Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royal Society/Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, March 2014

Sister events

We are having a sister event on March 4 in Davis, California; details are here! Join us if you're in the area, and we look forward to collaborating! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Great! Please get your people to make a note by any articles on the lists here that they are working on, for records and to avoid edit conflicts etc, though the time difference will largely prevent that. Hope it goes well! Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles linked to from an outside site

The reddit Men's Rights subreddit has linked to some of the related articles in this edit-a-thon, with requests for that group to edit them.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1z077g/online_action_feminists_rewrite_scientific/ and http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1yuxiz/feminist_input_into_wikipedia_trying_to_rewrite/ --Zx80 (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wot I told the Economist

Re their mention of the event: As the Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society in London, and organizer of the Women in Science event on March 4th (fully booked but online participants welcome - see the event page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Royal_Society/Women_in_Science_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon_at_the_Royal_Society,_March_2014) I'm grateful for your mention of it. But your description of "articles on women scientists, which tend to be incomplete or even non-existent" is not very accurate. All articles on Wikipedia might be called "incomplete" to some degree, as the nature of the beast, unlike other encyclopedias, is that there is no agreed level of "completion". Of course many articles are short, but this is just as true of those on male scientists. That is why I'm still up at 3.40 am finding enough suggestions to keep the 36 attendees busy, which is not an easy task. Anyone with suggestions can add them to the "Other suggestions" section on the page. Eminent women scientists with "non-existent" articles are actually hard to find, though I have found a few; thanks to previous events like next week's, all the women FRS's there have ever been have a Wikipedia biography, which is certainly not the case for the men (admittedly a much larger group). For example, James Tait FRS, who died recently, has no biography [redirects to his wife], but his wife Sylvia Tait FRS has a decent-sized one. The under-recognition of women in science has been a general problem, but Wikipedians are determined to make sure we are part of the solution. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Photographs on the day

• 28 more photos just uploaded [1] Edwardx (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Some used already, here & for the next time. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ann Budge

I got into a conversation about this article on the day, but it seems not to have happened. Just a stub so far. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Editathon Info for Program Learning

Hello organizers and attendees of the Women in Science Editathon. The WMF Program Evaluation and Design team are finishing up the second round of program data collection on November 26th and we would love to include information on your editathon. Below are the questions which still need answers--could you please contribute any answers you know? Critical questions are highlighted in yellow; it should take about 3 minutes to fill in all the missing critical data. This voluntary program reporting helps us build an overview of programs and really helps with shared learning and capacity building for future editathons. If you have any questions, I would be very happy to chat, either through my talk page or at abittaker at wikimedia dot org. Many thanks! --Abittaker (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

EVENT NAME	DATA TYPE	WikiProject Royal Society/Women in Science Editathon
START DAY AND TIME OF EVENT	[YYYYMMDD HH:MM:SS]	4 March 2104. 2pm to 9pm in 2 sessions
END DAY AND TIME OF EVENT	[YYYYMMDD HH:MM:SS]	4 March 2104. 9pm
What resources were used for this program in terms of staff/volunteer time and money?
Number of Wikimedia staff hours	Number	7? 2 volunteers were p/t WMUK staff, so countede them, but not sure if they were there as staff or volunteers. Organizer was WiR, WMUK funded
Total value of Staff time	Number	WMUK maybe 7-9 hours; Wir maybe 50 hrs. Royal Society staff not counted
How were staff hours estimated?	Text	no timesheets; estimate
Number of volunteer hours	Number	32. 8 x avge 4 = 32, excluding WiR
Total value of volunteer time	Number	??? May have been say $30 travel claimed
How were volunteer hours estimated?	Text	just time at event, plus a little later
What was the total budget (USD) spent for this program?	Number	No money changed hands
Did you receive any donated resources for this event?
Meeting Space	Yes or No?	YES
Materials or Equipment	Yes or No?	Electrics in room
Food	Yes or No?	Yes, and soft drink
Prizes or Giveaways	Yes or No?	only badges & leaflets
What is the estimated value of the donations?	In USD	? Food by caterers maybe $150 (guess)
In terms of participation...
What was the total number of participants?	Both online and offline	about 46, inc volunteers
Which Wikimedia Projects were involved?	e.g. enwiki, ptwiki, etc.	enwiki
Please list any article categories used		various women scientist biography categories
What percent of the participants were female?		about 85% of attendees ex volunteers
Please list all usernames involved	separated by commas	Jagriffiths, Brpalmer83, Grippon, Smallmocha, Francesca McKenna, Kate Jeffery, Djedjevailly, Rarmstrong1983, EPuttock, DrTinuviel, 9frm, Cdonovan7757, jamesjoycebookfan, Northerlywind, Vazquezcervino, Smunday, Elgarrett, Sjmet, Cancharani, Susipoli70, Amcknutsson, Annwit, EMD1983, katiejaneanderso, i.am.lost ,Metacladistics, christophe, Cmaximino, TaraInDC, Monxton, e_bruton, Oceangurl14 - there were others
Learning question: Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?	Text	Yes, feedback forms. Nearly all attendees had not edited before
In terms of text added and quality...
Number of Wikimedia project pages improved	Count from event page	See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Royal_Society/Women_in_Science_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon_at_the_Royal_Society,_March_2014#Articles_started.2Fedited event page
Total number of Good Articles	Event Page/CatScan2	none - at least 6 DYKs
Total number of Featured articles	Event Page/CatScan2
In terms of replication and learning...
This program was run by an experienced program leader who can help others in conducting a similar program.	Yes or No	Yes
This program generated brochures and printed materials developed to tell others about it.	Yes or No	Only online stuff
This program generated blogs or other online information written to tell others about it (published by yourself or others).	Yes or No	Yes, various
This program generated a guide or instructions for how to implement a similar project.	Yes or No	No
NONE OF THE ABOVE	Yes or No
Please share links to any online blogs, posts, or other materials / that were generated about your program	Links/Text	Lots of media coverage - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Royal_Society/Women_in_Science_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon_at_the_Royal_Society,_March_2014#Media
Which of the following outcomes and targets are priority goals for your program? (Please indicate which were your top goals from this list by marking an x in the column to the right.)
Building and Engaging Community	Mark with an x	X
Increasing Accuracy and/or Detail of information	Mark with an x	X
Increasing Awareness of Wikimedia Projects	Mark with an x	X
Increasing Buy-in to the Open Knowledge / Free Content Movement	Mark with an x
Increasing Contributions	Mark with an x	X
Increasing Diversity of Information Coverage	Mark with an x
Increasing Diversity of Participants	Mark with an x	X
Increasing Access to Wikimedia	Mark with an x
Increased Reader Satisfaction	Mark with an x
Increasing Usefulness, Usablity, and Use of Contributions	Mark with an x
Increasing Use and Access	Mark with an x
Increasing Skills for Editing/Contributing	Mark with an x
Increasing Volunteer Motivation and Commitment	Mark with an x
Increasing Perceptions of Credibility and/or Quality	Mark with an x	X
Making Contributing Fun	Mark with an x
Making Contributing Easier	Mark with an x
Recruiting and/or converting New Users	Mark with an x	X
Retaining and Activating Existing Editors	Mark with an x
Increasing Participation of Content Experts	Mark with an x	X
Other (Specify)	Text

Melanie Lee

I picked up the baton and Melanie Lee is now live. Fences&Windows 20:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Meg Patterson AFD : neurosurgeon with MBE less notable than her husband (sans MBE)

I recently started an article on the neurosurgeon Meg Patterson and it was immediately AFDd. I do not initiate many biog articles on women, but I cannot remember any of my stubs on men being treated so harshly, with referenced material being slashed, and somebody at the AFD suggesting that she is only notable because of her husband! Mais oui! (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What was said at the AFD was that the only inline citation that was in the article (at the time of the post was posted) was to her husbands obituary, and that this was not enough to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)