Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/WikiProject Climate Change - Credible Resources and Quotables list (ID: 22028410)/Final Report

Rapid Fund Final Report

Report Status: Under review

Due date: 2024-03-06T00:00:00Z

Funding program: Rapid Fund, Wikimedia Community Fund

Report type: Final


This is an automatically generated Meta-Wiki page. The page was copied from Fluxx, the grantmaking web service of Wikimedia Foundation where the user has submitted their midpoint report. Please do not make any changes to this page because all changes will be removed after the next update. Use the discussion page for your feedback. The page was created by CR-FluxxBot.

General information edit

  • Title of Proposal: WikiProject Climate Change - Credible Resources and Quotables list
  • Username of Applicant: AnnetteCSteps
  • Name of Organization: N/A
  • Amount awarded: 4532
  • Amount spent: 4232 USD, 4232 USD

Part 1 Understanding your work edit

1. Briefly describe how your proposed activities and strategies were implemented

The proposed work centers on two projects regarding climate action, with different audiences within WP: 1) Recommended climate action refs for Editors in Project Climate Change (PCC) and 2) climate action Quotables for WP users. The CSteps project leader (myself) managed/edited the work of a contractor. We both had familiarity with WP but little editing experience. I also recruited two sets of African climate activists to add in African-specific refs, plus a volunteer; but none submitted. We started discussions with WikiEd. but need to follow up. An article in Medium also sought editorial recruitment.

Our first functional steps were 1) gaining familiarity with WP editing, 2) introducing our efforts to PCC, & 3) surveying CSteps users on what info they wanted in WP. Our work was not only for WP, but also for CSteps & collaborator, so we created accessible databases for survey results, quotes, and refs from the first two sources, then 1) shared for feedback with PCC; 2) began inputting on WP; 3) shared with EarthHero; & 4) are incorporating in CSteps website and FB forum.

The Quotables research was easy after a discussion of ground rules. The actual WP formatting of quotes was different and longer than expected, but was completed early on.

The range of Refs. topics (energy, buildings) took time to research. We shared the database with PCC; one editor noted she would provide feedback, but we need to follow up. We still seek to create a table/page with PCC.

2. Were there any strategies or approaches that you felt were effective in achieving your goals? Please describe these strategies and approaches.

1. Learning how to edit in WP was more intense than we had realized, and instructions were massive but somewhat scattered. The PCC guidelines helped, along with links provided by one editor that were useful on tone, type of resources... but not for quickly giving us the skills to "code." Three of us searched for coding/editing references and shared, which helped.

2. We thoroughly explained each project in the Talk area of the PCC, which brought some useful advice/support, although a comment of roughly "didn't see the value" is always annoying. See "Story....doc."
3. We had a valuable zoom with a PCC editor; giving our scientific backgrounds, goals, & differences from typical editing. She helped us with WP rules.
4. We surveyed CSteps users for what type of climate actions people sought in WP. PCC editors said very happy to get the results, though few dived in for details.
5. On the side, we planned a wikithon with WikiCred and USDA , but USDA postponed due to having get approval from a brand new boss. We were invited to a NYC edit-a-thon, but had no funds for travel. An edit-a-thon, and meeting in person, would have been valuable.
5. We focused on our merging references from across WP, EH, and CSteps first to show the concept of refs for "individual" climate action (not government-level). We shared the link; but have not received feedback yet. The concept helped a main PCC editor create a better Recommended Sources tab.

6) We need to discuss ref table build again.

3. Please use this space to upload media and other files that help tell your story and impact.

Field to type in URLs.

Survey Results (for WikiCred work but assisted greatly in food/ag refs):

Wikiquotes on Climate Action -

4. To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the work carried out with the support of this Fund? You can choose “not applicable” if your work does not relate to these goals.

Our efforts during the Fund period have helped to...
A. Bring in participants from underrepresented groups Agree
B. Create a more inclusive and connected culture in our community Neither agree nor disagree
C. Develop content about underrepresented topics/groups Disagree
D. Develop content from underrepresented perspectives Neither agree nor disagree
E. Encourage the retention of editors Disagree
F. Encourage the retention of organizers Neither agree nor disagree

5. Is there anything else you would like to share about how your efforts helped to bring in participants and/or build out content, particularly for underrepresented groups?

Both sets of African climate activists we had hoped to work with were overwhelmed with other activities. One set did send us a list of climate actions that they personally had been involved with, although the goals were 1) examples/refs of African individual climate action; and 2) a review of African climate action (for a WikiCred grant). They have/are still promising to work on it. In the meantime, CSteps is going to work with them to publish an article about their own climate actions on our platform and on Medium. We believe this will take a while, so we acknowledge the incorporation of underrepresented viewpoints was not generally accomplished in this grant cycle. We hope to shift the remaining $200/400 set aside for this to help fund this work in spring 2024. Additionally, our time is opening up from other project conflicts (family medical issues, running the dc tool library), so our management and communication will be more proactive.

Part 2: Your main learning edit

6. In your application, you outlined your learning priorities. What did you learn about these areas during this period?

The main learning outcome was to gain further understanding of the range of fact-based, impactful climate actions,to apply both to WP & CSteps. The Wikiquotes subproject did not apply to facts per se but did provide perspectives and understandings of climate actions - now accessible to WP users. For References, we combined refs for WP, CSteps and EH - aiming for 10 key, important articles (> secondary) per action topic (e.g., transportation, energy). We found key refs were missing on all 3 platforms for many topics that we researched to fill in, esp. in behavior change science, adding 5+ key, established references per topic. Thus, we gained a broader, science-based understanding of effective actions. Mentioned elsewhere were also goals to 0) learn about the Wikipedia community, which for the PCC were fewer scientists than hoped but many librarians/educators, (not enough for the most important project on the planet). (there was no feedback in WQuotes) 1a) learn more about effective actions - as noted, this included our learning our own biases regarding effective actions, in an unquantified way. 1b) gain new WP contributors/editors - all three people recruited still seek to be better contributors, but 1 did not participate, while the other 2 (incl. myself) did not gain full editorial ability or strong WP community experience. 1c, 2 & 3) are still being implemented and have not been measured. Please see the "Story...doc" for feedback exs. We added refs to 12 WP pages

7. Did anything unexpected or surprising happen when implementing your activities?This can include both positive and negative situations. What did you learn from those experiences?

Three main things hampered us. 1) large amounts of family medical leave taken by another contractor for WikiCred = duty shuffling; 2) some demoralization of our team by a) the large amount of coding for formatting, URLs, and more needing to be learned, and b) instances of rejection of goals and content by established editors in this and another projects.

   i) one main editor wanted us to switch from summarizing individual actions to just editing climate change pages.
   ii) another editor rejected in a dismissing way one of our references as being primary instead of secondary, when it actually was a scientific metareview of a topic and thus the best type of secondary review. A minor case, but the timing was bad for team motivation.

3) A primary issue was my choice of a contractor who was experienced at research and writing articles, but was not suited for multitasking or understanding detailed project methods quickly. I supervised and contributed to the work, but it needed effort and a different set of skills. For future, detailed work, another contractor would be brought on board with multitasking skills and hopefully full WP editorial experience. .

One nice thing is that another editor has worked strongly on creating a better Individual Climate Action page - it's great! Time for us to tie-in.

8. How do you hope to use this learning? For instance, do you have any new priorities, ideas for activities, or goals for the future?

Next up is a) measuring the change in readership due to specific article inputs, such as the addition of references already made to behavior change science in CSteps and community food efforts; and then a) finalizing the reference content within the PCC and more CSteps pages, and b) marketing the publications to measure interest increase in the articles.

Already, EH is applying some of the references our learning outcomes to the creation of 20+ new actions to add to their app. (recommended WP pages with solid references were sent to EH.)

We had thought about using WikiProject as an editorial forum for climate action for much of regional CSteps/Wikipedia work. One unfortunate thing is the lack of good underlying databases behind WP (that we could find), and that instead much stuff was embedded in texts and harder to search and summarize by tags. As such, we plan to keep our Airtable databases of references, and quotes as the central platform - but still hope to move some discussion to your infrastructure with our/yours African colleagues to Wikipedia, as a first case of a regional editorial forum.

9. Documentation of resources: Use this space to upload any documents that would be useful to share with others (e.g. communications material, training material, presentations).

Here is an additional field to type in URLs.

Our database on references, resources, quotables, and experts is available for anyone who wants to utilize and/or contribute to a open-source central database on multiple resources for individual climate action. The link is for comment status, but you can gain an editor status if approved. Each reference is noted as whether suitable for consideration for WP.

The Wikiquotes improvements can be found at:

As noted above, a survey conducted of needed food-ag incormation for our WikiCred project that fed into our food refs work also in thiis project is available at

Links sent to Earth Hero of suitable WP from which to draw solid information on climate actions:

Part 3: Metrics edit

10a. Open Metrics reporting

In your application, you defined some open metrics and targets (goals). You will see a table like the one below with your metric in the title and the target you set in your proposal automatically filled in. Use the tables to report the result. Use the comments column to describe any aspects of this result that you find relevant. If the results were different from the initial target (goals) then you can explain why and what you learned from this. You can also provide any qualitative analysis regarding these results. In the last column please describe the tools and methodology used to collect this data and any difficulties you might have had.

Open Metrics Summary
Open Metrics Description Target Results Comments Methodology
Effectiveness of approach on editors The effectiveness of our approach within Wikipedia editor/contributor community regarding the addition of science-supported climate action references, such as those that show the effectiveness of testifying in front of town halls
  1. Via surveys, did the newly registered users change their perspectives on climate action and the science of climate action, becoming more sure of the types of actions they could take.
  2. Did at least ⅔ newly registered users want to continue to become Wikipedia contributors. Did they become editors as defined by Wikipedia?
  3. Did fellow contributors already within Wikipedia have a similar change? Further, what feedback did they have on our project and resulting reference section/page? Did they appreciate the addition?
  4. Do new editors now have the skills needed?
2 3 Q1: yes. Only 3 of the planned 5 registered (including myself), and one had to leave due to extensive family medical needs), but both of them and myself seek to continue to be Wikipedia contributors.

Q2. We are not yet editors as defined by Wikipedia. Q3. Not that we are aware; our interaction did not reach the hoped for recruitment of other editors to assist, in part due to our initial focus on the content and editing. Q4 Discussions in Wikiquotes yielded no feedback. See "Story....doc" for reactions by Wiki PCC contributors/editors. At least 4 WP editors were active in commenting on our project. Based on discussions with several editors on resources, the main manager of the PCC restructured the tab regarding References to our recommendation. Q5: PCC editors liked the goal and supported the creation of at least a temporary References tab, to be constructed this month. Q6: We at CSteps range from 40-60% of the WP editing skills needed. The recruitment of the African climate activists was not accomplished, however.

Basic counts from the PCC Talk page (archived.)

The survey of fellow was not conducted due to final upload of resources still to do.

Effectiveness on Wikipedia user engagement The effectiveness of additional scientific resources on the users within Wikipedia.
  1. Did readers increase to pages in which we added scientific resources? Especially regions pages, such as Africa?
  2. Did they stay longer?​​
50 221 Q1: On an increase in WP pages readership - this has not yet fully been reviewed, as 1) the reference table still needs to be made available to the PCC editors. Any impact tracked would still be secondary in nature. 2) pages for a WikiCred grant that we created (12) could be used for comparison.

However, for Wikiquotes about climate action [1], the page was generated first in June/July 2023, as our contractor worked on it. Viewership (probably from our team) began and shot up in July, then in August lowered to attain 44 for the month, (1.4 per day on average), followed by 0.77 (Sept), when we completed our work. Daily viewership reached 2.4 (Oct), 0.6 (Nov & Dec), 0.35 (Jan), to 1 view/day (Jan), Total viewership since creation has been 225 views (with one day in October containing 45 of those views).

Without the ability to see unique users in the PageViews Analysis, we cannot estimate the number of actual users except to be between 1 and 225, but there was a similar number of 221 recorded for redirects, with a daily average of 1 redirect/year. A redirect is more likely to indicate a user than an editor, we believe. So we will assume that we met our target, and possibly went beyond.just via the Wikiqutoes effort.

Pageviews Analysis -
Effectiveness on CSteps user engagement The effectiveness of additional scientific resources on CSteps and within the FB community.
  1. Did readers increase to pages in which we added scientific resources?
  2. Did they stay longer?​​
  3. Did members of the FB community appreciate the new sources added to their Guides?
  4. Did they discuss the resources any, and what feedback did they give?
2 548 For Q1: The survey reached 548 people out of 6000+ in the Climate Steps FB group. Engagement was high with 1/5 readers commenting. It received 109 likes, and 145 questions/comments (including my prods).

For Q2&3 in terms of CSteps readership; in the past year, readership has increased by 2000 users, with over 2% reengagement of previous users - this is despite a server error on CSteps that prevents us from sharing links effective; and thus less marketing than in previous years.

For Q4 & 5- We have dropped the ball on this and not yet put all the recommended resources in the guides. This is to come this month.

Q1 Facebook Analytics on survey engagement: .

Q2:Google and Wordpress analytics. Q3:Google and Wordpress analytics. Q4: will be FB Analytics plus a survey.

User Learning Users of the reference data learn that climate action is scientifically supported.
  1. How have readers’ perspectives changed about climate action after reading a Wikipedia or CSteps page that has these new resources?
  2. Have readers taken action?
50 N/A We were saddened to learn that Wikipedia page analytics is not strong in reading statistics, such as length of time of access or in unique users. But readership #s are available, as noted above. However, we have not yet placed references in pages (except within food articles; we are compiling a list).

For CSteps articles - all articles were brand new, so before/after readership is not available, just the overall increase of 2000 CSteps readers is. Much work went into the Community pages as a result of the Wikipedia work; however, the user data is incomparable to the previous year due to server errors, lack of marketing, and loss of subscription readers while changing our website platform. (in other words, it was quite low - 4 in the past 3 months; we look forward to later providing you with the readership once our issues are resolved.)

Google and Wordpress analytics
Reading on the Project Evaluation Report Did the PCC benefit from this project? Was there reading online of the Final Project Evaluation Report? 2 N/A N/A N/A

10b. Core Metrics reporting

In your application, you defined targets for some core metrics and targets (goals). You will see a table like the one below with each core metric in the title and the target you set in your proposal automatically filled in. Use the tables to report the result. Use the comments column to describe any aspects of this result that you find relevant. If the results were different from the initial target (goals) then you can explain why and what you learned from this. You can also provide any qualitative analysis regarding these results. In the last column please describe the tools and methodology used to collect this data and any difficulties you might have had. Note: a table will appear for each Wikimedia project content contribution you defined in your proposal.

Core Metrics Summary
Core metrics Description Target Results Comments Methodology
Number of participants New Participant: 1

Returning Participant directly from the project: 2 Additional returning participant goals: 3

6 3 We expected one African climate activist as a new participant, which was not achieved.

We had 2 returning participants - myself and a contractor, who had little experience with Wikipedia. We feel we are halfway there in terms of learning what is needed to be a good writer. We sought 3 additional editor partners within Wikipedia, which was somewhat achieved in that we had the assistance of several editors.

Basic counts.
Number of editors Newly Registered Users: 1?

Returning Editor: 2-3?

3 0 None of us really reached editorial status, for time constraints listed earlier.
Number of organizers Organizer - 2, Coordinator for overall project (Dr. Olson), Coordinator content in resource lists/db (Mr. Stewart.) 2 2 Both contributed to this project. Basic counts
Number of new content contributions per Wikimedia project
Wikimedia Project Description Target Results Comments Methodology
Wikipedia Compile in Wikiproject a large page of recommended references from two additional sources, for use across meta-Wiki. Tie this to Wikisource and/or Wikidata. 1 1 Really the number is currently 0.5, as the ref db still needs to be added to the PCC. We found that Wikisource was a very confusing place as to whether they actually accepted references. Our current take is no. We hope to explore this and Wikidata more in a subsequent grant? Basic Counts.
Wikiquote Compile climate quotes from two organizations into Wikiquote to help create a dataset of quotes on climate action. Make accessible to Wikiprojects Climate Change. 1 100 completed. See metrics above. N/A
Wikipedia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

12. Did you have any difficulties collecting data to measure your results? This could include things like a lack of time or resources, or the expertise in your team to collect this data. It could also include difficulties with particular data collection tools.


12a. State what difficulties you had.

Strong lack of time due to issues mentioned earlier under Questions #2 and 7 - lack of participation by recruited volunteers (in Africa), shuffling of priorities due to medical leave by a team member, and a larger learning curve of Wikipedia methods than anticipated. Much of the basic count data remaining can still be collected, but a survey of CSteps FB readers about the refs inserted into theGuides will now have to be dropped, as there will not be time to have them suitably read and respond to the new Guides. Unfortunately, due to the rapid writing of our grant application, our wish to track an increase in readership of WP articles due to improved reference support had not been well mapped out, and data are limiting within WP's pageview analytics. It will need first a) use of the reference document by PCC; then b) tracking of which articles by all PCC editors are improved. The survey of CSteps FB readers also has not been designed, though that will not take long.

12b. How do you hope to overcome these challenges in the future? Do you have any recommendations for the Foundation to support you in addressing these challenges?

Difficulties have been mentioned under 12a, 2 and 7, We certainly hope to overcome these challenges in the future. Some work will still be finalized this month. In the future, a small grant specifically to measure the impact on readership of WP climate action articles/ CSteps articles and guides, and in Earth Hero - action additions due to this work would provide more effective data on impact than could be done at the end of this grant.

13. Use this space to upload any documents and provide links to any tools you have used that would be useful to understand your data collection (e.g., surveys you have carried out, communications material, training material, program and event dashboard link, project page on Meta).

Here is an additional field to type in URLs.

No Evaluation document as of yet.

14. Have you shared these results with other Wikimedian communities (either affiliates, user groups, volunteers, etc., different to yours)? This can include things such as data and direct outcomes, lessons you have learned, or information on how to run or recreate your programs.


14a. If yes or partially, please describe how you have already shared them and if you would like to do more sharing, and if so how.

Our initial survey of CSteps FB users for our WikiCred food/ag project - which directly fed references into this project, was well received. See "Story...doc"

We have discussed with editors in PCC (and under two separate pages related to our WikiCred work) our work, and lessons we have learned, and have sought to understand whether parts of our project will be valuable. Questions in most cases, except for Wikiquotes, were answered.

This spring, and summer,, we'd like to dive in again into the PCC by isnerting the ref table, but also by sharing the outcomes of the work with the editors . In a growth phase, we'd like to become more of the PCC team, finalize our editorial status, and help collaborate on science-based climate action goals and efforts.,

Part 4: Financial reporting and compliance edit

15. & 14a. Please state the total amount spent in your local currency.

4232 USD

16. Please state the total amount spent in USD.

4232 USD

17. Please report the funds received and spending in the currency of your fund.

17a. Upload a financial report file.

17b. Please provide a link to your financial reporting document.

As required in the fund agreement, please report any deviations from your fund proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.

17c. If you have not already done so in your budget report, please provide information on changes in the budget in relation to your original proposal.

Originally $400 was set aside as an honorarium for the African climate activists to help them achieve their work. When they did not submit, $100 was shifted to extra efforts by the main contractor Mark Stewart on references, with $300 retained for the climate activists. This work has not been achieved, but is still planned.

18. Do you have any unspent funds from the Fund?


18a. Please list the amount and currency you did not use and explain why.

Originally $400 was set aside as an honorarium for the African climate activists to help them achieve their work. When they did not submit, $200 was shifted to extra efforts by the main contractor on references, with $200 retained for climate activists. This work has not been achieved, but is still planned. .

18b. What are you planning to do with the underspent funds?

B. Propose to use them to partially or fully fund a new/future grant request with PO approval

18c. Please provide details of hope to spend these funds.

Use $300 to rerecruit the African climate activists to contribute at least 20 references and examples of African-specific climate action to the database. It is unlikely that these activists will have time to learn Wikipedia now in this round, but we hope to work with them in the future to accomplish more. In addition, we'll work on their article for Climate Steps about African climate action, that should be the start of an article within WP.

19. Are you in compliance with the terms outlined in the fund agreement?


20. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement?


21. Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement? In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the WMF mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.


22. If you have additional recommendations or reflections that don’t fit into the above sections, please write them here.

Other documents