Grants talk:IEG/Wikipedia on the Margins: Women, Minorities, and Philosophy

This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!

Comments regarding this decision:
Thanks to you all for the proposal - hope to see you participating again in future rounds!

Next steps:

1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
4. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wikipedia on the Margins: Women, Minorities, and Philosophy

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background)	Score 1=weakest 5=strongest
Potential for impact
(A) The project fits with the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities	4
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact.	3
(C) The impact of the project can be sustained after the grant ends.	3
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects.	3
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve.	3
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds.	3
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds.	3
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it.	3
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement.	3
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact.	4
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful.	3
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement.	3
Comments from the committee: We appreciate the detailed budget. Project is high-cost and aims to impact a narrow area of content. This brings up concerns about scalability, not demonstrating how it would be easy or cost-effective for similar projects in other topic areas/languages/countries to follow this model. Some concerns about the project team's combined experience, as two of the 3 participants are relatively new to Wikipedia. Measures of success seem ambitious. Proposers are encouraged to gain more relevant experience and to work on bringing the cost of the project down. Would be good to see a working list of potential articles that are missing, to help demonstrate necessity.

Oppose

No, can not support this proposal. First off, 30K plus outside funding seems a high cost. What percentage is going to go to travel? How many professionals will you be able to bring to each edit-a-thon? What other places will the funding go? Donor money should be spent in a fully transparent way by individuals that have been given grants. Second, I worry about POV pushing in a minimally monitored area. Like it or not, a key part of standpoint epistemology is that traditional forms of objectivity (NPOV) are not as objective as we think they are and the voices of marginalized view points (WP:FRINGE) should be told or even stressed. (Haraway's God Trick outlines this idea fairly well.) Wikipedia a modernist community; we believe that there is truth and that a neutral encyclopedia that is based off of the existing sources is a good thing. The addition of a sizable group of postmodernists will lead to conflict with the community. Do you have a way to deal with the inevitable ANI complaints? We should encourage the democratization of knowledge and acknowledge knowledge producing communities but this could quickly cross over the like into promoting a view point. --Guerillero 06:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Guerillero - since your comment contained a number of things that are worthy of independent responses, we are going to reply under a number of different subheadings and sign each comment, so that separate threads of discussion can be held simultaneously in a non-confusing way. I’m going to reply to your concerns about budgeting now; we’ll respond to some of your other points within the next few hours as well. Kevin (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Guerillero, I'll reply to your concerns about "POV pushing and neutrality" below. Madva (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Budget breakdown & transparency

Due to the number of moving parts involved in this project, we’d prefer not to provide a fixed or item level budget breakdown in advance, in order to ensure we have sufficient flexibility to make the best use of donor funds possible. We will be tweaking the budget section later today to provide a more detailed idea of what portion of the funds requested will be going towards what part of the project, but I think that providing a fixed item level budget breakdown would stop us from making the most efficient use of funds possible, and would not allow us to maximize the success of the project. (Also: all outside funding that we currently intend to pursue would be directed towards subsidizing travel of workshop participants, and would reduce the portion of WMF grant funds directed towards that. We do not currently know how much outside funding we will obtain, which would further complicate committing to a fixed item-level breakdown at this point in time.)

A couple hypotheticals to illustrate what I mean: If we say “we’ll be spending $2,500 to partially subsidize the travel of participants to our bay area workshop(s),” we hand out $2,500 in travel subsidies a few weeks before the workshop, and then at the last minute realize that an intended participant who is very interested in the idea of the program and is exceptionally well-positioned to spread the USEP to philosophy classes in their school has had their intended travel plans fall through and needs an additional $200 to manage to attend, what do we do? (From a realistic standpoint, probably give the participant the extra $200 and request a retrospective grant reallocation, but that is hardly ideal.) Similarly, if we say we’re going to hand out $2,500 in partial travel subsidies and it turns out all of our participants can cover their own travel costs, we would need to either not spend that chunk of the grant, or request a grant reallocation. We could do either of these of course, but I don’t think that either option is ideal. What happens if one of us is invited to speak at an event or conference that has a significant potential to benefit the project, but will take $500 in travel/lodging costs that we didn’t pre-budget for (because we weren’t aware of the opportunity?) We could pass up the opportunity (which wouldn’t make sense if we feel that spending the money would present the most cost effective way of advancing the project,) or we could request a grant reallocation and spend the money. I don’t think that either of these are ideal options.

Obviously, this much flexibility should only be given to us if people think that we’ll be good stewards of movement funds. But this grant should only be given to us in the first place if people think that we’ll be good stewards of movement funds - it wouldn’t be a good idea to give us $30,000 without faith that we’ll be spending it in the best interests of the proposed project (and of the Wikimedia movement) no matter how detailed our budget breakdown was.

In terms of transparency: I think that stating that we will include a full breakdown of how funds were spent and will return any unspent funds to WMF at the end of the grant period is pretty transparent, especially when we’ve given a very detailed breakdown of what goals we will be using the funding towards. In terms of cost effectiveness: I don’t think $30,000 is an unreasonable amount of money to spend on a project of the ambitiousness we’ve outlined. Our minimum targets are comparable in scope to those hit by the first semester of the Public Policy Initiative, but focused in a significantly more underserved target area. The project has significant potential to significantly improve the quality of a currently quite poor area of Wikipedia, to significantly increase participation (including among demographic groups that are currently underrepresented,) to create an extensible model of academic outreach, and to reach a sustainable mass by the end of the grant period. Kevin (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. I've got concerns about your lack of budget breakdown as well, and would like to see a more concrete plan for the specific activities you think you'll accomplish during the grant period. Plans do not have to be set in stone, and grantees are allowed to deviate from a plan as new information comes to light as long as you are updating WMF along the way, requesting approval to spend more of the funds on x than y as originally planned because something critical has changed since you first proposed the project, etc. We do want to see these as living ideas and projects, and I too have never planned a project that didn't deviate a bit from the original budget over the course of 6 months. Of course a full report on how funding was used compared to plan at the end of the grant period will be required. However, just because something may change does not mean you do not need to come up with a more concrete plan from the beginning. I'm not going to be comfortable approving a $30,000 grant without knowing that you can plan activities and estimate a budget based on the facts available today, and I doubt that the committee will feel comfortable recommending this proposal in its current state. So, I would strongly encourage you to give this some further thought, and remember that if you need more time to work out details you can always resubmit in a future round. Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Siko - we'll be editing in some further details about the execution process in the near future. We actually have a lot of execution details already written up, although not yet in a perfect format to be posted. (TBH, in formatting the application and choosing what level of detail to include, I was in part trying to match the level of detail of Sage's app ;-).) We'll also have a budget breakdown posted later today, although there will be significant uncertainties in it (since a lot of things - like travel costs - will be dependent on the location of participants who have not yet been chosen.) Kevin (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We've added in both a lot more information about our execution plan and a detailed estimate of our projected budget. Kevin (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

POV Pushing and Neutrality

We intend to solicit feedback from and directly involve philosophers who work on a range of topics, including underrepresented work by those within traditional “analytic” philosophy. (For what it’s worth, the philosophers on this project both work primarily on relatively “mainstream Anglo-American” topics. User:Madva’s areas of expertise are contemporary philosophy of mind and cognitive science; User:Gasdaglis’ are philosophy of mind and the history of early-modern philosophy.) Our aim is not to increase coverage of or contributions from philosophers who defend any particular set of views, such as standpoint epistemology or postmodernism. Instead, our aim is to involve professional philosophers who are committed to producing content that meets Wikipedia’s highest standards of rigor, quality, neutrality, and objectivity. Nor is our aim to increase coverage of or contributions from a set of marginalized views simply because they are marginalized. The problem is precisely that significant, notable contributions to contemporary academic philosophy are not being adequately represented on Wikipedia; one of the best ways to address this is to reach out to philosophers working in these areas and encourage them and their students to join Wikipedia’s community, and thereby take on all the obligations and privileges bestowed on every other community member.

That said, we would vigorously dispute the implication that postmodern theorists or standpoint epistemologists would be somehow less capable of meeting Wikipedia’s standards, or more likely to intentionally subvert them. A clear and important distinction must be drawn between the theoretical views a professional academic defends in print and that academic’s ability to work collaboratively and impartially in accordance with the shared standards of Wikipedia, or of any other movement or institution. The unfair and misguided assumption that theorists working in these areas would be more likely to push an idiosyncratic agenda itself reflects the need for better representation of their views. It is, in any case, a mistake to equate feminism with postmodernism, or to think that feminist philosophers would be less capable of or committed to producing true, neutral, and well-cited content. Nevertheless, to the extent that there is some “special” worry with targeting areas in philosophy that are allegedly more prone to bias, we volunteers plan to exercise extremely careful and thorough oversight of all the content produced in association with this project.Madva (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering all the articles that have been published in mainstream and "Geek" publications about the gender disparity in number of editors and content in Wikimedia projects, $30,000 seems like a small price to pay to encourage female philsophers, etc. to get involved in editing. And considering they probably take a lot of flak in their academic life, and their probable excellence in engaging in intellectual battles, they probably have strong constitutions to put up with the rough shod habits of many male editors. So they probably are a good group to target to find long-term editors. Sounds like a great project, PR and recruitment wise.

Resources

What kind of resources (books/journals/websites) would you want access to in order to create content for articles related to philosophy? Do you have free access to these resources? Would you require funding to gain access to libraries/museums/journals? --Netha Hussain (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Since our outreach efforts will be specifically targeted at academia, I would expect that essentially all of the people we will be targeting will already have free access to most relevant resources. Alex, Katie and I all have free access to every major journal database and a lot of minor ones, as well as access to major academic libraries. (Katie is at Columbia, Alex and I are at UC Berkeley.) If some specialist resource came up that looked like it would be hugely useful that we couldn't access for free I wouldn't want to rule out paying for it, but it is not an expense I am anticipating. Kevin (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

Since a large portion of this project involves the USEP, the default timeline for IEGs isn't quite ideal, since most USEP classes will end in December, not October. A final report due in October would mean that we would be writing out our final report before the fall term had come to an end, and before the full results of the project were completely apparent. We would have a pretty good idea of how the USEP component of the class was doing by that point, but wouldn't have finalized numbers of articles improved, etc. Would it be possible for us to submit our final report in October and then submit an addendum to it in December, so we'd wind up with a truly final evaluation of how the project went? Alternately, would it be possible for us to change the timeline of the project so that the grant ran from June to December (still six months) and matched up with the normal academic calendar? Kevin (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Content editors

I have attempted to answer this question for myself, but in case I missed something, I will ask it here: have any of the participants ever brought an article (philosophy or otherwise) up to GA or FA status? I am of the opinion that such an experience would be quite valuable for an effort such as this. If you concur, could you explain how you would intend to fill in this gap? If you don't believe it is relevant, can you explain why? --Cryptic C62 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cryptic - Thanks for your question. I need to run out, but I felt like I should drop you a brief reply now. Later this evening I will post an additional response that will go in to significantly more detail about the answers to your question. You are correct that none of us have brought an article up to GA or FA status, and I do agree with you that such experience would be valuable in this project. I don't think that our lack of GA/FA experience is going to pose an unsurmountable problem for us, and I'll explain why I believe this in far greater detail in my additional reply to you later today. There are also a number of other things that we lack that would make the project easier - for instance, having a sysop on the team would allow us to handle histmerges and other janitorial work for participants our project attracts without having to ask another community member to intervene, but I don't believe that these limitations are going to be project-killers, either. Kevin (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

For a longer answer: although I haven't gone through GAN/FAN myself, I have written content, and have also become significantly familiar with our content policies through participation at BLPN, NORN, RSN and similar places. As a couple examples of articles I've been a significant contributor to, I think that en:Lawson Adit and en:Psilocybe cyanescens are both pretty decent. To finish up the Lawson Adit article, I need to track down some material from some of our libraries, but after that and a thorough copyedit I think it would be pretty easy to get it up to FA status (and I intend to do so.) It'd still be a shorter than typical FA, but that's just because there's not that much published about the adit. (I go to UC Berkeley, where the adit is located, so our libraries have some neat stuff that'll meet WP:RS but won't necessarily be available anywhere else.) The quality of prose in the Psilocybe cyanescens article needs to be greatly improved and it needs a thorough copyedit and reorganization, but the sourcing is solid and it is thorough in terms of content, so I think it could reasonably be a GA in the relatively near future. In other words: I definitely don't have as much content experience as many people do and a more comprehensive background would definitely a boon here, but I'm confident that I have enough of a background to successfully pull off what we're shooting for. We will also reach out to other Wikipedians for assistance in areas where we're lacking - and that will include doing things like soliciting feedback on and publicly iterating the reusable materials we develop to make sure that they accurately reflect the standards and expectations of the Wikipedia community and enlisting content creation experienced volunteers to provide more eyes on the articles being created to ensure that we catch any quality problems so that we can take actions to address them.

I don't anticipate that knowledge of the actual processes of GAN/FAN will be important, because we're not going to be aiming to use those processes. There may be a situation or two where a participant we attract does end up going through them, but it'd be unusual, for a variety of reasons. Past education programs have shown that having GA/FA as an explicit target is very rarely a good thing, because it's an overly ambitious goal for most semester long classes, and because a flood of outreach related noms in an under-covered area places an unfair burden on reviewers. If one of our participants does manage to get an article to the point where they would like to pursue GA/FA status, I'll pre-review the article to make sure it actually has a reasonable chance of passing before encouraging them to do so. I'm familiar enough with the processes that I think I am able to make a reasonable assessment of the chance of an article reasonably passing through either process. (I wouldn't do a formal review for anyone participating in this project - I think that would be improper - but would pre-vet their articles, and also probably conduct a reciprocal GA review (or arrange for one to be done) so as to not increase the total burden on the process.)

I have the feeling that my first paragraph is more what you were digging at than my second, but I figured I'd include both, just to ensure I did hit on whatever you were going for. If you have any more questions, lemme know. Kevin (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think your argument for steering away from GAN/FAC (or at least not steering directly at them) is sound and well reasoned. I would also add that for philosophy in particular, there are so few top-notch articles on the subject to use as models that the prospect of pushing for GA is made significantly more difficult than it would ordinarily be. The same amount of effort which would be required to produce a FA in philosophy could be distributed more efficiently amongst many articles for a much greater overall impact. Also also, when you do go about soliciting feedback on the students' work, feel free to contact me, as I would be quite eager to help with this exciting project. --Cryptic C62 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cryptic, the offer is greatly appreciated and we certainly will take you up on it as things start to progress. Kevin (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Retention

I understand that with this project you're building off of past USEP models and attempting to control for some issues that have come up in the past (poor quality due to not enough in-classroom support, better training materials, etc). What I don't think the USEP has demonstrated yet though is evidence that students are being retained in significant numbers as Wikipedians after the semester ends. Yes, we've seen the metrics on article quality improvement, and if you said your goal was to improve coverage on these topics alone then I would not have this question. However, because I think one of your stated goals is also to attract and retain new contributors, I wonder if you can talk a bit more about how you see this happening. What is different from the current EP model that you believe is more likely to encourage students or instructors to become more integrated into the community so that they stay when the targeted outreach ends? Siko (WMF) (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to throw in my two cents on this issue. When I started contributing, all I knew was that there were things to do, and I could do them if I wanted to. Some of the things seemed interesting, so I started doing them, and I found it to be quite fun. I found out about content processes (DYK, FAC, peer review) and policies (NPOV, RS, MoS) when they became relevant, either by my own curiosity, or by making mistakes and having others point out where I went wrong. By frontloading the meat and spreading out the cauliflower, I found myself wanting to explore and learn, without fear of consequences.

The USEP model has always been the opposite: Frontload the "this is how it's done" before any of the "let's do it", which makes the culture seem much more structured and formalized than it actually is. This, I believe, may be part of the reason why student retention is so low. Excellence as a contributor should not, in my opinion, be presented as a requirement, but as a journey. So, Kevin, if you hadn't already pondered this, perhaps it would be worth pondering. --Cryptic C62 (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi all - sorry for the delayed reply, I was AFK for most of the weekend. I have a lot of thoughts about this, and should have an answer up within the next few hours, but feel like I should probably tackle Ilario's question first. Kevin (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The first thing I'd like to mention is that we expect not just to attract and retain students, but also academic faculty. Many philosophers want to contribute to Wikipedia but don't know how. We are tapping into a community that is already motivated and chomping at the bit. Many professional philosophers are very active on the internet in other ways, not just by blogging or working on activist campaigns but specifically by generating high-quality content (including on notable but traditionally marginalized or underrepresented subjects and figures) for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I don't personally know the retention rates for previous USEP projects, but, when I hear that they are low, that makes me curious about how they compare to baseline retention rates. In general, how many people contribute to Wikipedia just once or twice and then stop? Even more specifically, how many people with no background in computer science, html, etc. try to dabble in Wikipedia and then stop? Finally, it seems to me that a fair assessment of retention rates for USEP should take a long-term view. Student who learn the in's and out's of Wikipedia in an academic setting may not end up being very interested in the subject matter of the class, and so might not continue to edit related pages going forward. They might not have a passion for or interest in disseminating information about any particular subject matter. But if, at some point down the road, they do become aficionados or experts in some area, then USEP has given them the foundation to rejoin the Wikipedia community. Since USEP has not been around very long, I would think we're not yet in a position to determine whether former USEP students end up becoming more likely to start contributing again.

All that said, there are reasons to think that the framing of our project will make it more conducive to retention than in the past, but Kevin has more developed thoughts about this so I will turn this point over to him.Madva (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As Alex pointed out, we do expect to retain non-student contributors as well. Part of the idea for this project came when a number of professors of philosophy approached Alex saying, essentially, "We want to edit Wikipedia, we see important things wrong with it, but we don't know how and can't figure it out - can you help us?". But I do think that we will be able to retain student contributors in useful numbers as well. It is certainly true that USEP projects, broadly, have low student retention rates. Definitely not zero, but certainly low.

I suspect, strongly, that a student's emotional engagement with Wikipedia is going to be the biggest predictor of whether or not they continue to engage with Wikipedia after the class has finished. I wish I had a lot of empirical data to back this up, but unfortunately, I don't. Anecdotally, when looking through contributions from past students, I have noticed that many students who were exceptionally engaged with their projects for whatever reason are either still active in some Wikipedia-related context, or were at least active for a significant length of time after their assignment had ended.

I think that assignments laid out in the fashion Cryptic talks about result in relatively low student emotional engagement, for the reasons he laid out - they take the fun of discovery away from new Wikipedians, and tend to present Wikipedia as a formalized inflexible system. I have encountered students in the past who have been actively spooked by the idea of actually making their first contributions to Wikipedia, viewing it as a scary new system unforgiving of mis-steps or experimentation. Classes that present Wikipedia in a structure-heavy way like this aren't inherently bad - many courses laid out in this fashion produce great content - but I do think that they likely contribute to low retention rates. (Again anecdotal, but looking through classes that present Wikipedia in a highly structured way, it seems that far fewer contributors stick around after the end of the semester.)

Many (although obviously not all) students who take classes in our target areas take them out of strong personal interest, rather than to check off a graduation requirement. I think that the USEP model applied to underrepresented content areas and specifically framed as being an intervention to increase the public availability of information about these areas is likely to emotionally engage a lot more students than the general model does. If we frame the problem in a way that makes its significance obvious (and it's pretty easy to do that when the problem is "There is very very little accurate information about this entire discipline available in the most widely used information source in the entire world",) support students with the necessary tools and in-person and on-wiki support to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive way with as low a barrier of entry as possible, and are speaking to an audience that is more engaged than average with the subject matter in the first place, I think that it is incredibly likely that the end result will be highly engaged students who stick around after the conclusion of their assignment at a rate far higher than is normal in other USEP classes. We also intend to tailor our instructional design so as to encourage greater interaction with the community than most USEP classes experience, and we intend ourselves to be in constant contact with ENWP editors who are active in these editing areas.Kevin (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Experience

My basic concern is that the participants of this grant are basically new in wikipedia and in wikimedian projects [1] [2] and the third one with two years of experience. Considering the high cost, I suppose that this inexperience may be a risk for the success of the project. The program is ambitious and the effort, needed to reach the goals, imposes to consider this point. Basically I may accept that one member has good skills in topic of this grant (philosophy) and low experience in Wikipedia, but in this request the inexperience is big risk. --Ilario (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ilario - you are correct that Alex and Katie have not made extensive contributions to Wikimedia projects in the past, but both of them have extensive backgrounds in philosophy and understand the problems in the field, especially those relevant to this grant. I would not view their absence of significant previous Wikimedia-related experience as a significant drawback. I think that a situation where none of the grant applicants had extensive backgrounds in academic philosophy would be far riskier than one in which some applicants have backgrounds in academic philosophy and some in Wikipedia. In my experience, one of the most pernicious issues that come up in Wikimedia-related outreach efforts is a disconnect between those conducting the outreach and those the effort is aimed at reaching. Having two experienced philosophy-side people on the grant minimizes the chance of that being a serious problem. In an ideal world, Alex and Katie would both be experienced Wikipedians with tons of FA's and GA's under their belts - but sadly, we don't live in an ideal world, and I don't know of anyone who has as strong a skillset on the philosophy side of things as Alex and Katie who also has strong Wikimedia roots. If all three of the grantees on this projects were experienced Wikipedians and it was funded, in all likelihood the first thing those Wikipedians would have to do would be to try to recruit volunteers with the skillsets Alex and Katie possess - which is far from an easy thing.

In terms of my own experience: yes, I have only been a serious Wikimedian for about two years, and yes, it would likely help this project if I had been a Wikimedian for ten instead. But I strongly feel that I have a sufficient background to carry out this project successfully. I was brought in to the Wikimedia movement through the PPI (the precursor to the USEP,) and have spent a lot of time working on USEP-related issues since then. I have a good idea of what has worked for USEP-type outreach in the past, and a good idea of what hasn't worked. Just as importantly, I have conducted USEP-related outreach myself, and have provided support to instructors and students myself. I haven't written a toooon of content from scratch myself, but am very familiar with our content policies through my USEP related activities and my activities on ENWP boards like RSN, BLPN, and DRN, and know what problems new editors tend to run in to (especially in the fields we are targeting.) My toolkit isn't perfect for this project, but I think it is more than sufficient to execute this project - and we won't be shy about recruiting additional volunteers to help out in areas where we are lacking. Kevin (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)