Reflections on Wikimedia Leadership Bootcamp 2018

Wiki Boot Camp 2018 in DC, with David Ferriero by Andrew Lih CC BY-SA 4.0
Wiki Boot Camp 2018 in DC, with David Ferriero by Andrew Lih CC BY-SA 4.0
Sometimes the best things come as surprises. That sentiment completely applies to the events leading up to what I did in mid-June.In early February, I received an invitation to attend Wikimedia District of Columbia’s summer 2018 Wikimedia Leadership Bootcamp. The Bootcamp was planned to be June 15 – 17 at the National Archives and offered leadership training and engagement with other emerging leaders in the community.

The email caused me a cacophony of emotions. I deal with imposter syndrome (a lot) and I have been rebuilding myself after post-PhD depression. I don’t recognize my accomplishments, and still doubt my knowledge and skills. Getting invited to this Bootcamp surprised me, but validates that what I am doing is good and impactful. I have traveled to San Francisco, Wikimania, Wikimedia Diversity Conference, and Wikipedia Day with Wikimedia NYC. I have done a lot of good in the past year, but it’s hard to remember that when you’re not receiving a paycheck for that work. For the better part of a decade, I have been working “for the greater good” and constantly have to remind myself of my own value. It’s invitations and recognition like this Bootcamp that help me with that process.

Foundation at the Sculpture Garden

A few months after the invitation email, I booked my flight, confirmed my hotel, and I was on my way to Washington D.C. I was so excited because I have never been before. I booked my flights so I could have a few hours before the Bootcamp and after so I could wander around town. I decided to visit the National Museum of American History on the day I arrived. There was no way I could possibly do everything I have on my bucket list and I now find out fall is the time to go – no crowds! I’ll certainly have to plan a follow-up trip.

Now, let’s talk about the Bootcamp itself. First of all, the event taking place in the National Archives was enough to get me there. I was totally geeking out and really wish we had time for an edit party (my new, accessible term for edit-a-thon). The smell of books intoxicated me. Knowing uncounted volumes of information exchange occur because of this institution, it was really overwhelming. If you have a chance to visit and just ask questions, do. The people in these knowledge institutions are the lifeblood of the free knowledge movement. They want to share the information and help people develop meaningful connections with their endless treasure trove.

Everyone at the National Archives was completely accessible, and David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, spoke to us to tell his story about information sharing and Wikipedia. He is the first librarian to serve as the Archivist of the United States and is doing incredible work to connect the community with content.

The rest of the schedule for day one was packed with keynotes about engaging with community, developing partnerships, safe spaces, and a crash course in Wikidata. Kelly Doyle started the day talking about engaging new audiences. She asked us to think about what we share with the users. She suggested asking questions like, “What can I provide the user?”, “What can the user provide?”, and “What is in it for the user?” These questions will help frame the program development and help enhance the possible effectiveness of the programs. This makes total sense as we need to help the community members identify with the Wikipedia movement in their own ways. Their connections and reasons for participating will all be different, but we need to make them all feel welcome and valued.

Next Ariel Cetrone from WMDC talked about partnerships. Some key pieces that stuck with me were questions she asks herself when developing new partnerships. The major question was, “How would I have liked to have learned about Wikipedia?” This is huge. We all know there are barriers and challenges to finding the information and getting involved on Wikipedia. I know there are some things I would have like to have learned differently. In some ways, getting started on Wikipedia is like water rushing down a hill: you can’t control where it goes and it’s a continuous flow. To the people working to make this process easier and who work with new contributors each day, you’re amazing and keep doing it!

Keeping Events Safe booklet

The next session that really stuck with was Sydney Poore talking about Safe Spaces. I have long reflected on harassment and how bias, social dynamics and gender perception play into interactions in online communities and at in-person events with the people from the online communities. For policies aimed at addressing issues related to harassment, the Wikimedia community uses “friendly spaces” and “safe spaces” synonymously. These phrases have 2 very different meanings to me. I discussed this with another Bootcamp attendee, and they agreed.

A friendly spaces policy would be one to make spaces welcoming. This would be one addressing microaggressions and encouraging active listening. Most people are unaware of how their behavior impacts others and how it might be offensive to others. One example is when men interrupt and talk over women. Unless called out, they might not recognize it. Sadly, it is still socially accepted when a man interrupts or speaks over a woman because it is such a common practice. Friendly spaces would educate attendees about some common behaviors to bring awareness through education, and help create the friendly spaces this movement needs in order to meaningfully close gaps. For now, even though the friendly spaces policy exists, it only serves the purpose of a safe spaces policy. I look forward to a future truly friendly spaces policy.

For a safe spaces policy, this would be one addressing harassment and violence. There is a lot to be said about harassment, so I will just say this: I look forward to the development of tools and practices from the Wikimedia Foundation to address harassment in the community. This is not something we can expect volunteers to handle. Harassment is unacceptable and needs to be made so in the community.

After that heavy conversation, we left for dinner and drinks. Of course, we had to go to the place with a huge barnstar, Hill Country BBQ. Not the most vegetarian friendly menu, so I stuck with the macaroni and cheese and figured I’d grab some fruit and veg from the market later. I ended up grabbing drinks with friends instead. It was a better choice!

On to the second day of the Bootcamp! We talked a lot about community. There was much said about tools to make contributing easier, and ways to change thinking about contribution. Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight spoke about how she started editing after her son attended an edit-a-thon (read: edit party). She emphasized how important providing a positive experience is at events. It is not about the number of edits or new accounts created, but community developed.

We also discussed the value of contribution. Much of the measurement of success in the Wikimedia movement is considered in quantitative measures. I have a problem with this because one cannot measure all things in numbers. One cannot measure the impact an event had on a person by the presence of their body. Nor can one measure the impact an edit party had on a person’s information literacy skills. These “softer” benefits cannot be measured in numbers: number of people, number of edits, number of articles created.

Many of us at the Bootcamp complained about the focus on quantitative measure in grant funding. Simply some of the great work we are doing cannot be plotted on a graph, but the lack of quantitative metrics does not mean it has no value. We need to change the thinking in the Wikimedia movement away from impact measured in numbers to impact measured in value.

Following the community discussion, we presented our lightning talks. The lightning talks were another amazing part of the day. I was just completely overwhelmed by the amazing work my fellow Bootcamp attendees were doing. I was in awe and so inspired. I sincerely wish them well in their work, because it is all so very important. Later I plan to write a post about my lightning talk topic: my open relationship.

After the weekend was over, we discussed what could have changed or stayed the same. Our one biggest complaint was not having enough time together. Many of us, if not all, decided to start a group so we could stay connected and continue our growth. I suggested this Wiki Leadership Bootcamp turn into a year-long cohort where we meet in-person one time, but we could each take turns hosting video chats the rest of the year. There were so many things we wanted to know and learn from each other. This perhaps would allow the time and space for that to happen. Thank you again to the organizers of the Wiki Leadership Bootcamp, WMDC and the National Archives for making this happen. I have some new collaborations and projects to move forward on, and am excited to see what happens with future Bootcamps.

Stuck between a paywall and equality

When I graduated with my PhD in 2016, I received offers to publish in various journals and I even have a book I’m writing. I am not completely committed to any of it.

What?!

I know.

Believe me, in this world of academic “publish or perish” I am not ungrateful and recognize my privilege in this. Anyone would jump at this, unless they think like me. I don’t create knowledge to sell journals, magazines, or subscriptions for some publishing house. I create for my fellow humans.

I am not a religious person, so this is not in a religious sense, but I have been privileged with circumstances, biological and societal, that led to experiences that nurtured my critical thinking and intelligence. I don’t wish to capitalize on that. None of this is what I truly earned so it wouldn’t be right for me to make knowledge that is not for everyone to receive.

I am committed to publishing my full dissertation and any writings of mine on my website, or in ways where they are openly accessible to others. Granted, this might be a delayed release so I can publish additional material off of my findings, but ultimately I don’t want my creations to be behind paywalls. My work is so personal to me. This is my art. This is my activism.

I did publish one article in a CASE magazine, but was insistent on this part of the contract:

“CASE agrees to identify Author/Assignor as the author of Work, and also to grant Assignor in perpetuity a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce by any means Work or parts of it solely for Assignor’s own personal use or as workshop handouts if the following copyright notice is placed on Work by Assignor: Copyright © 2015 Council for Advancement and Support of Education. All rights reserved. Used by permission.”

It wasn’t as perfect of a distribution option as I’d preferred, but better than many publishers include.

So, how do you all do it? How do you publish and still stand for free knowledge?

Education is a human right denied to many. That statement of mine was an unpopular one with faculty members at my private, Jesuit graduate school. I was rather surprised, but I shouldn’t have been.

Free knowledge is a radical act. It is political. It is absolutely political to believe in free knowledge.
-Katherine Maher (Source Code Berlin)

This is why I spend much of my time editing Wikipedia. Education equality is my passion, my activism.

I’m an academic and I use Wikipedia

Ok, friends, let’s talk about the elephant in the room. It’s time to move on. Everybody does it. I’ve seen colleagues do much worse. We all secretly do it, but are sure our colleagues will judge us for it.

I am an academic and I read and contribute to Wikipedia.

No one has unfriended me. I don’t have to wear a scarlet W around campus. I have kept my honors. Heck, I even am a visiting scholar because I contribute to Wikipedia.

Why am I saying this?

Because tonight I read a study about a study completed at two public Spanish universities (Aibar, E., Lladós-Masllorens, J., Meseguer-Artola, A., Minguillón, J., & Lerga, M. (2014). Wikipedia at university: what faculty think and do about it. The Electronic Library. 33(4). 668-683. doi: 10.1108/EL-12-2-2013-0217) – both relatively new and one of them was online only. The faculty used Wikipedia but only for subjects that were not in their primary field. Academics in STEM fields were more comfortable using Wikipedia for their scholarship and teaching. “So-called soft-science academics” were more skeptical.

Oh, my fellow social scientists, own up to it. You use Wikipedia. If you don’t, you should. What does this say about your bias? Go on. Go reflect on your actions and if your actions of judging Wikipedia/cloaking your true feelings are 1. valid and 2. really working toward the Truth we seek on the daily.

Did you know your students could learn in a collaborative environment where you don’t have to force inorganic collaboration? Pedagogical application is receiving mixed reviews in the literature. Why? Because many of those respondents are simply theorizing on how teaching with Wikipedia would be based on their assumptions about what Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia is “a new and powerful channel for the public communication of science.” Isn’t that what we want? Someone to read our work and to further scholarship? What are you waiting for? Give contributing to Wikipedia a chance, and what do you know, you might even let your hair down and teach with it next semester!

I’ll even volunteer to get you started.

I’m a visiting scholar!

img_6024

I am very excited to announce I was selected to be a visiting scholar with San Francisco State University. The goal of my position is to use the library resources available to me through SFSU to improve content on Wikipedia regarding disability. This includes art, culture, history, and so much more. The directors at the Longmore Institute already created a list of potential topics for me to examine.

Here’s the information about the role:

Historian and activist Paul K. Longmore founded the Institute on Disability at SFSU in 1996. When he passed away in 2010, the university created an endowment for the Institute and renamed it in his honor. It undertakes projects that work to challenge prevailing notions and stereotypes of disability by showcasing disabled people’s strength, ingenuity, and originality. Its public education and cultural events connect the Bay Area’s vibrant disability communities and the general public with faculty and students at SF State to fight disability stigma with disability culture.

Already I have so much to add! I am using my old pal, Scrivener, to collect the information before I make edits. I love Scrivener’s functions, which allow me to search my literature research notes, which will ultimately allow me to improve numerous articles with each source I find.

Oh! Did you know you can edit Wikipedia too? It not only helps build and improve the free, quality knowledge available on the Internet, it’s a great free time activity too – addictive, and habit-forming, but [generally] not harmful to your health. 🙂 Feel free to see what I’m up to on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is Therapy

Ruf des Phönix Erster Sog, Bild von Magdalena Maya Ben 2007
Ruf des Phönix Erster Sog, Bild von Magdalena Maya Ben 2007Licensed under Creative Commons

Connections between people over the Internet offer a large possibility for anonymity. On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. Or more likely, no one knows about your gender, race, religion, or disability. For people with disabilities, the Internet is full of havens where they can live without stigma. Wikipedia may just be one of those havens.

I was toying around with the idea of investigating the lived experiences of people with disabilities who contribute to Wikipedia. Now I am even more intrigued after reading the article titled Wikipedia is not Therapy by Andrew McMillen.

I clicked on some of the links in the article, starting with the English Wikipedia essay Wikipedia is not therapy (WP:NOTTHERAPY). Essays on English Wikipedia are written by Wikipedia editors. The information written is usually opinion-based or advice pertaining to Wikipedia. The essays do not require approval, or widespread agreement; this one, however, is used frequently.

This WP:NOTTHERAPY is sometimes referenced in edit disputes or other community discourse about inappropriate behavior. It is to insinuate the receiving party has a mental disability and tell them that Wikipedia is not a place for their inappropriate behavior. It is used to diminish their value and discredit any further discussion of their merits.

Similar to the casual way in which society uses “crazy” and “nuts,” this suggests inappropriate behavior and disability have a causal link in the minds of some in the community.

Let me pause and explain. There are two views of disability: the medial model and the social model.

The medical model frames the disability as a deficiency of the person, which must be cured, and places the emphasis on the perceived disease or deficiency. The medical model offers complications for people with disabilities as it frames them as “abnormal,” “subnormal,” or “special.” The focus on curing or managing their disabilities in order to be more “normal” further communicates to society that a disability is something to be removed and even ashamed of.

The social model of disability views disability as part of the natural environment. The social model focuses on how society is developed around people without disabilities or the “able-bodied.” This model came out of the recognition that society’s practices of discrimination, exclusion of people with disabilities, and inclusion of those without disabilities is a form of oppression. Society has told people who have disabilities “how to be disabled.”

The WP:NOTTHERAPY message, on the whole, is not offensive. Yet it contains language that embodies society’s stigmatized view of disability. The longevity and usefulness of WP:NOTTHERAPY, suggest a great number of people in the community subscribe to the medical model of disability.

Here are a few examples of language in WP:NOTTHERAPY:

These problems may be caused by personal immaturity, an inability to properly apply Wikipedia’s policies, poor social skills, or other reasons.

This sentence, connected with the title, implies that people who cause problems need therapy.

The phrase “Wikipedia is not therapy” should not be taken to imply that editors with mental disorders are incapable of making constructive contributions to Wikipedia…

Why then did the editors who wrote this essay choose this title? There has been discussion on the talk page about the essay title. The self-proclaimed inventor of the concept said, “In its ‘voting is not therapy’ incarnation, it was useful as a sneer, and it was meant as a sneer.” This suggests is it acceptable to use assumptions about one’s state of mental health as a sneer. Just like using the word “retarded” does not make it okay because you didn’t mean “retarded” but just “stupid.”

In short, Wikipedia offers users the chance to practice being sensible, sane, and productive, but one’s psychological state is not an acceptable excuse for disrupting the encyclopedia.

Why does mental health need to be in this conversation? If you can’t make sensible and productive contributions, don’t edit right now. I just said the same thing without being insulting. Punch up, not down.

After reading WP:NOTTHERAPY, in the See also section is an essay titled Wikipedia is not a convalescent center. Included is the text:

Wikipedia is not a convalescent center for people with poor communication skills…It should also be noted that lack of communication skills may be indicative of a deficit in actual functioning, such as a disorder.

This could also be indicative of people who are newbies, young, or non-native English speakers.

Further on in “Wikipedia is not a convalescent center,” there is reference to trolling and “behaviors that are disruptive both for the encyclopedic work and the project’s social community.” Essay titles and content like this damage both the encyclopedic work and the project’s social community.

The title could be: Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Or Wikipedia is not a toilet.

But it isn’t.

The language chosen in both essays is a jab at people with disabilities. People with disabilities are valued contributors to Wikipedia and there are people without disabilities who are destructive to Wikipedia. Having a disability should not be used to diminish contributors, nor should ‘disability’ and similar language be used as insults.

Going back to McMillen’s article…

McMillen’s article makes some great points. People on Wikipedia are valued contributors. Some people may have disabilities, but that does not diminish their value.

…it can reveal some of the worst aspects of human behavior, including abuse, harassment, and threats of physical violence.

Exposing yourself on the Internet can be challenging. Just like any relationship, you’re opening yourself up to all experiences. This could include appreciation for contributions, constructive criticism, or the bile of heinous behavior.

…mental health carries a powerful stigma, and that the more open we are about it, the less it weighs all of us down.

By suggesting people who are destructive or people with whom you are feuding have a mental disability, this only serves to perpetuate the stigmatized perspective of disability held by society. The more open we are about mental disabilities and receiving help for these disabilities, the more acceptable it will become in society, meaning more people will get the therapy they need to live personally fulfilling lives – and others will be more supportive when learning someone has a disability. No empathetic person wants to see their fellow human distressed, so why would anyone want to perpetuate the stigma which only serves to oppress people with disabilities?

I found in my reading for my dissertation people do not always disclose their disabilities. The failure to disclose could indicate people with disabilities do not want to be judged, invoke stigma about disability, or be treated differently than the people without disabilities. People with disabilities would rather risk struggling academically rather than face the stigma, stereotyping, and status loss society places on people with disabilities.

When you get a bunch of passionate people together, emotions can run high and interactions can become less than cordial. This is the time when WP:NOTTHERAPY is used. Unintentionally, this mentality might be serving to only further alienate current and potential contributors.

While McMillen’s article does have the intent to bring more attention to the potentially distressing effects of being an active contributor, I do disagree with one point:

Depending on the reader, its tone might be perceived as just snarky or dismissive enough to rub a distressed editor the wrong way.

I am not distressed or someone with a disability, yet I perceive the WP:NOTTHERAPY as “snarky and dismissive.” It is inappropriate. Maybe this has to do with my overall empathy. Or my hope to not exclude a valuable population of contributors. Or maybe others agree with me and it’s time to take that essay down and decommission its function in disputes.

 This emergency response system was established in 2010 by Philippe Beaudette…

I am glad there is a response system in place to support community members in distress. The fear of invoking stigma can prevent people with disabilities from pursuing support. WP:NOTTHERAPY only helps to further the stigma associated with mental disabilities and seeking therapy. Many people could benefit from therapy, but choose to not seek therapy. This illustrates the personal impact of societal stigmatization of disability.

Having a mental, or an “invisible,” disability does not lessen the effect of stigmatized actions and remarks on the person. Disabilities, both physical and “invisible,” can affect people in various ways. Conflating poor behavior with people with disabilities does not help “write an encyclopedia,” but stifles the much needed diversity in the community.

Wikipedia is therapy…

I argue that contributing to Wikipedia is therapy. No, no activity can replace actual therapy, but there are benefits to contributing. After a stressful day, I feel reinvigorated because I’m having an effect on the available free knowledge. I feel excited immersing myself in solving content puzzles. I laugh, saying, “How’d I get here?” after going down rabbit hole after rabbit hole of interesting content. After a day of fighting the good fight for education equality, this knowledge-nerd is rejuvenated by family, food, and Wikipedia.

I know the benefits for me, but the benefits and reasons for contributing are different for everyone. Veronica Erb wrote about Editing Wikipedia as self-care activism. Emily Temple-Wood’s positive punishment plan. Jake Orlowitz wrote about his Journey of a Wikipedian. I’d love to hear from other active contributors about their journey.

I am actually really curious to find out about the people with disabilities who are contributors on Wikipedia. If you’d like to collaborate on this investigation of the lived experiences of contributors with disabilities on Wikipedia, email me.

Make sure you do you.

If you are experiencing feelings that affect your enjoyment of daily life or negatively affect your daily activities, please do seek counseling. No other activity can replace seeing a qualified counselor. The counselor can provide you with resources and tools so you can enjoy the one life you live.

If you are experiencing thoughts of suicide, know the suicide is preventable and you must get immediate help. Help can be found at suicide.org.

Cookies, Candy, and Qualitative Research

Thursday, July 21 at 1 pm CT have my public defense of my dissertation: An exploration of the lived experiences of college students with disabilities (my dissertation abstract).

All are welcome to attend, or email me if you’d like the link to the live cast. If you come in person, you’ll be able to enjoy homemade cookies. Otherwise, you’ll have to BYOC.

Free Knowledge, Inquire Within

You use Wikipedia. But did you know it’s not just good for giving you fingertip access to factoids? The movement is much more than that. There are some pretty big goals.

Sometimes we take access to to quality, bias-free information for granted. Not everyone in the world has that luxury. But you can help make a change.

Get involved
Anyone can. You don’t have to be an expert or a jack-of-all-trades. You can start by cleaning up grammar on existing articles. Or take on bigger tasks.

Donate
If you haven’t watched the video above, do. It sounds so silly, but I get so excited when I think about how much information is given and received each day. What a gift! Donate today to give the gift of knowledge to everyone.

To find out more about all things wiki, come join me and others at the St. Louis Wiknic on July 10.

Who are you?

Currently I am listening to the audiobook of Year of Yes by Shonda Rhimes (she’s the writer behind Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal, awesome TV, etc.).

Yesterday Shonda read a chapter and basically posed the question for readers to ask themselves “Who am I?”

This is the second time I have heard that phrase this week, in suggestion for the listener to ask themselves. The first time, I sat and thought, “Wow. I don’t know. I’m nobody.”

Today I am writing my methodology chapter for my research proposal for my dissertation. I read my “Personal Truths” section I wrote some months ago. I got teary eyed.

While I won’t bore you with the whole bit, here is a section of my “Personal Truths.”

This is who I am:

The researcher recognizes several personal truths as they pertain to this research study. The researcher has a great desire for all individuals to obtain at least a four-year degree from a higher education institution. The researcher feels the knowledge a student may draw from their time at a higher education institution is expansive and can be transformative. She recognizes how higher education affects many aspects of one’s life, including emotional, financial, intellectual through to their individual world view.

Education should be a right and not a privilege is also a personal truth of the researcher. While not everyone desires a higher education, higher education should be an available opportunity for those who desire it. The researcher firmly subscribes to the theories of Howard Gardner, which indicates intelligence may manifest in various forms and not only in the traditional sense. She feels strongly that individuals in society should not be discounted for their difference from the traditional. Society comprises individuals, yet society ostracizes anyone different from the herd.

This is my passion.

It makes me smile. It makes me giddy. It makes me cry. It makes me talk so inspiringly to other people about education that they themselves are motivated to do something.

A few weeks ago I wrote about why many of us will likely fail in our careers, and why we should all follow our passion. Do something you feel this passionate about, and we might just save the world.

Why you should change your major

And change your career. And maybe even your mind.

First, I want you to make a list. Which careers do you associate with financial security? Which not?

I bet your list looks much like everyone else’s:
Easy street: lawyer, business, doctor, etc.
A tougher go: artist, social work, teacher, etc.

I’m going to start right here and tell you you’re wrong. (Aren’t I nice?)

Did you ever have a dream you shared with someone and they told you that you’d be better off doing ____? Why did they tell you to not follow your dream? Well, they’re wrong too.

It’s not about what you can do, what other people think you should do, but rather about your passion. If you are passionate about what you’re doing, you’ll do it well, and so well, you maybe actually could make a living doing it.

Life is about challenges and taking risks. When you’re young, you feel invincible. You’re full of passion for changing the world by following your dream.

Then someone gets in your head.

“You won’t make money by doing dream.”

Dream is just a hobby.”

Make up your mind and prepare for that dream. Change your major and change career, and don’t deny your true passion.

Read more…

Larry Smith’s TEDx talk Why you will fail to have a great career

Steve Job’s Stanford Commencement Address

12 TED Talks that will change the way you think about your career