Grants:Project/Rapid/Matthewvetter/Reckoning with Wikipedia/Report
- Report accepted
- To read the approved grant submission describing the plan for this project, please visit Grants:Project/Rapid/Matthewvetter/Reckoning with Wikipedia.
- You may still comment on this report on its discussion page, or visit the discussion page to read the discussion about this report.
- You are welcome to Email rapidgrants at wikimedia dot org at any time if you have questions or concerns about this report.
Goals[edit]
Did you meet your goals? Are you happy with how the project went?
Yes, but not to the full extent that I had hoped for. The overall goal of the project was to promote increased understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice among academics at the 2022 Cultural Studies Association Conference in Chicago, Illinois. To work towards this goal, the grantee attended and successfully led two sessions at the conference:
Session 1 “Reckoning with Wikipedia: Information Equity, Access, and Getting Involved.” Cultural Studies Association. June, 2022. [Accepted] Session 2 “Meet the Author: Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality.” Cultural Studies Association. June, 2022. [Accepted]
I do felt that I met that goal of promoting increased understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice, but could have made a broader impact had the first session been better attended. Session 2 was well attended, however.
Outcome[edit]
Please report on your original project targets. Please be sure to review and provide metrics required for Rapid Grants.
| Target outcome | Achieved outcome | Explanation |
| 50-75 attendees across both events | 20 attendees across both events | Session 2 (Meet the author) was well attended with 12 attendees in-person and 3 online. However, the praxis session, which was intended to more fully engage faculty and students in Cultural Studies was poorly attended, with only 2 in-person attendees and 2 online participants. |
| 30 survey responses post-event | 5 survey responses post-event | The praxis session, which was intended to more fully engage faculty and students in Cultural Studies was poorly attended, with only 2 in-person attendees and 3 online participants. This affected the amount of data we were able to gather related to misperceptions and attitudes especially. |
Learning[edit]
Projects do not always go according to plan. Sharing what you learned can help you and others plan similar projects in the future. Help the movement learn from your experience by answering the following questions:
- What worked well?
Session 2 (Meet the Author) was well attended and those who attended reported informally an increased understanding of Wikipedia as a community of practice with specific policies and practices rooted in its values and goals. One attendee noted how, in English Wikipedia, the seemingly insurmountable number of policies and specific practices, amounts to the need for new editors to acquire a "literacy of bureaucracy." This is a phrase that has especially stuck with me as I continue to think about what the community needs to do to make the encyclopedia more accessible to novices.
Although Session I was poorly attended, I did gather some admittedly limited, but interesting data, from two respondents.
From the survey data that I did obtain: Respondents reported about their usage of Wikipedia, which included:
1. "Verify dates, look up keywords I can look scholarly sources about. I read about things I encounter but are out of my field to grasp them vaguely." 2. "Use it, used to edit it (about five years ago), have student use as source. Have had grad students write memos on how to update a page"
Also valuable, respondents noted the following topics they would like to learn about further. This is useful in further understanding academics' needs for engaging the Wikipedia community :
- How they [Wikipedia community] generate values
- How Wikipedia makes money, how to use in my classes, how to get more involved such as going to Wikipedia conference
Finally, when asked whether and how they engage Wikipedia in their teaching, 50% of respondents checked "yes" and provided this follow-up: "I use it to start projects and check on topics and learn the baseline. I have used in class (see above)
- What would you do differently next time?
Because the Praxis Session (1) was so poorly attended, I wasn't able to engage and collect responses from the amount of participants I had hoped. If I try to do a similar project in the future, I would make the following changes: 1. Talk with conference organizers to make the session open to outsiders (those not registered for the conference who could attend online). This is always a bit of an issue because, of course, the conference would like for people to register and pay the fee. The lack of attendance in the session was disappointing, however, and it led to a lack of survey responses I could collect.
Finances[edit]
Grant funds spent[edit]
Please describe how much grant money you spent for approved expenses, and tell us what you spent it on.
- Airfare, $400.00
- Conference registration, $183.00
- Per diem, $300.00
- 3 nights Lodging, $750.00
Remaining funds[edit]
Do you have any remaining grant funds?
No
Anything else[edit]
Anything else you want to share about your project? Thank you for your support of this project.