Obviously someone in the BBC was salty that he didn't get to write the article on Ozzies death, so he quickly edited it in the Wikipedia so he could claim the "first" bragging rights.

Some of it's going to be down to a major news org like the BBC being much more careful to make sure he's really dead. With Wikipedia, that's a fuck-up, but almost anyone can make it, and it can easily be undone. With the BBC, that kind of fuck-up would haunt them for years. I've also read that Sky News may have been the first to confirm his death. Looking at that edit, the editor didn't mention a source; they just "was"d him. Bad practice by Wikipedia's standards but worked out in the end.

I think it's a point of pride that we can be so up-to-date, but as a tertiary source, we rely on the credibility of secondary sources like the BBC to have any semblance of usability and order. I think we're running different races, and we couldn't run ours if they didn't run theirs.

They're based on edit count and not something meant to be taken seriously. It's not a rank either; you don't gain any meaningful status by having more edits. I don't get any money.

Used it as a faux qualification here just to express that I'm experienced and qualified to answer dumb questions.

It's a title given to Spanish editors I think.

I'm going to refer you to Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost, but if there's jargon in there that makes no sense, I can clarify. The TL;DR is that the skin Vector (2022) (an update from Vector (2010)) made the interface more flexible to customization, logged-out users could now have preferences, and Wikipedia's design was all over the place after 20 years of largely decentralized development.

most of the money on things that are Wikipedia

Assuming you meant "aren't Wikipedia", there are a few aspects to this.

• These are the Wikimedia Foundation's 2024 financial statements.
• You can see how it's organized here.
• Here's a table of salaries. CEO Katherine Maher's salary is about $790,000, which is very average for this role. Other salaries look average as well.
• I permanently hide donation drive banners in my preferences and so can't speak to how they've been lately (read: last 8-ish years). I remember them being terrible. Genuinely hated them.
• Wikimedia is a lot bigger than just the English Wikipedia; it's a movement, and one that's been highly successful in a way it couldn't have been just through volunteer work. For example, I heavily encourage you to check out Wikipedia's sister projects sometime. Not all of them are created equal, but Wiktionary for example to me is the best single dictionary in the world. I wish many of these received similar levels of appreciation to Wikipedia. And far from being tacked-on side projects, most of these factor into a coherent ecosystem in their own way.
• The WMF's legal team in my eyes especially has been phenomenal. The movement I volunteer so many hours for would be heavily fractured and probably dead in the water if it weren't for them.
• On top of obvious things like developing MediaWiki, I actively want the WMF to be doing outreach through programs like grants. If the WMF just sits by and coasts on hosting costs and maybe MediaWiki bug fixes, it will die. Figuring out how to make editing more inviting, more accessible, and more efficient is crucial not just to keeping Wikipedia alive but its sister projects and even to improving other non-WMF wikis.

In summary, I don't like the banners but have seen zero issue with how they handle finances. The money donated that's used beyond maintaining a skeleton crew and keeping the lights on is profoundly useful to me as an editor and directly helps me write the articles that the people donating expect their money to go to.

I don't have a specific favorite singular edit. If I did, it'd have to be the time I nominated 'David Joyner (business executive)' for deletion shortly after the killing of Brian Thompson. Whereas I could've waited for things to cool down, I didn't want to politick. This circulated around BlueSky, well-meaning people who didn't understand how we handle article inclusion brigaded the discussion, and some moron writing for Gizmodo accused me personally of being a paid CVS shill conspiring to hide Joyner's name (despite the fact that this name was proudly displayed on CVS' website as the first result in a search engine). The situation was just so stupid and made me lose some faith in Gizmodo's ability to do basic research.

Favorite series of edits? Definitely the time in 2021 I started a good article review for the article 'Marjorie Taylor Greene' and it got so out-of-hand that I ended up overhauling the entire thing because I kept finding problems (well outside the scope of a GA review). I thought it was really good by the time I was done, and it was really satisfying reading an article where MTG bitched at some local rally about her Wikipedia article – a sign I'd done something right.

These two examples aren't representative of my edits at all.

Sometimes you'd think so. It's actually more delayed than you'd think; major celebrities are often several minutes between major article publication and edit, when theoretically you could speedrun that kind of edit with a source in about two minutes from time of reading the article.

You might've seen this, but the editor who changed Henry Kissinger to "was" became such a social media phenomenon that day that her talk page was flooded with "congratulations". An administrator (being responsible, tbf) had to step in and remove gravedancing, my own included.

Shame this kind of edit isn't consistent or "Was%" would be a really fun speedrun. "Banned from Club Penguin%" energy.