Interview: New Military History Wikiproject Coordinators
This month The Bugle is pleased to present an interview with the first-timers elected to the September 2016 coordinator tranche. We have asked these editors to share their experiences to date with Wikipedia, and ideas for improvements. Don't forget that if you have a good topic for a future Bugle edition, please add it on our newsletter's main talk page.
Thank you for agreeing to answer some of our questions. What drew you to Wikipedia, and to the Military History Wikiproject in particular?
Iazyges: I lurked around and read without an account for a bit, I don't believe I made any edits, eventually I decided to do something, I started out as "Virophage", and made some edits in bacteria articles, I went inactive for a long time, and reactivated recently. I mostly liked the idea of having an database of infinite knowledge, and decided to be part of it. I got interested in german ww2 artillery and planes, which brought me to milhist, somehow, in the same fashion as you can start reading an article about germany's army and end up reading about the babylonian calendar, I ended up with Roman milhist.
Lineagegeek: Military history has been one of my main interests since majoring in history in college. I probably read every paperback issued back during the 100th Anniversary of the American Civil War, but after entering the service, spent more time concentrating on the organizational history of the USAF, so I'd say I was drawn to the MILHIST project before being drawn to Wikipedia. Some years ago, I noticed some obvious errors and decided to do something about them, but it was several years before I became an active editor.
Zawed: My initial interest in Wikipedia was initially just as a source of information. While teaching at a Hagwon in a small town in South Korea, I was responsible for producing English-language articles for the local newspaper. I naturally turned to Wikipedia! Then, I began to appreciate that Wikipedia coverage of Korean-related subjects was not too flash, and then set about improving this. Initially it was Korean football and films and then the Korean War since I had always been interested in military history although with a focus on WWII. Once I started looking around the Milhist MP, I was impressed with how organised it was and supportive of new editors. Over time, I got more involved and then, realising that coverage of New Zealand military history was pretty poor when compared to Australia, I started actively working to improve this.
What are your main interests, e.g. article writing, reviewing, wikignoming?
Iazyges: I do some work in PR, do some editing and do some article writing.
Lineagegeek: Although I have written several articles, I have devoted most of my efforts toward editing and improving articles. This has involved a lot of wikignoming because of a general lack of references in articles I have tried to help along. I frequently set myself goals to get all of a certain type of unit articles, but I keep running into squirrels, so the only type I have ever managed to get through are the Air Defense Groups of the 1950s. As for reviewing, most of that has been quid pro quo. I've felt that if I wanted an article I'd worked on to be reviewed, I ought to look for an article I am comfortable reviewing in exchange.
Zawed: I prefer biographies but there isn't much opportunity for article creation around notable New Zealand soldiers as most have already been created. So mainly I work to improve existing articles. I do also work on unit and battle articles but find that these are bit harder to get into and I can take a bit of scattergun approach to them. Plus I do some reviewing on the side; it is often a nice way to learn about topics you wouldn't normally work on yourself.
What contribution to the Wikipedia's coverage of military history topics are you the most proud of?
Iazyges: Raising up the Roman and Byzantine MILHIST, we have 10 members now (as of posting), the incubator force only had one member before I found it, I gathered up a small group of editors.
Lineagegeek: I think I've been able to make a dent in raising the typical USAF unit article closer to being a C or a high start, rather than a stub or a start that just makes it out of stub status because its nicely formatted.
Zawed: The overall improvement of coverage of New Zealand military history although there is a long way to go. Bringing the article on the New Zealand Division from start-class up to A-class is a particular highlight.
What drew you to the idea of becoming a Milhist coordinator? How did you find the election process?
I largely stumbled across the election process, and decided to run for one, I decided I'd like to lead largely because I hadn't before, and it interested me. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum00:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been given a nudge to put my name forward to be a coordinator by a few editors previously but declined. This year I got another nudge, and thought this time I should give it a go. I am conscious of the awesome support and guidance I received in my early forays on the project, mainly from current and past coordinators, and thought this would be one way of paying that forward. The election process was pretty straightforward, it was just a shame that not more editors put themselves forward. Zawed (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do think the coordinators should focus on in the coming year or, to look at it another way, what do you hope to make your focus areas as a coordinator?
Iazyges: I hope to be able to increase efficiency wherever possible.
Lineagegeek: Every time I see the numbers associated with backlogs, it seems to me that we could better incentiviize reducing them.
Zawed: My personal focus will be to encourage retention of new editors and get them engaged with the Milhist project. While the project clearly has a fairly solid core of editors, there hasn't been too many newcomers staying around. It would nice to change this.
What are your impressions of Wikipedia's coverage of military history in general? Do you have any suggestions for new areas of focus?
Iazyges: I think that MILHIST covers a lot of what can be covered, short of a iron age task force, or perhaps an assyrian or babylonian task force.
Zawed: The coverage is reasonable of subjects where English-language sources are plentiful, but what needs work are subjects from countries where the main language of the sources is not English. Not an easy fix other than when editors from those countries start working on those subjects that we take an inclusive approach to try and keep them in the project.
Do you have any thoughts about how to attract and retain editors in Wikipedia, and the Milhist project in particular?
Iazyges: Perhaps a diversification of awards, I feel that making awards easier to attain wouldn't work well, but more awards for different parts of the MILHIST may help with retention, and possibly attracting editors.
Zawed: Encourage new editors to take the articles they are working on through the GA and A-class process. I feel there is a sense of achievement to be gained there (there was for me) and this may help the newbies stick around and keep on working in the project.
About The Bugle
First published in 2006, the Bugle is the monthly newsletter of the English Wikipedia's Military history WikiProject.
