“The sheer number of eyeballs looking to Wikipedia for health-related information is staggering,” said committee lead Amin Azzam, MD. “Helping health professions school faculty to implement Wikipedia editing assignments into their local contexts is far more impactful than my direct teaching of my own students. Getting this information on Wikipedia will help everyone who reads Wikipedia for their own or their loved ones’ health.”

During their two-year term, committee members will collaborate with Wiki Education across key areas of the project, including outreach and recruitment. Working with Wiki Education staff, the scholars will expand faculty awareness of the Wikipedia assignment through outreach to health professions networks, partnership development with organizations and institutions, and support for Teaching with Wikipedia webinars.

“Ever since taking a Wikipedia-editing course as a medical student, I’ve been passionate about improving health-related content on Wikipedia; whether through designing courses or encouraging colleagues to get involved,” said second-year ophthalmology resident Tolga Guven, MD. “I firmly believe in the open-access movement and that motivation should be the only barrier to acquiring knowledge. The opportunity to work alongside and learn from like-minded educators while helping improve one of the world’s most-referenced information sources was one I couldn’t resist.”

The group will also assist with a study led by Azzam to investigate the impact that editing Wikipedia has on health professions student editors. Committee members will support survey design and focus group framework development.

“This work excites me for two main reasons: one, the educational opportunity it presents for health professional students; and two, its potential to improve public health,” explained Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s Sheila Kusnoor, PhD. “Participating in Wikipedia editing courses gives students the chance to learn how to identify high-quality evidence and clearly communicate it to a lay audience. These skills are critical, as patients need access to reliable, easy-to-understand health information to make informed decisions about their care. Enhancing the quality of health information on Wikipedia can help empower patients with the knowledge needed to improve their health.” 

2025 Medical Community Advisory Committee members:

Mohammad Aldalou, MD is a postdoctoral scholar at the Marnix E. Heersink School of Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). In 2021, he founded OMEN-Palestine, the Palestinian chapter affiliated with Osmosis from Elsevier, where he led efforts to expand access to medical education resources for students and early-career physicians in the region. He also served as a regional lead and consultant with Osmosis from Elsevier, focusing on competency development and student engagement within the medical education program. At UAB, Dr. Aldalou’s research centers on formative assessment and competency-based medical education. His research interest lies in leveraging learning analytics to track student progress and inform the design of more effective and personalized educational experiences.

Amin Azzam, MD is a passionate health professions educator-innovator. He loves leveraging technologies that maximize learners’ capacities to become the awesome health professionals we all want in society. He is a professor at three San Francisco Bay Area universities: University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine; University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health; and Samuel Merritt University. He’s also a consultant to several health education technology companies.

Tanya Cupino, MD, PhD is a recent graduate of Loma Linda University. She has a PhD in microbiology and molecular genetics and a professional interest in adult patients with rare genetic conditions. In 2019, while still in medical school, she volunteered to participate in an international, asynchronous Wikipedia editing course that was sponsored by the medical learning platform Osmosis. After learning how to edit Wikipedia, Dr. Cupino collaborated with Dr. Guven and Dr. Azzam in designing an online course that teaches healthcare students how to improve the health content on Wikipedia. Dr. Cupino contributed to peer-reviewed publications that explore the multifactorial value-added outcomes in teaching healthcare professional students to edit Wikipedia, and has presented similar findings at research conferences. She is passionate about supporting any efforts to ensure trustworthy, approachable, fact-based resources that patients can freely access when they have questions about health concerns.

Scott Ewing, DO is an Interventional Cardiologist and medical educator in Fort Worth, Texas. Previously, he was a mechanical engineering manager at Texas Instruments in Dallas, Texas. He is board-certified in internal medicine, general cardiology, and interventional cardiology. He is an Assistant Professor and clinical preceptor at the Burnett School of Medicine at TCU. Additionally, he is an Assistant Professor at the University of North Texas Health Science Center Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine, where he teaches several cardiology classes, serves as 3rd-year Internal Medicine clerkship director, and teaches the TCOM WikiMed class twice yearly.

Tolga Guven, MD is a second-year ophthalmology resident in the U.K. and currently works as the Simulation Fellow for the Wessex Deanery where he is responsible for coordinating the surgical simulation education for the other residents in the region. As part of this fellowship, he is undertaking a PGCert in Healthcare Education. Dr. Guven previously served as a Histology and Embryology Lector at Charles University from 2017-2020, where his passion to make complex medical information more understandable and accessible began. Following on from this experience, he collaborated with Dr. Azzam on designing an online Wikipedia-editing course for healthcare students, which aims to improve the quality and accuracy of medical information available to the public. Dr. Guven brings a unique perspective to medical education, coming from a niche clinical specialty, with a commitment to accessible knowledge dissemination.

Sheila Kusnoor, PhD is a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Biomedical Informatics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and holds roles as Senior Information Scientist and Associate Director for Research at the Center for Knowledge Management (CKM). Dr. Kusnoor earned her Ph.D. in cellular and molecular neuroscience from Vanderbilt University. She began her career at CKM as a Knowledge Management Fellow in Personalized Medicine, aiming to cultivate expertise in informatics and information science. In her current role, Dr. Kusnoor leads and supports a variety of projects to advance VUMC priorities, applying expertise in knowledge management and informatics. Dr. Kusnoor is the course director for the WikiMed advanced elective, which teaches third- and fourth-year medical students how to identify high quality evidence to enhance Wikipedia medicine articles.

Maureen Richards, PhD is an immunology and microbiology educator. She has been working with the Wikipedia Platform as a course director for the past 9 years and has run 7 courses with over 100 total students. She currently serves as the Assistant Dean of Medical Education and Evaluation and Associate Professor at the University of Illinois College of Medicine Rockford Campus. 

We encourage any interested instructor to visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into their courses with Wiki Education’s free support and resources. 

This project is funded through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Eugene Washington PCORI Engagement Award (EADI #38991).

The gender gap on Wikipedia extends across subjects and biographies to its contributors themselves – a gap that individuals, organized groups of editors, and organizations like Wiki Education are tackling head on.

In celebration of Women’s History Month, I had the pleasure of bringing together four scholars from across the country to explore the ongoing efforts to close the gender gap on Wikipedia. As part of Wiki Education’s monthly Speaker Series, the event “Persistence & Progress: Confronting Wikipedia’s gender imbalance” sparked meaningful dialogue between the panelists and our global audience.

Despite the ongoing and concentrated efforts of individuals and organizations alike, why do these gaps continue? One key reason is the precarity of labor as it relates to who contributes to Wikipedia, explained panelist Kira Wisniewski, Executive Director of Art + Feminism.

“It’s truly incredible that Wikipedia is the effort of millions of volunteers, but who actually has the ability to volunteer?” asked Wisniewski. “[For example], there have been many studies about how women, and particularly women of color, have been disproportionately affected by COVID. When you think of the factors of who is even able to volunteer, it helps reveal more answers on how these gaps appear and persist.”

Information activism and the work to support new editors is more important now than ever, emphasized Wisniewski: “What do people edit about? They edit about things they know…so that’s why working with students and getting people editing is so important.”

And there’s no doubt that professors like panelist Caroline Smith and her students are making significant progress in filling these gaps. Through their Wikipedia assignments, Smith’s students have collectively contributed 100,000 words to Wikipedia – and their work has been viewed more than 8 million times!

From the first time Smith incorporated the assignment into her Communicating Feminism course at The George Washington University, she noted how the coursework on Wikipedia resonated with her class. When her students looked for gender gaps in the online encyclopedia, they were surprised by just how much was missing – and that surprise created a sense of urgency to improve it, Smith observed.

“[They] found it so interesting and rewarding, and I think it spoke to some of the historical issues we were discussing throughout the semester in a really real, tangible way,” said Smith, who shows her students Wikipedia articles about their own institution to highlight gender gaps. “They were shocked to find that the amount of space devoted to the [Women’s Leadership] program is much less than some of the other things that happen on George Washington’s campus. Students see that and realize, even in this space I’m occupying right now, we’re seeing these imbalances.”

Like Smith, panelist Siobahn Day Grady also teaches with Wikipedia with free support from Wiki Education, empowering her students to add notable women and other historically excluded figures to the encyclopedia. Initially unsure about bringing a Wikipedia assignment into her course, Grady ultimately found the experience rewarding, just like her students.

“There are so many times when people don’t even recognize that they are worthy to have a Wikipedia article, that their contributions matter,” said Grady, a professor at North Carolina Central University. “I really take these moments as pure joy to celebrate the achievements of women doing amazing things that may not have an opportunity to have their work shared, if not through this work that we do with Wiki Education.”

Panelist Whitney James enrolled in a Wiki Education editing course in summer 2024 to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia herself, then incorporated Wikipedia assignments into her first-year writing courses. 

But the University of Notre Dame professor didn’t stop there – she joined two more of our editing courses to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of women herself. As a new editor, James worked to improve existing content and created new Wikipedia articles for notable women including investor Tracy Gray and corporate sustainability expert Esther An.

“I feel like this work has a low barrier for entry and a really high impact,” said James. “It’s also very rewarding for me personally, which is an important self-care thing to think about. This is a really important space right now, and I’m happy to be part of it.”

As we wrapped up the discussion, I asked the panelists if they had advice for anyone who found our conversation interesting and liked the idea of a more inclusive Wikipedia, but didn’t feel like their individual efforts could make a difference on closing the gender gap. Smith kicked us off with a simple answer and a laugh.

“I would just say, no, that’s wrong,” said Smith. “Every voice matters and can make a difference. Maybe that’s oversimplifying, but I feel like it takes a lot of little movements to create broader change.”

Catch up on our Speaker Series on our YouTube channel and join us for our next webinar on Tuesday, April 22!

En “abling” Change: How Wiki Education is tackling disability on Wikipedia

Tuesday, April 22, 2025
11 am Pacific /  2 pm Eastern
REGISTER NOW

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada. 

Visit learn.wikiedu.org to explore our editing courses for subject matter experts.

Connect with Art + Feminism at artandfeminism.org.

Entomopathogenic fungi are found in several distinct lineages within the fungi (and in the Oomycetes, a group of organisms that were formerly included in the fungal kingdom). They have a range of life cycles, but typically use enzymes to bore a hole in the insect’s exoskeleton and infect the host. They can be useful in the biological control of certain insect pests, and some species are also useful in bioremediation, because they can produce enzymes able to break down certain harmful synthetic compounds.

Although the Wikipedia article on entomopathogenic fungi has existed since 2006, the article remained fairly short and undeveloped until the Fall 2024 term when a student in Kasey Fowler-Finn’s Advanced Evolution class started working to expand the article. 

The student editor reworked the article from top to bottom, more than tripling its size and adding 29 new references to the scholarly literature. The article now does a much better job of capturing the diversity of life cycles exhibited by entomopathogenic fungi, and includes details about the many different phyla of fungi that exhibit this type of activity. 

In addition to this, they also added a section about the evolutionary history of entomopathogenicity, noting that the ability to infect insects had evolved many times in different fungal lineages. The ability to infect insects has also been lost many times across different lineages, creating an even more complicated picture. 

And importantly for people who don’t love fungi for their own sake, the article now includes information of their use in the biological control of several insect pests, and their use in bioremediation. 

When you edit an article on Wikipedia, you’re adding to the knowledge that’s accessible to the public at large. Will an expanded article about entomopathogenic fungi change the world? Maybe. Perhaps someone will stumble upon it and it will pique their interest in a new field and they will discover a new way to break down toxic chemicals. Or someone will read it and make some new connections about something in their own field. Or maybe someone will find “entomopathogenic” to be a fascinating word that draws their interest toward linguistics. 

There’s no guarantee that expanding a Wikipedia article will change the world, but there’s always a chance you’ll change someone’s world. After all, even an article about a topic as obscure as this one has received over 9,000 page views since a student editor started working on it.

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

Academics and Wikipedia 

Among many academics, Wikipedia has a poor reputation. It’s not uncommon for college professors to discourage students from using the site or penalize them for quoting, citing or referencing it in their written work. Usually left unstated, the assumption behind this attitude is that, since it does not go through the channels of peer review characteristic of academic research, Wikipedia content doesn’t meet the right standards of accuracy and verifiability, and is, therefore, inherently unreliable. In this way, academia’s model of legitimation via peer review (in which quality control is ensured by vetted scholars in positions of institutional power) is pitted against Wikipedia’s more malleable and decentralized model (in which quality control is distributed across a wide network of agents known as “Wikipedians” who build content and fact-check one another collectively).

This resistance is hardly surprising given that we academics are trained from the earliest stages of our professional formation to equate scholarship with the system of peer-review that has ruled higher education, by some accounts, since the 1600s. For many of us, scholarship is synonymous with peer-reviewed works, which is to say, publications anonymously evaluated and approved by experts in the field. Measured against this standard, of course, Wikipedia’s model of knowledge production looks more than vulgar and unrefined. It looks positively dubious. By shunning legitimation by the few in favor of legitimation by the many, this model seems to do away with the very notion of expertise, and to confuse what the Greeks called doxa (opinion) for episteme (knowledge). Since anyone and everyone can be a Wikipedian, or so the argument goes, anything and everything can end up on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it’s true or false. 

While we cannot deny that Wikipedia’s model of knowledge production has its limits (which model doesn’t?), it is revealing that those who oppose it most feverishly tend to be those who are least familiar with it, with what it is and how it works. For instance, even critics who know that behind every Wikipedia page there is a large community of contributors who fact-check, update, and cross-reference its claims may not realize that behind this community there is a complex constellation of rules, guidelines, and principles regulating the behavior of its members. Yes, practically anyone can become a Wikipedian. But this does not mean that Wikipedia is a digital Wild West where “anything goes.”

Thanks to its internal quality control mechanisms, Wikipedia often yields content that matches,  in terms of epistemic merit, the best of what the academic system of peer review has to offer. As early as 2005, a mere four years after Wikipedia’s launch, the prestigious journal Nature published an article showing that entries on the new site surpassed those in the Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of accuracy and credibility, putting the newcomer above its more prestigious cousin as far as epistemic reliability is concerned. Since then, the line between academia’s centralized and Wikipedia’s decentralized models of legitimation has only continued to blur. Nowadays, more and more academics are incorporating Wikipedia into their courses in one way or another, with a few even suggesting that academic scholarship should emulate Wikipedia’s malleable approach to knowledge creation in order to meet the informational and pedagogical challenges of the new century.  

Wikipedia In the Classroom

In early 2024, I partnered with Wiki Education (a nonprofit that seeks to improve Wikipedia) to incorporate a Wikipedia assignment into a course I planned to teach that summer entitled “Humanities 315: The History of Science From the Scientific Revolution.” Beginning from the Copernican revolution in astronomical physics, this course traced the evolution of modern science through the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, paying attention to the progression of scientific concepts “from above,” as well as to the social, cultural, and political forces that shape scientific rationality “from below.”

At the time, Wiki Education was promoting an initiative designed to close a gap in Wikipedia’s archive. By Wikipedia’s own admission, scientists from traditionally underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (Latinx, Black, Asian, Pacific-Islander, Indigenous, etc.) are significantly underrepresented on “the free encyclopedia,” resulting in a problematic imbalance. So, Wiki Education was on the hunt for professors who might be interested in incorporating an assignment into their classes that would put students to work on closing this gap. The basic idea was that students would become temporary Wikipedians and write biographical entries for influential scientists from minoritarian backgrounds who did not yet have a presence on the site.A two-in-one package, the assignment sought to educate students about the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia while giving them an opportunity to help address a concrete racial injustice tied to digital representation.

Given that my course dealt explicitly with how classism, patriarchy, and white supremacy have influenced the history of Western science (and given my own interest in the relationship between racial oppression and the politics of knowledge), I decided to apply. Upon hearing I was accepted, I quickly edited my course syllabus to make room for the five-week long assignment, which asked students to:

1. Create a Wikipedia profile 
2. Familiarize themselves with Wikipedia’s “backend” software program (where the content that will eventually appears on the site is created, edited, and fact-checked)
3. Select a scientist from an underrepresented community from a list provided by Wiki Education
4. Conduct research on that scientist’s personal history, educational background, and contributions to the fields of science and technology 
5. Write, in groups of four or five, an entry on that scientist adhering to Wikipedia’s policies concerning citations and references, and 
6. Publish their entry (pending approval by site)

Students didn’t have to reach the final stage (publication) to receive full credit for the assignment, but they did have to complete all the steps leading up to it. And they were graded based on how far into the assignment they got and on the quality of their individual contributions to the collective writing effort. (I should mention that, as part of the initiative, Wiki Education provided support in the form of a $700 stipend and two staff members who helped answer student questions about how to create entries on the site). 

Summer came and went, and the assignment was by and large a success. Though there were hiccups along the way (some students produced entries that didn’t meet Wikipedia’s standard for publication, while others didn’t bother creating a profile in the first place), the majority of students reported enjoying every stage of the process. 

 For starters, many were thrilled to learn about how Wikipedia pages are made. Although none of my students were Wikipedians prior to the class, all of them reported visiting the site on a regular basis, even when professors explicitly warned against it. Wikipedia was already a key part of their online experience, a recurring digital landing spot. Thus, seeing the backend program, familiarizing themselves with the platform’s rules and regulations, and seeing a collectivist model of knowledge production in action helped demystify the site, which in turn gave them a more nuanced understanding of its various strengths and limitations. For example, the assignment enabled them to see that even if Wikipedia content isn’t put through the grind of traditional methods of peer review, it is subject to norms of accuracy and verification that make it more reliable than the average blog, website, or social media profile. At the same time, this behind-the-scenes access clarified for them that while Wikipedia may be good for general information about a large variety of topics, it’s not the place to go for original research and innovative discoveries. 

“Real” Writing 

The most common refrain I heard from students as we debriefed about the experience at the end of the summer semester was that they were proud to have finally worked on “something real.” “I felt like this was my first real assignment in a college class,” one said. Another followed with: “It was more real than writing the usual essay.” 

I confess: I didn’t respond well to these claims. I balked at the suggestion that traditional classroom assignments (the weekly response, the midterm essay, the final project, etc.) were somehow less substantive or less real than assignments that simply happened to have the name of a recognizable organization attached to them. Was writing for Wikipedia readers really more “real” than writing for me, or were my students just awe-struck by the fact that they were contributing to one of the most famous online platforms? 

It was a fair question. Or so I thought. 

After mulling over their comments for a couple of days, however, I realized that my reaction was…well, reactionary. Rather than listening to what my students were telling me about their experience of the assignment, I chose to worry about what I thought their comments meant about my teaching style, which regularly features the kinds of assignments they characterized as not-so-real. By projecting this insecurity onto my students, I failed to listen to them and to do what every professor should aspire to do, which is meet students halfway in conversation. To course-correct, I had to ask myself a question that demanded more careful consideration: In invoking the so-called reality of this assignment, what were my students flagging for me about assignments, homework, and education more generally? What did this concept mean to them such that it seemed to illuminate their experience? No sooner than I framed the problem in this manner, I came to see their comments in a new light–no longer as veiled criticisms of my pedagogy, but as sincere critiques of our education system and what traditional approaches to pedagogy do to students’ relationship to writing. 

From an early age, students are taught to write for their professors. Every student knows that what they produce in the classroom will rarely, if ever, be seen by anyone other than the person who has the power to give them an ‘A’ or an ‘F.’ Thus, for most students, writing is tangled up from the get-go with complex dynamics of power, discipline, and submission. Given the asymmetrical nature of the student-teacher relationship, it’s only a matter of time before students learn to give their teachers what they (the students) think they (their teachers) want. So, students master a skill that isn’t easy to unlearn. They learn to write exclusively  for “the Professor,” that amorphous character whose power in the classroom is virtually unchecked. From elementary school to college, the task is the same: Here is a topic, now write about it for an audience of exactly one (where the “one” in question is the person with power over you)! 

One consequence of writing under these conditions is that students are never asked to imagine what they might have to (or want to) say to a broader audience, by which I mean an audience composed of different kinds of people, each of which with their own reasons for wanting to listen in. This, I now believe, is what the Wikipedia assignment offered my students for the first time in their lives. It offered them an audience that wasn’t “the Professor,” an audience of not-me. And my students experienced this as a breath of fresh air. This new audience freed them from me, but it also freed them to imagine a host of other subjects in the position of “reader,” which altered their psychological landscape. I still remember one student in particular, a humanities major, who said: “It’s kinda cool that my mom might read this. I know she’ll want to show it to her friends and to my aunts. Maybe it will help her understand what I’ve been doing in college!” For that student, this assignment was more real. It was more real because it had the power to touch her social world and maybe even make it tilt. Had any other assignment ever done that? 

Furthermore, the mere prospect of having one’s writing “out there” (read: in the World Wide Web) was also transformative for some students. For them, the overarching question was no longer “What should I write in order to get the grade I want?” but “Knowing that strangers may read what I write, what do I actually want to say and how?” Even when my students didn’t reach the final stage of publishing their work on Wikipedia, the possibility that their work might have a life beyond the classroom was enough to shake things up and give them a glimpse of what another relationship to writing might look like.

Conclusion

Of course, I do not want to romanticize the Wikipedia assignment. Some of my students were annoyed by the assignment from the start. Others found the backend program counterintuitive and hard to use (and on this point, I concur). But even the students who complained about the nuts and bolts of the task later reported feeling happy about having participated in a pedagogical exercise with a political mission: helping scientists from underrepresented backgrounds receive the recognition they deserve. 

In effect, I could say that the Wikipedia assignment turned my classroom into an interesting house of mirrors where diversity was reflected off of multiple surfaces at once. Firstly, I, a professor of color, was teaching a class about the historical exclusion of minorities from the modern scientific project. Secondly, I was teaching this material to a highly diverse group of undergraduates attending at a Hispanic-Serving (HSI) and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI). And finally, I was asking these students at this institution to help correct one of the ways in which this historical exclusion continues to be felt in the here and now—namely, the “gap” in Wikipedia’s coverage of the history of science and technology. My hope is that by learning to move between these layers of reflection, students came out of my summer class with a better appreciation of the gaps that have shaped our past and continue to inform our present. 

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

Inspired by his previous research experiences, Ariyaratne focused his efforts on improving the Wikipedia articles for type 1 diabetes and the RAGE receptor, adding valuable information and several new sections to both articles. 

Thousands of words and more than 70 new citations later, and Ariyaratne’s contributions to Wikipedia have already been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. 

Throughout the project, Ariyaratne aimed to ensure that his contributions would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the complexity and dynamism of the biological systems involved in both topics, as well the ongoing challenges and advancements in the field of diabetes research.

And the benefits of Ariyaratne’s Wikipedia assignment aren’t limited to only those who will read his work. The experience also enhanced his own understanding of the topic, along with sharpening his writing and research skills, he explained.

“During my contributions to Wikipedia, I refined my expertise in scientific communication and critical analysis, essential for synthesizing complex research findings into coherent, accessible content,” said Ariyaratne. “This task required rigorous validation of information and precise articulation of intricate biological mechanisms, thereby enhancing my competency in data interpretation and literature evaluation – skills integral to scientific inquiry and academic rigor.”

Interested in learning more about Ariyaratne’s experience editing Wikipedia as part of his coursework? Explore our interview below to find out how he views Wikipedia’s role in shaping public perception and understanding, what he enjoyed most about his Wikipedia assignment, and why he plans to continue to edit the online encyclopedia.

How did you feel about your assignment on Wikipedia compared to a traditional assignment?

Editing Wikipedia differed markedly from traditional academic assignments in both scope and impact. Unlike traditional assignments, which are typically confined to the academic environment and primarily assessed by instructors, contributing to Wikipedia allowed me to engage with a global audience. This broadened the significance of my work, as the content I edited and updated could potentially influence public knowledge and understanding worldwide.

The real-time, collaborative nature of Wikipedia editing also introduced a unique set of challenges and rewards. It required a heightened level of accountability and thoroughness, knowing that the information provided would be publicly accessible and subject to scrutiny by an extensive community of editors and readers. This added a practical dimension to my academic training, emphasizing the importance of accuracy and the impact of shared knowledge.

This experience was enriching and empowering, offering a tangible connection between my academic studies and their real-world applications. It fostered a sense of responsibility and pride in contributing to an educational resource that people rely on every day, which is a distinct and valuable departure from the typical results of traditional assignments.

How was writing this particular content meaningful to you?

Engaging in the editing and creation of science-related content for Wikipedia has been profoundly meaningful to my professional development and scholarly pursuits. This process allowed me to apply and expand my understanding of bioinformatics and molecular biology, areas critical to my research on disease pathophysiology. By translating complex scientific theories and data into accessible content, I played a direct role in circulating accurate scientific knowledge.

How would you describe the power of Wikipedia?

Wikipedia plays a substantial influence in shaping global awareness and understanding of a vast array of topics due to its universal accessibility and extensive reach. As an open-source platform that allows users from all over the world to edit and contribute, it provides access to information and makes knowledge accessible to anyone with internet access. This inclusivity is crucial for educational equity and promotes a diverse range of perspectives in content creation.

Moreover, Wikipedia’s model encourages continual updates and revisions, ensuring that information remains current and reflective of the latest consensus in various fields, including science and medicine. This dynamic process of content refinement helps maintain reliability and accuracy, despite the open-edit nature of the platform. I also believe that Wikipedia is a tool that is used in bridging the gap between expert knowledge and general understanding.

What was your favorite part of editing Wikipedia?

My favorite part of editing Wikipedia was the satisfaction I felt from contributing towards global knowledge. This platform allowed me to directly enhance the accuracy and depth of information available to millions around the world. Specifically, I enjoyed incorporating cutting-edge scientific research into articles, ensuring that complex and evolving topics like Type 1 diabetes and the RAGE receptor are represented with the most current and comprehensive data. This task not only deepened my own understanding but also allowed me to share crucial scientific insights in a way that is accessible to a broad audience.

Moreover, the immediate and visible impact of my contributions provided a unique satisfaction that traditional academic work rarely offers. Knowing that the updates I made could help students, educators, researchers, and the curious public to better understand complex scientific topics was incredibly rewarding. The collaborative and dynamic nature of the Wikipedia community, where edits can be discussed and refined collectively, also added a layer of engagement and community interaction that enriched the experience further.

What was your least favorite part?

One technical challenge I experienced while editing Wikipedia involved mastering the Wiki markup language (Wikitext). For those without prior experience, the learning curve can be challenging. Ensuring that articles are not only factually accurate but also well-organized and visually appealing requires proficiency in this specialized language.

Will you continue to edit?

I will of course continue to edit. My experience editing Wikipedia has been immensely rewarding, offering me the opportunity to contribute to the global exchange of knowledge on crucial scientific topics. I plan to continue editing and updating articles, as this aligns with my commitment to educating the public as well as my passion for science communication. Engaging with this platform allows me to stay connected with the latest research developments and ensures that information shared with the public remains accurate and relevant. This ongoing involvement not only strengthens my own understanding but also supports my professional growth in the field of sciences and medicine.

Our support for STEM classes like Gallage Ariyaratne’s is available thanks to the Guru Krupa Foundation.

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

“Contributing a biography of a diverse person in STEM to Wikipedia is a significant step towards addressing the underrepresentation of women and people of color on the platform. As a STEM major and a black woman, I find it empowering to see [these] individuals recognized for their contributions, as it validates the importance of diversity in these fields and provides role models for future generations, including myself.”

“Editing Wikipedia was life-changing.”

Two years ago, Wiki Education announced a grant from the Broadcom Foundation to bring historically excluded figures in STEM to light by connecting higher education classrooms to Wikipedia. 

The student quotes above, merely a fraction of the insightful participant feedback we’ve received along the way, underscore the multi-layered and profound impact of this project – on the individual student editors throughout their research and writing processes, and on their peers and on generations to come, inspired by these new contributions to Wikipedia.

Our partnership with Broadcom Foundation brought 131 new biographies of diverse leaders in STEM to Wikipedia, including historic figures like Blanche J. Lawrence, a biochemist who worked on the Manhattan Project, Mariah Gladstone, founder of online cooking platform Indigikitchen, and George Biddle Kelley, New York’s first officially registered Black engineer.

And now, thanks to generous new funding from the Broadcom Foundation, higher education students at institutions across the country will continue to build upon these efforts to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of diverse leaders in STEM. 

“This partnership is one of the most important Broadcom Foundation has engaged in,” said Paula Golden, president of the Broadcom Foundation. “It brings stories of important STEM pioneers to light that inspire young people of diverse backgrounds and ethnicities to follow in their footsteps.”

Supported by Wiki Education’s resources and staff, the students will focus on expanding STEM biographies on Wikipedia, particularly of women and people of color in math and engineering, to showcase the pioneers who look like them.

The project will engage faculty members new to the Wikipedia Student Program, in addition to those who will have previously empowered their students to improve and add to Wikipedia’s biographies through their Wikipedia assignments.

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

“Each of the articles that my classmates and I worked on were all lacking information,” explained Fulton, a sophomore. “Our goal was to improve and transform these ‘stub’ articles. I chose to work on the article Oemleria cerasiformis, which is a plant that is native to the Pacific Northwest, and it’s also growing in my yard at home!” 

Fully embracing the challenge to transform the article, Fulton expanded the lead and added new sections on the plant’s taxonomy, description, phenology, and habitat, as well as several subsections throughout the text. She also significantly improved the article’s existing content, including information about the plant’s fossil record and the uses of its wood and fruit, which is the source of its common name osoberry. 

To reshape and radically expand the article, Fulton drew from a variety of scientific research publications, including journals and books that explore botany, ecology, and biology. 

“As I worked on this article, I learned lots of new information on this plant – that I see very often – that I did not know beforehand,” shared Fulton. “I also learned how to edit a Wikipedia article for the first time. Working on this article helped introduce me to professional writing on a scientific subject for a wide audience, a skill that will help me in school and in my future career.”

Fulton was not alone in her editing efforts, nor in the considerable impact she made on Wikipedia’s coverage of plants. Thanks to the work of her fellow classmates, the Wikipedia articles about species like Abelmoschus ficulneus (or white wild musk mallow) and Artemisia abrotanum (the southern wormwood), both flowering plants used medicinally, are now considerably more informative for readers.

And unlike Fulton, some students in the course looked far beyond their own backyards as they chose a species to research.

One student contributed more than 1,300 words and 26 citations to enhance the content of plants like Angelica glauca, which grows at high altitudes in areas from eastern Afghanistan through the western Himalayas and Tibet. Another student editor created a new article about an endangered variety of conifer endemic to Taiwan, Cephalotaxus harringtonii var. wilsoniana (commonly known as the Taiwan plum yew).   

Collectively, Fulton and her classmates brought an impressive 23,000 new words and 328 citations to Wikipedia’s coverage of plant species – and have since inspired other Wikipedia editors to engage with the content and make their own contributions, as well.  

Hero image of Oemleria cerasiformis by Michael Wolf, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Our support for STEM classes like Jenny Fulton’s is available thanks to the Guru Krupa Foundation.

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

– Ekaterina Schiavone Hennighausen, first-year student at The George Washington University

And to the benefit of readers worldwide, Schiavone’s attention to detail paid off. When assigned the task of editing Wikipedia as part of her coursework last term, the international business major decided to combine her passion for sports with the mission to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of women.

“I’m really big into sports and I wanted to make sure that there’s a section talking about the women involved in Formula One, because they’re such a huge contributor to the sport, but they weren’t mentioned at all on Wikipedia,” explained Schiavone. 

Thanks to her efforts, the highly-trafficked article now includes a section with information about female engineers, past drivers, and other notable women involved in the sport. 

Last month, Schiavone and three other postsecondary student editors from across the country gathered virtually as the featured panelists for our Speaker Series webinar “Beyond the Classroom: Student editors improve Wikipedia.” Although the four students had never connected previously, their collaborative discussion often led to the discovery of shared sentiments, experiences, and reflections.

Like Schiavone, North Carolina Central University graduate student Johnny Shanahan felt an increased pressure from the open, accessible nature of Wikipedia, but his uncertainty quickly turned to appreciation.

“The public-facing element was maybe a little intimidating at first glance, but it ended up being a huge advantage throughout the whole process,” explained Shanahan, who created a new article for chemist Joseph Gordon II. “We had partners assigned for our subjects, and it’s not always easy to write something with more than one person contributing. The platform itself made it really, really easy and helpful, and there weren’t any bumps in the road that I had in other classes where we had group projects.” 

While Shanahan noted that he generally received positive feedback from Wikipedia editors, his fellow panelist Jianan Li experienced a rockier start to her work creating a new Wikipedia article about loneliness in old age.

After reviewing the constructive feedback her draft received and more thoroughly exploring the structure of existing Wikipedia articles, the UCLA graduate student set out to revise her text, rewriting the article in a more neutral tone and removing the argumentative style she was accustomed to using.

While Wikipedia already had a lengthy article about loneliness, Li was surprised at how little the article talked about older adults, given that they are at particular risk. During the panel discussion, Li expressed gratitude to the Wikipedia editors who engaged with her work on the new article, providing the feedback needed to align the article with Wikipedia’s style and tone.

“I feel this community is so alive because they are real people,” said Li, who ultimately received a special token of appreciation from a Wikipedia editor in recognition of her efforts. “They really make contributions to the articles with you, together. And on the talk page you will see a ‘thank’ button, so you can always thank them for their feedback and contributions that make this process more fun.”

As the panel discussion came to a close, moderator Brianda Felix asked the students to share something about their Wikipedia experience that surprised them. Brigham Young University history major Phoebe England highlighted three key areas:

“First, that I could even edit Wikipedia – I didn’t know that I, as a college student, could do that,” she emphasized. “Another thing was just how regulated Wikipedia is, and then the last thing that surprised me is how many people and things aren’t on Wikipedia that should be. It’s just insane the gaps that are there. I think this is such a great project for students because there’s still so many people and things that should be on Wikipedia that just aren’t yet.”

Schiavone, who was also surprised by Wikipedia’s regulations and editing guidelines,  echoed England’s reflection.

“It was really interesting to unravel everything that I learned in high school about Wikipedia,” said Schiavone. “There are so many people editing and monitoring what’s being put on Wikipedia that it can actually be used as a really helpful source and not just a starting place.”

Catch up on our Speaker Series on our YouTube channel and join us for our next webinar tomorrow, March 13!

Persistence & Progress: Confronting Wikipedia’s gender imbalance

Thursday, March 13 (10 am PST / 1 pm EST)
REGISTER NOW

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada. 

1. Why was it important that Wikipedia have an article about Ali Guarneros Luna and why did you choose to create it? 

Ali Guarneros Luna is both inspiring and noteworthy. Her story is nothing short of remarkable – her upbringing and the obstacles she overcame to achieve her success are deeply moving. As a Chicana, a woman of Mexican-American descent, I found her story resonated with me on a personal level. 

My own parents faced significant challenges when they immigrated to the United States at a young age, working hard to support themselves and their families. Luna’s journey reminded me of their struggles and resilience, as well as the sacrifices they made to build a better future. Her story is one of perseverance, strength, and determination, which is so inspiring to women of all ages and backgrounds, but especially to Latina women like me. What makes her even more admirable is her role at NASA, an organization that has always been a source of fascination and inspiration for me. Learning about her involvement in various groundbreaking projects was truly astonishing. It’s not every day you hear about a Latina woman contributing so significantly to the field of aerospace engineering and space exploration.

Her achievements highlight the importance of representation and show that women of diverse backgrounds can succeed in STEM fields. For these reasons, I felt compelled to give her the recognition she deserves by ensuring her story is shared widely. She serves as a powerful role model for anyone with big dreams, but especially for Latinas aspiring to make a difference in fields like science, technology, engineering, and beyond.

2. What did you especially want to get right about the article? 

I wanted to get her story right and get all of her information in the correct chronological order so that no part of her story was lost. I wanted to accurately portray her struggles, where she came from, and how she took it upon herself to succeed and become an influential figure in NASA and aerospace engineering. In telling her story, I wanted to make sure that her achievements did not overshadow her struggles, but rather were shown as integral to who she is and what she has accomplished. By doing so, I hoped to provide an honest and inspiring portrayal of a woman who serves as a role model, particularly for Latina women and others who aspire to break barriers in STEM fields.

3. Wikipedia has significant gaps in its coverage of women of color in its biographies. How was adding this biography meaningful to you?

Adding a biography of a diverse woman in STEM was deeply meaningful to me because I have a genuine passion for STEM and a strong desire to see greater representation within the field. Writing Ali Guarneros Luna’s biography felt like more than just a project – it was an opportunity to bring her inspiring story to light and to help close the gaps in coverage that exist for women of color on platforms like Wikipedia. It’s no secret that women, especially women of color, are underrepresented in STEM fields and often overlooked in historical and contemporary records. Being able to contribute to changing that narrative, even in a small way, was an honor. Ali Guarneros Luna’s achievements are remarkable, and her journey is one that deserves to be widely known. Highlighting her story was also personally fulfilling. It allowed me to celebrate a Latina woman who has made significant contributions to NASA and aerospace engineering. Knowing that my work could help ensure her legacy is recognized and inspire others to pursue their passions in STEM makes this accomplishment something I’m truly proud of.

4. How would you describe the power of Wikipedia in shaping people’s awareness and understanding of notable figures like Ali Guarneros Luna?

Wikipedia serves as one of the most widely accessed sources of information in the world. Typically, the first source for a person to read up about a topic or person at a glance is Wikipedia.  Its accessibility and collaborative nature make it a critical platform for documenting stories that might otherwise be overlooked, particularly those of underrepresented groups. By including biographies of individuals like Luna, Wikipedia not only preserves their legacies but also broadens the public’s perception of who can succeed in fields like STEM. For many, Wikipedia is a starting point for learning about influential figures, and having accurate, detailed information about women of color like Luna ensures that their contributions are recognized and celebrated. In Luna’s case, her biography showcases her incredible journey, overcoming challenges to excel at NASA and in aerospace engineering. By bringing her story to light, it does its job by making the information gap smaller. Wikipedia contributes to greater representation and inspires future generations to aim high, pursue their passions, and break barriers.

5. How did you feel about this assignment compared to a traditional assignment?

To be honest, at first this assignment was intimidating. I did not know what to expect, but I ended up enjoying it. I enjoyed learning the process and what actually went into Wikipedia. Knowing now the guidelines and effort that one must put into making a Wikipedia page, I appreciate the process a lot more. An assignment that contributes to a live encyclopedia makes all the difference from a traditional assignment, because what you are working on feels like it matters and it is amazing to see the final product.

6. What was your favorite part of editing Wikipedia?

My favorite part of editing Wikipedia was when I was able to see it all come together. It was amazing seeing peer reviews, and then going back into the editing process. Though it was time-consuming, it was worth it. I got to see how a list of information started to look like a biography, then see it go live.

7. Will you continue to edit?

Yes! I will continue to edit. I plan to keep up to date with the other accomplishments Ali Guarneros Luna makes, and I would love to keep editing the article and seeing her biography grow. I would like to edit other starting biographies, as well.

Valeria’s work on Wikipedia is part of a larger Wiki Education initiative sponsored by the Broadcom Foundation, which supports the creation of new biographies of diverse people in STEM on Wikipedia.

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.