Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/WITipedia Women in STEM Edit-a-thon 2026 (ID: 23634802)/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 an 11-hour Wikipedia edit-a-thon focused on start and c-class biography articles about women in STEM fields. This event was held at the Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston, MA, and was incorporated as an assignment into a number of courses at the institution. Throughout the day, more than 200 participants added more than 48,000 words and 380 references to ~200 articles (event dashboard: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wentworth_Institute_of_Technology/WITipedia_Women_in_STEM_Edit-a-thon_2026_(March_16,_2026)). There were a series of talks given by current students and a keynote given by an alumna of the university. Food was provided, background music was played, and research and editing support was available throughout. Finally, we raffled off an event-branded mug every few hours throughout the day. Event schedule: 8am – Event start, coffee and donuts, editing demo 9am – Lightning talk by Christina Issa (current student) 10am – Lightning talk by Kristina Ocasio Ruiz (current student), editing demo 12pm – Pizza, Keynote address by Melissa Srey (Technical Program Manager at BOSE, WIT alumna) 1pm – Editing demo 2pm - Lightning talk by Nasra Jama (current student), editing demo 3pm – Editing demo 4pm – Lightning talk by Bella Waycott (current student) 5pm – Editing demo 6pm – Wollastons (sandwiches), lightning talk by Sofia Henriques (current student) 7pm – Event end Note on the schedule: we extended the event an additional two hours beyond what was planned in the proposal as a faculty member was interested in bringing their class that met from 5pm to 6:45pm. Talks: We spaced talks so that all classes scheduled to attend the event would intersect with one, prioritizing talks at the start of classes to minimize editing interruptions. Five students gave ten-minute “lightning talks” throughout the event associated with the theme of women in STEM. Students chose topics such as: stereotype threat, their experience of being a women at the Wentworth Institute of Technology, their mother’s journey in a male dominated STEM field, and women’s reproductive health. Additionally, around lunch time we had an alumna serve as our keynote speaker and give a talk about their path in STEM and then run a question-and-answer session. The speaker stayed for several hours after their talk to meet individually with interested students. Editing resources: Throughout the event, a resources table was present in the center of the event space staffed by a librarian and one or more other volunteers (such as participating faculty). Students were encouraged to go to the resource table with questions about finding sources for articles and about editing. Additionally, students were given a handout with instructions for joining the event dashboard and some of the basics of editing Wikipedia. Throughout the event (generally when a new class joined) there were short presentations that introduced Wikipedia, its Five Pillars, and the basics of editing with the visual editor – students were shown specifically how to edit text, how to add references, and how to add links to other Wikipedia pages. When no presentations were being given, a PowerPoint looped on a projector in the event space highlighting the resource table and types of edits that participants might consider. Survey: Participants who joined as part of an academic class were asked to complete a pre- and post-survey as part of their class’s edit-a-thon-associated assignment. Details of the surveys are included in Part 2 of this report. Raffle: Roughly every two hours during the event, an event-branded mug was raffled off. Participants had the option of entering the raffle on entry to the event space and were asked to limit themselves to one entry. Winners were announced to the entire event space and any winners who were no longer in attendance were contacted by email and connected with their mugs in the following days. Resources used: Our event space, the Zorica Pantic Commons of the Center for Engineering, Innovation, and Sciences (CEIS) at the Wentworth Institute of Technology, and associated resources are detailed in the documents “2025 editathon layout.pdf” and “Event_Confirmation_WITipedia Women in STEM Edit-a-thon 2026_2025-AACAQS.pdf” included in a Google Drive linked below. Resources included: tables, chairs, outlets and extension cords, podium, microphone, laptop, projector, projector screen, holders for signs. These resources did not involve any charges to the grant. The grant funded: 1) custom coffee mugs with an event logo ($282.89, 25 mugs, given to volunteers, speakers, and raffled off to participants), 2) a keynote speaker honorarium ($300), and 3) food and beverages ($398.82 for pizza, $137.61 for coffee and water, $63.21 for donuts and bagels, $281.05 for various snacks throughout the event). Another significant resource used for this event was class time. Fifteen course section meetings were held at the edit-a-thon or were made optional due to the edit-a-thon. Eight faculty brought students to the event or incentivized students to participate in the event. We had set a goal of increasing the number of participating faculty, especially through a partnership with Applied Math faculty. This fell through during planning, and instead we also worked with Wentworth’s chapter of the Society of Women Engineers (SWE). SWE brought members to the event, provided one of our student speakers, and contributed budget to the event by purchasing the dinner provided to participants at around 6pm (associated subs and cookies, ~$135).
Previous work: This was the third annual campus-wide Wikipedia edit-a-thon organized around improving articles about women in STEM. The 2024 edit-a-thon was funded with an internal grant and the 2025 edit-a-thon was funded by Wikimedia Rapid Fund grant RF-2406-16205 2024 event dashboard: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wentworth_Institute_of_Technology/SoSH_Women_in_STEM_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon 2025 event dashboard: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wentworth_Institute_of_Technology/WITipedia_Women_in_STEM_Edit-a-thon_(March_17,_2025) Article detailing the planning and outcomes of the 2024 event: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-025-00702-4 Grant report for 2025 event: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Rapid_Fund/WITipedia_Women_in_STEM_Edit-a-thon_(ID:_22694205)/Final_Report
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
Drive with photos: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BdfuzfJbvHlTb72Rnyh1nFZOR4glNZh6?usp=drive_link
Social media posts: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/melissaphung_womeninstem-engineering-stemeducation-activity-7438293769210236928-BM4Z https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ugcPost-7439483946842763264-ExiV?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACj1qh4BkSnRJVukCxxHdI-CMMGBux185WM https://www.linkedin.com/posts/share-7440067529777156096--Ztx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACj1qh4BkSnRJVukCxxHdI-CMMGBux185WM
Survey and results: Included in the survey subfolder are pdfs of the survey forms as well as an excel with the responses to the pre and post surveys as well as a page with paired responses for respondents who completed both. Responses have been anonymized and information on which courses students may have participated with has been correspondingly removed https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BdfuzfJbvHlTb72Rnyh1nFZOR4glNZh6
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
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BdfuzfJbvHlTb72Rnyh1nFZOR4glNZh6
Edit-a-thon Day-of 2026.pptx includes the slides used for orienting participants the day-of as well as slides introducing speakers and for the conclusion of the event. Edit-a-thon Day-of for Loop 2026.pptx includes slides left running throughout the event to point participants towards resources, reinforce some information about editing, and make the space a bit more dynamic.
2026 schedule.xlsx shows the planned event timeline from 8am to 7pm. Shown are the timeslots for speakers and for food. A key piece was organizing participating courses and so most of the chart indicates when different courses will attend. Also noted are participating courses that did not meet during the event time, with a calculation for how many students were expected throughout the event based on attendance patterns at our 2024 edit-a-thon (pulled from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-025-00702-4). The prediction was 204 students – in the end, 224 attendees swiped into the event. A few of these were not students, and so our prediction was comfortably within 10%.
Biol1750 Spring 2026_project description_Women in STEM Wikipedia Edit-a-thon.pdf shows the assignment given to participants enrolled in an anatomy and physiology II (biology) course. SSH Women in STEM Wikipedia Edit-a-thon_grading rubrics.pdf provides the rubrics used for this assignment. Both were prepared by team member Nadine Stecher, Assistant Professor, School of Sciences and Humanities. WikiAssignmentFLM2026.pdf and ResearchPaperSp2026FLM.pdf detail assignments associated with and pulling from participating in the edit-a-thon for students enrolled in ENGL1100 (English I). Both were prepared by team member Faith Litchock-Morellato, Assistant Professor, School of Sciences and Humanities. Wikipedia Editathon Prep - PICTURES MEDIA & US POLITICS-HIST-4200-01, 02.pdf and Wikipedia Editathon Contributions (to complete during or right after the Editathon) - PICTURES MEDIA & US POLITICS-HIST-4200-01, 02.pdf are the pre- and post- edit-a-thon assignments for students enrolled in HIST4200 (Pictures, Media, and US Politics). Both were prepared by team member Allison Lange, Professor, School of Sciences and Humanities.
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 | Agree |
| 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 | Neither agree nor disagree |
| F. Encourage the retention of organizers | Neither agree nor disagree |
| G. Increased participants' feelings of belonging and connection to the movement | 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 in an edit-a-thon lead students to identify as engaging in addressing gender bias in STEM and as Wikipedians? 2. What learning gains will students report or demonstrate after editing the biographies of STEM professionals on Wikipedia? 3. What edit types does this academic edit-a-thon structure encourage (e.g. adding new information, organizing existing article information, improving mechanics or tone, adding links to and from other articles) and what supports enable higher quality editing by platform newcomers in this context?
1. To what extent will participation in editing Wikipedia biographies in an edit-a-thon lead students to identify as engaging in addressing gender bias in STEM and as Wikipedians? We provided participants with four pre/post survey prompts to address this learning question. For each, participants responded on a Likert scale (1 to 5 with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree). We did not ask directly “do you identify as…” for each of these and attempted to associate attitudes and behaviors with the identifications of interest. We also sought to limit the survey length to encourage thoughtful completion. We note that some student were incentivized to complete the surveys as part of their coursework. The first two focused on gender bias: A) I take actions or seek opportunities to support gender equity in STEM and B) I am interested in learning about the work of women in STEM fields. The second two focused on Wikipedia: C) I am familiar with editing Wikipedia, D) I am likely to make at least one edit to Wikipedia in the next year outside of the edit-a-thon. We had 131 participants who completed both the pre- and post-surveys. Multiple survey completions by the same individual were precluded by linking responses to institutional email addresses. We are not generally able to link survey responses to edit-a-thon contributions. Below we summarize the survey results, with paired, two-sided t-tests applied to the pre- and post-responses, and giving the corresponding p-value. The p-value is roughly the probability (as a decimal) that the difference shown in the samples is the result of random variation and not a real difference in the populations (so not a real difference based on the intervention of edit-a-thon participation). If the p-value is below some threshold (a high as 5% is sometimes used in the social sciences), we claim a statistically significant change and interpret this as evidence of a real difference between pre and post survey responses and an impact of the edit-a-thon.
Prompt 1: I take actions or seek opportunities to support gender equity in STEM Mean (Pre): 3.82; Mean (post): 4.01 t-statistic: 3.26; p-value: 0.0014 Prompt 2: I am interested in learning about the work of women in STEM fields Mean (Pre): 4.28; Mean (post): 4.22 t-statistic: -1.18; p-value: 0.24 Prompt 3: I am familiar with editing Wikipedia Mean (Pre): 1.85; Mean (post): 3.34 t-statistic: 11.87; p-value: <0.0001
For the questions on gender bias: we see a statistically significant increase in the Likert response to “I take actions or seek opportunities to support gender equity in STEM.” This supports the idea that participation in the edit-a-thon increases the degree to which participants identify as engaging in addressing gender bias. The increase is modest (less than 0.2 points), but the starting average was already nearing 4 out of 5. We see no statistically significant change in responses to the prompt “I am interested in learning about the work of women in STEM fields.” We then find no strong support that the edit-a-thon increases (or decreases) interest in learning about the work of women in STEM fields, a potential component of identifying as engaged in addressing gender bias in STEM. Interestingly, the average response decreased slightly. There was a high average to begin with (near 4.3). It may be that the respondent population was already interested in learning about the work of women in STEM fields (perhaps influencing their choice to participate in the edit-a-thon). For the questions on Wikipedia: we see a highly statistically significant increase in the Likert response to “I am familiar with editing Wikipedia” from below 2 (disagree) to above 3 (neither agree nor disagree). We also see a significant but more modest increase to “I am likely to make at least one edit to Wikipedia in the next year outside of the edit-a-thon.” These suggest an increase in participant familiarity with editing Wikipedia and interest in editing Wikipedia, attitudes that one might associate with Wikipedians. We report this with a significant caveat. While participants indicate an increased likelihood of editing Wikipedia in the future, we do not have evidence that they then are more likely to edit Wikipedia. We are limited here by not having a control population of non-edit-a-thon participants, but we do have data from similar 2024 and 2025 edit-a-thons run on our campus and other editing events. Pulling together a list of all unique Wikipedia accounts from these past editing events, we can see if participants then used those same accounts to make later edits to the platform. In short, they did not. Out of 503 accounts registered with the event and course dashboards (left after removing obvious duplicates), 135 never edited, 261 edited only on one day, most others edited over the course of one semester (and were part of a semester-long WikiEdu course), and a few were part of multiple events over a year or more. After manual checking of the user pages, only two accounts created for the events/courses were identified as having made edits after the event/course periods. A plot of account survival (as compiled on 12/18/2025) is included in the associated Google Drive folder as is a document with links to all associated Dashboards from which accounts were pulled for this analysis. We include in that charts accounts that existed before the edit-a-thon and define survival as time between account creation and most recent edit. We conclude overall that participants at the Wentworth Institute of Technology were more likely after participating in this edit-a-thon and similar events to indicate that they would continue editing Wikipedia, but highly unlikely to continue editing on the platform within the coming months. It may be that the academic context is the largest factor here – most participants are students editing Wikipedia for a course. 2. What learning gains will students report or demonstrate after editing the biographies of STEM professionals on Wikipedia? We evaluated this question through an optional question on the event post survey and through some course-specific assignments that some participants completed. There were 72 responses to the optional question on the post survey. Most noted that they learned how to edit Wikipedia. About 1/5 of respondents noted learning about specific individuals (the subjects of the articles they worked on, or in one case the keynote speaker). Other meaningful themes include finding trusted sources of information and awareness of the underrepresentation of women in STEM or specifically in biography articles on Wikipedia. In eight paragraph-long responses from students in an advanced physics course, similar themes emerged. Most noted learning how to edit Wikipedia, or how easy it is to edit Wikipedia. Most indicated something they learned about their article subjects. Half referenced underrepresentation of women in STEM or bias impacting the creation and quality of biography articles. Only one of eight focused on content that they learned beyond a reference to the work of their article’s subject. 3. What edit types does this academic edit-a-thon structure encourage (e.g. adding new information, organizing existing article information, improving mechanics or tone, adding links to and from other articles) and what supports enable higher quality editing by platform newcomers in this context? To understand this, we downloaded the course articles data from the event dashboard, sorted by namespace (just looking at Wikipedia articles and not userpages, etc.), removed decidedly unrelated article edits, and then looked at the edit history of a sample of 50 out of 191 remaining articles. We used edit summaries to determine what categories of edit to apply where possible and looked for tags and subsequent edits that would indicate reversion of the edits. We did not, in this process, assess the appropriateness of edits other than to note reversion status. Summary of sampled edits (Tag: proportion tag applies to) 1) New information: 0.82 2) Reorganizing or rewriting: 0.16 3) Mechanics: 0.36 4) Linking: 0.14 5) Infobox: 0.02 6) Reverted: 0.32 (022*)
- There was a great deal of variety in reversions. For 2/16 articles with reverted edits by our editors, we found that the editors themselves had reverted their work. In another 3/16, another editor in the edit-a-thon reverted their work. This leaves 11/16, or overall 0.22 of edits reverted by the broader Wikipedia community (including one by a bot). This stat is perhaps more to the point as we are interested in what costs are externalized to the broader Wikipedia community as we introduce these new editors to the platform. Within those 11 articles we found great variety as well, most concerningly a copyright removal and an instance of approximately the same edit being applied and reverted more than once.
Most (82%) of the articles sampled had edits applied by participants that appeared to be new information for the article. While the event itself provided resources naming multiple sorts of edits, it’s fair to say that adding new information and citations was encouraged, where appropriate. About one third of edits (36%) appeared to be for mechanics or technical corrections (like citation formatting). Smaller fractions indicated reorganization of existing material or adding links to other Wikipedia pages, and only one of the sampled articles showed an edit by a participant that noted the creation of an infobox. All but one articles that showed edit-a-thon -associated reversions included the addition of new information to the article. To return to the question at hand, it is clear that the incentives of the assignments associated with the edit-a-thon and/or the edit-a-thon materials encouraged participants to add information to these less-developed biography articles. Based on the number of reversions in this sample (something like 1/5 to 1/3 depending on how it is counted), it is clear that additional supports are needed. The background level of reverts is closer to 1/20 (https://en.wikiscan.org/?menu=tables&submenu=reverts), though this comparison is not with solely new accounts whose edits may be treated differently. There are instances even in this sample of participants making edits that they were asked not to make in the instructions all participants received, and so the necessary support is likely not as simple as more time spent explaining the rules to participants. Supports could include using only assignments with some “check” step where participants must evaluate their drafted changes against policies and best practices, or that mandate peer-review of edits by other participants. At the most extreme, review by event volunteers could be implemented, though this may make it difficult for participants to build agency and confidence on the platform. Generally, these supports pull away from a free-flowing event where participants can drop in and out as they please and more towards additional structure to improve orientation and follow-through. We learned several other things in this sampling that weren’t directly related to our learning question. In 25/50 articles sampled, we found more than one edit-a-thon participant applied edits to the article. This was surprising, as students were able to assign articles to themselves with the goal of limiting simultaneous edits by others. We believe there are several reasons for this happening: 1) students may have assigned and then un-assigned articles after they completed editing, 2) students may have worked in small groups (in some classes they were encouraged to do so), and 3) a specific, experienced editor who took part in the event made technical and formatting corrections to many edits as the event was ongoing. In a few cases, these articles included edits by other editors that appeared to be part of the edit-a-thon (new accounts editing articles on the event list) but who were not registered on the event dashboard.
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)
There were several unexpected outcomes of our activities that have not been explored earlier in this report. The first is related to a change to this year’s edit-a-thon. For the first time, we asked participants to add a note to their userpage indicating that they were taking part in the edit-a-thon on 3/16/2026 and including the username of the organizer. This hopefully served to communicate to the wider Wikipedia community that these editors were new and part of an edit-a-thon. One way that this played out was a community member reaching out to the organizer to indicate that edits made by a participant (to a page about this community member, a notable figure with a biography article) were not up to Wikipedia’s standards. This user had already reverted those edits. On one hand, this is a success – the organizer was found and contacted when a community member was looking for them. On the other, we would want this feedback also to go to the new editor (and in an encouraging way, if possible). As with past events, we had a few participants who ran into difficulty creating accounts through the event Dashboard when emails did not make it to their accounts. We were usually able to overcome this by the use of another email address. An unambiguously negative outcome is that a participant was blocked from editing Wikipedia. This occurred three days after the edit-a-thon itself and for a student also part of a WikiEdu course – that is, a participant with some of the most preparation for editing and a generally higher knowledge of the norms and standards on the platform. A participant had made changes to a biography article that were reverted (with explanation). This participant then engaged in edit warring and incivility and was subsequently blocked from editing. We take this negative outcome seriously and are aware of our responsibility for the behavior of new editors that we introduce to the platform. One possible intervention is a pre-assignment ahead of participation in the edit-a-thon where students are quizzed about editing and interacting with other Wikipedians rather than passively introduced to this information through spoken and written materials. Another notable outcome is that several edits were flagged for possible plagiarism (seen in Activity > Alerts). Additionally, in our sampling of edits, there were two reversions that suggested the participant’s edit had hallmarks of large language model use. Participants were instructed to put all edits into their own words and not to use AI tools in composing their edits. We conclude it is likely that these instructions (both written and verbal) were not sufficient in all cases to guide editing practice. In pruning unrelated edits from the event data, we found some participants making changes during the event time to articles unrelated to the focus of the edit-a-thon. We take it to be a positive, generally, that participants were empowered to edit the platform and wonder if these editors will continue making edits past the event. On the other hand, this did include at least one edit to a high quality article that was unnecessary (though not harmful or in bad faith). Perhaps participants can be prompted to continue their editing journeys by asking them in the follow-up survey what article they might want to edit in the future that is beyond the scope of the edit-a-thon. A final potentially noteworthy observation is that some reversions of participant edits across different articles were implemented by the same editors not associated with the event. We are not suggesting that these reversions were inappropriate.
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 been shared with participating faculty and staff via email. Specifically, attendance information, dashboard metrics, and survey responses were shared. Participating faculty may have chosen to then report results to participants.
A poster on the edit-a-thon and its outcomes was presented to the broader university community on March 26, 2026 as part of the annual Academic Excellence Showcase organized by our teaching and learning center.
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 | 224 | Determined via a university ID swipe machine |
| Number of editors | 175 | 192 | Conservative estimate based on event Dashboard. 242 accounts registered with the event, of which 50 show no added words, references, etc. These accounts may be associated with 1) intended participants who registered ahead of time but did not attend, 2) participants who worked with partners for the editing, 3) duplicate accounts, or 4) attendees who did not participate. We place the number of editors at 242-50=192. |
| Number of organizers | 25 | 24 | Faculty bringing courses and assisting editors: 8
Librarians assisting editors: 3 Other event support staff: 3 Student volunteers: 4 Event speakers: 6 |
| Wikimedia project | Target | Result - Number of created pages | Result - Number of improved pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia | 150 | 5 | 205 |
| Wikimedia Commons | 3 | 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)
No
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)
Part 4: Financial reporting
[edit]10. Please state the total amount spent in your local currency. (required)
1463.58
11. Please state the total amount spent in US dollars. (required)
1463.58
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)
The food items in the budget changed due to changes in vendors for the pizza and coffee. This decreased the cost of food. Some of this budget was reallocated for snacks, all in support of the edit-a-thon.
13. Do you have any unspent funds from the Fund?
Yes
13.1. Please list the amount and currency you did not use and explain why.
$261.92. We changed vendors for the event's pizza and coffee at the recommendation of a colleague based on their past experience holding events on campus, which resulted in an unexpected cost savings. We opted not to spend the funds ahead of the edit-a-thon in case additional food was needed during the event, which we have run into in past years, to avoid the risk of overspending (or not providing enough food for participants). Our food orders were spot-on and so these funds were not used.
13.2. What are you planning to do with the underspent funds?
C. I am planning to send them back to the WMF
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)