User:Evanx/Interview

Disclaimer

Please do not amend this page. I am currently undertaking a project investigating Wikipedia which includes its origins, analysis of advantages and disadvantages of such a system and speculation regarding its development (realistically as well as ideologically). The following is a recorded interview that would be used primarily as a credible academic source and is not meant for personal or commercial use. I appreciate a policy of non-interference for these purposes. Thank you.

Invitation

I have invited Allan McInnes and Ideogram to be interviewed.

Allan McInnes is a Ph.D. candidate in Electrical & Computer Engineering, with an interest in software and systems engineering, and mathematical methods for tackling same. He has been editing since 2005.

Ideogram is a graduate from MIT in Computer Science. He has recently started contributing to Wikipedia.

Interview with Allan McInnes

Hello! How are you today?

Well. Thank you for asking!

Could you tell us where you are from?

Originally New Zealand. But I've been living in the US for the past decade.

To start off, what is your background?

I am presently completing a PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering. My undergraduate education is as an electrical engineer, and I have undertaken graduate work in aerospace engineering. I've worked as a software engineer, and as a systems engineer in the aerospace industry.

How did you start contributing to Wikipedia?

I began by making several edits to the Communicating Sequential Processes article.

Why?

I have some knowledge of CSP, and was disappointed with the quality of the article as it then appeared. It's still not perfect, but I'm much happier with it now.

Have you considered it addictive at times? Perhaps even infuriating?

Yes, and yes.

Anything interesting that has happened to you on Wikipedia?

I managed to have a long-running argument with an eminent computer scientist :-) I'd like to think that we both learned something from that debate.

From your experiences, what has led you to continue wiki-ing?

I enjoy being able to contribute to improving Wikipedia articles, even if my contributions are minor. Long before I contributed to Wikipedia, I made use of it. I know a lot of people who rely on it. So I feel some responsibility for making sure that what Wikipedia contains is accurate and useful information.

I also find myself learning a lot: by interacting with other editors, by doing research to improve specific articles, and sometimes simply by reading an existing article. I'm a sucker for learning new things, so that tends to keep me coming back :-)

Weren't there any incidents that have made you re-consider?

There have been a few. But on the whole the Wikipedia community is fairly good at self-regulating. Besides, it's always possible to take a break...

On the whole, what is it about Wikipedia that is so good?

It's a magnificent aggregation of knowledge. The fact that anyone can contribute means that people who might otherwise never have any involvement in creating an encyclopedia can contribute their time and knowledge. The good articles in Wikipedia are incredibly well-written and informative.

Conversely, what is it about Wikipedia that is so bad?

Well, the fact that anyone can edit it means that you get people making edits simply to promote or advertise work they've done elsewhere, or to continue the same opinion-based arguments they have in other forums. Developing a good encyclopedia becomes much more difficult when a number of the participants in that effort are not actually focused on creating an encyclopedia. Sometimes the number of supposedly technical articles that constitute little more than unreferenced opinion gets a little depressing.

Are you satisfied with the current standard and system of Wikipedia?

For the most part. I don't think it's perfect, but I can't think of any obvious ways to alter the system without eliminating the things that make Wikipedia unique.

Is there anything you would advise Wikipedia should do to improve?

Well, I'd like to see it attract more academics, because I think that their familiarity with the existing knowledge in their field of expertise puts them in a good position to contribute a lot. But I may be a little biased in that respect :-)

What do you think Wikipedia, given no time limits for such a case, would evolve into?

Either one of the most comprehensive and well-maintained aggregations of human knowledge ever, or a festering mass of useless spam. Possibly both at the same time. Quality articles seem to rely on having one or two people take responsibility for an article, getting it into good shape in the first place, and then keeping an eye on it to remove any junk that gets added and ensure that new material that isn't junk gets properly integrated with the rest of the article. Whether it's possible to reach a point where every article has a few people maintaining and improving it will probably be one of the determining factors in Wikipedia's evolution.

What do you think Wikipedia, 3 years from now, would develop into?

Hard to say. I imagine that it probably won't look too much different from now, simply because new articles seem to get created as fast or faster than existing articles get improved.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's all for now. Thank you for your time!

Interview with Ideogram

Hello! How are you today?

Well, thanks.

Could you tell us where you are from?

I was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area.

To start off, what is your background?

I received a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science from MIT. I have worked for numerous failed start-ups. The only company I have worked for that anyone has heard of is Oracle, but they were already big when I got there.

How did you start contributing to Wikipedia?

I was inspired by the featured article kylie minogue which I felt was of exceptionally high quality and represented the true potential of Wikipedia.

My first edits were to functional programming, starting small and rapidly growing more ambitious.

Why?

I felt the article needed editing for NPOV, style, and organization. I am not a specialist in the field so I could not contribute technical information.

Have you considered it addictive at times? Perhaps even infuriating?

Since I am not an expert in any field my edits tend to be limited to copyediting and wikifying, which naturally limits itself as I finish the articles I am interested in. However, I am finding more ways to contribute. It is certainly infuriating at times since I am moving on to more ambitious edits that lead to clashes with other editors over philosophy and not just content.

Anything interesting that has happened to you on Wikipedia?

Not yet.

From your experiences, what has led you to continue wiki-ing?

I enjoy feeling productive. I meet a lot of smart people here, experts in their fields.

Weren't there any incidents that have made you re-consider?

My first experience with functional programming involved some heated arguments which led to my taking a short break. Although I have collaborated productively with that editor since, I am still avoiding editing functional programming.

On the whole, what is it about Wikipedia that is so good?

The community. The technology and the ideology would be nothing without a community committed to making it work. "An encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" sounded ridiculous to me when I first heard it; it is the social structure that has grown up around it that makes it work.

Conversely, what is it about Wikipedia that is so bad?

Community can be hard to defend. It's hard to hold together a community when there are sizeable differences of opinion over goals and methods.

Are you satisfied with the current standard and system of Wikipedia?

I think it's a grand experiment and a credit to the founders that it has gotten this far. I expect it will have to change as it grows and meets changed circumstances.

Is there anything you would advise Wikipedia should do to improve?

I think anonymous editors are more trouble than they are worth.

What do you think Wikipedia, given no time limits for such a case, would evolve into?

Nothing lasts forever. As long as a community that values Wikipedia exists, Wikipedia will exist. But as that community changes, and it will, Wikipedia will change.

What do you think Wikipedia, 3 years from now, would develop into?

Three years is a short time frame. I don't anticipate anything significant happening in that time.

That's all for now. Thank you for your time!

Thank you.

Thanks

I appreciate the time and effort that you will be taking for this interview. If there is some way I can help contribute in return, do let me know.

Comments

If any.