Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

What We Talk About When We Talk About Community

Four members of Art+Feminism speak to the challenges and invisible work of organizing community within the larger Wikipedia community.

Published onJun 17, 2019
What We Talk About When We Talk About Community

Image credit: Manuel Molina Martagon, 2019 Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, March 2, 2019.

Siân Evans, Information Literacy and Instructional Design Librarian, Maryland Institute College of Art

Jacqueline Mabey, independent curator

Michael Mandiberg, artist, Professor of Media Culture at the College of Staten Island/CUNY, and Doctoral Faculty at the CUNY Graduate Center

Melissa Tamani, art historian

What We Talk About When We Talk About Community

Art+Feminism is a do-it-yourself and do-it-with-others campaign to improve content on gender, feminism, and the arts on Wikipedia and to train editors across the gender spectrum in response to the gaps in participation and content on the most important popular free culture project. From its origins, the Art+Feminism collective was a radical reworking of how edit-a-thons are organized and how we reflect on what it means to build and participate in online communities, within the Wikimedia movement and outside of it. In this essay we – four members of the collective – will reflect on our grassroots methods for building community, and how these compare and contrast with the practices found within Wikimedia projects. In doing so, we will directly confront the perils of information activism and community-building in sometimes hostile open source communities like Wikipedia.

The project was catalyzed by two separate conversations that took place in the fall of 2013 between the four co-founders, Siân Evans, Jacqueline Mabey, Michael Mandiberg, and Laurel Ptak. Evans was sharing her ideas about how to re-boot the Women and Art Special Interest Group (SIG) associated with the Art Libraries Society of North America with Mabey. They discussed the Ada Lovelace Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thons, which had recently been in the news; the goal of these events is to write about the work of women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math).1 Evans thought a similar event focused on women in the arts might breathe life into the dormant SIG. Mabey later relayed this information to Michael Mandiberg, an artist and educator, who had used Wikipedia in teaching, assigning students stub articles to expand instead of term papers. Coincidentally, that same day Mandiberg engaged curator Laurel Ptak in a similar conversation. At the time, Ptak was a fellow at Eyebeam, a center for art and technology in New York, researching cyberfeminism. Mandiberg encouraged her to organize an edit-a-thon focused on art, technology, and feminism as a part of her fellowship. With so many simultaneous conversations, it seemed like the project was meant to be.

Art+Feminism emerged during a period of growing public awareness of the manifold ways structural inequality plays out on Wikipedia. In 2011, the New York Times published a debate on the topic of Wikipedia’s gender gap, opening up a public discourse on open culture and the ways in which it can be, at best, “clubby” and, at worst, toxic for women.2 Two years later, writer Amanda Filipacchi authored an opinion piece for the Times, in response to a Wikipedian who was removing women from the “American Novelists” category and moving these articles into a subcategory for “American Women Novelists.”3 The end result was a category purged of women, who had been moved elsewhere. Filipacchi’s article generated a number of other think pieces on the topic, as well as a flood of commentary, tagged #AmericanWomenNovelists, on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.4 However, at the same time, Wikipedians were discussing this practice on Wikipedia’s talk pages.5 While the issues were the same, these conversations were worlds apart. We wanted to draw attention to the ability of individuals to engage with these debates on Wikipedia. But, as soon as we brought some people into this debate on Wikipedia, their votes were struck by experienced Wikipedians.6 From the start, Art+Feminism was shaped by this insider-outsider dynamic that would continue to play out in our six years working on the project.

The co-founders met via video conference in November 2013 to discuss the possibility of collaboration. We agreed to hold an event at Eyebeam, and widely distribute a call for participation amongst our personal and professional networks. The call to participation quickly went viral: that first year 31 edit-a-thons took place in locations across six countries with approximately 600 participants creating 101 new articles and improving at least 90 articles.7 The response to the call for participation was no doubt fueled by a desire to correct the historical record. We have argued that its reach is due to our method of communicating and organizing primarily off-Wiki.8 Up to that point, the vast majority of edit-a-thon facilitators promoted and organized these events on Wikipedia Meet-up pages. We sent out our call for participation via email, professional listserves, and on social media. We theorized that the steep learning curve for Wikipedia editing (especially prior to the advent of the Visual Editor in 2015) was disincentivizing for organizers. First of all, how were new editors supposed to find events that only existed on a platform they were unfamiliar with, and which was never designed for discoverability? And, second, this meant that the event organizers necessarily needed to be comfortable both in Wikitext Markup and the Wikimedia community. Of course, many women already felt unwelcome in the community, so how were they to be expected to organize solely on its platform?

The topic touched a nerve! Quickly people and organizations were reaching out that we had no direct relationship with. We kept an eye on the Facebook event page, the Wikipedia Meet-up page and our communal email address; whenever anyone posted about wanting to start their own event, we immediately reached out with assistance. The event at Portland State University came together on Facebook post in a matter of minutes.9 We supported each node in different ways. For some locations we organized all of the key elements (location, subject area expert, Wikipedians), while some of the venues approached us with all elements assembled; most of the events were somewhere in between. This continues to be true, six years later. As our community has grown, however, we have come to wonder: what is Art+Feminism’s place within the larger Wikipedia community?

Who gets to decide who belongs on a platform for “everyone”?

Community is a complex term, because while it implies inclusion, it can often entail exclusion, as well. As an adjective, it is often used to suggest an uncomplicated goodness; but we must remember that exclusion is what creates the conceptual coherence of a community. This is, unfortunately, particularly true of open source communities, Open Source Software (OSS) or Free/Libre Source Software (FLOSS). Wikipedia’s gender gap is certainly not unique. An analysis of the 2017 GitHub Open Source Survey showed that 90% of survey respondents identified as male, with only 3% identifying as women and 1% as non-binary. Less than 1% identified as transgender. Further, only 14% of respondents identified as a minority in their country of residence.10 Because these projects are open, with few barriers to entry, one would assume that there should be no problem for new participants. However, for at least a decade, female developers have complained of the “unfriendly atmosphere both online and offline.”11 Open source communities are complex social worlds whose “flame wars” can be discouraging for new participants, especially women and members of other marginalized communities.

Perhaps the most obvious example of how a culture of online harassment plays out on Wikipedia was the conduct on pages related to Gamergate. The controversy known as “Gamergate” itself became public in 2014 when several women involved in the video game industry became the victims of a series of online and offline misogynistic attacks. Although it had its roots in video game culture, Gamergate became a flashpoint for discussion about gendered online harassment in general, including online platforms such as Wikipedia. In the end, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) sanctioned several editors on both sides over edits to the “Gamergate Controversy” article, which was a contentious decision within the community. Public statements were issued by the Wikimedia Foundation, two of the editors who were brought before the ArbCom, and in an unusual instance, the ArbCom itself. As Michael Mandiberg wrote in Social Text,

What’s frustrating is that Wikipedia’s ArbCom is structured to act in the letter of the law but maybe not the spirit, and as such, is ripe for abuse by the kind of process we’ve seen take place. The principles on which Wikipedia is founded assume everyone is acting in good faith, and seem unprepared for the Men’s Rights Activism spawned from Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan. It’s an example of what Astra Taylor says, that “‘open’ in no way means ‘equal.’”12

Wikipedia’s idealistic community guidelines – “be bold” and “assume good faith” – do not take into account the pervasiveness of online harassment and how it plays out in the lives of women, people of color, people with disabilities, LGBTQIA+ people, and folks from other marginalized communities.

Harassment often bleeds from one platform to another, from online to IRL. According to a 2017 PEW poll, 41% of Americans claim they’ve been harassed online, while nearly one-in-five “have been subjected to particularly severe forms of harassment online, such as physical threats, harassment over a sustained period, sexual harassment or stalking.”13 Further, one-in-ten note having been targeted due to their physical appearance, race, or gender and “although most people believe harassment is often facilitated by the anonymity that the internet provides, these experiences can involve acquaintances, friends or even family members.”14

We have experienced a number of forms of harassment since founding Art+Feminism, from both within and outside the Wikipedia community. The largest targeted Twitter campaign of harassment came after the Museum of Modern Art created a Facebook event page for the livestream of our 2017 edit-a-thon opening panel about Internet activism, featuring writer Joanne McNeil, Data & Society Research Institute Fellow Zara Rahman, and Kimberly Drew, curator and creator of the Black Contemporary Art Tumblr.15 This was largely the result of Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) bandwagoning on an initial comment by an influential MRA activist.16 We, as individuals, luckily remained largely unscathed because we operate all our social media under the collective identity of Art+Feminism.

We have been subject to personal attacks and individual harassment from within the Wikipedia community, however. The most notable case involved a an editor with whom we had previously worked.17 Over the course of two years, this individual posted hostile comments on various Art+Feminism pages, including comments on grant proposals which elicited formal warnings of “uncivil” behavior. They also attacked Art+Feminism and individuals involved with the project on Twitter, repeatedly misgendering team members and, in some cases, making claims about people in ways that were potentially harmful to their employment. They also actively interfered with our organizational efforts, including nominating training materials for deletion on procedural grounds days before our campaign was set to start, and sabotaging other efforts across Wikimedia platforms, including Wikidata. They were eventually banned, but only after multiple reports over the course of two years from both within and outside the Art+Feminism collective. This was the culmination of two exhausting years of documentation and repeated reports, on top of the usual affective labor of organizing.

The amount of labor it takes to report these types of experiences, in addition to the harm of the abuse itself, can be a major reason people do not continue to work on Wikipedia projects. A recent New York Times article highlighted the abuse experienced by LGBTQIA+ identified individuals on Wikipedia. One interviewee, Pax Ahimsa Gethen, a trans male Wikipedian who was harassed over a period of several months, reported their harasser posting their deadname, telling them they were “unloved” and belonged in an internment camp.18 Gethen is quoted as saying, “I’m not getting paid for this,” they said. “Why should I volunteer my time to be abused?”19

Further, we’ve experienced verbal and physical harassment at Wikipedia-related events. During Wikimania 2017, we reported these incidents to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Trust and Safety team, who held a 90 minute debrief with one of us, but no specific action was taken during the conference, or afterwards; furthermore, we only found out later that numerous other Wikipedians experienced harassment at that conference. This was particularly galling given that, during his keynote address, Jimmy Wales claimed that Wikipedia was great at dealing with harassment.20 After the Wikimedia Conference 2018, we also reported incidents involving inappropriate physical approaches and verbal interactions to the Wikimedia Foundation staff and no investigation, follow-up, or sanctions were carried out.

Partially in response to these experiences, we created our own, more inclusive and specific Safe Space/Brave Space Policy, in order to hold all of our organizers accountable to our shared values.21 This policy was a collective effort based on our informed experiences across various intersections of identity. It was created in collaboration with organizers around the world and we wish to acknowledge that we do this work in solidarity with a wide-reaching feminist network. One of the key components of our Safe Space/Brave Space policy is to “confront harassment and reduce harm.” This, in and of itself, is labor that often results in further alienation or “outsider status.” As the #metoo movement and Black Lives Matter have shown, silence around discrimination and violence against marginalized communities is the status quo.

In the process of writing this book chapter, Art+Feminism (along with a number of other Wiki-related organizations) called out an alleged instance of personal and physical abuse that others in the community had brought to our attention. Our process of calling out was both intentional and careful, with the primary goal of causing less harm to everyone involved. Necessarily, this kind of work requires hours of discussion and negotiation that is both exhausting and invisible. We reached out to other community members who, we thought, might have similar reservations about participating in a project with someone accused of abuse and some chose to join in solidarity.

Lam et al’s presentation at the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration was aptly titled “WP:Clubhouse?” using Wikipedia’s own policy language to suggest that community is, perhaps, the wrong term to describe a group that polices its own boundaries, often along race and gender lines.22 To echo their question: are we talking about community, or are we talking about a clubhouse?23 How is Wikipedia “open” if there are so many barriers to entry for women, LGBTQIA+ identified folks, and people of color?

Whose labor is recognized as labor? Can a community focused on content creation recognize the gendered labor required to reproduce community?

Wikipedia is a community that is focused on numbers: number of articles created, number of citations, and so on. While, as of 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation counts 36,421,998 Wikipedia accounts, only 130,136 are considered “active editors.”24 When Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia in 2001, its growth was rapid, with over 20,000 articles in its first year and a growing community of “Wikipedians” who worked collectively to write and edit the content. In the mid-2000s, however, the site’s popularity boomed and criticism of vandalism on Wikipedia became a mainstream debate.25 Established editors responded by creating an elaborate set of policies and guidelines for participation, as well as automated bots to handle routine checks for grammar and citations, among other things. As Tom Simonite has noted,

But those tougher rules and the more suspicious atmosphere that came along with them had an unintended consequence. Newcomers to Wikipedia making their first, tentative edits—and the inevitable mistakes—became less likely to stick around. Being steamrollered by the newly efficient, impersonal editing machine was no fun.26

Indeed, a comprehensive study of the longevity of newcomers to Wikipedia has found that new editors are far more likely to have their initial edits rejected, and leave, than their predecessors in the early days of Wikipedia were.27 And, another study has shown that women are even more likely to have their edits reverted than men, and less likely to come back.28 This suggests that helping new users feel comfortable editing on Wikipedia will require a huge effort to change these norms.

What counts as labor on Wikipedia is a fraught question. The creation of the encyclopedia itself and its various offshoots (Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, etc.) all rely on volunteer labor. Drawing on the research of Tiziana Terranova, who has argued that social media and crowdsourcing platforms are for all intensive purposes “digital sweatshops,” Dorothy Howard, lead co-organizer for the 2015 campaign, has argued that Wikipedia’s reliance on unpaid labor blurs the line between information activism and digital labor.29 But it is clear that in the eyes of the community, the labor of love that is Wikipedia is one that is based on content creation, not on community-building.

In 2016, the Wikipedia community was asked to weigh in on Global Metrics, which included the active editor counts. We argued that these events do not accurately measure the success of individuals or projects because they relied solely on Wikipedia edit counts, negating the other community-building work of catalyzing other important Wiki projects like AfroCROWD and holding edit-a-thons with a global reach. It is worth quoting our feedback at length here:

We would like to reconsider the definition of a retained active editor. At present a retained active editor is defined as a user that has made at least 5 edits per month in article space, for a period of 6 or 12 months. All three of the lead organizers for Art+Feminism do not qualify as “retained active editors” over a 12 or 6 month period in its current definition. Think about that. We are metapedians who spend much/most of our time in meta, AfD, meetup and talk pages; we compose longer texts (like this) collaboratively in a word doc or make all our edits in our sandbox like good Wikipedians, then paste them into articles space and only get credit for one edit; we spend many hours a week organizing off-wiki; we go to Wikicon and give presentations that demonstrate leadership and which others learn from. None of this "counts." Furthermore the annual schedules of of academia and the NY art world means that two out of the three of us to take much of August off from as much responsibility as we can, Wikipedia included. It strikes us that this resembles a re-inscription of a traditional hierarchy of gendered labor. This facilitation is the invisible labor of “making of the home” -- we are enabling the legible work other people. This work is erased as legitimate labor. The historical campaign Wages for Housework, argued that housework was not understood as legitimate work or labor because it is not remunerated.30

In response to our feedback, the Wikimedia Foundation eventually changed their global metrics, removing the retained active editor requirement.31

Both Howard and Mandiberg have alluded to the emotional or affective labor of community organizing on Wikipedia, with Mandiberg specifically referring to it as “the labor of being afraid.”32 As we’ve made clear in our discussions of harassment on Wikipedia, organizing a feminist editing collective requires a lot of emotional labor. But that labor is also on top of other kinds of immaterial labor – such as community organizing, peer education, social media production, event organizing, and so forth – that are involved in organizing a month of edit-a-thons that, on average, includes around 300 events all over the world, with over 4,000 participants editing or creating 25,000 articles on Wikipedia.33 Producing social media posts, managing volunteers and staff, and securing grant funding to pay for childcare, coffee and snacks and then processing those reimbursement payments for events in countries all over the world (with their varied banking requirements) is the labor of organizing that so often keeps the Art+Feminism team from the labor of editing. And this labor is gendered.34

What happens when thousands of new contributors contribute tens of thousands of new articles? How does the community react?

As Halfaker, Geiger, Morgan, and Riedl have shown, the Wikipedia community has grown increasingly inhospitable to new editors.35 This has had a great impact on the Art+Feminism project which, from its genesis, relied heavily on the openness of Wikipedia. Our approach has always been to encourage users to “be bold” and participate in the world’s largest online encyclopedia; a tool we all use daily. And, as we stated earlier, this mantle was taken seriously. With over six years, 1,100 events, 14,000 participants, and 58,000 articles, we are one of the longest-running and largest edit-a-thons in Wikipedia history. For example, our events host more than five times as many people as Wikimania. And, it’s also true that much of this work is not being done by what we traditionally refer to as Wikipedians, although we encourage all of the artists, activists, writers, educators, and librarians who are organizing and editing to see themselves as “Wikipedians,” even if the community doesn’t necessarily see them as such.

Because we encourage new editors to participate on Wikipedia, we understand that this will necessarily mean good faith errors. Anyone who teaches knows that learning requires mistakes. Over the years we’ve implemented a rigorous monitoring process to help new editors ensure that their articles don’t get deleted or, alternatively, help explain why a particular article isn’t considered notable within Wikipedia’s guidelines: we encourage first time editors to improve one of the 5000 pages we track via Wikidata36 and specifically direct them to the 700 English and 50 Spanish articles from this set which also have key article improvement alert templates, indicating they need further citations, links, or have questionable notability;37 we direct people who want to make new pages to the Art+Feminism Draft Template;38 and we encourage event organizers to vet articles before moving them from Draft to Article space. We use the Program and Events Dashboard, to track the alerts on all of the articles edited at our events; we post articles that have been proposed for deletion (PROD or AFD) to a Slack channel called #firebrigade, where experienced editors can review these articles, and either improve them or support their deletion when warranted. During the 2018 campaign we tracked these deleted articles and discovered that only .67% percent of all new articles were deleted. This is quite different from the 80% deletion rate that is often discussed as the percentage of new articles deleted in New Pages Patrol.39

Despite all of this, we repeatedly get new article pages challenged, our grant reports questioned, and worse. In one instance early on, an organizer in Australia didn’t heed our recommendation to seek out an experienced Wikipedian. We found out via an experienced editor who posted a skeptical email to a large Wikimedia mailing list; we handled the situation, and within 24 hours had found an editor to help with the edit-a-thon. This should have ended here, but instead editors went on to comment on organizer’s personal social media pages about the “mess” we had made in Australia and a number of event organizers canceled their events due to what they felt was abusive behavior from these Wikipedians; later these same Wikipedians made similar comments on our Meta pages. Again, we ask: who is the Wikipedia community for? If it’s only for those who already understand the Byzantine system of guidelines, policies and social hierarchies, how can it possibly be welcoming to newcomers?

What are the challenges of building communities that traverse geographies and languages?

The global nature of a campaign like Art+Feminism is one of its greatest strengths and greatest challenges. For example, the dynamics of managing a gender gap-related edit-a-thon are radically different in a context where there are no experienced Wikipedians available to attend events in person, where there are no “reliable” published sources on women artists’ lives and works and where there is a considerable digital literacy gap, or where it is unsafe for people to gather in public places. All of these are or have been factors in organizing events in Latin America, for example.

Siko Bouterse and Anasuya Sengupta have spoken eloquently on the ways in which the Wikipedia community is, at best, not prepared and, at worst, hostile to the concept of local and indigenous knowledge(s):

Wikipedians – particularly on the English Wikipedia – have found it hard to accept sources that are local publications in non-familiar languages, and certainly, to accept and accommodate the fact that the majority of the world’s knowledge (especially but not only in the global South) is oral, not written in published material. Google estimated a few years ago that the total number of published books in the world is about 130 million in 480 languages, but there are over 7000 languages and dialects in the world. “Oral citations” – a concept first explored by Achal Prabhala and his team in a fascinating 2011 film called People Are Knowledge – are not yet given credence within the community of editors.40

Early on in Art+Feminism’s development, we established a Regional Ambassador program so that we could adopt a more localized and rhizomatic model of organizing. The Regional Ambassador program consists of a network of activists, academics, and artists who are familiar with the Wikipedia environment and who enable a fluid and close dialogue between the campaign and the hundreds of organizers around the world. Currently, the program includes both an informal network of volunteers,41 as well as more formal network of organizers in Africa, Latin America, the United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia who coordinate directly with the core leadership team.42 These organizers typically participate in or contribute to the creation of support networks between art workers, art institutions, feminist activists and Wikipedians that are either regional or based on a shared language or culture, like Lusophone, Latin America and Spain.

Working globally introduces variables of geography and language, as well as the challenge of negotiating the dynamics and tensions between the global north and the global south. The hundreds of organizers and participants come from diverse cultural, geographic, economic and educational backgrounds. We are well aware of this diversity and have tried to adapt to it to the extent of our abilities. For example, we have spent significant time rewriting and redesigning training materials to make the content more accessible, which includes integrating translation to multiple languages into our workflow as a permanent practice.43 Further, bringing voices from the global south directly into the leadership collective has greatly affected they way that we organize.44 Early on in Art+Feminism’s organizing, we realized that our leadership collective and materials weren’t speaking directly to all the communities we were working with. So, in response we commissioned a Diversity Audit and have based much of our work since then on the recommendations.45

Earlier we mentioned how the Wikipedia community values the number of edits made by users above all, and that users who create content develop clout within the community. Given that the research that indicates that the average active editor of Wikipedia is an educated white cisgender man living in the global north, this means that the editors with the most clout tend to be educated white cisgender men living in the global north.46 This is particularly relevant because it makes it difficult to increase the presence of people from the global south, especially those facing structural violence or segregation. This brings up the question: when thousands of women and other marginalized communities take on the challenge of participating in a voluntary platform, how can we support and do justice to their work?

We’ve already talked about the harassment the core team has experienced in our work, but this is made exponentially more complicated in other geographical and language Wikipedia contexts. Art+Feminism organizers have had multiple run-ins with Italian Wikipedians, for example. One of our organizers and a seasoned Wikipedian, Camelia Boban, recently told the New York Times that a user once publicly insinuated that she was a prostitute.47 Another organizer has written extensively about her negative experience working on Italian Wikipedia for Italian VICE.48 In this instance, the organizer curated a list of well-known video game and digital media artists whose pages were all subsequently deleted on notability grounds, despite the artists having work shown in the Whitney Biennial, among other major exhibitions, and works in major permanent collections.49 These deletions included nitpicking language typical of Wikipedians wielding guidelines and policies to dissuade new editors from participating, also known as “Wikilawyering.”50 And, when these editors were asked in good faith to help edit the article instead of deleting it, they declined.51 In this case, it was clear that the editors recommending the deletion actually had far less knowledge about the subject matter than the original editors.

We have observed this type of behavior on Talk and Article For Deletion (AfD) pages across multiple language Wikipedias; we’ve experienced similar arguments on English and Spanish Wikipedia, for example. We would argue that this kind of behavior speaks volumes to the ways the insider knowledge of Wikipedia communities and discourses can be used to create boundaries that are inaccessible to women and other marginalized communities.

In instances of harassment on other language Wikipedias, unfortunately the onus is almost entirely on the Regional Ambassador to do all the editing and affective labor involved as the core organizing committee usually cannot intervene due to language barriers. Where possible, we have also relied on informal translations and interventions by other members of our collective with the requisite language skills.

Unfortunately, truly building out a support and safety network for our organizers in local disputes is something that will require greater bandwidth and capacity than we currently have. More importantly, it is work that would require major structural changes within the larger Wikipedia community. As long as editors are suspicious of new users, women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ people, and editors from the global south will continue to feel like unwelcome. In the words of our outgoing Director, McKensie Mack, on the experience of working on a Wikipedia-related project as someone who identifies as queer, Black, and non-binary:

It’s really important to note that the community is transphobic and homophobic. It’s also extremely closed to race and gender equity. Going to conferences and being treated like a doll was terrible. The Art+Feminism collective made me feel welcome, but it was basically you all and nobody else. And that was definitely a huge problem.52


In this chapter we’ve mapped out a veritable hellscape of microaggressions within the Wikipedia community. But, it’s important to note that we – along with thousands of others – continue to participate in the Wikipedia project and community because we believe in it. We’re critical because we are, above all, invested. Indeed, we have always believed and continue to believe that Wikipedia has radical feminist potential. In the words of Diana Maffia,

... the Wikipedia initiative is in perfect harmony with the critical feminist project: to take knowledge out of the cloisters, to encourage a collective form of knowledge production, to equate voices to give an opportunity to all proposals, to establish collective forms of correction and not under the undisputed authority of an expert, to install new themes, to influence the agendas of knowledge, to establish links between science, technology and society, to democratize access to knowledge and to allow the public appropriation of its results.53

We have seen this ethic modeled within the community as well. We’ve received wonderful support from the Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Resources Team, both financially and emotionally. Art+Feminism would not have been successful without their mentorship. We’ve also received incredible support from amazing Wikipedians in New York, across the United States and around the world, without whom the expansion of this project wouldn’t have been possible. Many of these people have been with us since day one and continue to attend events and help organize every year.

As Art+Feminism looks forward, the project will bring more voices into our leadership collective in the same way we’ve tried to bring more voices into Wikipedia at large. As the leadership collective necessarily becomes more diverse, it will better support our regional organizers and also model Wikipedia’s radical feminist potential. As organizers, we do this for a particular moment: that instance where a new editor realizes that their individual knowledge counts and that they can actually shape the way other people learn. Watching women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ folks, and people from varied other marginalized identities feel empowered to share their research and skills on the most important popular free culture project never gets old.


No comments here
Why not start the discussion?