Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20140402/Interview

Featured editor: Red Phoenix

Interviewed by (GamerPro64)

This technically being the fifth anniversary for when the first editor was interviewed for the Newsletter (February 1st, 2009 with David Fuchs), we're gonna be chewing the fat with another editor from the good old days, Red Phoenix. Red Phoenix began editing in August 2007, getting Crush 40 and the Sega Genesis to GA status and List of Sega 32X games to Featured List status. He retired in July 2008 due to drama but returned in May 2013. With his return, over a dozen articles achieved GA/FA/FL status with his editing, including ones that were demoted during his absence. We're gonna find out why he came back and what's up with his Sega obsession.

What drew you to Wikipedia, and what prompted you to begin editing?
The first thing that really drew me into Wikipedia was getting really interested in music by Crush 40, a band featuring Sega music producer Jun Senoue and has done a lot of songs for Sonic's 3D games. It was actually nominated for deletion shortly after I arrived, and I fought very hard to keep it. After that, it was sort of a case of "well, so how do you fix it?" and it really got me started on Wikipedia, learning the nuances of editing, and just enjoying the contributions I was making.
How did you become involved with the VG project?
In a sense, I didn't at first. I joined up with WikiProject Sega (now the Sega task force) and user Simon Alexander Tolhurst. At the time it started, it was a hardcore fancruft inclusionist group and wasn't exactly full of the most quality contributors (myself included, to be honest). As time went by, though, I wanted to improve my own editing, so I started coming more and more to the VG project, and eventually I started to find myself more and more at home here. The VG project is full of fantastic, motivated editors, and ones who are very helpful in all aspects, and that meant that I wanted to stay and become one myself. Comparing my start in 2008 to my post-retirement return last year, though, I can't say I feel like I was that editor before.
Most of your editing is focused primarily on Sega consoles. Why exactly is that?
Hah, well, it all started with some interest and a little inspiration. The only Sega console I've ever actually owned is a Sega Genesis, though my best friend also had a Dreamcast. I've always been a fan of Sega's series as well; Sonic the Hedgehog, Phantasy Star Online, all sorts of them. Believe it or not, a lot of it started with the title debates at that article, and whether or not "Mega Drive" or "Genesis" is the proper title. I got a little curious in the Sega 32X after that, which I've never owned, but found its story interesting as such a peculiar story of failure for such a neat (and yet also poor) concept. Everything that's come since then has come from that; as it's turned out, Sega was a fascinating company in its heyday—defiant of Nintendo, never afraid to try something different and unusual, ahead of their time in almost all of their concepts, and just plain old cool. I had a Nintendo 64 as a kid too, but I couldn't ever put down my Genesis controller.
As mentioned before, you retired in 2008 but came back in 2013. What made you come back?
Five years is a long time, and a few things had changed. I graduated college, the Sega task force had lost all activity and the drama had vanished, and I was looking for a new activity to invest my free time in, so I came back to somewhere I knew I could do some constructive good with the same inspirations as before. Sega v. Accolade was my first real effort since coming back, but it was really that same old title debate at Sega Genesis AGAIN that got me into the swing of the console articles. I decided that in order to solve the Genesis debate once and for all, it had to be improved to FA status. I've been fortunate to work with several project members on that path, but from there it's all been about the fun I have being a contributor and fixing articles that are so often looked upon but never truly repaired.
To follow up on the last question, how did you feel about all the changes in the project, or Wikipedia in general?
I actually really like the bump-up in quality standards we have nowadays, and I'm a full proponent of higher standards of quality contrary to my past inclusionism. To me, it's the only way Wikipedia will ever be taken seriously as a project in total, although I'm not counting on ever seeing Crush 40 as a GA ever again because the sources just aren't there. I think the project's trending in a great direction in operations, but we really need more committed editors, and I would someday love to see a more fleshed-out editing mentoring system for new contributors to fully prepare and develop them for high-quality editing. About the only thing that hasn't excited me is that I think the WP:RFA standards are almost too high now, and it leads to less administrators to take care of backlogged areas, but in all considerations that's only a minor bit in comparison to the huge improvements I've seen in the project.
What is considered your best work on Wikipedia?
Tough question - I've been lining up a featured topic for Sega Genesis all this year, so I guess that overall would be it. Still, I've always thought that I can't single out only one work. Recently I was asked to improve Sega Saturn, which I consider a success in itself in that it's the first time I've done what I feel is quality work with an article I didn't decide to do by myself.
What is the most difficult part of editing on the site?
I'm tempted to say sources here, because video game media has a lot of inconsistencies even in sources considered reliable. I'm also tempted to say copyediting, as I also have a hobby as a fantasy fiction author and my prose tends to be influenced a little by the writing styles used in fiction than a purely encyclopedic tone. However, I think I have to say it's that Wikipedia can be quite pressuring at times. It's hard not to be bothered if you're feeling challenged on your work by others, or when others disagree with your viewpoints on various subjects or points of editing philosophy. I love a good argument when I'm winning, but it's tough to eat your own words sometimes, or to reason with others at times. But, in a sense, that's why I love this project, too. It means that I'm dealing with passionate editors, and I believe passion in your work is the most important thing you can have.
Anything else you want to say?
I'd like to say something to editors of all types; veterans, newbies, you name it. This project needs quality editors to continue, and everyone can become a quality editor with good work and the right ideas. That being said, I know how this project can be stressful. I retired in 2008 after drama including a failed RFA and disillusionment with the Sega task force. This year alone, I watched as KieferSkunk, a key contributor on the Sega Genesis project, gave up his adminship and went on extended wikibreak after an argument at the Genesis talk page. What I'd like to share, in return, is a piece of advice from an editor who's been there, done that. Don't let the drama get to you. I've found after five years of retirement that I missed this project, and I'm glad I came back. Wikipedia offers so much to its editors that there's always something to keep your interest here.