Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count

Interview

Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count

Ser Amantio di Nicolao has the most edits of any Wikipedian – over two million live edits. He started editing in 2004 and created his current account in 2006. This interview asks him to reflect on how he started, what kept him going, and what he looks forward to in the future of Wikipedia.

How did you come to Wikipedia?

Oh, Lord...been so long I hardly remember. I was in college back when Wikipedia got started, and like a lot of us early adopters I can recall seeing it creeping up the ranks of the Google search results as I was doing research for class. I remember seeing the tagline, "the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and honestly rolling my eyes at it a bit – it all sounded too good to be true. But it kept seeming to get more popular, and somewhere in 2004 I started making a few IP edits. That was back when IPs could create articles, too, and I created one on Peter Francisco that June. (I probably shouldn't admit to this, but he's my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather...I still think he's notable, though. :-) ) I created a couple of others (Francisco's Fight, Francis Salvador) and sort of kept popping in and out over the next couple of years, creating a couple of accounts, making a handful of edits, forgetting passwords, etc. Finally, in January 2006 (my last semester of college) I created my current account (as AlbertHerring) and affixed to it a password that I was sure of remembering. I did a few more edits than usual, but with finals, graduation, and the job search I let it slide again. Looking back over my contributions, I find that I was reasonably active until the beginning of 2007, which is when I got my first job. I didn't really begin editing in earnest until late in the year, when they finally installed a computer at my desk and when I started having some downtime between phone calls (I was an office assistant for a tour company.) It was about that time that Dr. Blofeld was beginning his campaign of mass-adding the communes of France; I saw a way that I could do a fairly large level of useful work, and followed suit. Haven't looked back since. :-)

What are you proudest of doing on Wikipedia?

Lots of stuff.

I created articles on many of the community councils of Lesotho back in '09 or '10 or so, and came back a few months later to see those translated into Ukrainian. That still, even today, blows my mind, to think that I had a small hand in making that information available in a language in which it didn't yet exist. (Four, actually: looking at one of them now I see it in Bulgarian, Swedish, and Cebuano as well.) I've done a lot of work with WikiProject Women in Red – 604 articles on notable women last year, plus a couple this year. (There will be more, don't worry...)

I've written articles and taken photographs for WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, which I joined fairly early in its life; User:Nyttend and I between us have illustrated a fair chunk of Virginia. Also I worked up the article on Pohick Church from barely more than a stub to what you see today. I also tweaked a lot of the infobox maps on NRHP sites to allow them to show both the state and the country, thereby using a tool that I'm very glad we have.

Lots of stuff, but these are the biggest ones.

How has Wikipedia changed in your time here?

I think it's become much less-welcoming to new members; I applaud efforts to change that, but I think we've got a lot of work to do yet. Bureaucracy has become more of a hassle than it used to be. More arcane, too – I think there are vast swaths of behind-the-scenes stuff that confuse even established editors, let alone new ones.

There has been a much more concerted attempt at addressing the variations of systemic bias...we still have a lot of work to do, but I think we've made incredible strides over the past few years.

What advice do you have for new editors?

Feel free to make mistakes...I made some beauties in my first years here. (Still do, more often than I'd like to admit.) Take criticism well...don't bristle, even (especially) if it's well-meant. Engage with people who talk to you – if you don't understand something they're saying, then ask. Most of us will be happy to explain.

The learning curve is steeper than I'd like, but I think it can be managed.

How do you see your contribution to WP over the next few years?

As Dorothy Sayers said: "As my whimsy takes me." I don't often know from week to week what I'm going to work on next – there are so many things that need doing. I like not limiting myself to one thing, or another.

How do you see Wikipedia changing?

I see systemic bias continuing to be addressed...it's going to take time, especially given our size, but we'll get there. I see us expanding the idea of notability...we're already rewriting the canon of various fields, so to speak, re-inserting people into the narrative who have been long ignored. I'd like to see us growing our editor base, but I'm not sure how feasible that is.

Are there any basic changes that you would like to see implemented?

I'm sure I'll catch a lot of heat for this, but I think it's time we start seriously looking at bots to create some of the needed geographic articles. Species articles, too, but geographic especially. Dr. Blofeld has been saying this for a while, and I echo it. I see the downsides to such a plan, but I think there are plenty of upsides as well...most importantly, that it will ensure certain types of basic coverage while freeing up human editors to do more substantive work.

How do you feel having administrative capability sets you apart from other editors, if at all?

Well, it gives me blocking rights...which I don't use but sparingly. I like being able to move images over to Commons without having to ask for help. That's actually something else I should have mentioned yesterday under the rubric of "basic changes"...I think the administrator creation process is ridiculously complicated. I understand why it is, but I think things would be a lot smoother around here if we considered giving some of those rights to more editors. Intermediate rights, maybe...not full administrative rights, but a few of the lower-key things, for trusted editors.

After two million edits, do you ever get tired, or consider leaving Wikipedia?

Occasionally...rarely. Sometimes I take a little time to back away, but rarely more than a week (unless I'm on vacation). Too much to do. (I've had dreams of editing...I can guarantee I'm not the only long-term editor who's had those.)

Do you feel that Wikipedia will ever stop growing, or become obsolete?

I doubt it very much...but then, I don't know what technology will be like in 20 years or more. Put it this way: I suspect it will only get obsolete if/when the internet does.

Anything else you’d like to add?

Can't think of anything at the moment – if there's anything else I'll let you know.

← Previous "Interview"

Next "Interview" →

In this issue

16 January 2018 (all comments)

News and notes

In the media

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Interesting to read and thanks for all your work over the years on articles in the arts and Women-in-Red. Jane (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jane023: You're very kind. It's always a pleasure looking up some obscure Dutch artist to find out that you've already created an article. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I don't know if you have noticed, but the work on the most obscure artists is starting to pay off, thanks to Wikidata. More and more of those Wikipedia articles are illustrated with associated Commons categories and Creator templates and I expect some of the artist categories on Commons will grow further when "Structured Data on Commons" is up and running. I am hoping you will soon be able to translate some of your Wikipedia category work to reconciling triangular associations for Wikidata/Commons Creator/Commons Category on SDoC. Jane (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jane023: I must confess, I don't spend a whole lot of time over at Wikidata. Glad to hear that it's coming along to a place where it can be integrated more firmly into articles. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunate to learn the success and failures of these marvellous Wikipedians. I am very pleased and blessed to be with Wikipedia. I remember Ser Amantio di Nicolao has been an exceptional contributor to the Women in Red Project and I will take him as a role model in my Wikipedia career. Abishe (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: You make me blush. Thanks very much for your kind words. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VERY TELLING and thank you for your candorCoal town guy (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coal town guy: I quote the musical 1776: "Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about." I'm a great believer in candor, wedded to tact. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You state " I think it's time we start seriously looking at bots to create some of the needed geographic articles. Species articles, too, but geographic especially.". I can only concur, certainly seeing the lack of so many species articles, numbering much more than 100,000. Doing all this manually takes a lot of painstaking effort. A bot would be indeed more than welcome. JoJan (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JoJan: I know others have bandied the idea about off and on over the past few years; I mentioned Dr. Blofeld, and I know there are others. I hope that the bots in use on the Swedish Wikipedia and others would point the way to some of the issues that need to be resolved. And I do understand that there are issues...but there must be a way around them. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this being discussed or suggested at least once before. I suppose the only objection I would have, would be having to change the tagline to "the free online encyclopedia that anyone or anything can edit". ;) I enjoyed the interview.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: Anything? Great - let me see if I can find a few rocks to throw at the keyboard, then. That would provide a...novel experience, shall we say. :-) Glad you enjoyed. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've always liked this one: "I was just reading that page and my mouse slipped and hit the edit button. Then I tripped and as I was falling I hit the keyboard and typed all that content. As I struggled to my feet I was pawing at the desk and the mouse came down and hit save." [Posted by Crossmr in December 2010 (diff).] – Athaenara ✉ 05:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Athaenara: Oh, that's nice - I'll have to remember it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me note that I find it surprising that no one in this thread mentioned the first bot, Rambot. Maybe because it's been over 10 years since its last edit. Anyway, having made a series of semi-automated article creation/edits of Ethiopia articles, I can confirm that setting up the process isn't that difficult: IMHO, the secret is finding enough structured data to make the effort worth while. (Combining the material into articles can be done with a trivial script, & adding those articles to Wikipedia can be done with any number of existing bots -- or thru manual copy-&-paste.) When I did that for Ethiopian woredas (their name for local districts), I had the Ethiopian census of 1995 to work with, which allowed me to provide demographic information; however, I lacked other information, such as latitude/longitude info, or average elevations. And I was forced to create by hand details like lists of geographical features in the woreda such as towns/villages or rivers/streams, & the names of the neighboring woredas.

I'm thinking the need for structured data might be the primary barrier -- well, that & most of the people who like the idea not knowing how to go about doing this. Geographic articles obviously lend themselves to this, & IMHO given enough data to start with, one could conceivably use a bot to create start-level articles. However, I don't see how one could create useful species articles in this manner. (My own thought about species articles is that they aren't useful unless they explain how a given species is distinct from related ones, which many currently existing biology articles fail at.) It's a problem that I encounter writing biographical articles on Imperial Roman consuls: beyond a few stock pieces, almost every biography ends up lacking information that others have, or otherwise requiring direct work by an editor. -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: Rambot has been mentioned off and on whenever I've had this discussion, if I remember aright. You're right about the barriers to article creation - I'd have coded some kind of bot by now to begin closing the gap, only I don't know where to begin. Data is the other question, of course, and it's one that I would love to open up to wider considerations. I know of a couple of sites that are likely candidates, but they'd surely need some vetting before being used as information sources. Regardless, it's a conversation I'd love to take beyond the embryonic stage.

As for species...there are enough databases that would allow for the creation of stubs such as "[X] is a(n) [animal/plant/otherwise slightly less than inanimate object]. It is a member of the [Y] family." That's not much shorter than many of our current species articles.

Fair point: I've always been of the opinion that a stub is better than none in situations like this, because it allows for expansion in a way that a redlink does not, being less forbidding. Again...it's a discussion that I'd like to see taken beyond the embryonic stage.

Besides which, we have the example of User:Lsjbot elsewhere to give us some ideas of what we want and what we might want to exclude. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were the first editor to whom I gave a barnstar. Or rather, if I recall right, I had told Ser Amantio then that given their epic contributions, it seemed embarrassing to award them a tiny barnstar – so I awarded Ser Amantio to the barnstar family; basically, I created a new barnstar named after them :D Ser's the best! Lourdes 22:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: I remember it well - that's the second award named after me in my lifetime. Thanks very kindly for your kind words. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the President of The Ser Amantio di Nicolao Fan Club, I would like to Ser to confirm or deny the accusation that she/he/neutral pronoun doesn't need sleep. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC):{{[reply]

@Barbara (WVS): Oh, he (I?) does. Doesn't always get it, but that's a Rothko of a different color.

Also, where's my latest newsletter? I've been waiting balefully by the mailbox with no sign of it, and it's been a week... :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing I can say, and I'm sure everyone will understand, is that Wikipedia can be a very intimidating experience. Ser Amantio di Nicolao is not intimidating, and quite the opposite. All edits of Ser Amantio di Nicolao has made Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and never - not ever - did they treat other editors with disrespect. We could use a whole lot more editors like this. — Maile (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: *sniff* Sorry, must be something in my eye...

I remember something I read, once, in Opera News about the great Tatiana Troyanos. Here was a woman that had every right to complain at the Fates over her lot in life...she was abandoned by her parents to an orphanage, and she battled health issues for many years before dying of cancer at 55. (I remember reading that selfsame article about her and being amazed at what she had overcome.) And yet she remained ever gracious in her career and her professional dealings. The writer of the article, I remember, recalled assisting in a Metropolitan Opera performance of Giulio Cesare in Egitto, in which Kathleen Battle was singing. Battle was then in the throes of some of her worst behavior, and she was really letting people have it over trivial matters. And the writer said that when the curtain fell, he was about ready to tell her off, when he felt a tug at his elbow. It was Troyanos - she took him aside, smiled, and said, "Don't. It doesn't matter."

It can be so tempting to get wound up over the least little thing around here. But every time I do, somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind...so deep that I feel her presence rather than hear it...I'm sure Troyanos is reminding me, too: "It doesn't matter." If she, with all that she overcame, could say it, then I damn well can, too. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up with The Signpost on Twitter, Facebook or Mastodon.

Home

About