User:Missvain/WWHMProgramEval

This is an evaluation of two events:


 * Meetup/San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon
 * Meetup/San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2

Both events had the same theory of change. They also shared similar inputs, outputs and outcomes, which you can read below. Here are individual evaluations of each event, followed by a general examination of both events following completion. Keep in mind this evaluation is taking place in the year following the two events.


 * User:SarahStierch/WW1 Evaluation
 * User:SarahStierch/WW2 Evaluation

Theory of Change
Wikipedia has a gender gap. More men edit Wikipedia than women. The theory of change for both WikiWomen's edit-a-thons is that by having tailored events focused on engaging women, more women will learn about the policies and procedures of editing Wikipedia, and will contribute relevant content to their interests. Throughout the Wikimedia community, the theory of change is that any edit-a-thon will bring new editors and help to excite and retain experienced editors through social editing experiences. Thus, we would be able to bring more women to become editors of Wikipedia, and enthuse experienced women editors as well.

Inputs
Edit-a-thons around the world often involve similar inputs. Both of these events utilized some, but not all, of the common inputs. Those inputs we used include:


 * Volunteer time
 * Many people volunteered for these events. We failed to track our hours so an estimated number of hours will be used for both events.
 * Volunteer time regarding these two edit-a-thons generally involved:
 * Promotion of the event (on wiki, on mailing lists, through email, through the press)
 * Creating signage for the event (directional signs for the venue, sign in sheets)
 * Working the event (greeters, lecturers)
 * Partnership development (building relationships with sponsors or potential venue providers. i.e. a GLAM you are working with for Wiki Loves Libraries)


 * Knowledge base
 * Participants were asked to bring books and hard resources to share with others.
 * Organizers created lists of content needing improvement or creation for participants to use during the events.


 * Expertise
 * Organizers put out a call to action for experienced Wikipedians to attend the event, in order to provide support, if needed, to new editors.


 * Money
 * Both events were low cost initiatives. For both events, the only potential monetary investment was food and beverages during the event. Both events had those donated by a sponsor.


 * Materials
 * Booklets and swag was acquired from the Wikimedia Foundation to be given away at the event.


 * Equipment
 * Participants who did not have laptops were asked to inform organizers early on so we could make sure there were computers available for them.
 * Volunteers worked with WMF sponsor to make sure there was extra ethernet cords and power strips, and also wifi password information readily available.


 * Space
 * Space was donated in kind by the Wikimedia Foundation for both events. The events required space for at least 40+ people with seating for most.


 * Partnerships
 * Lead organizers were working for the Wikimedia Foundation, and were able to acquire WMF as a primary sponsor for the event.

Outputs
Both events were looking for similar outputs:


 * Number of participants
 * How many offline, how many online
 * How many new, how many experienced (100+ edits before event)


 * Number of articles improved
 * Number of new articles written
 * Number of media added
 * Press coverage received

Outcomes
Both events shared similar intended outcomes:


 * Did the participants have fun?
 * Participants skills were improved regarding editing Wikipedia
 * Participants had a better understanding of Wikipedia/sister projects/policies
 * Specific subject area (women's history) was improved
 * Retention of new editors
 * Have new participants edited one month after the event?
 * How many bytes have those participants added one month after the event?


 * Is a follow-up event planned for the future?
 * Organizers were satisfied after the event
 * Stronger relationships on and off wiki as a result of the event.

General reflection post-evaluation

 * The first event took more volunteer time than the second. Volunteers were able to draw on their experience with the first event to make the second event come together easier and faster. We already had a sponsor and all of the necessary paperwork (signage, sign in sheet, etc) prepared and ready for printing. We also knew how to promote the event easier, which took less time than the first event, which required us to research places to promote the event.
 * The second event had more experienced editors, but less new editors. The first event's lessons learned requested that more experienced editors would be ideal to help train new editors, however, the second event brought more experienced editors over new editors. The second event had 30 people, for less than the first, but only 1 new editor, down from the 12 who attended the first event.
 * Most participants edit at the events of the 34 and 30 participants, most edit during the event in the Wikipedia article space, numbering 25-26 at each event.
 * Total amount of edits made at each event were the same totaling 248 at both.
 * Bytes added were higher on the, bytes removed were lower as well compared to the first event. At the second event, total participants added 53,559 bytes of article content to English Wikipedia, which is a 99.6% increase from the first event. They also removed less bytes of article content, down 53% from the previous event.
 * New editors edit much less than experienced editors at events. which speaks for itself. We're unclear on why, as we didn't survey these people or keep track of what they were doing at the event.
 * Contributions by new accounts declined after the events. After the first event, the bytes added by the new editors (2) declined 82% after 6 months. In the second event, the one new account didn't make any edits.

With a survey, it's unclear on if these events built solidarity amongst local and regional editors, but, it is clear that experienced editors are more productive during and after the events, than new editors are. New editors who do edit during the events, edit less as time progresses after the event.