Your role
edit- What exactly do you do (most specific user group)?
I'm a general content creator, so I improve existing or write new articles. I submit many of these to WP:DYK.
- How long have you been an editor/admin/user of Wikipedia?
I've made an account in November 2019, but actually started editing in January 2020 (you can see my detailed statistics here).
- How active are you in that capacity?
Semi-active. Corona gives me more time than usual, so atm I'm active several days of the week. I reckon this will change with my real life situation, but I do not intend to retire.
- Do you consider this your primary occupation or only a hobby?
As I am just a volunteer, so definitely a hobby among others. I need to make money (and study to make more money later) in the real world :)
Your thoughts
edit- What do you think of Wikipedia as a project?
It's excellent. It has been around for as long as I can remember and helps people find information every day.
- What do you see in the future for the site?
I'm optimistic. There's been prophecies that Wikipedia would be dead by 2010, or by 2020. But it's still around, and it's still getting improved. As long as the Wikimedia foundation and volunteers (and a free internet!) exist, it will continue.
- How might the subjects covered by Wikipedia be expanded?
Not sure what exactly this question means. Articles are being created every day, and others are being improved. But some others here have brought up good examples: PCN02WPS has pointed to WP:LIBRARY, which is a great and emerging way for Wikipedians to get access to the sources they need. Mortee points to the sometimes disparate notability guidelines (my personal "favourite" is WP:CRINge, which results in hundreds of stub articles: Category:Cricket stubs), but also to the excellent Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red where I am trying to participate.
Your experience
edit- What have you seen, do you have any stories?
There's a lot more going on behind the scenes than I would have thought before I joined as an editor (I've obviuosly been using Wikipedia for years):
I've been involved in the Teahouse (mostly asking), talk pages (for example the question on what to name the Storming of the United States Capitol - there was a lot of discussion on how to name the article), and even talk about Wikipedia itself (potential changes to parts of the WP:MOS). I've seen some funny situations, participated in a sockpupped investigation, and voted in at least two requests for adminship. I must admit I was quite delighted to receive a token of recognition at some point (and I think I also awarded one), and in general I feel like the discussion with fellow editors was quite enjoyable. But there's no single story that really stands out - all of the above is part of being a Wikipedian.
- How big a problem is vandalism?
Manageable. There's obviously a lot of effort needed to counteract it, but the community is organized in that regard and there are people specializing in just reverting vandalism. It's not getting better, but it's not getting worse either.
- How easily is vandalism dealt with?
I agree with Elliot321 there. I use the Twinkle tool myself, and it easily reverts any obvious vandalism that isn't caught by bots (Cluebot for example reverts quite a lot automatically). But if people with bad intentions who know how to circumvent detection by e.g. providing statements with "sources", where the sources are actually not saying what they claim in the article. It's rare, thankfully, but it's hard to spot and remove.
(I've marked some users in my answers, I hope they don't mind. They need not answer to this, I was merely indicating that I am agreeing with them and the thought originated from them.)
These questions were indeed interesting and I wish you good luck with your assignment! --LordPeterII (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)