Grants:IEG/Committee

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Individual Engagement Grants
committee
current committee
join us
committee activities

round 2 2014 schedule

Proposals accepted: 1-30 September

Committee members finalized: 15 September

Community comment requested: 1–20 October

Committee review: 21 October – 3 November

Grantees announced: 5 December

2014

Grants disbursed: December 2014 – January 2015

Midpoint reports: April

Final reports: July

2015 +

round 1 2014 schedule

Proposals accepted: 1–31 March

Committee members finalized: 15 March

Community comment requested: 1–20 April

Committee review: 7 April – 5 May

Grantees announced: 30 May

Grants disbursed: June

Midpoint reports: September

Final reports: January

2014 +

top of the page members

  1. Ailura
  2. AddisWang*
  3. Anne Delong
  4. Bellayet
  5. Hahc21
  6. Ilario
  7. Jane023
  8. Mabeenot
  9. Nhasive
  10. Ocaasi
  11. Pine
  12. Rubin16
  13. Steven Zhang
  14. Superzerocool
  15. Whym


*recused from round 1 review


To review and score proposals, the IEG Committee organizes into small groups to review sets of proposals with a common methodology, theme, or subject matter.

See working groups.

See inactive/past committee members

top of the page membership criteria

join the committee

We enjoy a large committee and do not run elections. Those who are determined to meet the criteria are invited to become members during an open call period each year. Membership is for a 1-year term, which may be renewable.

To be considered for membership:
1. Review the membership criteria and make sure you meet them.

2. Review the committee's tasks and make sure you're willing and able to fulfill them (we'll show you how!).

3. Add your name to the list of candidates. Please include a brief statement about your background and Wikimedia involvement, demonstrating how you meet the criteria.

tasks

1. Provide feedback on grant proposals: Check on new ideas, drafts and proposals, engaging in talk page discussions to help improve them and asking questions to ensure that sufficient information is provided and that goals and estimates are realistic.

2. Review finalized proposals: Read and research submissions, join a working group to score proposals according to rubric determined by selection criteria and give feedback to applicants.

3. Recommend proposals for funding: Recommend a shortlist of proposals for funding to WMF staff based on the available budget.

membership criteria

Mandatory:

  1. Experience with the Wikimedia movement and at least one Wikimedia project.
  2. Experience with some aspect of Wikimedia programmatic or project-based work, e.g. editor engagement, WikiProjects or other on-wiki organizing processes, outreach, events, partnerships, research, education, gadget or bot-building, etc.
  3. Ability to edit basic wiki-markup (grant proposal discussions are largely conducted on meta-wiki).
  4. Reasonable facility with English, for reviewing and discussing grant proposals.
  5. In good community- and legal- standing (not currently blocked or banned, involved in allegations of unethical financial behavior, etc).
  6. Availability to actively engage in the selection process during the published schedule for that round (time commitment is about 3 hours per week, plus 1 extra day for scoring).

Preferable:

  1. Experience leading, coordinating, or managing projects with an intended on-wiki or online impact.
  2. Experience handling externally provided money and working within budgets, preferably in a non-profit context.
  3. Experience applying for grants or working in grants programs (in the Wikimedia, academic, or wider non-profit world).
  4. Ability to read and write in multiple languages.

Acceptable:

  1. Members may apply for an Individual Engagement Grant themselves, but they will recuse themselves from reviewing proposals in the same category as their own during that round.
  2. Membership does not conflict with membership in other Wikimedia committees, including the Grant Advisory Committee or the Wikimania Scholarships Committee.

top of the page candidates

Would you like to join the committee? Add yourself to the list of candidates below!

Candidates, we'd like to get to know you! Please include a brief statement about yourself (like these), and answer the following 2 questions:

  1. What experience from Wikimedia and/or other related projects can you bring to help this committee?
  2. What kinds of projects would you like to see Individual Engagement Grants fund?

New members who are determined to meet the criteria will be added and notified according to the published schedule for each round.

Add your statement and name here[edit]

Candidate: Add your name/signature here!

Statement: Add your statement here, demonstrating how you meet the criteria to join.
Answer 1: What experience from Wikimedia and/or other related projects can you bring to help this committee?
Answer 2: What kinds of projects would you like to see Individual Engagement Grants fund?

Candidate: Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement: I am a long-time Wikipedian, and I'd love to get more involved in the workings of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm most active on the English-language Wikipedia, where I have over 100,000 edits and have created around 2,000 articles on a wide variety of topics. I also have been very involved at Commons, where I have uploaded (or coordinated the bot upload of) around 3,000 images. Outside of those two main projects, I have also contributed occasionally to the Spanish Wikipedia and to Wikisource, and I have recently become involved in Wikidata. I have been involved as an ambassador in the Education Program, and lately I have been working to jump-start the Wikimedia community in Los Angeles, where I have organized edit-a-thons in conjunction with museums, arts institutions, and libraries. Online, I have also been involved with editor mentoring through the now-defunct Special:Feedback, the Teahouse, and elsewhere. Outside of Wikimedia activities, I am an attorney at a national law firm. I can read and write Spanish comfortably but with occasional grammatical errors, and I can read French--and to some extent other romance languages--at a passable level. (I might also be able to write in French, but it's been so long since I've tried that I'm not sure!)
Answer 1: My experience organizing real-world meet-ups has given me insight into how outreach works and doesn't work, as the case may be... I have also been around Wikipedia long enough to have a sense for what sort of initiatives succeed and why, and to grasp Wikipedia's pressing problems (user recruitment and diversity, to name two). I would like to think that my lawyer's way of thinking -- critically identifying weaknesses, and then attempting to remedy them -- will be useful when evaluating proposals.
Answer 2: I'm most interested in technical grants, because I think these sorts of projects are least likely to happen without funding. More specifically, I would be eager to see proposals about improving the Wikipedia user experience, which is crucial to attracting new contributors. I'm also interested in the development of tools that enable users (including new users) to contribute in small but measurable ways. Take the recent Wikidata game, for example. Imagine a tool like this as the top banner on the Community Portal link of Wikipedia -- an easy way for users to get involved and feel like they're making a difference without needing to wade through code and possibly encountering early hostility. Cross-language collaboration, including but not limited to translation, is another area I'm interested in. Finally, I'm interested in grants for activities intended to combat systemic bias. (However, I think outreach grants in this arena merit scrutiny as to their sustainability after grant-related activities have ceased.)
Pencil

apply
for a grant

Glasses

review
open proposals

IEG key lightblue.png

engage
current grants

IEG Committee
Questions about IEG
IEG labcat white.svg
IdeaLab
rules contact us top