that obsure and disappearing languages may be saved by virtue of language-specific wikipedias being easily located and expanded. Anarchist42 00:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Participating in something greater than themselves which will benefit sentient kind; and achieve a virtual immortality that has few comparisons. Wikipedia also satisfies a need for intellectual recognition and interaction in a Jackass pop-culture. - Roy Boy 800 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I was finding wiki??? come up so often when I was doing google searches (initially annoying), that when someone finally said why they were coming up, I got interested, I only started editing later, when I found something on a talk page to reply to. Terri G 16:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Boredom. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Right now, when people look up stuff on the Internet the content they find might be popularly believed but actually wrong, and if it hasn't been in the news in the past 10 years, they're not likely to find any information at all. With Wikipedia we can at least know that they will find something, and with luck they will be able to find out little-known but verifiable facts about it which they can research, all collected on one summary page thanks to the combined knowledge of a million editors. In short, we make the Internet not suck. Ashibaka tock 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think if you mean by "in the first place", "for the first time", I think it is mostly just experimenting and thinking that it could not possibly be true. If you mean "at the most basic level" I think it is the combination of the charitable mission, and the geeky addictive fun that it is.-- Jimbo Wales 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
THIS
IS AN
ENCYCLOPEDIA
One gateway to the wide garden
of knowledge, where lies
The deep rock of our past,
in which we must delve
the well of our future,
The clear water we must leave untainted
for those who come after us,
The fertile earth, in which
truth may grow in bright places,
tended by many hands,
And the broad fall of sunshine,
warming our first steps toward knowing
how much we do not know.
inspired by
This is a printing office,
by
Beatrice Warde
God knows. Force of habit? The bonds of communities? Feelings of increasing altruism? A sense of worth? Maybe all of those, and maybe none. Rob Church ( talk) 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think community has something to do with it. A bigger part, though, is participating in this great project. I mean, Wikipedia...it's genius. -- Osbus 20:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how long i *will* stay, because the area in which i work (folklore) is riddled with both racist vandalism and skeptically derisive counter-viewpoint re-writing. But i deeply enjoy comradeship with like-mnded, altruistic reference-desk personality types, among whom i number myself, so i am here for now. And, after my struggle attempting to edit at DMOZ (hierarchical dominance, cludgy software, top-down mnagement, red-tape so entangling that it took FOUR MONTHS to get agreement to start a category for African traditional religions and TWO MONTHS to get a categoy for folklore!!!!), i am very happy to find myself part of a group-effort that shines with the radiance generated by the fast-typing fingers of commons-minded people. Catherineyronwode 21:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Same as my answer above. They want to have babies. :-P —
BorgHunter
ubx (
talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not finished :-) -- Carnildo 22:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Love it. General Eisenhower 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
See above – Gurch 22:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My master hasn't let me stop. -- OrphanBot 22:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Because it is a friendly environment. Lincher 23:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel I am doing something very worthwhile here. What makes people special is their ability to store and share knowledge on a once-removed basis; a chimp can teach another to fish for termites, but only a human can write a book about it, and that knowledge, if preserved, is ours forever. That is truly worth being a part of. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh - like Carnildo said....it's not finished! I think that really sums up a lot of my own extreme Wikipediholism -- there's always something else that needs doing. Feedback is wonderful, but the vast majority of my edits float down Recent changes without any response at all. There's a real satisfaction in making things read and look better, more complete, more concise, more professional. There's joy in tidying the organization of something that's sloppy or confusing. There's the warm glow that comes when an article you "finished" so long ago you forgot you wrote it comes to the top of your watchlist -- and the diff proves that the editor isn't fixing something you did "wrong", but is just adding new features/categories/whatever to the structure you so lovingly built. And, well, if someone doesn't do it, Wikipedia will start to deteriorate, and I have the interest, and the ability, and the time....in an odd sort of way, I feel like I owe it to my kids to at least get this bird off the runway with a good set of operating instructions and community culture in place, so that it doesn't get too far off course by the time they're old enough to use it in earnest. (And you know, I think there's going to be a certain coolness in them being able to say, "oh yeah? well MY mom's been editing there since 2003..." ) — Catherine\ talk 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point, its not done yet, and thats frustrating! Of course, it'll never be done, so there will always be something interesting to work on. Plus, it has made me a better writer, a better editor, and a more educated person. I'll copyedit a random article, and, in the process, learn about something new! Phidauex 01:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Addiction. NSL E ( T+ C) at 01:36 UTC ( 2006-04-29)
The reason I stay is because I feel that the knowledge I contribute may actually make a difference to someone. It's a rush to have significant amounts of one's prose as a stable part of a high-profile article.-- ragesoss 02:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
People will stay if and only if they feel useful. Things like editcountitis detract from this by making it seem like edits matter, not contributions. If someone feels like they are really having an impact on the project, regardless of how much or how often they edit, they will keep doing it. -- Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say a combination of addiction, the good goal, and the way it provides users with a bar along with a workplace. (By "bar" I'm referring to all the community aspects, including things just for fun like BJAODN). — THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no real reason to leave. I'm enjoying it, for the most part, and it works well, and I'm doing real good here. Why would I leave? -- maru (talk) contribs 05:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
See "The power of Wikipedia" on my user page, but I think contributing to Wikipedia can be rewarding in that you can see your work and know that you've had an impact on a major pop culture movement (Wikipedia is surely alongside Firefox as the biggest project undertaken in the open source wave, which is all the rage among commentators). It's also pretty cool to see Wikipedia's page (including the ones you create) constantly at the top of Google's results. Harr o 5 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
People are happy about contributing, so they do it often. People have particular interests, so they want the articles about those interests to be of a high quality, so that other people can learn about them. -- James Hales 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Pure and simple addiction. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I like Celestianpower's answer and "It's not finished" above. Those would have to be the two for me :D — Ilyan e p (Talk) 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It's addictive, rewarding and often amusing. Plus there's always a new challenge waiting. the wub "?!" 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I belive in the project and in the ideas upon which it is based. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Addiction and that god-damned watchlist! Robdurbar 08:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
There's certainly a sense of satisfaction from making wrong/broken things right. I've tried RC/newpages patrol, which feels almost like a race at times! When it gets to voting in AfD, it's a bit more of a 'something to do' activity. Overall, though, I'm pretty proud of what Wikipedia has become, despite the odds against. -- Mithent 13:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
An excess of free time, the enthusiasm that other have for the project is somewhat infectious as well. (
Johnny Copper 14:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Addicting, we should have Wikipedia declared an illness :) -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
01010111011010010110101101101001011100000110010101100100011010010110000100100000 01101001011100110010000001100001011001000110010001101001011000110111010001101001 01101110011001110010110000100000011011010111010101110011011101000010000001110011 01110100011011110111000000100000011101100110000101101110011001000110000101101100 011010010111001101101101 -- Tawkerbot2
Because I don't have a life. TimBentley (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Because it lets me get away from my life. :-) Editing Wikipedia is more fun than studying for finals. The community aspect helps too. H e rmione 1980 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
So much to be done at Wikipedia, organic and improving. There is a real sense of doing something important and historical; or maybe its just a decent alternative to sending newsgroup/forum messages that will be lost in the sands of time. - Roy Boy 800 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've not been here long enough to really be sure I'm staying, but I imagine it will be because the articles I'm most interested in aren't finished yet to my satisfaction. Also, making knowledge available to anyone for free seems very altruistic. Finally, to get one over on Encarta and the rest for being behind the times if they think WP isn't a threat. It also gives me something to do when I get bored at work that is marginally more productive than just surfing the web. Terri G 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Losers, all. Wikipedia offers their only limited social connections, coupled with an ability to utilize their geekiness without fear of derision. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
drugs don't work anymore. User:Bastique 03:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
Because it's not done yet is probably the best answer. People stay because they know the mission is important. The free license is probably a big draw and reason to stay because you're contributing something for everyone to use. Pride and desire for recognition from others probably keeps some here too. Some stay for simpler reasons such as boredom and others out of less than honorable intentions of course too. - Taxman Talk 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think people stay when we provide a welcoming, friendly, loving environment in which differences are respected and quality work is appreciated. They leave when we fail at those things.-- Jimbo Wales 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
A new record for the number of open tabs in Firefox and a cluttered Subversion working directory. Rob Church ( talk) 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I bet I could top you in open tabs in Firefox Robchurch...anyway, I haven't really made new friends or anything, but I have improved in peer editing and writing in general. I also have learned the most random things and have learned to never underestimate the power of 10 yr olds... I also learned everything there is to know about html.-- Osbus 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A lot of experience in programming, book knowledge etc... -- HolyRomanEmperor 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Something to look forward to every morning when i go to my Watchlist. Catherineyronwode 21:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge! Derived from that, power! That, and autofellatio. —
BorgHunter
ubx (
talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Um... I've got a barnstar, does that count? – Gurch 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The mother of all headaches, and an overinflated edit count. -- OrphanBot 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Same as Rob Church... plus IExplorer crashing loads of times. Lincher 23:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Fulfillment, feeling I have shared some small part in preserving, organizing, codifying, and sharing collected knowledge with the other human inhabitants of this planet. What could be more worthwhile than that? KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, greater proofreading abilities, more knowledge of topics I'm interested in as a result of research I've done, and better interpersonal skills (sad, perhaps, but true). For example, I constantly find myself saying to myself "assume good faith" in real life, in non-wikipedia contexts. -- Spangineer [es] (háblame) 00:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Satisfaction, eagerness, focus on achievable goals. Sense of contribution to the greater world. Using skills that would otherwise lie dormant. Practice in reading, writing, editing, organizing, and in using HTML and CSS. Interaction with like-minded optimists. And knowledge of everything from pseudoscorpions to Hurricane Beulah to Chateau Chenonceaux to how many different John Taylors there are in the world -- I can get sidetracked for an hour just exploring links from an article I'm ostensibly editing. — Catherine\ talk 00:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Lots of late real-world assignments; queer looks from other historians when I go off on Wikipedia evangelism.-- ragesoss 02:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Good bits of random knowledge and lots of experience. -- Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Pride, something to think about, an1 excuse to waste hundreds of dollars... (I've even set up a pseudomicrocharity for Wikipedia!) — THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge, satisfaction. Apparently I might get paid by the Encyclopedia Project for a few articles, so there's that, I suppose. -- maru (talk) contribs 05:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge on all sorts of topics, a thorough grasp of current and historical events, and the opportunity to contribute to something significant. It's really about knowledge and input. Harr o 5 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia gives me in return the whole of Wikipedia. As long as everyone contributes just a little bit, we'll have a growing, high quality resource that is good for researching or browsing leisurely. -- James Hales 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
A vast, vast encyclopedia of knowledge. If I have a question, wikipedia is invariably the first, and often the only place I go to. 142.177.207.48 13:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge of all sorts of random interesting topics, something to pass the time. the wub "?!" 20:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The thought that I am helping compile the best "free" encyclopedia online so that people like me can continue to learn.-- Thnikkaman3 23:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge, a better eye for mistakes, and self-satisfaction. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
An 'encyclopedic' knowledge - so many facts and information is out there! -- Robdurbar 08:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
A lot of unnecessarily late nights. -- Mithent 13:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Coincidental learning, sharpening of my skills and it keeps my brain ticking over (
Johnny Copper 14:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Its given me Wikipedia and a wife who would rather I didn't spend so much time on Wikipedia. -- MarkS 16:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Nothing Richard cocks 20:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Friends, a timekiller and more -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge from reading random articles. TimBentley (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The impetus to switch from Internet Explorer to Firefox, adminship, two barnstars, awesome pictures, and the satisfaction that I'm doing something productive in my free time. H e rmione 1980 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Too much information on copyright issues; and some place to release my overabundant expertise of long tail subjects. - Roy Boy 800 04:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The random article button, can distract me for ages, I don't necessarily read that many, but it always amazes me what range of topics there are and sometimes find something really fascinating. Terri G 16:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
A better question is what it has taken away. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i wish there was more information about how a regular user such as myself can get help deciding whether to RfD something. I am new, and i don't want to start feuds or get into trouble, but i have a short list of vanity pages that just bug me; i have seen more legitimate pages than these get deleted -- so why are they still online? Catherineyronwode 21:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Blah blah blah? That about sums it up. As for the above question: be bold!™. You won't get into trouble*, the worst that can happen is that one or two people get mildly annoyed, and if so – if you think they're out to insult you, ignore them, it doesn't matter.
* Well, not unless you do something really stupid, anyway... – Gurch 22:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I cannot think of anything right now... I need to check my watchlist anyway! Good luck with your presentation. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I like Wikipedia's diversity. Wikipedia isn't just the sum of all human knowledge, it is almost like the sum of all human experience too. -- Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Great goal. Great idea. What's best is that they don't strive for perfection: just do your part, and people can correct you. IAR. For the win. — THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Many people have edit counts which scare me. -- Mithent 00:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Send me LSD. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I find it hard to communicate with other users, there's a definate lack of a socialising area ( Johnny Copper 14:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Small numbers. My calculator can do the rest so I can be lazy. TimBentley (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
When can articles be presented as stable versions so I spend more time adding content; rather than reverting vandalism and mediating edit wars that impact live articles? - Roy Boy 800 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
We've all seen this plastered on everyone's user page: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -- You Know Who. And that is completely overoptimistic, and entirely doomed to fail. Anyone who fails to see this is either full of shit, or needs to take off the rose colored glasses. Why bother, then? Why not? What we are doing is a big deal and is worthwhile. And it gives us something to do, really. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
-- Lhademmor 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that age can be irrelevant; a contributor can be judged on their editing history. Wikipedia also provides an opportunity for new and old guard to interact on any number of issues. Both, I think, learning from the experience. - Roy Boy 800 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
On average, once every hour -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I had edited quite alot, actually. The past month, however, has shown a precipitous drop in my contributions and administrative actions following an epic April 1 with far more than 500 edits and actions accross 25 hours. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Rouge admin of little consequence. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)