 Hello, my name is Tracy Perkins and I'm recording a few thoughts on a progress on the research project in progress with my coauthors Sophia Hussein London Davis and Merriam Trent. So we are writing about a class project that we did in 2018, in which my coauthors were students at Howard University the class was sociology of food and agriculture, and we contributed to Wikipedia content on food and agriculture supported by Wiki Education. So skipping straight to some findings we found persistent racialized and gendered knowledge gaps and misrepresentations across food and agriculture pages. And we think that these are due to both the replication of similar kinds of gaps and distortions in academic scholarship and I should say, as well as in press coverage, and also through the largely white male pool of editors that makes up Wikipedia in the English language in and the way that they, as a group if not, you know at an every individual level, distort knowledge in keeping with their interests areas and worldviews through gatekeeping practices. So briefly, for example, one of my students wrote about the Colombian exchange, which before she described it was, as it says here named for Christopher Columbus. It was the widespread transfer of plants animals culture human populations technology and ideas between the Americas and the old world and the 15th and 16th century. Old world meaning Europe. My student added content on Africa's role in the Colombian exchange, which was a huge absence and the page and then much scholarly writing on the Colombian exchange. She added content about African plants that came to other parts of the world, following the Colombian exchange, as well as the huge transfers people through the transatlantic slave trade. And also the transfer of ideas that came with some of those enslaved Africans including their contributions to rice plantation agriculture in the American south. So these are the kinds of gatekeeping practices. This student wrote about her intent to add the United Farm Workers of America to the, I believe it was the labor history in the United States page and got a lot of resistance from one of the editors who didn't think that they were a very significant union and also really sort of tried to deter her from making significant changes to the page through the highlighted text here lots of editors have worked on this and someone who is brand new to Wikipedia needs to watch and learn how editing is done here. So some of the implications of our experience. We found that the assignment itself of having students learn about how Wikipedia works and learn about knowledge politics through it was very valuable. And we also found that the readings that I had chosen which paired a positivist reading with a black feminist one that gave, you know, distinct approaches to how knowledge works and how knowledge claims can be supported that that the tension between those two approaches was productive for our discussion in class and for us thinking about knowledge. In terms of implications for Wikipedia and wiki education more broadly. Because the student population that wiki education draws in are more diverse than the broad existing editor pool of Wikipedia, and that they often make equity oriented interventions into Wikipedia which is great. The only caution here is just again to remind everyone that students of color you know may or may not choose to make equity oriented interventions into Wikipedia. For a number of reasons related to life experience, formal education informal education, the topic of the class, the setup of the class, etc. And broadly for Wikipedia. Although we see that there is some effort to diversify the editor pool. We don't think that that alone is going to solve its content problems and it seems very likely that if the editor pool does significantly diversify that this will lead to increased resistance, among at least some of the existing white editors. And male editors and broadly for knowledge politics. This experience underscored that you know tech tools replicate the problems of society. They don't sort of enable us to outrun society. And so, therefore, solving the racial and gendered content gaps and misrepresentations on Wikipedia is is a fundamentally political project and should be understood as such. And we will stop there with some references and some acknowledgments. Thanks so much and looking forward to chatting in Q&A.