[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Wikipedia interview with Rich Mullins

[David Gerard]

I got a note on my talk page, and I just answered it. Here's what I said.

(Angela, if you would like me in the pool for UK interviews, feel free
to send 'em my email and I might even send you my mobile number -
though I almost never answer it by day and it goes to message.)


- d.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2005 11:36 PM
Subject: Wikipedia interview
To: rmullins at tampatrib.com


Hi Richard - I got your note on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=25298301&oldid=25256605

Assuming this was actually you ;-) then I'd be most happy to do an interview :-)

Time for a phone or instant-message interview is a tricky one if
you're in a hurry, but I can do email very conveniently.

I see you left a pile of notes on article talk pages wanting to talk
to people who wrote the articles - possibly a quicker way would be to
look through the history (which lists all revisions to an article
ever, though you may have to go back several pages through busy ones
;-) and then put notes on their talk pages, if they're still around.

And now, to answer your questions:

"I'd love to hear what interested you about Wikipedia."

I first started using it in December 2003. I'd heard about it, seen it
come up in Google searches sometimes and had mild curiosity about it.
Then my wife said to have a look at it ... and I started editing. (I
just asked her and she says I drew her into it! She's
[[User:Redcountess]])

"I'd love to know how often you work on entries and what your
particular area of interest is."

I've edited *all manner* of things. I've been working heavily on
Scientology-related articles of late - I am apparently what passes for
an expert (I have a website at http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/ ) and
wrote about half the article on [[Xenu]] - the one that's quoted
directly in just about EVERY article on Tom Cruise in the past few
months. Which I'm very pleased by! (And we have a new one, [[Space
opera in Scientology doctrine]], which is even better.) I also write
about Australian indie rock bands (another specialist area of mine),
computer and technical topics, anything else I notice needs an article
...

I also use Wikipedia as a reference, particularly in technical or
computer areas - it's actually a reliable encyclopedia in these areas
in my experience. And I'll edit anything that needs a bit of a
copyedit or clearer writing. It's very nice being able to fix simple
errors.

"Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the accuracy of the system
and what you think of errors added to the entries."

People adding errors to "test" the system are a pain in the backside.
See [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]].
Anyone can do it, and anyone can take a dump in public; it doesn't
make it a good or decent idea.

As for the general accuracy ... in technical areas, it's good enough
to actually use. I understand it's that good in mathematics. I'm sure
there are other areas I don't know of where it's that good. I
understand we're the world's best Pokemon resource ;-) There are many
areas we don't cover as well as we'd like to, but we're trying to be
aware of this.

There's always going to be a certain percentage of articles that are
great, some that are okay and some that are very sketchy and have
"Under Construction" signs on them. The encyclopedia's expanding all
the time, so the numbers for each of these percentages will always
increase. We're working on article rating systems to try to make it
easier for people to find the good stuff without hampering the works
in progress or the process of making them.


If you have other questions, please do email me. If you really want to
do a phoner, my phone number is +44 xxxx xxx xxx - time here is
presently BST, which is GMT +1. If my phone goes to message, please
leave a message!


- thanks, David.