Grants:Project/Chinmayisk/Community toolkit for Greater Diversity/Final

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Report accepted
This report for a Project Grant approved in FY 2017-18 has been reviewed and accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Welcome to this project's final report! This report shares the outcomes, impact and learnings from the grantee's project.

Part 1: The Project[edit]


The Community Toolkit for Greater Diversity (CTGD) project was the first attempt of its kind to develop reference material for diversity and inclusion training tailored to the Indian context and for the open knowledge movement. The specific aims of creating the CTGD were that Indian Wikimedians may use it:

  • To find, identify and address gaps in diversity among contributors
  • To increase the participation of and content pertaining to various underrepresented demographics on Wikipedia and its sister projects, and
  • As reference material that incorporates the voices and active participation of underrepresented demographics.

We created ten different learning modules and one reading list in English encompassing topics of disability, indigeneity, ethnicity, privilege, friendly and welcoming spaces, lived experiences of using the Internet, software tools for addressing gaps in inclusivity, and various intersections of these topics.

The authors of the modules include:

  • a development professional who belongs to an indigenous group and ethnic minority living in a conflict-strained region
  • a disability rights activist who is also a lawyer and public policy professional
  • a lawyer who specialises in restorative justice and child rights
  • an anthropologist who belongs to the adivasi community
  • a seasoned Wikimedian, who has contributed to numerous articles in the Featured, A-Class and Good Article categories
  • and the four members of the project team.

The modules cover a range of topics from life experiences of disabled persons who use the Internet to “epistemic violence” against marginalised populations to a guide on formulating the optimal policies for Wikimedia events to be safe and welcoming for all. The learning modules are hosted on a dedicated website:

In many ways, the very act of carrying out the project was a milestone for the team. Despite the truncated budget sanctioned to us and the Trust and Safety matters that arose during the proposal phase and later, we are happy to have pulled together and delivered a complex and multi-faceted project. The final community toolkit has come with the investment of significant amounts of time, effort and labour of the intellectual and emotional kind. We are grateful to have received the insights and inputs of individuals highly recognised in their domains, who we recruited from our personal and professional networks to function as our advisors and reviewers. We managed to recruit voices both deep within and on the periphery of the open knowledge movement as module writers. We are fortunate to have received the collective contribution of several hundred hours of time and effort pro bono from our advisors, web developers, one module writer, graphics designer, an event facilitator, and even the project team’s own members.

We conducted a training workshop with women Wikimedians, an important outcome of which was that we formed a group in which the members plan to work with each other for their growth as persons and as community members.

In the follow-up interviews we conducted three months after we held the workshop, participants reported that their confidence had increased in terms of:

  • (a) growing the kind of communities they need in order to support their volunteer work in the movement, and
  • (b) thinking about sustainability about their work and the funding it requires.

Most of the participants have reflected on the lessons and begun to incorporate the principles they learnt during the training while designing programs and events for their respective communities. One of the participants stated in the interview that she enlisted an interpreter in an outreach event she organised, which put non-English-speaking participants at ease and helped them gain more from the event. She said, “I have started thinking of the principles of inclusion in structuring and planning for all my work”, which she did instead of considering diversity and inclusion as a separate list of tasks or activities. (Read more about the ways in which the participants say they have benefited from the training: Survey(s) section.)

However, we found that while the members of the communities we worked with or interacted it for purposes of this project have shown a lot of interest in this issue, we feel there is still a long way to go before they can adopt the toolkit in its entirety or take forward our initiative in their respective communities. We wish for such capacity to be developed in the future. The group of participants from the training program are interested in such development, but their pace is slower than we had initially anticipated. More investment is required in training them further, before they can autonomously teach others.

Project Goals[edit]

  • Goal 1: Create learning modules and translate them for the benefit of the Wikimedia communities in India and in order to sensitise them about:
    • (1) identifying different axes of privilege (the Indian context of class, disability, indigeneity, ethnicity, gender and their intersections and how they play out on Wikipedia and its sister projects)
      • We wrote and commissioned to external writers ten learning modules on these topics and their intersections. The external module writers belong to the demographic(s) they have written about. All modules are in English, in the text format, and hosted on a dedicated FOSS-based website ( that is freely and publicly accessible.
    • (2) using wikitools to identify content gaps on Wikipedia and their connection with demographics underrepresented on Wikipedia
      • We commissioned an existing and experienced Wikimedian to write a module about using software tools, including but not limited to Citation Hunt, Program and Evaluation Dashboard, and GLAMorous.
    • (3) organizing events for a group of contributors from various Indian language communities
    • (4) continuing to engage with the group after concluding the event
      • (3) and (4) are covered in learning modules entitled “Organising an inclusive event” and “Making events safe and welcoming”.
  • Goal 2: Organize a two-day training program for contributors from various Wikimedia communities, who are working towards addressing various diversity gaps on Wikipedia and its sister projects.
  • Goal 3: Facilitate the creation of safe spaces by setting up a support group for all people engaged in initiatives to bridge diversity gaps on Wikimedia projects.
    • The participants of the training workshop are now a part of a Telegram group set up for the workshop’s alumni. This group serves as a safe space and a support group. The three female organisers of the workshop (the project team) are also a part of this group. Additionally, we plan to integrate an instant messaging application into the dedicated website for the toolkit (, which will serve as a safe space for discussions about diversity, inclusion and Trust and Safety.

Project Impact[edit]


Planned measure of success
(include numeric target, if applicable)
Actual result Explanation
Create learning modules in text, audio-video and podcast formats in English and translate them for the benefit of the Wikimedia communities in India in order to sensitise them on topics of diversity and inclusion. We created 10 learning modules in English during this project, which are hosted on All learning modules are in text. We were unable to obtain translations for the modules owing to constraints of time and money. We intend to issue an open call for volunteers to translate the modules into different Indic languages and to contextualise them for local communities to be able to adopt them. The approved budget for the project supported funds for text modules, not the video and podcast formats.
Organize a two-day training program for contributors belonging to various Wikimedia communities, who are working towards addressing various diversity gaps on Wikipedia and its sister projects. We conducted a workshop in Goa, India from October 5 to 8, 2018 with 8 participants, all of whom identified themselves as cisgender women. Detailed documentation of the training workshop:
Facilitate the creation of safe spaces by setting up a support group for all people engaged in initiatives to bridge diversity gaps on Wikimedia projects. Telegram group set up and in use by alumni of the training workshop. The organising team of the training program and the participants are now a part of the Telegram which serves as a communication channel and a support group. The support group may be expanded with the efforts of the participants in the future.


We started the project with the goal to create a set of learning modules that the community may use to embrace the culture of inclusivity. We noticed that there was a dearth of contextual learning material created for Wikimedians in and from the Indian subcontinent in a way that would be relatable and practicable for them to improve their understanding of issues of diversity and inclusion. We expected some degree of opposition on account of the contentious topic of the proposed project. However, some of the publicly-displayed reactions to the grant proposal and the project itself were harsh enough to receive Trust and Safety-related measures. For many, the nature of these reactions to the project served as evidence of how much the project was needed, since they point to a culture in which diversity and inclusion are not well understood and often not welcomed. Getting to do the project itself was a milestone for the team, which came with the investment of significant amounts of time, effort and emotional labour.

Identifying and recruiting module writers (outside the project team) was another challenge. We needed writers who had, at a minimum, an idea of the free and open knowledge movement. Additionally, staying true to the spirit of our project, we planned to commission writers who possessed the same core values as us, that is,

  • they treat other people with respect.
  • they have empathy.

We preferred to commission those individuals who do not usually enjoy the opportunity or visibility to voice themselves and find an audience. We also laid an emphasis on prioritising women and trans people as potential contractors. This definitively narrowed the list of people we could potentially commission. The timeline of the project put another restriction on the number of people who we could commission for the amount of fees we could offer them. We managed to contract with seven module writers. These writers were mostly from underrepresented communities and had the necessary lived experience to bring to the project.

During the module writing and review phases, communication with the module writers was a major challenge. The writers were based in different locations across India and we did not have the financial resources to meet with them in person. Also, all writers had different styles of writing. Since we wanted an undiluted self-representation of various voices, we imposed very few rules on the style of writing. This meant that we needed to constantly interact with the module writers. All modules went through numerous rounds of edits, substantive or structural changes and reviews, all via online and phone communication, so that they would reflect the material we really wanted to deliver. The process and its constraints prolonged the project timeline. Ideally, we would have liked to have time and funds to meet each of the writers in person to edit, review and complete the modules. In spite of these challenges we were happy to have some of the “work-in-progress” modules reviewed and tested at the training workshop.

The participants at the training workshop were Wikimedians from at least five different Indian language communities. It was an intense three-day peer-learning program. There were a lot of discussions on the topics of diversity and inclusion. Given our past negative experiences on this topic with the community, being able to host these discussions was a major step for us and the community. The three days gave us a nuanced understanding of the needs of the community with reference to inclusivity and the amount of training that addressing those needs would require. We obtained review and feedback on the learning modules from the participants of the training workshop. Based on the surveys we conducted after the end of the workshop (more information provided in the next section), we may conclude that community members benefited from the training program and their learning is now strengthening their work.


One of the major goals of this project was to initiate behavioural change in the community and to share the necessary knowledge for supporting and making a healthy community. Hence, it was important for us to understand whether these changes happened as result of our learning materials and the training workshop. We also believe that drastic changes in a community’s culture and behaviour cannot happen with one single training event. However, if the knowledge that we imparted in this brief time results in more deliberation and exploration within the community, then we consider ourselves one step closer towards our goal.

To evaluate the outcomes and impact of the training workshop, we conducted three surveys of participants and one survey of facilitators:

  1. Pre-workshop survey of participants -- to understand better their role and contribution in the open knowledge movement.
  2. Post-workshop survey -- personal interviews with participants administered on the last day of the workshop to evaluate how effectively we had transferred our knowledge to the participants and their plans for the immediate future.
  3. Post-workshop survey -- obtaining feedback from facilitators: Since it was a closed group, facilitators of the sessions had many personal interactions with the participants, making them observers of the learning process.
  4. Intermediate-term monitoring -- check-in interviews with all participants via VoIP or phone three months after the training workshop. This set of interviews was meant to gauge their recall of lessons from the workshop and to document their deliberations and actions.

All survey questionnaires can be accessed at:

Outputs observed:

  • Safe and inclusive events
    • In the interviews we conducted on the last day of the workshop as well as three months later, most of the participants reported that they have learnt new things about inclusivity, which they also practise in the events they attend and are planning in the future. Some of the practices include: volunteering as an interpreter for those who do not speak English, accommodating specific needs of the participants of the event, and drafting code of conduct policies for their respective organisations.
  • Collaborations
    • Four of the participants of the training workshop have forged partnerships with each other with the intent of forming institutional and/ or community-level collaborations. Some of these partnerships, we believe, could further the goals of inclusivity. One participant reported making a strategic partnership outside the community. That initiative would enable the participant to do the work that would otherwise be out of their reach on account of their age and lack of professional qualifications.
  • New projects
    • Based on their lessons from the training workshop at least one participant is working on a event to increase diversity within the Wikimedia community. Some of the participants told us that they have gained confidence because of the training workshop. At the workshop they received the information they needed to independently run programs or to apply for funds.

Outcomes observed:

  • Potential for leadership
    • From the observations of the facilitators it is possible to groom at least one of the participants in the group to assume leadership if adequate support and resources are made available to her.
  • Growth
    • One of the problems we learnt about at the training workshop was the lack of visibility of the work done by women in the Wikimedia community. Some participants expressed in the pre-workshop survey that they lacked the confidence or experience (or both) to independently start their own projects. In the check-in interviews we conducted three months after the workshop, participants reported that their confidence had increased in terms of (a) growing and building the kind of communities they need to support them and (b) thinking about sustainability about their work and the funding it requires.
  • Solidarity
    • In the surveys some participants stated that the training workshop helped them find professional support systems to work with. Some even expressed gratitude for providing them a space where they could discuss trivial questions without being harassed or ridiculed. The Telegram group we set up during the training workshop is something a lot of participants have found useful. In the survey they have expressed the desire for more such channels and also recommended some topics they would like to communicate about on the new channels.

Methods and activities[edit]

Literature survey

Community toolkit

  1. Developed a set of ten learning modules and one reading list on the topics:
    1. Identifying privilege
    2. Wikitools that aid inclusivity
    3. How to make events safe and welcoming
    4. Designing outreach programs for ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples
    5. Identifying privilege associated with ethnic identity
    6. Lived experiences of indigenous people using the Internet
    7. Inclusion of disabled persons on the Internet
    8. Organising an inclusive event
    9. Identifying able-bodied and neurotypical privilege
    10. Lived experiences of online access from the standpoint of the marginalised in India
  2. Identified a pool of highly accomplished individuals with relevant expertise and experience. From this group, we recruited a team of pro bono advisors to the project.
  3. Identified specific, intersectional topics for the learning modules
  4. Created the skeletal structure of the community toolkit before the writing of the learning modules was commissioned to the writers.
  5. Identified individuals from specific backgrounds and communities as potential module writers. The project team held meetings and liaised with them to ensure the modules reflect an authentic voice from their respective communities.
    1. Module writers who have only a little or no direct participation in the movement for free and open knowledge needed several rounds of briefings, meetings and feedback in order to finalise their modules.
  6. The project team wrote some of the modules or co-authored them with external module writers.
  7. The project team and its advisors reviewed draft learning modules

The module writers and the project team incorporated feedback from the reviews to revise and improve the modules.

  1. The project team edited the draft modules over several rounds until the modules were finalised. This included copy-editing and substantive editing.
  2. Liaised with different graphics designers for the print and web layout of the modules and the necessary images to go with the project.

Training workshop

  1. Identified and invited potential participants to the training workshop
  2. Identified potential venues for the workshop and visited them on our personal funds.
  3. Selected a venue that would be conducive to having meaningful conversations on topics of diversity and inclusion and Trust and Safety
  4. Developed the curriculum and design for the workshop
  5. Conducted the workshop where we brought together women contributors from various Indian language communities under one roof.
  6. We held a residential workshop because that was the only way the participants could have interacted and bonded with each other as required for the creation of a support group.
  7. Major topics and activities from the workshop:
    1. Freewheeling interactions among the participants. Some of these interactions were about future activities and collaborations between community members.
    2. Conversations on matters that have an impact on open knowledge, including privilege and its intersections with gender, caste, sexuality, religion, etc.
    3. Discussions about making the events more inclusive.
    4. Session on grant-reporting metrics (for Wikimedia projects) and how to interpret them, especially while writing a grant proposal.
    5. Discussions about different ways by which social bias, institutional bias, and disciplinary bias come to play while undertaking projects related to gender gap and other issues of underrepresentation on Wikimedia projects and avenues of social action.
    6. Various opportunities for seeking grants
    7. Group exercise: Mock grant proposal for a project of the participants’ choice that aims to promote diversity and inclusion in the open knowledge space.
  8. The workshop was a safe space where participants could speak freely. However, we also implemented a code of conduct that laid down the framework for the way discussions would be facilitated. The code of conduct implemented for the workshop can be accessed here:
  9. Facilitation for the workshop happened in English. Hindi and Kannada were used as and when required by the participants and facilitators.
  10. The project team handled all logistics for the workshop on account of budgetary constraints. This included: organising travel and airport transfer for all organisers and participants, drafting a travel advisory and ready reckoner, arranging for security, WiFi and provisions at the venue, and arranging for materials required for the workshop, meals and housekeeping.

Communication channel and support group (Telegram group)

  1. A Telegram group was set up during the training workshop to continue the conversations that had started among all the attendees. The group is restricted to participants and organisers of the workshop.
  2. It has been used to share relevant articles, opportunities for participating in events and other work by the members.
  3. The group also has been used to discuss issues that would enable the growth of its members in the free and open knowledge movement.
  4. It serves as a safe space and support group for the participants.
  5. We had proposed to set up a mailing list for the above purposes in our grant application. However, based on the preferences of the attendees of the training workshop, we opted for a Telegram group.


  1. We invited price quotations from three different web developers (freelance developers as well as companies) for the website.
  2. We finalised one company that provided a large amount of contributions pro bono along with ensuring that our quality standards were met.
  3. We worked with the graphics designers and the web development team to make sure that the design of the website is clean simple, and easy to use on all kinds of devices. This enables persons using unsophisticated devices or weak Internet connections to access the website.
  4. The website comprises a separate section for learning modules in order to facilitate learning for anyone who uses the website.
  5. Any registered member of the website will be able to contribute relevant content in audio, video, photos or text format to the website.
  6. We have integrated a secure chat application (hosted on Mattermost) to facilitate discussions amongst the registered members of the website.
  7. We have implemented a custom content moderation mechanism to ensure all posts adhere to the code of conduct for contributors of the website.
  8. The modules have been released under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 International License.
  9. We bought the domain name, web hosting and SSL certificate for the website by saving up funds from other parts of the project as we believe it was essential to have an independent website.
  10. We drafted the privacy policy, community code of conduct and other material required to make the website usable by Wikimedians and non-Wikimedians alike.

Admin and finance-related activities

  • As the project team did not have a local partner institution, we handled all admin and finance-related activities of the project (except keeping accounts, for which funds were allocated in the sanctioned budget).

Volunteer management

  • The project team also collectively managed several pro bono contributors and requests for volunteering. Much of this coordination and management was done remotely as the different contributors and the project team reside in different locations.

Project resources[edit]


This website contains:

  1. Links to the modules we created
  2. List of people who contributed to these modules
  3. Blog posts from people who underwent our training
  4. Chat application to discuss issues of diversity and inclusion
  5. “Contact us” page for interested persons to ask queries, seek help or make suggestions.

Report from the training workshop held in October 2018:

Photos from the training workshop:

All survey questionnaires administered as part of the training workshop:

Session at Wikimania 2018:

Chinmayi S K and Rohini Lakshané held a session entitled “Lessons from Creating a Diversity Toolkit” at Wikimania held in July 2018 at Cape Town, South Africa. This session enabled us to get visibility for the project and speak about the challenges we faced while proposing and executing the project. (Note: The participation of Chinmayi S K and Rohini Lakshané at Wikimania was not funded by the project grant for Community Toolkit for Greater Diversity.)

See session corresponding to submission #177 on the Wikimania program schedule:


We had presumed that the set of participants we had invited to the training workshop would possess a certain minimum degree of knowledge or awareness about social justice issues and skills needed in the Wikimedia-universe. However, we found that the different communities currently lack such capacity, because of which we are not confident of introducing more nuanced initiatives to them.

What worked well[edit]

Conducting a residential training workshop in a large home in a secluded place worked well for us. We consciously chose not to hold the workshop at a hotel or school. The location enabled the participants to loosen up, avoid distractions, bond with each other, and gave them a safe space to express themselves freely. Also, since this was an all-woman event with the sole exception of our advisor who is male, it also gave them the freedom and the opportunity to talk, which many participants expressed that they have seldom received in the past. Many of them shared that the format of the workshop made them articulate the ideas that they had always wanted to but could not, and that they felt heard by the group.

We did not limit ourselves to the Wikimedia movement in our search for module writers and workshop facilitators. As a result, we have a balanced and diverse set of learning modules from people who not only have lived experience but also a stake in the issues we have tried to address. This involved spending long hours briefing them about how Wikipedia works, how the open knowledge movement reflects the imbalances of society, and how influencing the culture of the community would effect a change in narratives about underrepresented groups.

We were fortunate to receive several hours of pro bono contributions to the project from numerous people:

  • We are grateful to our team of advisors for providing valuable and timely feedback. Soraya Chemaly, Zara Rahman and Geeta Seshu reviewed the topics of the learning modules and participated in several meetings with the project team to discuss the material our approach to it.
  • Tanveer Hasan acted pro bono as an internal advisor. He contributed hugely to the design and execution of the project. He co-authored one of the learning modules, facilitated two sessions at the workshop, joined the team members in the recce for a suitable venue for the training workshop and attended meetings over the phone and in person to discuss the material and give his feedback.
  • Amrita Anand was an essential part of the facilitation in the training workshop held in Goa. Being fluent in both Hindi and English as a trainer, she ensured all the participants felt comfortable and engaged during very difficult conversations.
  • Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, an experienced Wikimedian authored a module gratis on software tools that could be used to find, identify or resolve gaps in diversity on Wikipedia or sister projects. He diligently participated in the feedback and review process for finalising the learning module.
  • Saumyaa Naidu contributed graphic design work for which we had no funds allocated in the budget sanctioned to us. She ensured that we were not shabby in our printed and online materials.
  • Happ Labs and their employees Nisarg, Trayambak, Bhuvana and Anup made unremunerated contributions to the development of the website in addition to the work hours they were compensated for (from the small amount of funds that we could reserve for the website). They put in approximately 70% additional work hours pro bono.
  • Chinmayi S K, a member of the project team, led the development of the website on own her time, which was not budgeted in terms of finances or work hours. She ensured that the right software platforms were chosen for the website and integrated into it, and worked with the web developer team to execute the completion of the website.
  • Marti Johnson provided valuable feedback on the learning modules. We are fortunate to have benefitted from her insights as a former Responder for victims of domestic violence and as a gender rights advocate in improving and revising some of the sensitive content in our modules.
  • Maria Cruz provided her valuable time and inputs in discussions with the team about the design aspects of the website and some of its content.
  • Dana McCurdy helped shape the curriculum for the session on Metrics and Evaluation held at the training workshop in 2018.

What didn’t work[edit]

Based on our experiences at the training workshop held in October 2018, our evaluation is that no single community has the capacity yet to adopt the toolkit in its entirety or take forward our initiative in their respective communities. We wish for such capacity to be developed in the future.

Our estimate for time and effort required for completing the project was highly overshot because of unanticipated delays, some of which happened due to reasons beyond our control. The project from its start to end involved several activities and tasks that took more time than planned for and more intellectual effort and emotional labour.

We have not been able to get the modules translated into any language. Professional translation, especially involving the English language, is expensive. We have not found any volunteers within the community yet who would be willing to translate the modules gratis. We will issue a public call for translations. The toolkit stands a better chance at being adopted and understood in letter and spirit if it is translated into Indian languages.

We were not able to garner greater diversity within our pool of women contributors to various language Wikipedia projects at the training program. For instance, the participant pool mainly consisted of cisgender women who belonged to urban areas and upper castes. This reflects a combination of personal failure as well as lack of diversity within Indian language Wikimedia projects.

Other recommendations[edit]

Based on experiences of the grant proposal and subsequent phases, we would like to recommend:

A checklist of Trust and Safety considerations and a list of available remedies for anyone attempting to carry out a project like this or a follow-up or adaptation of our project.

Next steps and opportunities[edit]

  • Online training sessions

The participants at the training workshop held for this project requested that we conduct short online training sessions on topics of interest or importance to them, viz. grant proposal writing, using software tools on Wikipedia or its projects and metrics.

  • Website

We intend to keep the website for the toolkit running even after the project is over. Our plan is to use the website as a space to build and interact with the members of the community who are interested in working on issues related to diversity and inclusion vis a vis knowledge creation on Wikipedia and its sister projects. We also intend to find more people within the Wikimedia community and outside it who are in alignment with the values of this project and wish to contribute to the diversity of Wikimedia projects in India.

  • Review and revisions

We plan to disseminate the existing learning modules and separately seek peer-review of the module. Using the feedback and comments from the reviews, we would revise and improve the modules. We would also like that the toolkit be adapted to the contexts of different communities in the Indian subcontinent.

  • Translations

Issue a call for volunteers to translate the modules to Indic languages.

Part 2: The Grant[edit]


Actual spending[edit]

Expense Approved amount Actual funds spent Difference
Community Toolkit design - Remuneration - Project Lead $2500 $2500 $0
Community Toolkit design - Remuneration - Resource Person 1 $2333.33 $2814.21 -$480.88
Community Toolkit design - Remuneration - Resorce Person 2 $2000 -$2000
Community Toolkit design - Remuneration - Module Writers $4000 $1524.37 $2475.63
Training Event $5866.66 $6881.03 -$1014.37
Visualisation and Graphics $800 $781.73 $18.27
Website $2500 $2490.36 $9.64
Bookkeeping $2000 $1876.14 $123.86
Total $20,000 $20,867.84 -$867.84

Remaining funds[edit]

Do you have any unspent funds from the grant?

  • No


Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to grantsadmin(_AT_), according to the guidelines here?

  • Yes

Confirmation of project status[edit]

Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?

  • Yes

Is your project completed?

  • Yes

Grantee reflection[edit]

We expected this project to be hard. We anticipated that the project would attract a certain degree of opposition and consume our emotional energy. Our motivation to do this project was to demonstrate that work like this is possible and necessary. But the amount of time and energy we spent on this project has exhausted us to the point of burnout. We think such work needs to be support and promoted more if we want to have an equitable community. There needs to be official support structures such as Trust and Safety and resources to specifically support projects such as ours if community health and diversity are to improve.