In fall 2017, three librarians planned their first Wikipedia edit-athon, and the peer coaches became partners in organizing, designing, and working the event. Over the past seven edit-a-thons, a total of 183 editors have added over 22,500 words to Wikipedia on articles about women and nonbinary artists of color and notable members of the LGBTQ+, Latinx, and Indigenous communities.
Preparing for the Edit-a-Thon
It is important to have the entire planning team (which includes three librarians, one staff member, and six to seven peer coaches) together when picking a theme, date, and time to ensure everyone is interested in the topic and that there is enough employee coverage. Over time, library faculty and staff learned that it is hard to sustain excitement for doing the many hours of preliminary work necessary for the edit-athon if peer coaches are not able to actually attend. Choosing a theme related to social justice, anti-racist work, and gender equality also increases enthusiasm among all participants.
After a theme and date have been selected, the planning team meets and assigns roles to each member. Usually library faculty and staff communicate with teaching faculty and campus partners, present to classrooms and student organizations, create promotional materials, secure a budget, and coordinate room reservations and technology. Meanwhile, peer coaches research to make a comprehensive list of Wikipedia pages to be created or edited. First, they search the library catalog and pull materials that might encompass the theme. en they explore the books and identify potential names. Each person’s Wikipedia page is categorized into how much work is required to improve it and added to a list in a shared spreadsheet. Organizing the list this way helps to connect edit-a-thon participants with pages that match their editing proficiency.
Usually the peer coaches can complete this work independently, but they occasionally need guidance. Echoing research on peer-assisted learning, the peer coaches usually seek help from one another (Rinto et al., 2017). If the same questions are repeatedly asked and discussed,
