Did you meet your goals? Are you happy with how the project went? We did meet our goals and are very happy with how the project went. Specifically:
We were able to create a template for conferences to use, linked here.
Updated all of the previous Future Directions Forum pages, seen here.
We were able to create Wikipedia pages for some of the previous presenters of the Forum with a focus on women and other minority groups. By starting this, we have decided to try and continue this project moving forward.
We have also recruited several new Wiki editors and trained those individuals how to use our template and how to edit Wiki pages.
Many of the current editors working on the project have increased their skills on Wiki platforms and have attended workshops on transclusion and creating templates in order to increase our ability to effectively update pages and create the template for conferences to use.
Host 2 edit-a-thons with HGAPS team members from both UNC and UMD
Hosted 2 edit-a-thons
Both edit-a-thons were successful. We had HGAPS members come from both UNC and UMD as well as UCLA. We also had individuals attend the edit-a-thons who are not a part of HGAPS.
2
15+ contributors and attendees per edit-a-thon
10 contributors per edit-a-thon
Although we were not able to get 15+ attendees at our edit-a-thons, we were able to get 10 at both events. We had many more individuals sign up for the edit-a-thons than the number that actually attended.
3
5 new editors
10 new editors
We had more than 5 new editors and ended with 10 new editors who have not edited Wiki before.
We have had an increase in views on FDF related pages since updating the pages and creating new ones. The spike in activity is visible in the MassViews here in Fall 2022.
Projects do not always go according to plan. Sharing what you learned can help you and others plan similar projects in the future. Help the movement learn from your experience by answering the following questions:
What worked well?
We made page templates on Wiki using transclusion for every page we created or improved. This was very helpful as it guided new editors and created a professional, organized, and visually continuous layout for every page we edited, even though most of our work was done collaboratively. This practice also helped to ensure that necessary and beneficial information was present on every page we edited.
We also made a checklist on Canva, summarizing key aspects to include living biography pages. This checklist provided newer Wiki editors with a framework off of which they could build their pages, and ensured that necessary elements were not left off. 996 Edit-a-thon Checklist The checklist was presented in conjunction with an example living biography page (Steven Pinker) during the introduction of each Edit-A-Thon and was linked on collaborative editing documents, which served to further demonstrate our expectations to newer editors and ensure that quality pages were created.
Our team met regularly (at least once a week) via video call throughout the entirety of this project. Between meetings, we used a professional instant messaging platform to communicate thoughts, questions, ideas, and reminders both within our team and to other members of our larger organization. Having a clearly defined and hierarchical communication system that was still adaptable enough to meet the needs of our team (working internationally) allowed us to collaborate efficiently, solve problems as they arose, avoid miscommunication, and make the most of our time.
We did the majority of our planning work in wiki sandboxes and separate rough draft documents, instead of working/brainstorming directly on the publicly visible wiki pages themselves. This allowed us to ensure that everything we put on Wiki was accurate, well thought out, and organized. The use of collaborative documents for brainstorming outside of Wiki also served to streamline the teamwork process, especially since a significant number of our editors did not have prior experience editing Wiki.
We created documents with lists of web links for use on specific pages in advance of each Edit-A-Thon. Since these link lists were created by experienced team members, they allowed us to ensure that the information editors used to build pages was accurate and extensive. Additionally, this process allowed editors to use their time most efficiently during the Edit-A-Thon, as they could focus on brainstorming and editing, instead of having to search for and vet links.
Including prizes, gift cards to virtually by lunch for editors, and designated time at the end of the Edit-A-Thon to collaboratively review pages helped not only to gather interest in the events we hosted, but also to incentivize editors to stay focused and productive over the two hour time frame.
996 Edit-a-Thon Schedule
Establishing a detailed time frame and plan for each Edit-A-Thon helped us avoid administrative errors during events and allowed us to plan how much we should expect participants to accomplish. This practice also made sure we used our time provided efficiently, and made sure that we were able to fulfill our goals at every Edit-A-Thon.
Providing new editors with Wiki training links in advance of the Edit-A-Thon, as well as with editing workshops during the first few minutes of every event helped us to ensure that new editors learned from this experience and were able to make valuable contributions to their teams. More advanced editing workshops were also provided to individuals with more experience, allowing people of all levels of Wiki editing skills to benefit from this experience and feel encouraged to continue to build their Wiki editing skills in the future.
With the help of the HGAPS Social Media team, we created Google Forms that participants were able to fill out to sign up for Edit-A-Thons. This way, our team was able to know how many editors to expect at each event, as well as to know how many new versus experienced editors planned to show up. These forms were created and advertised during HGAPS meetings and on social media well in advance of each event, in order to maximize our potential audience and gauge interest.
Additionally, we used Google Forms to employ a page rating system that allowed teams to both give and receive feedback on their work, further refining editing skills and serving as an additional motivator for focused work.
What did not work so well?
While we still were able to recruit a significant number of both new and experienced editors to participate in our Edit-A-Thons, we did not manage to achieve the participant turnout rate we initially hoped for. This led to minor complications during incentive allocation, wherein we had to modify our initial plans for how incentives would be given out.
Our team ended up with more clean-up work at the end of each Edit-A-Thon than we initially anticipated. This additional work was partly due to the lower than target turnout rate at Edit-A-Thons, but was able to be accounted for when our finances were re-examined (we reallocated incentive funds to wages in order to pay individuals to clean up the pages).
We had a good turnout in terms of RSVP response rate to the sign-up and informational forms we advertised, but we struggled with getting everyone who RSVP'd to attend. This was largely anticipated, but does provide room for improvement if/when we complete similar projects in the future.
What would you do differently next time?
Due to the aforementioned challenges, we have discussed strengthening our advertising effort for Edit-A-Thons in the future. While we did post informational infographics in advance of the Edit-A-Thons on social media, and dedicated time in our HGAPS weekly meetings, we realized that it would likely be beneficial to start the process of advertising the Edit-A-Thons earlier than we did, and post subsequent reminders as the events got closer (as opposed to just having 1 or 2 social media posts).
We also considered that it might be a good idea to include more information about the specific goals of future HGAPS Edit-A-Thons in our social media advertisements. This practice would help garner interest in specific topics, drawing in an increased number of dedicated editors from outside HGAPS UNC. A specific idea we had for implementing this change is to advertise the Edit-A-Thons by way of infographic, as opposed to simply listing the title and time of the event.
As a significant amount of time ended up being spent coordinating bringing in outside trainers for the edit-a-thons, we discussed having experienced Wiki editors prerecorded training sessions. This would allow us to better plan for the time that training would take, and decrease the time and resources spent on recruiting trainers that had to present live talks. If we used prerecorded training sessions we would still recruit experienced editors to be present at the events to answer any questions that may arise, but would reduce time spent during the event as we could send out the recording in advance for participants to watch.
Our team is curious to try using the Events Dashboard for tracking on future projects; we were not aware of it until we were finishing this closing report.
Overall, our team was able to learn a lot during the organization and implementation of this project, and we hope to use what we have learned to scale up this project in the future. Next time, we strive to further perfect our process in order to recruit more new editors, involve an even greater audience from outside of HGAPS, and create/update more pages in order to continue to disseminate critical psychological research by way of sustained Wiki editing.
Please describe how much grant money you spent for approved expenses, and tell us what you spent it on.
Wages for template/tool-kit creators: $2,040 ($20 per hour x 3 creators x 34 hours)
The remaining $2589.73 was spent here for our creators.
Wages for trainers: $720 ($20 per hour x 3 trainers x 12 hours)
We spent the anticipated $720 here on trainers.
Gift cards to virtually buy lunch for edit-a-thon participants: $600 ($20 for 15 participants x 2 events)
We spent $260 on gift cards to buy lunch for edit-a-thon participants. Not everyone that attended wanted one, which led to us being under budget here. We have reallocated these remaining funds ($340) to "wages for template/tool-kit creators".
Incentives for sustained editing: $500 (1st prize $100, 2nd prize $50, and 3rd prize $25 at 1 and 3 month follow-ups after last edit-a-thon = $175 x 4 "contests")
Upon organizing the edit-a-thons, we decided to change our method for prizes. Since we organized into teams we decided to have participants evaluate each teams work at the end of each edit-a-thon. We used these evaluations to come up with a first place and second place team and these teams were given prizes. We spent $350 in this category and reallocated these remaining funds ($150) to "wages for template/tool-kit creators".
HGAPS merch for milestones completed in editor training: $300
We spent $248.27 on HGAPS merch for editors. The remaining funds ($51.73) were reallocated to "wages for template/tool-kit creators".
Fiscal sponsor administrative fees (including access to Google Suites for Nonprofits platform and analytics): $832 (20% final budget)
We spent the anticipated $832 for fiscal sponsor administrative fees.
Anything else you want to share about your project?
We plan to build on the lessons we learned with this project, organizing some new projects for 2023. These may include:
Having workshops at conferences to familiarize more students and researchers with how to add material to Wikimedia Commons, Wikiversity, and Wikipedia, with an emphasis on the different strengths of each approach, as well as templates and tips about how to avoid common snags when academics start editing.
Working with professional societies and experiences editors to do a series of biographies of women and members of other underrepresented demographic groups in psychological science, leveraging the consultation and experience working on speaker pages.
