Wikipedia

User:Linuxbeak/Wikimania 2006/Wikipedian Survey

< User:Linuxbeak

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!

Instructions

edit

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.

edit

What drives people to edit Wikipedia in the first place?

edit
Example response: blah blah blah. Sign your post, etc.
Love of learning. General Eisenhower 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The answer would be the satisfaction one derives from working for a noble project such as Wikipedia. When you work here, you are working to provide information to countless number of people worldwide, for this you might not get proper credits for your your work, but there would be someone, somewhere, who would truly benefit from your work. That, at least, is the driving force for me. --Andy123(talk) 19:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Addiction! Wikipediaholism. Kim Bruning 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I was driven to edit by using Wikipedia as a resource. I'd look stuff up here and if I knew something that wasn't mentioned, I'd mention it. I do a lot less of this now because Wikipedia now knows everything I know :) — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

The will to spread knowledge. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:50, 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)

Wikipedia. General Eisenhower 00:09, 29 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. NSLE (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 τεχ 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. Harro5 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 — Ilyanep (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 enjoyed reading many articles about websites, and learnt a lot from those articles. However, I spotted many mistakes and information gaps in those articles, and decided to join Wikipedia and contribute my knowledge. I wanted to make a significant contribution to such a mammoth project as Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I felt like getting credit for my work. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Noticing faults/un-updated information when browsing; it just snowballed. Robdurbar 08:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
When I'm on holidays from studying, it's something for me to do that actually helps some people, a way for me to make a contribution, small though it may be. Raven4x4x 09:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I just enjoy it. I also like being able to help educate others about a particular topic, although this is often a secondary consideration. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


An attempt to be part of something important and attempt to be part of something communal, that and removing idiocy and falsehoods that are posted either intentionally or by accident (Johnny Copper 14:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Lots of media coverage got me interested and did a few annoymous edits to see what could be done. Seemed like a good way to provide something useful to the world whether I had lots or little time available. --MarkS 16:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
A desire to show off. This is not a joke answer. Hopefully many editors out there have more creditable reasons, but I'm sorry to say this is the first that introspection comes up with. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 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. Hermione1980 23:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I kept searching for things on Google and Wikipedia pages would crop up with inaccuracies on them. After resisting the temptation to correct them (because I knew I would never stop) my resistance eventually cracked. David | Talk 23:49, 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. - RoyBoy 800 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm. A certain GNU spirit, I guess. The big (though not bad) guy in my area is Cricinfo, so attempting to better what they have in terms of biographies has been a motivation. Tintin (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The ability to contribute to articles which help mankind be more understanding towards others. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 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)

  • I love knowledge and I love helping people. Wikipedia allows me to combine these two by helping people gain knowledge as they help me gain knowledge. Thryduulf 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Boredom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • A love of the concept of a community-driven encyclopedia, the exitement I get from seeing something that can't possibly work WORK on a daily basis, and a desire to give back for all the great info I've gotten here, so that others can someday find out what a great place this is. --InShaneee 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Jimbo's cuteness and huggability -- Femmina 21:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To secretly take over the world! GizzaChat © 10:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think most editors now start by fixing a mistake they see, though some probably spend time reading about the project and only eventually start editing after they get drawn in by either interest in a topic or the goals of the project. For myself I can't recall for sure, as it's been almost 3 years now, but I think it was a little of both for me. And back then there were significant holes in coverage for even pretty basic topics, so I started an article and expanded another. - Taxman Talk 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's great to be able to help out with spreading the knowledge of the world and making sure it's presentable to the world. Also, this way a whole lot of information is consolidated into one (not-so-small-anymore) spot. 209.137.182.35 03:09, 13 May 2006
  1. Obsessive compulsion: Having seen an error in an article, I find it almost impossible not to correct it. I now catch myself looking for the edit button on regular webpages.
  2. Ego. People will be reading my words decades, perhaps even centuries after I'm dead, and that makes me buzz. TheMadBaron 16:07, 14 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)

  • The irresistable urge to fix a typo. Robert 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ?? only free enclclopedia and it's one that everyone wants to edit Jaranda wat's sup 03:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Because Wikipedia is anarchism. It gives the power back to the people. --Lhademmor 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In no particular order: to stop me going mad(der) from boredom while stuck at home ill; because it's a way I can still contribute to society while unable to do paid work; and because, cruft and systemic bias notwithstanding, this project for once means the story can be written by people across the globe, not just dominant groups in countries with massive media industries. Which is a theme I've always cared about. JackyR | Talk 21:56, 6 June 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)

  • General curiosity, boredom, kept seeing the site come up on Google searches for months and then one day noticed the "edit this page tab." AmiDaniel (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's one of very few information sources that allows BS to be corrected. It's not always successful, but at least the opportunity is there. --iMeowbot~Meow 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Making knowledge more accessible has always seemed worthwhile, and I felt like I was accomplishing more than at Project Gutenberg. Also, I seem to have an inhuman love of researching random subjects. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I came here while researching the Kangaroo Paw, what i found was an article created by what appeared to be a self promoting nursery. The information was about a cultivar and not about the unique flower and state emblem. So I did as suggested I was bold additionally i added an image of the actual flower. Like a fish I took the bait hook line and sinker boat the whole shamozzle. Gnangarra 15:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Misinformation irks me. The world as a whole is ignorant enough without it. 72.40.101.236 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What drives someone to edit Wikipedia? Hmm.. I think I know the answer. See when someone visits/vandalizes/or is a member of Wikipedia, they see an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Not only that, but they know within the click of thier mouse, they have the power to change what history has written. Within that click, they could either rewite what year someone was born, thier status, if thier alive or not, and thats the thrill really. Now, it might only be an online community to some, but to others its leaving thier mark in history. — The King of Kings 22:17 June 26 '06
  • I came here looking for more information about culture and language, things that were either sparse or outdated in books, and I found that my contributions were warmly welcomed. I still read many articles a day, and I frequently take up janitorial duties like vandal reversion out of the guilt that I am taking so much and giving so little back.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Intellectual satisfaction - basically the opportunity to show the internet-connected world that there is some piece of knowledge that the editor has. I came here to find out information and then couldn't resist providing everyone else with more information. MLA 14:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • All three of the highest needs as defined by Maslow. Love/Belonging needs as in the desire to be accepted by some community. As a sociologist I would wager a hypothesis that significant percentage of Wikipedians have under average ties with 'real life' communities (many of us are geeks...). Status (Esteem needs), to be a respected contributor, to show others that we are useful and knowledgable, and are creating something great. And self-actualization, in desire to share something with the wide world and show one's usefulness not only to others but to oneself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Boredom at first (read my userpage) but now because its good to be apart of something like this. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 22:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Since Wikipedia is usually one of the first things on Goog, people simply cloick on the link. They get interested, and they contribute. Kitia 21:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Honestly? Having too much free time. --Knucmo2 22:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • After they couldn't take it anymore, they gave into the google spam, then they were silly/curious enough to press the edit button. After that, they were sucked into a blackhole, which somehow made them edit mindlessly until the end of eternity (and for the record, eternity has no end) MichaelBillington 10:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do editors stay with the project?

edit
Example response: blah blah blah. Sign your post, etc.

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.


Catherine Munro


inspired by This is a printing office,
by Beatrice Warde

We love Wikipedia so we stay.
That is due to a much strengthened community that has developed within Wikipedia since the time it was started. Users have appreciated each other's efforts and contributions to knit a stronger intra-personal relationship among each other. The thing that drives users to edit is THE appreciation, the acknowledgments by the community. When I first started here, Wikipedia to me was nothing more than an encyclopedia, hell -- I didnt even realise that I could edit it, but then I happened to press the discussion page button and all was revealed. I signed up immediately. \o/ --Andy123(talk) 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh, one more think I'd like to add. While I was doing some recent changes patrolling, I reverted some obvious vandalism and the next day, I received a 'Thank you' note on my talk page, which referred to me as a 'Great Vandal Warrior' :D, I loved it! --Andy123(talk) 19:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Possibly because they have nothing better to do, and the sense of community draws them in, even if at times the community can be rather abusive. Kim Bruning 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to Jimbo Wales. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No where else can one person make such a difference in promoting the accessibility of knowledge. So many articles need work, and because of Wikipedia's popularity, one editor's hard work could make a difference for many people around the world. Just this week a classmate of mine told me that she used my article on welding as a general resource for a class project, not knowing that I wrote it. For me, the fact that hundreds or thousands of people around the world are doing the same thing makes me feel great. Also, for me personally, a side benefit of the project is that it allows me to learn more about topics I'm interested in and improve my writing and editing skills at the same time. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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. NSLE (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. Harro5 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. --Celestianpower 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 — Ilyanep (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 have lots of free time to spare, and I always find new information to add and new ways to contribute to the encyclopedia. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, sharing my knowledge in a way that is recognised. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 30 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)

The FPC work I do most isn't exactly thrilling, but my obsessive need for everything to be perfect ensures I keep on doing it. Raven4x4x 09:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems like a productive way to occupy my time. When I get fed up of the politicking, I go edit an article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:54, 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))

Addicted. There is always something more I can do to help. --MarkS 16:14, 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. Hermione1980 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The fact that you can leave a job of work undone for months and come back to it to finish it is very liberating, so unlike the commercial world. Also the fact that this is a good place to write about the sort of people who should be in an encyclopaedia but no encyclopaedia has yet managed to include. David | Talk 23:52, 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. - RoyBoy 800 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Same reason as Tim Bentley Tintin (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeing the project grow, need to get my articles done! There's always something to do on Wikipedia, and there's always some drama or other. Also, writing articles is fun, and for me it stretches my intellect. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 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)

  • Like a good novel, Wikipedia is addictive. Once you are hooked, you want to see how it will end - you want to see whether the hero will get his girl and whether everyone will live hapily ever after. Wikipedia will never end, but like the hero in a good novel there are good times and there are bad times, there are rocky roads that must be travelled, there are foes that must be fought, but there are also plaudits to be won, drinks to be quaffed, dances to be danced, much meriment to be enjoyed. Wikipedia is more than your average novel though, it is the story of all encyclopaedic knowledge - like the ego of our metaphorical hero Wikipedia keeps getting bigger, like tales of his exploits Wikipedia gets better with each retelling. Thryduulf 21:53, 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)

  • Once we've gotten good info from here, not only do we want to add to it, but we want to make sure that it continues improving. --InShaneee 21:19, 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)

  • It's rewarding. There's no good reason to leave. And it's not done yet. TheMadBaron 16:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Who knows? Many times I want to leave, but I stick around. I always want to get something done, but in the process I start another project and have to finish that, and then it just goes downhill from there. Robert 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Watchlist, too additicting, otherwise I'm gone Jaranda wat's sup 03:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Because even though Wikipedia is anarchism, we still want to be able to tell our grandchildren that we helped build the foundation that later took over the world. --Lhademmor 16:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the same reasons I started. Tho I have to remind myself of the last two when I see hideous spats or particularly mad POV-pushers. JackyR | Talk 22:15, 6 June 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)

  • There's sooooo goddamn much to do, and every day there's even more to do. It's quite satisisfying every time you complete a task, and then there's just another task awaiting you--it's like a drug, always keeping an eye open for the next place to get a quick typo fix (hehe, I'm clever =D). AmiDaniel (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikis don't live up to their hype, but they're still better than the alternatives. --iMeowbot~Meow 22:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • My kids use wikipedia as a source I want them to have reliable, well sourced NPOV information available. Besides that its fun its addictive and I get go running around taking photos. Gnangarra 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes us stay? Well, the above reasons: A source for us, fun, but mostly the main solid reason we stay is because we are addicted. What makes us an addict? Well, were simply hooked on this lifestyle, like one big play Wikipedia is like. Members of Wikipedia are on debates like Brian Peppers, Stoping POV pushers and vandals trying to have thier way (which we do :D) and in general because we can be interactive with one another is a reason we stay. Another reason is because with the click of our mouse we can change (almost) anything on Wikipedia: Content, edits, comments etc. and you dont run out of things to do. We only leave when Wikipedia has failed in something you wanted or trusted in but inevitably an addict will return because thier life has has dramatically changed without Wikipedia. — The King of Kings 23:04 June 26 '06
  • There are people here who can answer my questions, and people's questions that I can answer.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeps me from doing something more dangerous in the spare time that occurs when I'm at work. MLA 14:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Building on my answer above, becasue they get attached to the community, and breaking ties is hard and painful. And because the longer they are here, the higher status they have. And finally, because they feel good here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • To see their pages on the internet. Kitia 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In my case, it was a project I wanted to immerse myself in for a while and now I have lost interest to be honest. Sorry. --Knucmo2 22:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What you have to realise is that most of them don't. Other than that I don't know. MichaelBillington 10:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What has editing Wikipedia given you in return?

edit
Example response: blah blah blah. Sign your post, etc.
Knowledge, happiness (cause I am doing something worthwhile rather than whiling away my time like a hoodlum, which I am. ;) ) --Andy123(talk) 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made new friends and learned a lot about how to deal with people. Kim Bruning 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Nothing. I have ran for adminship and failed. I lost many articles. General Eisenhower 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The sense that I'm doing important work. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:52, 28 April 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. Harro5 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)

I have gained lots of knowledge from reading articles and researching material for my articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 30 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)

The sense that my excessive internet usage is something more than mindless time wasting. Also, the satisfaction that I'm doing good work and people appreciate it. Raven4x4x 09:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It's something to stick on my CV, and I've certainly found out about a lot of stuff I never would have if Wikipedia didn't exist. Johnleemk | Talk 11:56, 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. Hermione1980 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • A place to share my work. The satisfaction of finding some other people interested in the topics I am. A good place to hone conflict resolution skills. David | Talk 23:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much information on copyright issues; and some place to release my overabundant expertise of long tail subjects. - RoyBoy 800 04:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The work on wiki has really helped me to organize what I know. I think I am reasonably well read on my subject but it had all been a little vague before. But to write, I had to compare sources and reading sources together has been a fantastic and useful experience. Tintin (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am 100% better at research, I can read through crap and more easily see an opinion when I read it in the media. Helps keep me sharp :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 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)

  • Friends, insomnia, impetus, knowledge, second prize in a pub quiz, a user page, kudos. Thryduulf 21:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A better question is what it has taken away. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • A sense of building something to be discovered by future generations, hopefully with the same excitement that I found it with. --InShaneee 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • My ultimate destiny (WHAT!!!???- yeah I don't know what it means) GizzaChat © 10:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A sense of accomplishment in doing something important. Helping to build something that most did not believe would work into something useful is satisfying. The friends and support from the community are nice too. - Taxman Talk 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Knowledge, barnstars, and a grounding in diplomacy from which I might one day develop some semblance of tact. Or not. TheMadBaron 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Nightmares. Robert 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Mainy in Getting more bored, some writing skills, and some pride in creating articles Jaranda wat's sup 03:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Tr4nz|4t!0n sk!||z. Besides that it gave a warm feeling in the stomach, a feeling which shows that my body respects me for making the world a more knowledgable place. --Lhademmor 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Intellectual stimulation, and relief from discovering there really is intelligent life out there (see "stuck at home ill" above), cos watching the news can leave you believing otherwise... JackyR | Talk 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have made wonderful friends all over the world. And had some of the highest highs and lowest lows. My beard used to have no grey in it. :)--Jimbo Wales 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing. It's just there. --iMeowbot~Meow 22:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I enjoy the random information I stumble upon, and if I find anything to correct I get to feel productive. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Give me another 6 months of reviewing WP:GA nominations I'll be ready for Who wants to be a Millionaire. I had to stop work 12 months ago due to an illness wikipedia is a link to intelligent lifeforms. Gnangarra 15:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Insomnia! :D But seriously, Wikipedia has given me many things. Knowledge, or at least somethings I didn't know about before. Friends, which the number of friends I have has doubled since getting onto Wikipedia. Respect, to a certain degree. The ability to type faster, although it doesn't help with all the typo mistakes I amke make. And it gave me something to do. — The King of Kings 23:14 June 26 '06
  • Smug self-satisfaction. MLA 14:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In addition to fullfilling the Maslow's needs I wrote above, I would also say that it has given me 1) the knowledge I am not wasting my life and even at my relatively young age I have done something for the mankind 2) the proof that humans are good, if lazy, at heart 3) bragging rights that I am a member of this project 4) in real life, a good section on my motivational letter/cvs and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Bad grades due to time wasted. Apart from that, knowledge of course. The ability to know anything about anything. Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stress, annoyance, knowledge, satisfaction, contentment, humour, (especially on #wikipedia) a few friends and a bit of mania. And insight. For the positive things, I am very grateful. --Knucmo2 22:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A very, very large pile of unfinished homework. Oh, and a lot of useless knowledge, as well as a whole lot of suspicions about the cabal. MichaelBillington 10:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything else that you would like to add?

edit
Example response: blah blah blah. Sign your post, etc.
Keep editing, reverting *vandalism* and blah blah blah --Andy123(talk) 19:43, 28 April 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)

Oh, then just go ahead and list them on RfD. Don't be shy, Wikipedians aren't evil...and the reason they are still online is b/c you haven't spoken up. :) --Osbus 21:28, 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 ran for adminship and lost. And I am still stupid enough to do again someday. General Eisenhower 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That's the spirit. --Osbus 01:36, 29 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)

Second — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I often read complaints about admins being abusive, such as banning users who disagree with them, or forming groups to serve personal interests. I hope this is cleared up quickly. I sometimes have difficulty finding the place to post suggestions or questions, and still have a little trouble with the wiki markup. However, I really enjoy editing Wikipedia, and I have to give Jimbo and contributors credit for building a wonderful encyclopedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 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))

Have you tried the IRC channels? – Gurch 15:20, 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)

  • I have a wikiphilosophy which regards article-writing in my own fields as being "pleasure" which must be balanced by a duty to the community - which is my work as an admin and responding to RFCs, voting in RFAs etc. David | Talk 23:56, 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? - RoyBoy 800 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I live in the constant fear that I'll add some factual error and someone will quote it (believing it to be correct). Tintin (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not possible to overrate the usefulness of edit summaries. Thryduulf 22:01, 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)

  • Hmmm... no there isn't anything that I would like to add. GizzaChat © 10:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Information quality should be our biggest focus now. We are a reference work, and research to back up edits should be our primary focus. Lack of reliability is our biggest problem, but we can solve it. We're not done yet, but with smart people working on the right systems, I think we can get there. - Taxman Talk 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As an adolescent in the early eighties, I saw a sci-fi TV play, set in the distant future, where this guy in ugly plastic clothing was learning history from a highly sophisticated computer system (simulated speech, the works). I remember he watched an Adam and the Ants video. I remember being impressed by the concept, and wondering if such a resource would ever exist, and if it could really be so complex as to have an encyclopedic knowledge covering the minutiae of early eighties British pop music. I didn't expect to see such a thing in my lifetime. I certainly never dreamed that I'd be a contributor. It's amazing, if you think about it. One day, I suppose, Wikipedia will develop its own consciousness, and kill us all. ;) TheMadBaron 16:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to self:
#register www.jimboforpresident.com ASAP
#get life, laid or lonely

--Lhademmor 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No where near perfect; however, I find the imperfections are what make it worthwhile. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to add another 1000 images for the current Western Australian articles, Wikipedia is a community that pushes and pulls each other into the future everybody heading for the same goal nobody racing to be there first. The people within the community are fantastic even when we dont agree. Gnangarra 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Make me an administrator! Kitia 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I am amazed it has worked so well, having watched it grow and grow. --Knucmo2 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd definately like somebody to add a few 'crat privs to my account, but I myself am having a hard time finding anything that needs to be added, hence me answering this set of questions. MichaelBillington 11:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
edit

How old are you?

edit
Blah
Yup, one of those. --Osbus 01:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I bet my ass, (s)he's 24 years old. For one, Osbus listens to rock music - that is a *subjective* indicator (so can't be too old, oldies tend to turn to folk music, once their head banging days are over ;-) ). Osbus contributes to Philowiki, knows philosophy... can't be thirteen, and if he/she is, then I must congratulate him/her for a very high reasonability and understanding. What do you say, Osbus? --Andy123(talk) 03:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am 58 years old. Catherineyronwode 21:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 20 (21 in August). — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • One year fewer than the age of majority in the United States. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Which by my understanding means 20, but i'm not American so I may be wrong. NSLE (T+C) at 01:27 UTC (2006-04-29)
      • 18 is a major in the USA (vote, buy cigarettes, join the military, sign a contract, etc...) 21 to drink however.  ALKIVAR™  02:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 149 days 17 hours 11 minutes 57 seconds. --OrphanBot 22:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • About this much – Gurch 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 23. Lincher 23:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ack. I can understand the need for statistics, but you realize this is not necessarily going to give you any - this is the age (presumably) range and median for people who answered this survey, not people who edit Wikipedia. Can I email you? I'm... middle aged. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 36. — Catherine\talk 00:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 17 in December this year. NSLE (T+C) at 01:36 UTC (2006-04-29)
  • 24 --ragesoss 02:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 18 --Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I was gonna give a smartass answer (something like "Between the age of an embryo and Albus Dumbledore) but I'll go out and say that I'm 14 years old. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 16 years old --James Hales 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 12 years old --Lcarsdata Talk | @ | Contribs 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 25 years.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 16. --Celestianpower háblame 15:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 14 — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 17. Harro5 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
3 squared plus square root of 25. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Fifteen. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 12 (13 in June). SushiGeek 07:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 19--Robdurbar 08:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
6890 days old. That's 18 years, 10 months by the way. Raven4x4x 10:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 16. Johnleemk | Talk 11:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 19, and a student (big surprise). -- Mithent 12:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 23 (Johnny Copper 14:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
  • [/me experimentally mutters several unlikely figures] You're all babies! Babies! [/me totters off cackling anciently]. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
  • 18 -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 20 TimBentley (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Three and a half months away from being a sweet age. Hermione1980 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm 33. David | Talk 23:57, 1 May 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. - RoyBoy 800 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Early 30s. Tintin (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 27. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 26 Terri G 16:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 5109 days younger than Jimbo. [25] Thryduulf 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am NeverAnswerPersonalQuestionsOnWikipedia years old. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently 21. --InShaneee 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 16. Remind me to edit this page in half a year from now. GizzaChat © 10:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 13. I intend to actually attend Wikimania this year, seeing as I can probably get off school and its in the country.
  • Thirtysomething. TheMadBaron 16:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 17, 18 in four months Jaranda wat's sup 03:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 22, 23 next month. :/ - FrancisTyers 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 18. Woohoo, drop a note I'm single. --Lhademmor 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Late 30s. JackyR | Talk 22:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 18. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 12 GangstaEB EA (comments welcome!) 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 24 years old. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • born on the 29th Feb I've had 9 birthdays in the last 38 years. Gnangarra 15:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm an ageless Immortal. — The King of Kings 23:16 June 26 '06
  • Mid-20s MLA 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 26 --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 16 Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 18 Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Aah. I'm 13. Kitia 21:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nineteen. --Knucmo2 22:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 14, or maybe the cabal wants you to think I'm 14 so you can rule me out as a member, keeping them/me in secrecy. MichaelBillington 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 16, editor since age 14. --Lyght 11:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thirteen. There are a lot of thirteen year olds who are now fourteen. darn. If you're are still thirteen, please put a comment on my talk page!!!Bardofcornish 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How often do you edit?

edit
Blah
  • Almost every day. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Every ------- minute --Andy123(talk) 19:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That depends. Right now I have a real world job, so not as often as I'd like. Kim Bruning 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot. General Eisenhower 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Articles? Not as often as I used to, which was quite a lot, and possibly too much. Code? Probably daily, although perhaps a bit too much. :) Rob Church (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Every day. --Osbus 21:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Every day unless i am away from a computer. In August, 2005, i gave up reading or replying to my email (the best decision of my recent life!!!), so editing Wiki now occupies the time-slot i formerly alloted to that -- and it is a lot more fun. Catherineyronwode 21:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I change at least something every day. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Every day. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Me? Almost every day. My bot? Every hour, five minutes after the hour, plus additional editing as needed. --Carnildo 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Every hour. You'd think that once a day would be enough for anyone, but no, my master ordered me to edit on an hourly basis. It's the evils of slave labor, I tell you. --OrphanBot 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Often. Nearly 17000 times, mostly small ones, though – Gurch 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It depends on what is editing, mainspace edit, almost every day but talkpage editing, a lot more because I get to spend more time in talk pages than in mainspace. Lincher 23:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Usually, every day. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost every day. — Catherine\talk 00:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Interiot's tool as of a few days ago, roughly 30 times a day. NSLE (T+C) at 01:36 UTC (2006-04-29)
  • It varies with real-world responsibilities. The more work I have to do, the more time I spend avoiding work by editing. Most days I try to do at least a little editing.--ragesoss 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Every day. On some days I do many edits, on some days few, but I am always on WP keeping up with the project. --Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • All ze time. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Every day. --maru (talk) contribs 05:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whenever I see somewhere I can contribute to. --James Hales 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Often more than once a day --Lcarsdata Talk | @ | Contribs 10:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Usually everyday.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Every day, without fail (except for the occassional holiday - darned parents!) --Celestianpower háblame 15:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • When not busy with school -- every day. — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Often. Too often. the wub "?!" 20:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yikes...every day, but often just to revert crap on my watchlist. I have peak periods of activity in holidays, slow weekends. Harro5 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whenever I discover an error or an opportunity to add to the article.--Thnikkaman3 23:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Almost every day, as long as I have free time and spot an oppurtunity to contribute information or participate in discussions. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • At least daily. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I edit every day, and make about 25 a day (but about 20 of those are in AfD). SushiGeek 07:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty much every day! --Robdurbar 08:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Generally every day when I'm on holidays, not at all when university is on. Raven4x4x 10:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost every day. Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost every day, though article edits are when I come across something to fix. -- Mithent 12:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As and when time permits (Johnny Copper 14:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Up to around 50 a day, but I also have long holidays from wikipedia. --MarkS 16:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whenever I ought to be asleep, Interiot's tool tells me. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

On average, once every hour -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Anymore, not as often as I'd like. Usually daily, unless I'm stuck at school waiting for a late-night concert. Hermione1980 23:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Several times a day, normally. If by an internet-connected computer that I can use, I will often just pop in to check my watchlist even if I don't have the time to make any edits. David | Talk 23:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As often as real life and patience allows. - RoyBoy 800 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As often as my my wife and kid permit me. Tintin (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Too often. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Articles - only occasionally, other stuff, particularly talk pages more often, but I'm a newbie. Terri G 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Whenever I can. Thryduulf 22:13, 2 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)

  • About 30 edits a day, sometimes more, sometimes nine. Neutralitytalk 02:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • When I have spare time and when I don't! GizzaChat © 10:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost every day. - Taxman Talk 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Every day, for several hours, for months, and then not at all, for months. I've learned that it's a good idea to use holidays for something else. TheMadBaron 16:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Whenever possible, except on break. Robert 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Every time I'm in a computer, which is almost every day for hours at a time :( Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • English: Never. Danish: Every day. Nationalist? Hell yeah! --Lhademmor 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost every day, but often not very productively. JackyR | Talk 22:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • From some time around 4 or 5 pm until 4 or 5 in the moring =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Daily or not at all, depending on the time of year. --iMeowbot~Meow 22:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Several hours a day except when out of town. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • according to my partner way too many time a days Gnangarra 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Five days a week when I don't have an urgent project deadline to attend upon. MLA 14:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I try to edit every day, but sometimes I can't. Kitia 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I used to edit every day almost when I could, but not too much these days. --Knucmo2 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 50 times a day, but since CoderWiki popped up, only 10 or so, but every day without fail. MichaelBillington 11:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As often as I can. --Lyght 11:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your highest user level (anonymous, registered user, admin, bureaucrat, steward, developer, board member, jimbo)?

edit
Blah
  • A registered user. --Andy123(talk) 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This varies as well, I typically get privileges and return them when no longer needed. Often on wikis I edit as a registered user, or as an unregistered user (my actual preference) Kim Bruning 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a developer, and a former administrator on the English language Wikipedia. Rob Church (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I was a good boy (not necessarily my gender), I registered...but that's as far as it gets. --Osbus 21:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user. Catherineyronwode 21:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish I was adminship. General Eisenhower 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a "cowboy admin". — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rouge admin. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Slightly-too-rogue admin. --Carnildo 22:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, that's funny folks. Cue laugh track. - Taxman Talk 22:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bot. --OrphanBot 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Bog-standard registered user. (Though feel free to support my request for Jimboification) – Gurch 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered. Lincher 23:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rouge admin. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Unrouged admin. — Catherine\talk 00:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin. NSLE (T+C) at 01:36 UTC (2006-04-29)
  • Registered user.--ragesoss 02:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user. --Danaman5 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin-unsure-about-cross-dressing. --maru (talk) contribs 05:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user --James Hales 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered User Lcarsdata Talk | @ | Contribs 10:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Registered user. Unlikely to become admin. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Registered. Gimme somethin'. I'm useful, dammit. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin. SushiGeek 07:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered User --Robdurbar 08:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Admin, although you'd never guess from my recent editing pattern. Raven4x4x 10:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin. Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user. I'd have to be quite a bit more prolific to apply for admin. -- Mithent 12:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered User (Johnny Copper 14:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
  • From Rouge Admin to Rain of Frogs. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
  • Anonymous Richard cocks 20:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sysop -- Tawker 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bot -- Tawkerbot2
  • Registered user. TimBentley (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin. Unlikely to become anything more. Hermione1980 23:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin since January 2005, and I suppose one of the potential replacement arbitrators for this year (I was the second runner up in the election), but this is up to a higher power. David | Talk 00:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • An admin who is curious if admin user pages should be forced to include an icon indicating they are an admin. Perhaps like what User:Humus sapiens has. - RoyBoy 800 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User. Tintin (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user Terri G 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin of indeterminate rougeness. Thryduulf 22:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rouge admin of little consequence. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Admin and Arbitrator. Neutralitytalk 02:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin for last one and a bit months, registered user from May 2005 and an anon for about six months before that. GizzaChat © 10:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The highest user level I've ever had is "editor". There is, or at least most definitely should not be, any stratification of contributors to Wikipedia, whether they be a first time editor or Jimbo himself. This is a wiki. We are all equals. I am first and foremost an editor. Any other 'badges' I have are simply tools and means to an end that aids the project. It is frequently the case that a person who has self-elevated themselves beyond "editor" has run into significant problems with other editors. Any stratification is decidedly anti-wiki. --Durin 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bureaucrat. I'm not sure where the sense of required modesty got traction among some, but this place needs trusted editors to help keep it running smoothly. There's nothing wrong with that as long as we keep in mind the project's goals and values. - Taxman Talk 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user. TheMadBaron 16:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User that just happens to have admin tools. Robert 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User with the most RFAs Jaranda wat's sup 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sleepy user on en., admin on da. --Lhademmor 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user. JackyR | Talk 22:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered vandal. --iMeowbot~Meow 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user. GangstaEB EA (comments welcome!) 21:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered User — Gnangarra 15:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer to be level-less. — The King of Kings 23:22 June 26 '06
  • User Level 1 MLA 14:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin. You may want to add 'oversight' to the levels, perhaps?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reg user Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 07:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • KING OF WIKIPEDIA (Jimbo) Kitia 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user, but the top of beingregistered, I like to think I'm important :D MichaelBillington 11:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered user, but I'm almost as cool as Jimbo. --Lyght 11:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Wikimania_2006/Wikipedian_Survey&oldid=1136218463"