Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, March 2014

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The entrance to the Royal Society in Carlton House Terrace, London
On the day
Dame Athene Donald FRS speaking at the event
The similar event for Ada Lovelace Day 2013

Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, Tuesday March 4 2014 Promoting diversity in science and engineering to celebrate International Women’s Day

This was a fully booked afternoon and evening event for people who wanted to edit Wikipedia, in particular topics relating to women in science and engineering. New and experienced editors are welcome; there were training sessions for those new to editing, and experienced helpers were available.


Please bring a laptop if possible, though some will be available, as will wifi internet access. Also please bring any books you have to use as references, though the resources of the Royal Society library will be available until shortly before 5pm, and we will some print sources on hand. We also should have access to Royal Society publications normally behind a paywall. We envisage that most people will come either for the afternoon session, starting at 2pm or the evening one, starting at 6pm, with the changeover around 5.30-6pm, but there is room for some to span both sessions; there will be light refreshments laid on. There will be presentations on editing for new editors at about 2.20 and 6.20, lasting about 40 minutes, and there will be experienced editors on hand throughout to give assistance. The event is slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th.

Apart from the training presentations, we are fortunate that Dame Athene Donald, FRS, Professor of Experimental Physics at Cambridge will be with us for a while in the afternoon and will introduce the afternoon session with a short talk on diversity in science, and the work the Royal Society is doing in this area. She also serves on the University of Cambridge Council and is their Gender Equality Champion.

The event is held by the Royal Society in collaboration with the Royal Academy of Engineering. The Royal Society is the UK's national academy for the sciences, a fellowship of the world's most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence, founded in 1660. The Royal Academy of Engineering, our neighbours at 3 Carlton House Terrace, is the UK's national academy for engineering.

The position of Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society, a pilot scheme running until early July 2014, is supported by Wikimedia UK, the UK support group for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement.

ALL PLACES NOW TAKEN Please sign-up at the Eventbrite page for the waiting list (still very short), or below if you are able to help the mainly new editors as they edit, or would like to participate remotely. There is another editing event in London on Saturday, 8th March, Women Archaeologists editing event at the Petrie Museum, which still has places.

In addition, the Royal Society made two of its journals FREELY AVAILABLE GLOBALLY from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old.


On the day, there were interviews with: The Guardian, German Radio, and Motherboard, VICE's science and tech platform, resulting in:


(and Forbes [picked up a quote] from the 23 February Observer story)

Attendees (in person)[edit]

Attendees at the Wikimedia UK Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society on 4 March 2014
Editing in the evening
The afternoon session

Please set up an account before the event if at all possible. Very few details are needed: a Username, password, and I'd recommend giving your email, if only to be reminded of your password when you forget it. You won't get lots of junk mail. The short Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration explains why this is a good idea. Then please edit this page & sign below:

  1. Jagriffiths (talk)
  2. Brpalmer83 (talk)
  3. Grippon (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Smallmocha (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Smallmocha~~
  5. Francesca McKenna (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Kate Jeffery (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  7. Djedjevailly (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  8. Rarmstrong1983 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  9. EPuttock (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  10. DrTinuviel (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  11. 9frm (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  12. User:Cdonovan7757
  13. jamesjoycebookfan (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  14. sign here with ~~~~
  1. Northerlywind (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Vazquezcervino (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Smunday (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Elgarrett (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Sjmet (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Cancharani (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  7. Susipoli70 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  8. Amcknutsson (talk)
  9. Annwit (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  10. EMD1983 (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  11. katiejaneanderson --Katiejaneanderson (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Some are still missing - please add with ~~~~

Online participants[edit]

Online participants from anywhere are very welcome, whether experienced or not. For a basic editing tutorial see Wikipedia:Tutorial, and Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia is short, written for scientists, and full of good advice. Or try this one - four modules, taking one hour it says.

  1. (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Metacladistics (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. christophe (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Cmaximino (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. TaraInDC (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  6. Monxton (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  7. e_bruton (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oceangurl14 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles started/edited[edit]

Frontispiece of Marie Meurdrac's La Chymie ... des Dames, 1687 edition

New articles that made DYK section on the Wikipedia main page[edit]

Copied from nominator's talk page

Another good hook. Cheers. Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


John Cummings and Edward, who helped at both sessions, at the evening session

We will need several experienced Wikipedians (but no training in training needed). The key times will be from about 3 - 5 and 7 and 9, after the basic editing presentations. Please sign up below, indicating the times you think you will be available:

  1. WereSpielC 3-5.30
  2. User:Edwardx 2-9
  3. User:Serendipodous 3-9 (couldn't make it in the end)
  4. User:Katie Chan (WMUK)
  5. User:Mrjohncummings 2-9
  6. Thryduulf (talk) (all day if needed) from 5
  7. User:Charles Matthews, evening session
  8. User:Carcharoth, evening session

Huge thanks to all the volunteer helpers! Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggested topics[edit]

Please feel free to edit on any topic, but the following are some suggestions, mainly women scientists. If you are working on an article on this list, please make a note below to avoid conflicting edits. Anyone is welcome to add their own at "More suggestions" below. "100" means appearance on this Science Council list.

  • Katherine Coward (biochemist - vitamins)
  • Winifred Wright (biochemist - cancer)
  • Mollie Barr (biochemist - immunology)
  • Judith McKenzie (geobiologist)
  • Sarah Boysen Chimp psychology (these next are the gaps in this list, all based in America)
  • Beatrice Hahn (or Beatrice H. Hahn) - microbiologist, AIDS
  • Margaret A. Liu - vaccines
  • Mercedes Pascual - mathmatical ecologist
  • Terrie Williams - Marine mammals
  • Carol Boyer-Spooner - 100, Chief Executive, Chemical Industry Knowledge Transfer Network
  • Marie Johnston - 100, "Emeritus Professor of Health Psychology, University of Aberdeen. Recognised for research on disability (theory, measurement and intervention) and on behaviour change in health and healthcare contexts". Will need disambiguation from the wrestler!
  • Heather Ann Cubie - 100, Medicine "Recognised for her research relating to HPV, cervical disease and cancer detection, and worked on validation and quality assurance as a crucial part of clinical HPV testing".
  • Karen Facie 100, "leadership in healthcare technology and patient wellbeing by establishing the first Scottish National Health Technology Assessment Agency and Interest Group on Patient/Citizen Involvement"
  • Elizabeth Moran 100, public health chemistry
  • Sandra Richards 100, "development of cellular pathology as a primary screener on the cervical cancer screening programme"
  • Jeni Colbourne 100, Chief Inspector, Drinking Water Inspectorate
  • Barbara Gallani 100, "leadership on scientific, technical and regulatory issues in food safety and food policy in the UK".
  • Tricia Henton 100, Geologist, "environmental geo-science regulatory sector"
  • Margaret Patterson 100, "leadership in the regulation of research into high pressure processing of foods and food irradiation".
  • Catherine Sturgeon (or "Catharine" per SC?!) 100, Recognised for developing one of the earliest anti-cancer medicines and her work to encourage optimal use of tumour marker tests now used routinely in the UK and internationally
  • Rabinder Buttar 100, President, founder and CEO, ClinTech International - started by user:Smallmocha.
  • Alison McConnell 100, Professor of Applied Physiology, Brunel University, invented the POWERbreathe®, a device designed to reduce breathlessness in older people.
  • Hannah Critchlow 100, science presenter, Content Designer, Editor and Presenter, ‘Neuroscience’ and 'Naked Scientists', Cambridge University.(Notability?)
  • Judy Harris 100, "Professor of Physiology, University of Bristol... Recognised for championing higher education teaching as a profession through international collaborative projects and workshops."
  • Melanie Lee - draft started at Draft:Melanie Lee - 100, "Chairman of Cancer Research Technology; Trustee and Deputy Chairman, Cancer Research UK. Recognised for her experience of executive-level leadership and knowledge of industrial drug and R&D science businesses"
  • Tracey Brown (not the musician!) 100, Managing Director, Sense about Science, or at least add there & redirect
  • As a PS: Betsy Bang, demonstrated birds can hear (mother of Molly Bang). See Bird Sense , Tim Birkhead pp. 137-144. American, published 1950s and 60s. Obituary totally failing to mention research work, tribute, bit in book. Also illustrator.

Short articles that could be lengthened ("100" means appearance on this Science Council list):

Historic scientists, science part of article could do with expansion (most in Smeltzer)


Still short articles:

More suggestions[edit]

Please add your own here, with suggested sources, ideally as links:

Print references we will have at the event[edit]


  • Smeltzer, Ronald K.; Ruben, Robert J.; Rose, Paulette, Extraordinary Women in Science and Medicine: Four Centuries of Achievement, 2013
  • CANEL, Annie, ed.; OLDENZIEL, Ruth, ed.; ZACHMANN, Karin, ed. Crossing boundaries, building bridges: comparing the history of women engineers 1870s-1990s 2000
  • FARA, Patricia Pandora's breeches: women, science and power in the Enlightenment 2004
  • FARA, Patricia Scientists anonymous: great stories of women in science 2005
  • GOULD, Paula A. Making space for women in the history of physics 1998
  • HAINES, Catharine M.C.; STEVENS, Helen M. International women in science: a biographical dictionary to 1950 2001
  • HOLMES, Richard The Royal Society's lost women scientists 2010
  • IWAO, Sumiko, ed.; HARA, Hiroko, ed. Blazing a path: Japanese women's contributions to modern science 2008
  • KOZAI, Yoshihide, et al., ed. My life: twenty Japanese women scientists 2001
  • ROTHMAN, Patricia Women in the history of mathematics from Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century 1996
  • SPALDING ANDREOLLE, Donna; MOLINARI, Veronique Women and science, 17th century to present: pioneers, activists and protagonists 2011
  • COBB, Cathy Magick, mayhem and mavericks: the spirited history of physical chemistry 2002 (for eg Marie Meurdrac)
  • Who's Who

Should we have other works from the Royal Society Library? Seach "Printed Works" here and make suggestions below.

  • add here
  • add here

Online references - GLOBALLY AVAILABLE 4th and 5th of March[edit]

FULLY AVAILABLE GLOBALLY from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014

Attendee feedback[edit]

Results of the feedback via Survey Monkey form

Extended content

1) Overall, were you satisfied with the event, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with it, or dissatisfied with it?

  • • Answered: 13 Skipped: 0

Answer Choices– Responses–

  • Extremely satisfied 38.46% 5
  • Moderately satisfied 46.15% 6
  • Slightly satisfied 0% 0
  • Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0% 0
  • Slightly dissatisfied 7.69% 1
  • Moderately dissatisfied 7.69% 1
  • Extremely dissatisfied 0

2) How well-structured was this event ? • Answered: 13 Skipped: 0

  • Extremely well­-structured 30.77% 4
  • Quite well­-structured 46.15% 6
  • Moderately well­-structured 15.38% 2
  • Slightly well­-structured 7.69% 1
  • Not at all well­-structured 0

3) How comfortable did you feel asking questions at this event? • Answered: 13 Skipped: 0

  • Extremely comfortable 53.85% 7
  • Quite comfortable 23.08% 3
  • Moderately comfortable 15.38% 2
  • Slightly comfortable 7.69% 1
  • Not at all comfortable 0

4) Did the presenter give too much detail, too little detail, or about the right amount of detail? • Answered: 13 Skipped: 0

  • Much too much 15.38% 2
  • Somewhat too much 7.69% 1
  • Slightly too much 7.69% 1
  • About the right amount 69.23% 9
  • Slightly too little 0% 0
  • Somewhat too little 0% 0
  • Much too little 0

5) How likely are you to continue editing Wikipedia? • Answered: 13 Skipped: 0

  • Extremely likely 7.69% 1
  • Very likely 53.85% 7
  • Moderately likely 30.77% 4
  • Slightly likely 7.69% 1
  • Not at all likely 0%

6) Tell us at least one thing that would have improved this event for you • Answered: 11 Skipped: 2

  • If possible -- encouragement to 'write' (start an entry from scratch), not only emphasis on editing. Might be helpful to have guidance on sources.
  • Clearer style guide for editing
  • My knowledge, before attending the event-women in science, all I knew about Wikipedia was looking for information on topics
  • More time/opportunity for networking, drinks at the end perhaps?
  • More real time engagement
  • Slightly less presentation and slightly more time working directly with the program.
  • The presentation at the beginning was very long - although much of it was interesting, it went on for over an hour and didn't leave enough time to explain how to edit, which is why we were actually there! We were told we'd have access to the Royal Society's library and resources but weren't shown where the library was or how to find appropriate resources, although there were a few reference books provided.
  • I think it could have been longer! I realise that might not have been possible.
  • More Q&A during the presentation (maybe slows thing down too much though); would like to have understood more about sources, referencing, what counts as a valid source, what couunts as notability, how this is moderated etc. Maybe not enough time though - have suggested follow-up session, below
  • John's presentation should have been tailored for the audience - too much on the slides that he had to skip over because it had been used for a different audience.
  • More social activities

7) Please write three words or phrases which describe this event for you • Answered: 9 Skipped: 3

  • Instructive, inspiring and useful
  • Useful, insightful, inspiring.
  • interesting, educational,
  • Interesting Frustrating Potentially great
  • Interesting, challenging, educating
  • Friendly, encouraging, informative
  • Useful and informative Motivating Fun
  • enjoyable, stimulating, rewarding
  • Inspiring, illuminating, useful

8) How would you rate the presenter(s) at the professional event? Answered: 13 Skipped: 0

  • Excellent 38.46% 5
  • Very good 7.69% 1
  • Good 38.46% 5
  • Fair 7.69% 1
  • Poor 7.69% 1

9) How would you rate the venue/location? Answered: 13 Skipped: 0

  • Excellent 84.62% 11
  • Very good 15.38% 2
  • Good 0% 0
  • Fair 0% 0
  • Poor 0