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.
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.
Hello! How are you today?
Could you tell us where you are from?
To start off, what is your background?
How did you start contributing to Wikipedia?
Why?
Have you considered it addictive at times? Perhaps even infuriating?
Anything interesting that has happened to you on Wikipedia?
From your experiences, what has led you to continue wiki-ing?
Weren't there any incidents that have made you re-consider?
On the whole, what is it about Wikipedia that is so good?
Conversely, what is it about Wikipedia that is so bad?
Are you satisfied with the current standard and system of Wikipedia?
Is there anything you would advise Wikipedia should do to improve?
What do you think Wikipedia, given no time limits for such a case, would evolve into?
What do you think Wikipedia, 3 years from now, would develop into?
-- Allan McInnes ( talk) 20:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That's all for now. Thank you for your time!
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.
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.
If any.