Wikipedia is, by definition, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. However, everyone contributes in a different way. Some people create stub pages. Some take those stub pages and turn them into pages with significant detail. Others perform copy edits on pages to pull them to a fully refined and easily readable quality. Still others spend their time protecting those developed pages from persistent vandals. It takes teamwork from all of these differing editors to be able to create magnificent articles. This doesn't even consider the ever-important roles held by administrators, bureaucrats, bot operators, tool developers, and countless other roles that keep Wikipedia coherent, organized and efficient. Without work from everyone, Wikipedia would not be what it is today.
All of those positions are necessary. Missing just one of any of those groups would severely cripple Wikipedia's usefulness. But no matter how hard anyone tries, there is no way all of those roles can be filled by a single person. Wikipedia is a team effort and it takes contributions from everyone to get us where we want to be. Because everyone is different, editors fill in different roles based on what they enjoy. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to contribute to Wikipedia. While I may not do certain tasks, I recognize that those tasks are vital to Wikipedia's success and am thankful for all of the editors that have filled in where I have not helped out.
Personally, I enjoy and focus on the following tasks:
- Vandalism detection, reversion, and vandal reformation
- New page patrolling
- Discussion at WP:AFD
- Copy editing and review
- Policy development
Stuff I started
editThese are articles I started. Naturally, I do not own, nor do I attempt to claim ownership of, these articles, but I am happy that I have been able to contribute significantly to these articles alongside other authors.
Other significant contributions
editMy essays
editPersonal views of Wikipedia. Might be a majority view, might be a minority view, but it is definitely my view.
Articles I copy edited
editThese are articles I copy edited on request. When I receive a copy edit request, I typically take a few hours reviewing the article to seriously analyze it and review it. I feel that this significantly improves the article's quality. I often get these requests right before a content editor nominates it as a good article or featured article, and am always willing to help out. If you want me to copy edit something, feel free to ask on my talk page.
- Flying Spaghetti Monster
2 Dec 2009 - The Kinks
3 Dec 2009 - John Christie (murderer) 29 Dec 2009
- Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak 29 Dec 2009
- School for Creative and Performing Arts 4 Jan 2010
- List of tallest residential buildings in the world 6 Feb 2010
- Flag of Japan 13 Feb 2010
- Tošo Dabac 21 Feb 2010
- Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa 15 March 2010
Articles I reviewed
editAdhering to my desire for a high-quality encyclopedia, I feel reviewing articles is a great way to benefit the encyclopedia as a whole. While good article status is not difficult to attain, it still has high standards that produce a high-quality article. Reviewing good article candidates is a great way to reduce backlogs and significantly improve the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. The following articles I reviewed and passed for GA status:
- Statute of Uses 25 January 2010
- The Avery Coonley School 27 January 2010
- Obscene Publications Act 1959 9 February 2010
- Numerically-controlled oscillator 2 April 2010
- Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels 3 April 2010
- Central Valley Project 3 April 2010
- Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd 4 April 2010
- Lester Brain 9 April 2010