Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/WITipedia Women in STEM Edit-a-thon (ID: 22694205)/Final Report
Application type: Standard application
Part 1: Project and impact
1. Describe the implemented activities and results achieved. Additionally, share which approaches were most effective in supporting you to achieve the results. (required)
Summary We organized the WITipedia Women in STEM Edit-a-thon at the Wentworth Institute of Technology on March 17, 2025 with the goal of improving stub and start articles about women in STEM fields. To involve students throughout the campus in the event, we coordinated with multiple faculty members, who included the edit-a-thon in their course or incentivized participation in various ways. Some faculty built in time to train students in appropriate research methods, and all participants were given a crash course in editing Wikipedia. To support and advertise the event, we held an event logo design competition with a cash prize. During the edit-a-thon, we featured current students giving short “lightning talks” and a keynote address from a young alumna who discussed her experiences. During the event, 174 editors improved 134 articles on English language Wikipedia, including the addition of 282 new references (https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wentworth_Institute_of_Technology/WITipedia_Women_in_STEM_Edit-a-thon_(March_17,_2025)/home). Funding from the Wikimedia foundation paid for event catering over eight hours as well as honoraria for the winner of the logo design competition and a keynote speaker.
Event schedule 9am: Event start, editing demo, coffee and tea 10am: Lightning talks by Carla Santana and Amelia Read, editing demo 12pm: Pizza, editing demo 1pm: Keynote address by Alexa Bellezza (Class of 2023), editing demo, coffee and tea 2:30pm: Lightning talk by Brooke Finlay 3pm: Editing demo 3:30pm: Lightning talk by Cannelle Bocco 4:45pm: Event wrap-up
Editing resources At several times during the event, timed to coincide with new classes of students joining, a crash course in Wikipedia editing was given. This began with the five pillars of Wikipedia, proceeded to an anecdote illustrating the need for editing articles about women in STEM (Physics Nobel winner Donna Strickland not having a page until winning the award), and culminated in a live editing demonstration showing participants how to use the visual editor to modify text, add links, and add citations. This information was also included in a handout. The entire campus community was free to drop in and out at any time during the event from 9am to 5pm, and students from ten course sections participated from various disciplines (and from eight participating faculty members). Some courses had students choose subjects ahead of time, usually chosen from a pre-defined list. For example, students in the History of Technology selected articles about the Harvard Computers. Others worked from discipline-specific lists that were generated using Wikipedia category tags. In general, twice as many potential articles were assembled per student in a class so that students had a variety of options and would be free to pivot to work on articles with more readily available sources or in need of different types of article improvements. Further, at a Resource Table in the event space, research librarians were on hand to assist with finding information about article subjects.
Talks Four current students spoke on topics related to the theme of women in STEM, including experiences of imposter syndrome, attending the Conferences for Undergraduate Women and Gender Minorities in Physics, intersectionality, and changing majors and experiencing radically different gender ratios. Our keynote address was given by a young alumna of our civil engineering program. Her talk went over her two cooperative education experiences while at Wentworth and how they prepared her for her first role out of college at a woman-owned engineering firm. She then discussed what her experience in the work force has been like and some of the projects that she has worked on in and around the city of Boston. Several participants asked for (and received) the speaker’s contact information. Current speakers were selected in consultation with participating faculty. Contacting alumni (also recommended by faculty) through the university proved slow and so we conducted outreach via LinkedIn.
Survey Students in classes that required participation were asked to complete both a pre- and a post-survey. Students were asked to rate their agreement with these four statements: “I feel engaged in addressing gender bias in STEM,” “I am interested in learning about the work of women in STEM fields,” “I am familiar with editing Wikipedia,” and “I am likely to make at least one edit to Wikipedia in the next year outside of the edit-a-thon.” Before the event, students also had the option to answer “What do you hope to learn during the edit-a-thon?” After the event, students had the option to respond to: “What is one thing that you learned during the edit-a-thon” and “What would you change about the edit-a-thon.” The response rate was not 100%, and tying participation incentives to survey completion may be a useful strategy. The results are discussed in more detail later in this report and an anonymized copy of the responses is linked to.
Logo design competition The event title, WITipedia, is a combination of Wikipedia and the university’s informal acronym, WIT. To build identity and excitement around the event, we held a logo design competition with a $300 prize in Fall of 2024. We received 15 logo submissions after advertising across campus with flyers and through faculty in the School of Architecture and Design. These logo submissions were voted on by the event organizers and one was selected. The winning logo was used on advertising for the event, day-of presentations and handouts, and for stickers handed out during the event. The submitted logos were featured on a poster at the event (with designer submission). Submissions and voting were handled through Google forms. Specifying a single file type for submissions would have streamlined the process (vector graphics were specified).
Resources used A. Grant-funded materials and resources: a. Logo design competition i. $300 honorarium for the competition winner ii. $85.75 to print stickers with the logo for distribution at the event (vendor: UPrint) b. Edit-a-thon catering i. $427.20 coffee (regular and decaf) and tea service catered in the morning and afternoon of the event (vendor: Sodexo) ii. $708.59 pizza orders (vendor: Cappy’s Pizza and Sub) iii. $137.21 snack orders (vendor: Staples) c. Edit-a-thon speakers i. $300 honorarium for alumna keynote speaker B. Supplemental materials and resources: a. Logo design competition i. Flyers to advertise the competition (Wentworth School of Sciences and Humanities) ii. Google Forms to manage design submissions iii. Google Forms to manage design selection by edit-a-thon staff b. Edit-a-thon advertising i. Flyers (Wentworth School of Sciences and Humanities) ii. Wentworth Institute of Technology events calendar iii. In-class announcements by participating faculty iv. Posters for A-frame stands outside of venue the day-of (Wentworth School of Sciences and Humanities) c. Edit-a-thon catering i. $23.75 snack orders (vendor: Staples) d. Edit-a-thon speakers i. Four student speakers donated time and prepared short presentations e. Other edit-a-thon items i. Sign-in table staffing (Wentworth School of Sciences and Humanities) ii. Use of space on Wentworth campus with projector, projector screen, podium, microphone iii. Tables and chairs (Wentworth Facilities) iv. Power strips (Wentworth Facilities) v. Stands for signage designating sign-in and resource tables (Wentworth Facilities) vi. A/V Support technician (Wentworth TechSpot) vii. Photographs taken during part of the event (Wentworth Marketing and Communications)
2. Documentation of your impact. Please use space below to share links that help tell your story, impact, and evaluation. (required)
Share links to:
- Project page on Meta-Wiki or any other Wikimedia project
- Dashboards and tools that you used to track contributions
- Some photos or videos from your event. Remember to share access.
You can also share links to:
- Important social media posts
- Surveys and their results
- Infographics and sound files
- Examples of content edited on Wikimedia projects
Event Dashboard: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wentworth_Institute_of_Technology/WITipedia_Women_in_STEM_Edit-a-thon_(March_17,_2025)/home
Institutional webpages: https://wit.edu/news/annual-women-stem-edit-thon-held-ceis https://www.flickr.com/photos/wentworth-institute/albums/72177720324845292/
A selection of social media posts related to the event: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7315161932339040256-E1LT?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACj1qh4BkSnRJVukCxxHdI-CMMGBux185WM https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7307564309994172416-OXvS?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACj1qh4BkSnRJVukCxxHdI-CMMGBux185WM https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7307760353789071360-bzBI?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACj1qh4BkSnRJVukCxxHdI-CMMGBux185WM https://www.linkedin.com/posts/school-of-sciences-and-humanities_womeninstem-wikipediaeditathon-activity-7310667720365080576-mR5G?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACj1qh4BkSnRJVukCxxHdI-CMMGBux185WM https://www.linkedin.com/posts/wentworth-institute-of-technology_witipedia-wikipedia-stem-ugcPost-7313703704312909824-Ey43?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACj1qh4BkSnRJVukCxxHdI-CMMGBux185WM
Folder with: survey results, event handout, event slideshow, event signage and advertising, and winning logo competition design: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ivnGi8nrAY5iqMkpqJ9yi368j7bHBvS6?usp=drive_link
Additionally, share the materials and resources that you used in the implementation of your project. (required)
For example:
- Training materials and guides
- Presentations and slides
- Work processes and plans
- Any other materials your team has created or adapted and can be shared with others
Folder with: survey results, event handout, event slideshow, event signage and advertising, and winning logo competition design: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ivnGi8nrAY5iqMkpqJ9yi368j7bHBvS6?usp=drive_link
3. To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the work carried out with this Rapid Fund? You can choose “not applicable” if your work does not relate to these goals. Required. Select one option per question. (required)
| A. Bring in participants from underrepresented groups | Neither agree nor disagree |
| B. Create a more inclusive and connected culture in our community | Agree |
| C. Develop content about underrepresented topics/groups | Strongly agree |
| D. Develop content from underrepresented perspectives | Neither agree nor disagree |
| E. Encourage the retention of editors | Agree |
| F. Encourage the retention of organizers | Agree |
| G. Increased participants' feelings of belonging and connection to the movement | Strongly agree |
| F. Other (optional) |
Part 2: Learning
4. In your application, you outlined some learning questions. What did you learn from these learning questions when you implemented your project? How do you hope to use this learnings in the future? You can recall these learning questions below. (required)
You can recall these learning questions below: Learning questions: 1. To what extent will participation in editing Wikipedia biographies lead students to identify as engaging in addressing gender bias in STEM? 2. What subject-matter learning gains will students report after editing the biographies of STEM professionals on Wikipedia? 3. How can a Wikipedia edit-a-thon act as a cross-curricular meeting point for courses across a university?
1. To what extent will participation in editing Wikipedia biographies lead students to identify as engaging in addressing gender bias in STEM? Our data suggest that participating in the edit-a-thon had a significant impact on the degree to which participants feel they are engaged in addressing gender bias in STEM. Of 92 unique respondents to a pre-event survey and 70 unique respondents to a post-event survey (both distributed to participating courses), there were 44 respondents to both surveys. Respondents rated their agreement with the statement “I feel engaged in addressing gender bias in STEM” on a Likert scale from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (5). Looking at the common respondents, we see a pre-survey average of 3.61 and a post-survey average of 4.05. A one-sided paired t-test results in a null hypothesis (no increase in average) of acceptance probability of 0.00015, or less than 0.1%. A dose of caution is required here on the grounds that participants were aware of the edit-a-thon goals and that their professors, though not grading their responses, could conceivably be supplied their responses. 2. What subject-matter learning gains will students report after editing the biographies of STEM professionals on Wikipedia? Before the edit-a-thon, we examined this question In a Fall 2024 editing event held in Engineering Physics I (calculus-based introductory classical mechanics) classes by Professor Andrew Seredinski. Students were given instruction, as with the edit-a-thon, to edit articles about women in STEM, here with a focus on physicists. In this case, 56 students participated and completed an exit survey. To the question “I learned something about one or more women physicists today” students responded: Strongly Disagree 4 Disagree 0 Neutral 6 Agree 21 Strongly Agree 25
To the question “I learned some physics today” students responded: Strongly Disagree 4 Disagree 6 Neutral 17 Agree 20 Strongly Agree 8 Based on this pilot, students were more likely to agree that they learned about physicists than they were to agree that they learned physics. Only half agreed or strongly agreed that they learned physics content in the exercise. In this case, students were all in the same course with the same professor and all focused on physics. For the edit-a-thon itself, we made the decision to modify this learning question to find something more easily surveyed across the varied participants. Of the varied courses participating in the edit-a-thon, many of them are not focusing on traditional STEM-content, but connect with the event through its focus on writing, historical persons, or equity. Consequently, we substitute a related learning question: 2*. Will student report higher levels of interest in the work of women in STEM fields after editing the biographies of STEM professionals on Wikipedia? Our data suggest that the edit-a-thon did not significantly increase student interest in the work of women in STEM fields. In the same survey as discussed in question 1, students responded to: “I am interested in learning about the work of women in STEM fields” on the same Likert scale. While the pre-survey results for the paired responses have an average of 4.02 and the post-survey results an average of 4.14, a paired one-sided t-test provides only a roughly 14% probability that the null hypothesis (no increase) is rejected. The initial responses here were quite high on the scale, and so there was little room for increase for many respondents. Participants in this edit-a-thon may be pre-disposed to being interested in the contributions of women in STEM (hence participating in the edit-a-thon, or enrolling in some of the connected courses, such as US Women in the 21st Century). 3. How can a Wikipedia edit-a-thon act as a cross-curricular meeting point for courses across a university? This question was not surveyed, but considered through the participating courses. The event connects to a variety of learning objectives across courses. These include learning objectives related to ethics (including discrimination and issues of inclusion), writing skills, analytical skills, direct course content, and engagement with scientific literature. This is a single event with different facets that are appealing to faculty in different disciplines. One piece of this that is potentially absent is connection across participating courses. For example, students in a participating chemistry course did not directly interact with students in a participating history course.
To respond to the prompts in Part 1, Question 3, items E and G of this report, we sought to determine also how participation in the edit-a-thon impacted students confidence with editing Wikipedia and likelihood to edit in the future. Our data suggest that the edit-a-thon significantly increased student familiarity with editing Wikipedia. In the same survey as discussed in question 1, students responded to: “I am familiar with editing Wikipedia” on the same Likert scale. While the pre-survey results for the paired responses have an average of 1.95 (an average of “somewhat disagree”) and the post-survey results an average of 3.34 (higher than “neither agree nor disagree”), a paired one-sided t-test provides a vanishingly small probability (~10^-6 %) that the null hypothesis (no increase) is not rejected. A final question reads “I am likely to make at least one edit to Wikipedia in the next year outside of the edit-a-thon” with an increase in average response from 2.20 to 2.65. The likelihood that the null hypothesis is not rejected (using the same one-sided t-test) is ~1%. This is a modest, but potentially significant, increase in likelihood to edit.
How will we use these results in the future? Broadly, these results are encouraging that this sort of event leads students to feel engaged with Wikipedia and with addressing gender bias. We see them as useful for supporting future work and will present them to future campus partners. We also see these results as encouraging more detailed looks at how students do or do not engage with the platform following the event (which can be readily determined through their Wiki accounts), and how students feel that their editing relates to their studies and to equity work (which will likely require more detailed qualitative data gathering). The results from the Engineering Physics I class are likely to be included in a larger pedagogical paper on adapting the Wikipedia edit-a-thon to a physics lab assignment.
5. Did anything unexpected or surprising happen when implementing your activities? This can include both positive and negative situations. What did you learn from those experiences? (required)
Positive After the alumna’s keynote address, several students requested the speaker’s contact information. We regard this as unexpected, though perhaps not surprising, as it fits well with the goals of showcasing the speaker’s work and post-graduation journey. Some participants posted about their editing work on LinkedIn and this resulted in positive interactions with the wider STEM community.
Negative: While we now have multiple experiences running edit-a-thons through the dashboard tool, we ran into a few account creation glitches in which students were not receiving emails after account creation for one reason or another. We also had a few cases of students repeatedly selecting usernames that were not usable (such as usernames including long strings of numbers) – with students working in a decentralized way in the event space, this was a bit tricky to correct with immediacy. This can be partially dealt with in the future with additional guidance given to participating faculty so that students can immediately approach them with account creation issues (and so that each faculty member can be given event facilitator status). During the edit-a-thon, we became aware that one participant’s contributions had been reverted (with explanation) by another Wikipedian and that this participant re-posted the same changes more than once. This indicated the need for more introduction to the norms of Wikipedia, and more emphasis on how to interact respectfully with other users. Users were steered away from adding images to articles, but several chose to do so anyway. This led to a handful of images being posted without the proper permissions (and promptly, and appropriately, being removed from the platform). It is likely that, unless any participating courses plan to include a focus on images, we will introduce a nominal prohibition on adding images so that participants can focus on making quality text edits.
6. What is your plan to share your project learnings and results with other community members? If you have already done it, describe how. (required)
Results have already been shared with participating faculty and staff via email, including the metrics from the event dashboard and the results of the pre/post survey.
A more detailed analysis will be shared with community members through several channels. First, a poster presentation on the edit-a-thon will be given during the 2025-2026 academic year on the event. This will also serve to advertise future edit-a-thons to the Wentworth Institute of Technology community. Second, a contributed talk will be given at a meeting of the American Physical Society in the 2025-2026 academic year on the organizing and results of this event.
Part 3: Metrics
7. Wikimedia Metrics results. (required)
In your application, you set some Wikimedia targets in numbers (Wikimedia metrics). In this section, you will describe the achieved results and provide links to the tools used.
| Target | Results | Comments and tools used | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 200 | 179 | Determined via a sign-in sheet and a university ID swipe machine. |
| Number of editors | 200 | 174 | Based on the Outreach Dashboard.
Newly registered users: Goal: 150 Actual: 162*
|
| Number of organizers | 25 | 24 | Faculty assisting editors: 9
Librarians assisting editors: 4 Other editing support staff: 3 Technical support staff: 3 Event speakers: 5 |
| Wikimedia project | Target | Result - Number of created pages | Result - Number of improved pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia | 150 | 1 | 134 |
| Wikimedia Commons | 10 | 5 | 0 |
| Wikidata | |||
| Wiktionary | |||
| Wikisource | |||
| Wikimedia Incubator | |||
| Translatewiki | |||
| MediaWiki | |||
| Wikiquote | |||
| Wikivoyage | |||
| Wikibooks | |||
| Wikiversity | |||
| Wikinews | |||
| Wikispecies | |||
| Wikifunctions or Abstract Wikipedia |
8. Other Metrics results.
In your proposal, you could also set Other Metrics targets. Please describe the achieved results and provide links to the tools used if you set Other Metrics in your application.
| Other Metrics name | Metrics Description | Target | Result | Tools and comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
9. Did you have any difficulties collecting data to measure your results? (required)
Yes
9.1. Please state what difficulties you had. How do you hope to overcome these challenges in the future? Do you have any recommendations for the Foundation to support you in addressing these challenges? (required)
We ran into some difficulty with tracking the total number of participants as we had intended. This was due to a technical issue with the swipe-in system using university ID’s. A handwritten backup was created that was nearly complete once this issue became clear.
The dashboard participants give a close number that for many purposes could be used for the total number (though it is slightly lower as it does not include supporting staff and faculty who did not make edits). However, this is largely anonymized as participants are not readily identifiable by their usernames in most cases.
Part 4: Financial reporting
[edit]10. Please state the total amount spent in your local currency. (required)
1935
11. Please state the total amount spent in US dollars. (required)
1935
12. Report the funds spent in the currency of your fund. (required)
Upload the financial report
12.2. If you have not already done so in your financial spending report, please provide information on changes in the budget in relation to your original proposal. (optional)
No items were changed, but the prices for pizza, stickers, and coffee increased between the proposal and the purchases. The budget for snacks was reduced by the commensurate amount, with the Wentworth School of Sciences and Humanities choosing to supply some additional funding for snacks ($23.75).
13. Do you have any unspent funds from the Fund?
No
13.1. Please list the amount and currency you did not use and explain why.
N/A
13.2. What are you planning to do with the underspent funds?
N/A
13.3. Please provide details of hope to spend these funds.
N/A
14.1. Are you in compliance with the terms outlined in the fund agreement?
Yes
14.2. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement?
Yes
14.3. Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement? In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the WMF mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.
Yes
15. If you have additional recommendations or reflections that don’t fit into the above sections, please write them here. (optional)
Review notes
[edit]Review notes from Program Officer:
N/A
Applicant's response to the review feedback.
N/A