Hubbry Logo
Edit-a-thonEdit-a-thonMain
Open search
Edit-a-thon
Community hub
Edit-a-thon
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Edit-a-thon
Edit-a-thon
Edit-a-thon
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
An editathon for university students in Germany

An edit-a-thon (sometimes written editathon) is an event where some editors of online communities such as Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap (also known as a "mapathon"), and LocalWiki edit and improve a specific topic or type of content. The events typically include basic editing training for new editors and may be combined with a more general social meetup. The word is a portmanteau of "edit" and "marathon". An edit-a-thon can either be "in-person" or online or a blended version of both. If it is not in-person, it is usually called a "virtual edit-a-thon" or "online edit-a-thon".

Locations (in-person events)

[edit]

Wikipedia edit-a-thons have taken place at Wikimedia chapter headquarters; accredited educational institutions, including Sonoma State University, Arizona State University, Middlebury College,[1] and the University of Victoria; scientific research institutions such as the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences;[2] and cultural institutions, such as museums or archives.

Online/remote events

[edit]

Several Wikipedia edit-a-thons have been held during the COVID-19 pandemic adhering to social distancing measures. These events have been held online using synchronous voice and video chat as well as through asynchronous message boards and forums.

Topics

[edit]

The events have included topics such as cultural heritage sites, museum collections, women's history, art, feminism, narrowing Wikipedia's gender gap, and social justice issues.[3][4][5][6][7][8]

Women, African Americans, and members of the LGBT community are using edit-a-thons to bridge the gap in Wikipedia's sexual and racial makeup[9] and to challenge the under-representation of Africa-related topics.[10]

Organizers

[edit]

Some Wikipedia edit-a-thons have been organized by Wikipedians in residence. The OpenStreetMap community has also hosted several edit-a-thons.[11][12]

Examples

[edit]
Further information: Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon § Selective list of edit-a-thons in the English language or in English-speaking countries
Carol Ann Whitehead, organizer of the Ada Lovelace Day Edit-a-thon
[edit]
  • The 72 horas con Rodin edit-a-thon in Mexico City is the longest ever held, recognized by Guinness World Records.
    The 72 horas con Rodin edit-a-thon in Mexico City is the longest ever held, recognized by Guinness World Records.
  • Cross section of participants at the Igbo Wiktionary virtual edit-a-thon in August 2020
    Cross section of participants at the Igbo Wiktionary virtual edit-a-thon in August 2020
  • Attendees at the 2013 Women in the Arts Edit-a-thon in Washington, DC
    Attendees at the 2013 Women in the Arts Edit-a-thon in Washington, DC
  • An edit-a-thon in São Paulo, Brazil, aimed at creating and improving Wikipedia articles relating to feminism, women's rights and notable women
    An edit-a-thon in São Paulo, Brazil, aimed at creating and improving Wikipedia articles relating to feminism, women's rights and notable women
  • AfroCrowd Manager Sherry Antoine explaining edit-a-thons
  • Virtual workroom for the online edit-a-thon on SDG topics in September 2020 (using Workplace by Facebook)
    Virtual workroom for the online edit-a-thon on SDG topics in September 2020 (using Workplace by Facebook)
  • "Wiki4Climate" opening session group photo in November 2020
    "Wiki4Climate" opening session group photo in November 2020

See also

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Wikipedia meetups

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Edit-a-thon

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
![Studenten editieren im Wikipedia-Kontor Hamburg.jpg][float-right] An , alternatively spelled editathon, is a collaborative event in which participants convene in person, online, or in a hybrid format to create, expand, and improve articles on platforms, most commonly , often concentrating on specific themes such as underrepresented historical figures, cultural institutions, or domains identified as deficient. These gatherings typically incorporate training sessions for novice editors, , and social elements to foster among contributors. Originating as a portmanteau of "edit" and "marathon," edit-a-thons emerged in the late 2000s and early 2010s within the Wikimedia ecosystem to systematically address empirical content imbalances, such as the underrepresentation of topics related to certain demographics or fields, through concentrated collective effort. Edit-a-thons have been organized by Wikimedia chapters, galleries, libraries, archives, museums (GLAM institutions), universities, and advocacy groups to enhance encyclopedic coverage, with notable examples including events focused on art and since 2014, which have mobilized thousands of editors globally to add millions of views' worth of content on targeted subjects. Achievements encompass record-setting durations, such as the 72-hour "Horas con Rodin" event in , acknowledged by as the longest continuous edit-a-thon, and contributions to linguistic and through initiatives like Igbo sessions. While proponents highlight their role in democratizing knowledge production and rectifying verifiable gaps via sourced expansions, critics contend that theme-specific edit-a-thons, frequently hosted by academia and cultural institutions prone to ideological skews, risk amplifying selective narratives over neutral comprehensiveness, potentially undermining the causal impartiality essential to encyclopedic reliability.

Definition and Overview

Core Concept

An edit-a-thon, a portmanteau of "edit" and "marathon," is an organized collaborative event where participants gather to intensively create, expand, or refine content on wiki platforms such as Wikipedia. These sessions emphasize collective editing efforts, often providing structured support like workshops on wiki markup, sourcing guidelines, and notability criteria to enable both novice and experienced contributors. The format draws inspiration from hackathons but centers on encyclopedic knowledge production rather than software development, fostering real-time interaction among editors to address specific content needs. At its essence, the core mechanism of an edit-a-thon involves participants identifying gaps in wiki coverage—such as missing articles on historical figures, scientific topics, or cultural artifacts—and systematically adding verifiable information backed by . Events are typically time-bound, ranging from a few hours to multi-day marathons, with metrics like new articles created or bytes added used to gauge output, though long-term retention and quality depend on adherence to platform policies. While primarily associated with Wikimedia projects, the concept has extended to other open-knowledge platforms like , adapting the model to geospatial or community-specific data enhancement. The underlying principle prioritizes to build a more comprehensive , yet outcomes are constrained by wiki neutrality standards, which require edits to reflect reliable, secondary sources rather than primary advocacy. This can limit the impact of thematically driven events if proposed topics lack sufficient documentation, highlighting the tension between participatory enthusiasm and evidentiary rigor in crowd-sourced encyclopedias.

Primary Objectives

Edit-a-thons primarily seek to address identified gaps in Wikipedia's coverage by facilitating the creation and improvement of articles on specific topics, often those deemed underrepresented, such as contributions from women, ethnic minorities, or niche fields like and climate policy. Participants, including subject experts and novice editors, collaborate to add verifiable content drawn from primary sources, thereby enhancing the encyclopedia's comprehensiveness and reliability on these subjects. For instance, events like the #CiteNLM initiative focus on incorporating citations from authoritative medical libraries to bolster health-related articles. Another core objective is the recruitment and skill-building of new contributors, aiming to expand the pool of active editors and mitigate demographic imbalances in the Wikimedia community, which has historically been dominated by certain demographic groups. Training sessions during these events teach Wikipedia's guidelines, sourcing standards, and neutrality policies, empowering attendees to make sustained contributions beyond the event itself. Evaluations of early edit-a-thons highlighted priorities in increasing overall contributions, developing editor competencies, and shifting perceptions of Wikimedia projects' . Edit-a-thons also promote institutional partnerships, particularly with galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM), to integrate offline expertise and materials into digital content, fostering long-term collaborations that sustain content quality improvements. This approach leverages domain-specific knowledge to ensure articles meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria while bridging gaps between cultural institutions and online volunteer networks.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Events

The concept of organized collaborative editing events for , later termed edit-a-thons, originated within the community in 2004. In February 2004, an editor proposed the first structured edit-a-thon specifically for advancing a , envisioning a focused group effort to expand content on targeted topics. Mid-2004 saw co-founder suggest an "Editing Weekend" hosted at a , aimed at gathering editors to accelerate article development through in-person . These early proposals laid the groundwork but did not immediately result in held events, as Wikipedia's growth relied primarily on decentralized individual contributions during its formative years. The practical implementation of such gatherings gained traction around 2010, paralleling the launch of institutional partnerships and the Wikimedian in Residence program, pioneered by Wyatt at the that year. The term "edit-a-thon" itself first appeared in reference to a initiative in 2010, as recognized by the , marking a shift toward formalized, institution-backed editing marathons to address content gaps in areas like . Among the earliest documented events was the British Library's January 2011 edit-a-thon, spanning two days from to 15, where approximately 20-30 participants, including librarians and Wikipedians, collaborated to create and enhance articles on British history and collections, resulting in dozens of new or improved entries. This event exemplified the emerging model of blending expert domain knowledge from host institutions with Wikipedia's volunteer editing, setting a precedent for subsequent partnerships that emphasized verifiable sourcing from archival materials. Subsequent early efforts, such as those tied to the International Programme in 2012, built on this by focusing on niche topics like the , adding images and expanding related articles over multi-day sessions.

Expansion and Institutionalization

Following the initial localized events in the early , edit-a-thons proliferated globally through coordinated campaigns addressing content gaps, such as Art+Feminism, which launched in March 2014 and organized over 280 editing workshops by 2017 to improve coverage of and related topics. This growth reflected broader adoption by cultural institutions, with galleries, libraries, archives, and museums increasingly hosting events to enhance Wikipedia's representation of their collections, as documented in outreach efforts starting around 2013. By 2016, international scale was evident in Mexico City's 72-hour "Horas con Rodin" event at the Soumaya Museum, which set a for the longest continuous edit-a-thon and resulted in substantial article improvements on . Institutionalization accelerated via structured support from Wikimedia affiliates, including local chapters that provide expertise, promotion, and logistical aid for dozens of annual events; for instance, Wikimedia DC facilitated 20 to 30 edit-a-thons yearly by the early 2020s, often partnering with policy and cultural organizations. The Wikimedia Foundation formalized this through funding mechanisms like Rapid Grants, which allocate resources for short-term projects including edit-a-thons, workshops, and content drives, enabling sustained programming in underrepresented regions and languages. Academic libraries and universities further embedded edit-a-thons into curricula and , using them to teach skills and while contributing to encyclopedic content, with examples spanning U.S. institutions to Nigerian university libraries by 2022. This integration transformed gatherings into recurring, grant-supported fixtures within educational and heritage sectors, yielding measurable outputs like thousands of edited articles viewed millions of times.

Event Formats

In-Person Gatherings

In-person edit-a-thons consist of participants assembling at designated physical venues, such as university , museums, or community centers, to engage in collaborative wiki over scheduled durations ranging from hours to multi-day marathons. These events emphasize hands-on training sessions where experienced editors instruct newcomers on platform policies, reliable sourcing, and neutral point of view requirements, often supplemented by breakout discussions to brainstorm article topics. Organizers typically secure facilities with high-speed , ample seating, and catering to sustain productivity, while participants supply personal laptops for editing. The format enables direct interpersonal exchanges, facilitating rapid feedback on drafts and collective problem-solving for contentious edits, which studies of similar collaborative events suggest improves content accuracy and editor skill acquisition. Venues like academic institutions host recurring in-person gatherings; for instance, the Library conducted its third annual edit-a-thon on May 10, 2024, drawing community members to enhance underrepresented articles. Similarly, coordinated a event involving 60 students to address racial and imbalances in coverage through targeted expansions. Prominent examples highlight thematic focus and scale; the "72 Horas con Rodin" edit-a-thon, organized by the Soumaya Museum and Wikimedia México in starting July 15, 2016, endured 72 continuous hours, establishing a for the longest editing session and resulting in substantial art-related contributions. Art+Feminism initiatives frequently adopt in-person models, such as Cornell University's three-day gathering on April 14-16, 2023, at Olin Library, which convened editors to bolster entries on women in arts and sciences. Rice University's March 28, 2024, event assembled 10 volunteers at a location to refine articles on and homelessness, demonstrating localized impact on social issues.

Virtual and Remote Sessions

Virtual edit-a-thons enable participants to collaborate remotely using video conferencing tools like Zoom, collaborative document platforms such as , and Wikimedia's online interfaces, eliminating the need for physical venues. These sessions typically include structured sessions, real-time support channels, and shared goal-setting to guide contributions on targeted topics. The format proliferated during the starting in early , as restrictions on gatherings prompted organizers to adapt in-person events to online equivalents. For instance, the shifted its March 14, 2020, edit-a-thon to a virtual setup with remote support for participants. Similarly, Libraries conducted its first entirely online edit-a-thon in summer 2020, drawing 40 participants focused on closing Wikipedia's through article creation and improvement. The Walker Art Center also hosted a in 2020 aimed at rectifying the underrepresentation of artists in biographical entries. Remote sessions offer advantages in , allowing contributions from diverse global locations without travel costs or logistical barriers, which supports broader of new editors and underrepresented voices. They facilitate skill development and content expansion through asynchronous and synchronous interactions, with metrics often tracking new articles created, edits made, and participant retention. However, challenges include reduced spontaneous compared to in-person settings and potential technical hurdles for novices, as explored in ethnomethodological analyses of virtual editor experiences. Despite these, virtual formats have sustained edit-a-thon momentum, with like the February 21, 2021, Breakthrough edit-a-thon targeting women and non-binary Black scientists in STEM.

Hybrid Approaches

Hybrid edit-a-thons merge in-person gatherings with remote participation, utilizing video conferencing tools such as Zoom alongside physical venues to facilitate simultaneous contributions from local and distant editors. This format addresses limitations of purely in-person events by expanding reach to participants unable to travel due to location, health, or scheduling constraints, while retaining collaborative benefits like live training and group discussions. Adoption of hybrid models surged after the , with organizers adapting to proven remote editing workflows established during widespread virtual events in 2020-2021. Examples include the WikiGap Malaysia 2024 event on August 21, 2024, organized by the Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia, which operated in hybrid mode to create and improve Wikipedia articles on women, aiming to reduce gender-related content disparities. Similarly, the Planetary Science Wiki Edit-a-thon 2025 incorporated hybrid training sessions in February-March 2025, led by a Wikimedia Belgium trainer, to teach article creation and editing skills to both on-site and online attendees. The Materials Science & Technology 2022 (MST22) Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon on October 11, 2022, followed a hybrid structure with an initial tutorial and guided editing for in-person and virtual participants. Operational challenges in hybrid setups include synchronizing time zones, ensuring equitable access to real-time feedback for remote users, and mitigating technical disruptions like connectivity issues, though platforms such as shared Etherpads for collaborative drafting help maintain productivity across formats. Events like the Wikimedia Yobe Network Hybrid Edit-a-thons in , funded in December 2024, demonstrate ongoing use of this approach for community building and content expansion in underrepresented regions.

Focus Areas and Topics

Predominant Themes

Edit-a-thons commonly target themes addressing Wikipedia's content imbalances, with a primary emphasis on enhancing coverage of and -related topics to counteract the platform's documented gender disparity, where women account for only about 18% of biographical across Wikimedia projects as of 2021. The Art+Feminism campaign exemplifies this focus, organizing global events since 2014 to create and expand articles on , feminists, and related art movements, often in response to surveys revealing fewer than 10% female contributors among editors. These initiatives have facilitated hundreds of editing sessions worldwide, prioritizing verifiable sources to improve article quality on underrepresented figures. Cultural heritage and institutional collections represent another prevalent theme, frequently through partnerships between Wikimedia volunteers and GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) entities, which leverage specialized knowledge to document artifacts, exhibitions, and historical materials otherwise overlooked. Such events, originating as early as 2009 with Australia's , aim to integrate proprietary collections into open knowledge bases while adhering to notability guidelines. Additional recurring themes encompass ethnic minorities, such as Black history and Indigenous perspectives, and sector-specific gaps like women in STEM or social challenges including . These selections often stem from empirical assessments of article stubs or absences, prioritizing topics with reliable primary sources to sustain long-term encyclopedic value over transient advocacy.

Criteria for Topic Selection

Topic selection for edit-a-thons prioritizes areas of encyclopedic deficiency, particularly underrepresented subjects such as women in STEM, , or , to enhance content balance and depth. Organizers typically identify themes by assessing Wikipedia's existing coverage for gaps, using tools like gap-finding lists or dashboards that highlight under-edited categories. This approach stems from the recognition that volunteer-driven editing often skews toward popular or well-sourced topics, leaving specialized or niche areas underdeveloped. A core criterion is adherence to notability standards, ensuring proposed topics possess sufficient independent, reliable secondary sources to qualify for inclusion; new articles risk deletion if this threshold is unmet. Pre-event preparation involves compiling curated lists of potential articles—either stubs for expansion or novel entries—verified against these guidelines to minimize futile efforts. For instance, themes aligned with institutional collections, like artifacts or academic specialties, leverage available primary expertise while confirming secondary verifiability. Practical feasibility influences choices, favoring existing short articles over entirely new ones, as expansions require fewer procedural hurdles and yield quicker results for participants. Themes are also selected to match anticipated attendee skills, such as domain knowledge from partnering GLAM institutions (galleries, libraries, archives, museums), ensuring productive contributions. Organizers avoid overly broad or contentious topics lacking consensus potential, prioritizing those with verifiable data to sustain long-term article viability.

Organization and Participation

Key Organizers and Sponsors

Local chapters of the , such as Wikimedia DC and Wikimedia , serve as primary organizers for numerous edit-a-thons, partnering with institutions to host events focused on specific topics like and underrepresented groups. These chapters handle logistics, training, and coordination, often leveraging volunteer networks to execute in-person and virtual gatherings. Affiliate campaigns play a central role in scaling edit-a-thons globally; Art+Feminism, initiated in 2014 by volunteers affiliated with Wikimedia New York City, coordinates annual events worldwide to expand coverage of women and gender-diverse artists through collaborative editing sessions at museums and cultural sites. Similarly, Wiki Education, a nonprofit focused on academic engagement, supports edit-a-thons by providing resources and training for students and faculty to contribute verified content, as seen in partnerships with organizations like 500 Women Scientists. Sponsorship typically comes from GLAM institutions (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) that offer venues, expertise, and promotional support; examples include the , which backed a 2024 edit-a-thon on with Wikimedia DC, and the , which hosted Art+Feminism events to highlight . The supplements these efforts with grants for outreach, event costs, and editor development programs. Universities and libraries, such as , also sponsor events to foster student involvement in content creation.

Participant Profiles and Recruitment

Participants in edit-a-thons typically include a mix of novice editors, subject-matter experts, and community activists aligned with the event's thematic focus. Events often attract students, academics, librarians, and professionals from partnering institutions, with a deliberate emphasis on recruiting individuals from underrepresented demographics to counteract 's editor base, which remains predominantly male and Western. For instance, women comprise only about 15% of contributors overall, prompting targeted participation from female editors in themed events. Recruitment strategies prioritize to diverse groups through academic networks, libraries, and affinity organizations, such as feminist collectives for gender-related edit-a-thons or ethnic communities for cultural topics. Organizers advertise via email lists, , and institutional announcements, aiming to onboard newcomers while leveraging experienced Wikipedians as mentors. A key goal is editor retention, with programs tracking new user accounts and return participation to measure success in expanding the contributor pool. Evaluations of specific events reveal varied profiles; for example, university-hosted edit-a-thons draw faculty, staff, and students, while community-focused ones seek broader representation to reflect local demographics rather than the platform's typical editor skew toward males. However, retention rates among recruits remain low, with many participants contributing sporadically post-event, highlighting challenges in sustained engagement despite initial recruitment efforts.

Operational Methods

Pre-Event Preparation and Training

Organizers of edit-a-thons begin preparation by defining event , including selecting a suitable date, time, and venue equipped with reliable , power outlets, and space for collaborative work, typically aiming for sessions lasting 3-4 hours to maintain participant focus. They assemble a team of volunteers and experienced editors to handle roles such as introductions, one-on-one support, and topic facilitation, often recruiting from local Wikimedia chapters to leverage institutional knowledge. Publicity efforts include creating event descriptions with specific hashtags and encouraging prospective participants to establish accounts in advance, as platform limits allow only six new accounts per every 24 hours, preventing bottlenecks on the day. A core component of pre-event work involves compiling targeted lists of articles for creation or improvement, each accompanied by summaries of notability criteria and links to reliable sources to verify compliance with encyclopedic standards and expedite editing. Materials such as printed cheat sheets on editing mechanics, policy overviews, and beginner guides are prepared and distributed, with final assembly often occurring the day prior to ensure accessibility for novices. Training emphasizes equipping participants, particularly newcomers, with foundational skills through structured sessions on core editing principles, including source verification, neutral phrasing, and basic markup tools. These may occur as pre-event webinars or introductory presentations at the gathering, utilizing visual aids and hands-on exercises to demonstrate account setup, article drafting, and via talk pages. Experienced mentors, identifiable by badges or stations, provide ongoing guidance to reinforce these elements and troubleshoot issues, fostering adherence to content policies amid the event's thematic focus. Technical rehearsals, such as testing and software compatibility checks, are conducted to minimize disruptions, especially for hybrid or virtual formats relying on collaborative platforms.

Execution During the Event

Edit-a-thons commence with introductory sessions where organizers and participants introduce themselves, often followed by on basics for newcomers. These , typically lasting 30 minutes to an hour, cover account creation, article structure, sourcing requirements, and neutral point of view policies, with hands-on demonstrations. In a 2018 event at the American Jazz Museum, a preceded focused on topics, enabling nearly 30 participants to improve 10 articles and create one new entry over four hours. The core of execution involves dedicated editing time, where participants work individually or collaboratively on pre-selected topics, using provided materials such as books, articles, or archival documents. Experienced editors staff help desks to assist with technical issues, resolve edit conflicts, and ensure compliance with guidelines; for instance, in a 2016 university event, staff facilitated collaboration among 11 students to draft a single article on a , addressing real-time conflicts. resources are often stationed at tables or shared digitally, promoting efficient content addition and verification. Progress is monitored using tools like the Wikimedia Programs & Events Dashboard, which tracks edits in real-time and attributes contributions to the event. Sessions incorporate breaks for refreshments and informal discussions to maintain engagement, with some events featuring live demonstrations or thematic talks interspersed. In virtual formats, execution relies on online platforms for synchronous editing, video calls for support, and shared documents for coordination, adapting in-person elements to remote participation. Events typically span 3 to 6 hours, balancing structured guidance with autonomous work to maximize output while accommodating varying skill levels.

Post-Event Evaluation

Event organizers employ standardized tools such as the Wikimedia Event Metrics dashboard to generate post-event reports, quantifying contributions through metrics including pages created, pages improved, total edits, and bytes added across participating wikis. These reports, available in CSV or Wikitext formats, track data filtered by participant usernames or article categories, with limits of up to 50,000 items per wiki, and also measure indirect impacts like page views to assess reach. For instance, in evaluations of multiple 2013 edit-a-thons, organizers recorded an average of 620 pages created or improved per event, alongside 23,993 characters added, providing a baseline for content growth. Retention of new editors emerges as a core evaluative focus, revealing persistent challenges despite initial engagement spikes. Analysis of 328 newcomers from 2013 events found only 1.4% remained active (defined as 5+ edits per month) after six months, though experienced editors increased activity post-event. A 2016 of 59 Art + Feminism edit-a-thons reported 9% of 586 newcomers editing one week later—higher than the 1% for random newcomers—but overall retention remained low, with limited social interactions via talk pages or external platforms like hindering sustained involvement. Follow-up mechanisms, such as personalized messages, correlate with improved odds of continued editing, suggesting that isolated events yield short-term boosts but require serial formats for deeper socialization. Qualitative assessments often incorporate participant surveys to gauge learning outcomes, with edit-a-thons like Art + Feminism prioritizing skills in , , and source reliability evaluation—outcomes ranked highest by attendees for fostering Wikipedia literacy and addressing content gaps. These surveys highlight enhanced technical proficiency and motivation for future edits, yet broader critiques note that while content quality improves temporarily, long-term encyclopedia integrity depends on verifiable sourcing and neutral policies, which event-driven bursts may overlook amid thematic focuses. Recommendations from evaluations emphasize refining username tracking, budgeting for follow-ups, and experimenting with hybrid in-person-virtual models to bolster measurable, enduring effects beyond immediate outputs.

Measured Impacts

Contributions to Content

Edit-a-thons typically result in the creation of new articles and the expansion of existing ones, with participants collectively adding thousands of words, references, and edits per event. In a 2020 Art+Feminism edit-a-thon hosted by the , editors created 3 new articles, improved 17 others, performed 138 total edits, and added 8,140 words along with 83 references. Similarly, a 2021 session by the Women's Art Register yielded 9 new articles, edits to 22 existing ones, 347 total edits, 20,000 words, and 137 references from 18 participants. These outputs focus on underrepresented topics, such as biographies of , where baseline content gaps persist due to historical editing imbalances. Quantitative impacts vary by event scale but often include measurable increases in article length and sourcing. A 2024 Art+Feminism campaign at the Stanley Museum updated 11 articles, incorporating 7,620 words and 84 references. In a 2019 university-hosted edit-a-thon, participants revised 17 articles by adding 2,700 words, generating over 70,000 views in the ensuing period. Across reported events from 2013 onward, averages approach 3 pages of content per participant, emphasizing additions to niche domains like or rather than broad coverage. Such contributions enhance factual density, as evidenced by reference additions that bolster verifiability, though post-event retention rates depend on adherence to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. Themed edit-a-thons amplify content in specific areas, with cumulative effects from series like Art+Feminism exceeding hundreds of new biographies since 2014. A 2018 National Museum of Women in the Arts event produced 8 new articles and enhancements to 72 others within four hours. These efforts have filled gaps in topics like women's contributions to STEM or , where pre-event articles often lacked depth; for example, a fashion-themed edit-a-thon improved 72 articles across eight languages, accruing 600,000 views in four months. While gross additions are verifiable via Wikipedia's tracking tools, net content gains require subtracting reversions, which studies attribute to inconsistencies in sourcing or neutrality rather than volume alone. Overall, edit-a-thons prioritize quantity in underserved categories, yielding empirical boosts to encyclopedia breadth without uniformly elevating average article quality.

Effects on Editor Engagement

Edit-a-thons facilitate heightened short-term engagement for new editors compared to those who join organically, with one of 59 events in early 2016 finding that 9% of 586 newcomers remained active one week post-event, versus 1% for random newcomers. This initial boost stems from structured training, collaborative editing, and social mechanisms like talk page interactions, which increase retention odds by 7% per article edited and 68% per message received. However, long-term retention remains low; in a 2013 analysis of 328 new accounts created during events, only 1.4% (3 editors) sustained activity. For existing editors, retention rates are stronger, with a Wikimedia evaluation reporting that 51% of 853 participants maintained active status—defined as five or more edits per month—six months after their event. Virtual edit-a-thons similarly sustain engagement through shared goals, though participants report frustrations with platform usability and policy enforcement, potentially hindering deeper involvement. Across studies, event scale influences outcomes, as larger gatherings correlate with marginally higher newcomer persistence via enhanced socialization. Broader analyses indicate edit-a-thons outperform baseline onboarding for one-month retention (52% of new users active) but see sharp declines to 15% at six months, underscoring the need for post-event support to convert event-driven activity into sustained contributions. These patterns hold despite efforts to target underrepresented groups, revealing persistent challenges in Wikipedia's editor retention ecosystem beyond event-specific interventions.

Broader Educational and Cultural Outcomes

Edit-a-thons foster educational outcomes by equipping participants with practical skills in , source verification, and information organization, which are transferable to academic and professional contexts. Studies indicate that involvement enhances , , and evaluation of online source reliability, with participants ranking these among the most valued learning gains. For instance, editing assignments integrated into curricula have been shown to boost motivation and proficiency in writing and evidence-based argumentation. These events also promote Wikipedia-specific literacy, including understanding editorial policies and collaborative knowledge production, which demystifies the platform's process. on and courses demonstrates that Wikipedia editing serves as an effective tool, improving students' ability to synthesize and communicate complex topics neutrally. Such experiences encourage ongoing engagement with verifiable information practices beyond the event. Culturally, edit-a-thons support outreach for heritage institutions, enabling communities to document and amplify underrepresented narratives through improved article coverage. They contribute to addressing content gaps in areas like women's biographies and minority contributions, potentially broadening public access to diverse historical perspectives. However, outcomes vary by focus; initiatives targeting specific demographics often prioritize equity in representation, though on sustained cultural shifts remains limited compared to immediate content additions. This engagement can influence broader discussions by integrating local knowledge into global platforms, fostering a sense of ownership in cultural documentation.

Criticisms and Limitations

Concerns Over Ideological Bias

Critics of edit-a-thons contend that their thematic focus on topics such as , racial equity, and LGBTQ+ representation systematically introduces progressive ideological biases into articles, prioritizing identity-based narratives over neutral encyclopedic standards. Organizations like the have provided substantial funding—over $300,000 since 2018—to groups such as the Black Lunch Table, which organizes edit-a-thons to expand coverage of Black artists, often emphasizing activist perspectives that align with left-leaning cultural priorities. Similarly, initiatives like Art+Feminism edit-a-thons, held annually since 2014, have created or improved thousands of articles on women and topics, but detractors argue this coordinated effort circumvents 's notability guidelines by elevating subjects based on demographic quotas rather than verifiable significance. This selective emphasis lacks counterparts for conservative or traditionalist themes, fostering an imbalance where dissenting viewpoints—such as critiques of or gender ideology—are underrepresented or framed negatively. co-founder has highlighted how such events, including recent edit-a-thons documented in promotional videos, contribute to the platform's entrenched left-leaning bias by enabling activist-driven edits that persist despite community oversight. Empirical analyses, including a 2024 study comparing entries to other encyclopedias, confirm a systematic leftward skew in political and cultural articles, attributing part of this to influxes of ideologically aligned editors from targeted campaigns like edit-a-thons. Proponents counter that these events address systemic gaps, yet evidence of revert wars and policy invocations to protect inserted content suggests resistance to balancing edits, raising questions about adherence to Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. For instance, collaborations between Wikimedia and university gender studies programs have been cited as pipelines for feminist-framed revisions, amplifying biases inherent in those academic fields. Overall, while edit-a-thons boost article quantity, their ideological homogeneity risks entrenching a feedback loop where Wikipedia's content increasingly reflects the priorities of progressive institutions rather than broad empirical consensus.

Questions of Long-Term Effectiveness

Evaluations of edit-a-thons have highlighted persistently low retention rates among new participants, casting doubt on their capacity to build a stable editing community. A 2013 analysis of dozens of events found that, among 328 new editors tracked, only three (1.4%) remained active—defined as making five or more edits per month—six months post-event, with 83% of reports indicating zero such retention. Case studies of themed initiatives, such as Art+Feminism edit-a-thons, report similarly dismal continuation rates, with roughly 1% of newcomers persisting in edits beyond the event. The of content generated during these events also remains uncertain, as bursts of additions may not withstand Wikipedia's ongoing without dedicated upkeep. Events typically produce an average of 23,993 characters per session—equivalent to about 16 pages—but data on long-term is scarce, with contributions potentially subject to reversion if they fail to meet verifiability standards or attract insufficient maintenance. A 2019 study of 24 health-related pages edited by 98 students reported that 22 edits (92%) endured through the observation period, though this short-term outcome in a controlled academic context may not generalize to broader, uncoordinated efforts. Critics argue that edit-a-thons prioritize immediate, feel-good participation over structural supports for endurance, such as follow-up or repeated engagements, leading to ephemeral impacts despite initial enthusiasm. While qualitative observations suggest potential benefits from serialized events or enhanced training, confirming improved long-term outcomes is limited, underscoring the need for rigorous, causal assessments beyond self-reported metrics from organizers.

Practical and Logistical Challenges

Organizing edit-a-thons demands extensive upfront planning, often spanning 4 to 8 weeks or more to handle publicity, partner coordination, and resource allocation, as insufficient preparation can lead to low attendance or mismatched expectations between institutions and volunteers. For instance, the Museo Soumaya's 50-hour art-focused event in 2014 required two months of intensive logistical coordination between museum staff and a Wikipedian-in-Residence to secure venues, materials, and schedules. In-person events face venue-specific hurdles, including securing spaces with adequate electrical outlets, stable , and projectors for training sessions, as power strips and compatible devices are frequently needed to accommodate laptop-dependent participants. Institutional constraints such as operating hours, protocols, and staff availability often limit event duration to 3-4 hours, while limited or can deter attendance, particularly for those traveling significant distances. Technical barriers exacerbate these issues; for example, Wikipedia's restricting new account creations to a maximum of six per 24-hour period from the same can hinder multiple novices at a single location. Participant recruitment and retention pose additional logistical strains, with organizers needing to balance experienced editors (ideally in a 1:3 ratio with newcomers) while overcoming barriers like topic-specific disinterest or scheduling conflicts with curators and volunteers. First-time events may draw limited numbers—such as only 11 participants in one 2016 archival edit-a-thon—due to drop-in formats and unfamiliarity, requiring dedicated facilitation for and markup . During execution, simultaneous editing by groups can trigger conflicts, complicating contributions and necessitating real-time moderation. Virtual edit-a-thons shift some burdens from physical spaces to digital platforms but introduce challenges in sustaining and ensuring equitable tech access, as facilitators must manage dispersed participants without in-person oversight. In smaller communities, competitive formats risk editor burnout and participation declines post-event, stemming from overexertion among a limited pool of contributors. Overall, these factors underscore the resource-intensive nature of edit-a-thons, where inadequate addressing of can undermine content goals despite volunteer enthusiasm.

Notable Examples

Landmark In-Person Events

One of the earliest notable in-person edit-a-thons focused on improving coverage of women in science and technology occurred during events, which inspired subsequent initiatives like Art+Feminism; these gatherings emphasized collaborative editing to address perceived gaps in biographical representation. The Art+Feminism campaign launched its first major in-person edit-a-thon in in February 2014, hosted at locations including the , drawing participants to create and expand articles on and feminist topics, with events expanding globally thereafter. In 2013, the National Museum of Women in the Arts in , organized an edit-a-thon aimed at enhancing articles on women in the arts, contributing to early efforts to increase visibility of female figures in cultural histories. A landmark for endurance was the 72-hour "Horas con Rodin" edit-a-thon held at the Soumaya Museum in from July 15-18, 2016, involving continuous editing focused on art and sculpture topics, which earned recognition as the longest such event at the time, resulting in over 100 new articles and edits to hundreds more. The record was surpassed by Wikimedia Polska's 100-hour edit-a-thon in Warsaw from September 26-30, 2023, where 50 participants edited the Polish Wikipedia nonstop, creating 156 new articles and improving 1,200 existing ones on Polish heritage, culture, and history, certified by Guinness as the new benchmark for duration. These extended events demonstrated the feasibility of sustained group editing in physical settings, often yielding thousands of edits and highlighting logistical commitments like shift rotations and on-site support.

Influential Online Initiatives

Online edit-a-thons emerged as a significant format during the , enabling remote collaboration and expanding participation beyond geographic limitations. This shift facilitated contributions from diverse global contributors, including those in underrepresented regions, by leveraging virtual platforms for training and editing sessions. A prominent example is Wiki4Climate, a organized by the Climate Development Knowledge Network and Future Climate for from November 24 to December 1, 2020. It mobilized 68 active editors who contributed over 2,300 edits, improving 229 -related Wikipedia articles and creating 5 new ones, with emphasis on perspectives from the Global South to fill content gaps. The initiative built on a 2019 in-person predecessor in , demonstrating how online formats amplified reach and edit volume compared to physical events. Another key initiative, Wiki Loves SDGs, ran online from September 19 to 26, 2020, during Global Goals Week, drawing approximately 300 participants to enhance articles on the , including targeted efforts on SDG 6 (clean water and ). Organized by Project Everyone, it aimed to democratize on global challenges through volunteer edits, though detailed edit statistics remain less comprehensively reported than for climate-focused events. Virtual edit-a-thons for low-resource languages, such as the August 2020 Igbo Wiktionary event, further illustrated the format's utility in linguistic preservation, training participants to add and organize entries despite limited prior metrics on scale. These initiatives collectively underscored the potential of online approaches to sustain momentum in content generation amid disruptions, though outcomes varied by topic focus and organizational support.

References

  1. https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Edit-a-thon
  2. https://research.dom.edu/wiki/editathon
  3. https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Model_projects/Edit-a-thon_How-To
  4. https://guides.ecuad.ca/wikipedia
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g98GJR6sxyw
  6. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/wikipedia-editathons-sites-of-struggle-resistance-and-responsibility/F28D40C0057D975FC5F3B3EA3E048CFA
  7. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/a-feminist-edit-a-thon-seeks-to-reshape-wikipedia
  8. https://guides.library.unlv.edu/wikiedit
  9. https://www.library.wisc.edu/research-support/scholarly-communication/events-activities/past-events/wikipedia-edit-a-thon/
  10. https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/3802/3901
  11. https://www.mlanet.org/courses/citenlm-wikipedia-edit-a-thons/
  12. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/06/18/inside-the-first-big-un-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-expanding-tech-policy-knowledge/
  13. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learning_and_Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2013/Edit-a-thons/pl
  14. https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/training/editathons/defining-your-event/introduction
  15. https://new.artsmia.org/art-artists/research/case-studies/wikipedia-edit-a-thon-events/
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346244380_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thons_as_Sites_of_Public_Pedagogy
  17. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2012/02/19/british-library-seeks-wikimedian-in-residence/
  18. https://idp.bl.uk/blog/wikipedia-editathon/
  19. https://hybridpedagogy.org/wikipedia-art-feminism-edit-a-thon/
  20. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=westernarchives
  21. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2016/07/22/mexico-soumaya-rodin/
  22. https://mdi.georgetown.edu/feature/wikipedia-editathon-for-womens-history-month-2024/
  23. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid
  24. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=14027&context=libphilprac
  25. https://500womenscientists.org/wikipedia-editathon
  26. https://guides.library.unlv.edu/c.php?g=1015316&p=7354290
  27. https://www.uml.edu/news/stories/2024/wikipedia-edit-a-thon.aspx
  28. https://www.emich.edu/english/news-events/wikipedia-edit-a-thons.php
  29. https://events.cornell.edu/event/2023_art_feminism_wikipedia_edit-a-thon_6169
  30. https://news.rice.edu/news/2024/editing-equity-wikipedia-edit-thon-transforms-digital-discourse
  31. https://walkerart.org/calendar/2020/virtual-wikipedia-edit-a-thon
  32. https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Virtual/Breakthrough_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon_%28February_21%2C_2021%29
  33. https://www.moma.org/calendar/events/6499
  34. https://library.georgetown.edu/news/hoyas-help-close-wikipedia%25E2%2580%2599s-gender-gap-during-virtual-edit-thon
  35. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program_guides/Edit-a-thons
  36. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3479986.3479994
  37. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Connected_Heritage_How_to_run_an_online_Wikipedia_editathon_2023.pdf
  38. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Malaysia/WikiGap/2024
  39. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Science_Wiki_Edit-a-thon_2025
  40. https://www.matscitech.org/MST22/MST22/Special_Events/wikipedia.aspx
  41. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Art%252BFeminism_User_Group
  42. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Wikimedia_UG_Nigeria_Grants/Wikimedia_User_Group_Nigeria_Community_Support_Fund/Wikimedia_Yobe_Network_Hybrid_Edit-a-thons_and_Launching_Event
  43. https://wikimediafoundation.org/what-we-do/open-the-knowledge/otk-change-the-stats/
  44. https://stanleymuseum.uiowa.edu/editathon
  45. https://pro.europeana.eu/post/case-study-wikipedia-edit-a-thons
  46. https://ischool.utoronto.ca/news/edit-a-thon-amplifies-black-history-in-glam/
  47. https://www.igb.illinois.edu/article/wikipedia-edit-thon-event-series-seeks-increase-stem-representation
  48. https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/training/editathons/planning-well-before-the-event/choosing-your-approach-to-editing-articles
  49. https://www.ncarchivists.org/planning
  50. https://thecreativeindependent.com/guides/how-to-be-included-on-wikipedia/
  51. https://medium.com/lets-gather/how-to-host-a-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-in-your-community-89d247a705ac
  52. https://medium.com/mpluslabs/how-to-run-a-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-5526921ce525
  53. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/moma-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-feminism-853253
  54. https://wikiedu.org/
  55. https://www.si.edu/events/detail/?trumbaEmbed=view%253Devent%2526eventid%253D172229732
  56. https://wikimediafoundation.org/what-we-do/
  57. https://mdi.georgetown.edu/wikiedit/
  58. https://mdi.georgetown.edu/news/guwikieditathon2025-recap/
  59. https://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/nov18/Gile-Sengul-Jones--How-to-conduct-a-Wikipedia-edit-a-thon.shtml
  60. https://opensym.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/os21-paper-A8-gluza.pdf
  61. https://volumes.lib.utk.edu/features/volunteer-wikipedia-edit-a-thon/
  62. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Wikipedia_Edit-a-Thon_checklist_%28before%2C_during%2C_after%29.pdf
  63. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Event_Metrics
  64. http://saviaga.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/socinfo_ediathons.pdf
  65. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10494820.2020.1805772
  66. https://vault.cca.edu/items/4b4c8db0-47d6-4718-ab8f-dfa1713f4f4d/0/
  67. https://www.womensartregister.org/blog/2021-wikithon
  68. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/683380
  69. https://bcnm.berkeley.edu/news-research/3159/wikipedia-edit-a-thon-revisited
  70. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learning_and_Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2013/Edit-a-thons
  71. https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/elip/article/view/16734/16408
  72. https://www.vice.com/en/article/art-feminism-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-records/
  73. https://nmwa.org/blog/library-and-research-center/writing-and-righting-history-2018-wikipedia-edit-a-thon/
  74. https://ischoolgroups.sjsu.edu/asistsc/wikipedia-edit-a-thons/
  75. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3415171
  76. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learning_and_Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015/Editathons/Outcomes
  77. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learning_and_Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015/Editathons
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12261409/
  79. https://wikiedu.org/blog/2025/10/15/bringing-student-learning-outcomes-to-wikipedia/
  80. https://nebhe.org/journal/how-college-students-are-improving-wikipedia/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11031511/
  82. https://vp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2020/05/05/wikipedia-editing-develops-students-information-sourcing-and-writing-skills/
  83. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-025-00702-4
  84. https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3549/4791
  85. https://www.mellon.org/grant-story/humanities-students-are-filling-wikipedias-content-gaps
  86. https://san.com/cc/wikimedia-donates-millions-to-left-wing-activists-that-edit-wikipedia-report/
  87. https://www.wired.com/2015/03/wikipedia-sexism/
  88. https://nypost.com/2024/06/25/opinion/wikipedias-lefty-bias-measured-in-study-but-ive-felt-it-firsthand/
  89. https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/posts/24619193471035152/
  90. https://blog.reputationx.com/wikipedia-bias
  91. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/18sscr.html
  92. https://nypost.com/2025/08/29/opinion/wikipedia-bias-influences-how-ones-perception-of-reality-is-perceived/
  93. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309382340_Bring_on_Board_New_Enthusiasts_A_Case_Study_of_Impact_of_Wikipedia_Art_Feminism_Edit-A-Thon_Events_on_Newcomers
  94. https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/3802
  95. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2014/11/05/50-hours-of-art-the-museo-soumaya-editathon/
  96. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2025/Submissions/The_good_and_the_bad_of_a_competitive_edit-a-thon_in_a_smaller_community
  97. https://unframed.lacma.org/2016/03/28/art-feminism-edit-thon-lacma
  98. https://nmwa.org/blog/news-and-updates/including-the-excluded-nmwas-wikipedia-edit-a-thon/
  99. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/02/22/guinness-world-record-smashed-polish-wikipedias-100-hour-editing-marathon-unveils-the-riches-of-polands-heritage/
  100. https://kie.ue.poznan.pl/en/news/guinness-world-record-for-the-longest-time-editing-wikipedia/
  101. https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/1710417417686409545
  102. https://cdkn.org/story/news-wiki4climate-improving-the-global-knowledge-on-climate-change-through-wikipedia
  103. https://futureclimateafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Impact-case-study-design-CCKE-Wiki4climate-Final.pdf
  104. https://southsouthnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CDKN_Weaving-knowledge-and-action-on-climate-change-2018_21.pdf
  105. https://forum.susana.org/198-wikipedia/24289-join-us-for-an-online-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-on-sdg-6-topics-wiki-loves-sdgs-during-19-to-26-september-2020
  106. https://sdg.iisd.org/events/wiki-loves-sdgs-edit-a-thon/
  107. https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Igbo_Wikimedians_User_Group/Igbo_Wiktionary_Edit_a_thon_%2818th_July_2020%29
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.