I am a new Wikipedia editor and so far I have been impressed with how the site operates from the inside. There is clearly a well-defined culture and rules, contrary to what is sometimes portrayed in pop culture. It does not have to be a poor source of information; it can be a great starting point for a larger project, or a way to gain surface level knowledge on a wide variety of topics.

I was not aware of Wikicode before, and I find it interesting that it exists. As someone who is new to officially learning about programming this semester, I would rather not have to learn yet another language, but it is what it is. I would be curious to know how it came to be.

As far as the digital curation and preservation articles, it seems like some have received more attention than others. There is definitely room for improvement, like with the “community archives” article, for example. It is woefully lite on content; compared to “digital preservation” it looks like a footnote.

It is easier to evaluate a “worse” article like “community archives” because it is shorter and lighter. To go through an article like “digital preservation” and check all of its footnotes and references for plagiarism, for example, seems like it would be very time consuming. Based on its length and complexity, my initial impression is that people more knowledgeable about the subject have already spent some time on it and that my talents could probably contribute to the community more by adding to a weaker article.