Saturday was my 20th #Wikipedia editing anniversary. I have created: * over 25 content articles (that have survived), averaging just over 1 per year * over 100 redirects to make it easier to find pages, and to find topics which are only documented as sections of existing pages. This year I’ve created five content articles (so far). Most recently: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governors_Public_Health_Alliance * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaptureTok * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Public_Health_Collaborative * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Health_Alliance * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_California I have had quite the range of experiences editing and creating articles. Many of my contributions to pages eventually disappeared after iterative edits or outright rewrites. I have seen repetitive wiki edits, repeatedly undoing changes made. I have also seen others build on my edits, sometimes taking a correction I made and expanding upon it, with more citations, more details, or both. Over time I learned various techniques, or patterns for editing, especially for creating new pages, to increase their chances of survival, while also discouraging vandalism or other attacks. I have found ways of writing that somehow get other editors to show up and help defend articles. If I could summarize it in a few words, I'd say aim for short, boring, and factual content (with high-quality citations). New articles work best when they’re similar to and based on existing well-established articles, no matter how small. I have learned that it is possible to defend the accuracy of an article even if you are outnumbered, by accurately documenting erroneous additions or changes on the article’s :Talk page, along with calm and thorough refutation of those erroneous additions. Doing so makes it much easier to revert any similar changes, and point to the pre-existing analysis on the :Talk page to discourage repetitive edits. Wikipedia has a fascinating set of rules, guidelines, and mechanisms for working in the open, and especially in the context of attacks by all sorts of bad actors, whether griefers, or politicians and businesses scrubbing (or self-promoting) their image. I found this article on Wikipedia’s systems and their resilience particularly inspiring: * https://www.theverge.com/cs/features/717322/wikipedia-attacks-neutrality-history-jimmy-wales I believe every open source project and open standards organization can learn from how Wikipedia works and thrives, especially in the face of antagonists large and small. I certainly have. If you do not have a Wikipedia account, I recommend creating one and using it to edit so you too can learn firsthand. Make an account, then browse your areas of interest or expertise to see if you can find pages to improve. Be bold. I was proud to add the 20 year editor badge to my User page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Twenty_Year_Society It’s never too late to start.

Saturday was my 20th #Wikipedia editing anniversary.

I have created:
* over 25 content articles (that have survived), averaging just over 1 per year
* over 100 redirects to make it easier to find pages, and to find topics which are only documented as sections of existing pages.

This year I’ve created five content articles (so far). Most recently:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governors_Public_Health_Alliance
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaptureTok
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Public_Health_Collaborative
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Health_Alliance
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_California

I have had quite the range of experiences editing and creating articles.

Many of my contributions to pages eventually disappeared after iterative edits or outright rewrites. I have seen repetitive wiki edits, repeatedly undoing changes made.

I have also seen others build on my edits, sometimes taking a correction I made and expanding upon it, with more citations, more details, or both.

Over time I learned various techniques, or patterns for editing, especially for creating new pages, to increase their chances of survival, while also discouraging vandalism or other attacks. I have found ways of writing that somehow get other editors to show up and help defend articles.

If I could summarize it in a few words, I'd say aim for short, boring, and factual content (with high-quality citations). New articles work best when they’re similar to and based on existing well-established articles, no matter how small.

I have learned that it is possible to defend the accuracy of an article even if you are outnumbered, by accurately documenting erroneous additions or changes on the article’s :Talk page, along with calm and thorough refutation of those erroneous additions. Doing so makes it much easier to revert any similar changes, and point to the pre-existing analysis on the :Talk page to discourage repetitive edits.

Wikipedia has a fascinating set of rules, guidelines, and mechanisms for working in the open, and especially in the context of attacks by all sorts of bad actors, whether griefers, or politicians and businesses scrubbing (or self-promoting) their image.

I found this article on Wikipedia’s systems and their resilience particularly inspiring:
* https://www.theverge.com/cs/features/717322/wikipedia-attacks-neutrality-history-jimmy-wales

I believe every open source project and open standards organization can learn from how Wikipedia works and thrives, especially in the face of antagonists large and small. I certainly have.

If you do not have a Wikipedia account, I recommend creating one and using it to edit so you too can learn firsthand. Make an account, then browse your areas of interest or expertise to see if you can find pages to improve. Be bold.

I was proud to add the 20 year editor badge to my User page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Twenty_Year_Society

It’s never too late to start.