Difference between revisions of "Submissions:2014/Art + Feminism Edit-a-thons"

From WikiConference North America
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 65: Line 65:
# I can talk about lessons learned from the [http://seattleattic.com Seattle Attic]'s edit-a-thon. [[User:Fhocutt|Fhocutt]] ([[User talk:Fhocutt|talk]]) 03:00, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
# I can talk about lessons learned from the [http://seattleattic.com Seattle Attic]'s edit-a-thon. [[User:Fhocutt|Fhocutt]] ([[User talk:Fhocutt|talk]]) 03:00, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
# --[[User:Another Believer|Another Believer]] ([[User talk:Another Believer|talk]]) 12:01, 8 April 2014 (EDT) (I helped out at the Portland, Oregon edit-a-thon)
# ''Add your username here.''
# ''Add your username here.''

Revision as of 16:01, 8 April 2014

Title of the submission
Art + Feminism Edit-a-thons
Themes (Proposal Themes - Community, Tech, Outreach, GLAM, Education)
Community, Outreach, GLAM
Type of submission (Presentation Types - Panel, Workshop, Presentation, etc)
Author of the submission
Michael Mandiberg
E-mail address
US state or country of origin
New York
Affiliation, if any (organization, company etc.)
Personal homepage or blog
Abstract (at least 300 words to describe your proposal)

On February 1st, 2014, approximately 600 participants, convened in 31 locations in 6 Countries (USA, Canada, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom) to edit articles on Art+Feminism. During this day, at least 101 new articles created, and at least 90 articles improved. Highlights from the 40+ press stories include a LA Weekly feature story, the most shared article in ARTnews history, and a 30 minute podcast from Bitch Magazine. More info here, including press coverage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/FAQ

Wikipedia’s gender trouble is well documented. In a 2010 survey, Wikimedia found that less than 13% of its contributors are female. The reasons for the gender gap are up for debate: suggestions include leisure inequality, how gender socialization shapes public comportment, and the contentious nature of Wikipedia’s talk pages. However, the practical effect of this disparity is not: content is skewed by the lack of female participation, resulting in systemic absences in an increasingly important repository of shared knowledge.

This project also comes on the heels of the "American women novelists" debate. After several notable op-eds and much discussion on social media platforms, we wanted to help give people the training to shape the conversation directly on Wikipedia.

The panel will consist of key New York City organizers: Sian Evans, Dorothy Howard, Richard Knipel, Jacqueline Mabey, and Michael Mandiberg, as well as any organizers of satellite events who are in attendance at the conference.

By all accounts, this was a success, with some saying this may have been the largest multi-location edit-a-thon ever. The panel will both interrogate assumptions about what constitutes success, and to share parts of our process that we feel were most crucial in enabling this outcome:

Some questions about what constitutes success:

The prevailing Wikipedia attitude that seems to privilege the search for elite level editors as the goal of all outreach. Because the 2012 case study did not conclusively show that there were new retained editors, some in the community have decided that meet ups are not a worthwhile effort. Was the ultimate goal of the edit sprint to produce bodies of knowledge or correct a historical record? Or was it more an act of feminist performance and intervention whose goal lies primarily in political consciousness-raising? We wish to argue:

  1. that there are many more reasons to hold in person meetups
  2. that the number of elite level editors is such a small percentage of the overall editor population, that it is unlikely to find any of them in any one editathon
  3. that we think there will be a higher level of retention in the Art+Feminism editathon because of its subject specific theme.

Things we want to share with the larger Wikipedia organizing community:

  1. The way we did off wiki outreach, including Facebook, and organizational mailing lists
  2. Set up a dedicated email for publicity and organizing and shared the password with key organizers
  3. Building a new audience, rather than working inside of the existing Wikipedia community
  4. Choosing a topic based off of interest, rather than resources
  5. Connecting on the ground organizers with ambassadors

We seek the feedback of the Wikipedia community in ways of making this process work smoother with the existing Wikipedia infrastructure, and processes. Part of what made this successful was working outside of Wikipedia, but we feel that we could have done a better job of working with existing tools and practices as well.

Length of presentation/talk (see Presentation Types for lengths of different presentation types)
75 Minutes (though flexible)
Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?
Slides or further information (optional)
Special request as to time of presentations

Interested attendees

If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (~~~~).

  1. I can talk about lessons learned from the Seattle Attic's edit-a-thon. Fhocutt (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
  2. --Another Believer (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2014 (EDT) (I helped out at the Portland, Oregon edit-a-thon)
  3. Add your username here.