Grants:IEG/Committee/Workroom/Review/Scores

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Now-selected proposals[edit]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Build an effective method of publicity in PRChina[edit]

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. 4
(C) The impact of the project can be sustained after the grant ends. 4
(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. 4
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 5
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds. 5
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it. 4
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. 3
(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. 4
Comments from the committee:
  • Proposal sounds reasonable and interesting.
  • Wikimedia culture is yet to penetrate deep into strategic locations of Asia like China. This project would act as a pilot in understanding the online preferences of the Chinese population. Might also help in building a strong Chinese Wikimedia community.
  • Goals as well as how to achieve them seem realistic.
  • Innovative approach, however Weibo is a government run service, and can be shut down. If the community account gets verified, it further increases the risk of government interference.
  • Although we wonder how they will translate followers to readers or editors, in this particular case, even making Wikipedia known to the general Chinese population would be a step forward.
  • Suggest measuring pageviews of the articles they promote every day to see if they significantly peaked.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Consolidate wikiArS to involve art schools[edit]

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. 4
(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. 4
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 5
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4
(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. 4
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. 3
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 2
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 3
Comments from the committee:
  • Some concerns about the lack of measures of success - perhaps giving numbers in terms of quality images etc will help.
  • Can bookshelf translation not be done by volunteers?
  • We appreciate the strong community support from Commons, Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia.
  • With some results already generated from last year, we anticipate the project would be able to demonstrate impact.
  • For wikis where there is no Fair Use, this is an interesting approach to provide illustrations to articles.


Aggregated feedback from the committee for Elaborate Wikisource strategic vision[edit]

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. 4
(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. 4
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement. 4
(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. 4
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 4
Comments from the committee:
  • Pleased to see something that is both big, but also appears manageable, for this perennially undeserved project with great potential.
  • Having several people from different languages leading the project is a plus.
  • Bringing community attention to Wikisource would make it possible to get its work recognized and appreciated more; and of course attract new editors.
  • The hope that the WMF will make Wikisource a priority after its completion, and help implement the results of the study, is problematic.
  • Some concerns about the lacking demonstration of support of the relevant communities in the different Wikisources.
  • Videoconferencing and phone may help cut down on travel expenses.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for MediaWiki data browser[edit]

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 3
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact. 4
(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. 4
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 4
(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. 4
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. 3
(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:
  • Interesting way to improve data visualization on Wikipedia and other MediaWiki wikis.
  • Would nicely fit with Wikidata's progress if successful.
  • Appears to be a high-risk, high-reward proposal from a trusted source with good endorsements.
  • May be better integrated into Wikidata as opposed to being something completely external.
  • Somewhat unclear benefits beyond what categories, scripts and bots organizing information from the API already provide.
  • Not well aligned with strategic priorities.
  • Requested compensation seems high.
  • Because the proposal is focused on the software framework, without end use, the prospected impact on the Wikimedia projects would be indirect.
  • Presumes the wiki in concern has rich base of primary content on which you want to discover interesting views. This is a bit different from our central focus, primary content creation and supporting people doing that.
  • The project plan lacks detail where necessary for a large request: budget and measures of success.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Replay Edits[edit]

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 3
(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. 4
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects. 5
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 2
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds. 4
(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. 3
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 2
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 2
Comments from the committee:
  • A better visualisation method for article-histories is a field ripe for experimentation.
  • Appears to be an improved version of Wiki Blame with animation. It would quite interesting to visualize the process how articles are evolved.
  • Could this tool be finetuned to help detect copyright violations? That would be helpful.
  • Tool may be useful for patrolling for vandalism, other benefits remain undemonstrated.
  • The measures of success and intended impact that the proposer has listed seem incorrect. Why should number of edits increase?
  • Budget for UI design appears to be unrealistic.
  • How it will get into the ecosystem of MediaWiki and incorporate with related tools such as Visual Editor is unclear.
  • Would like to see the proposer demonstrate more familiarity with Wikimedia and MediaWiki.


Aggregated feedback from the committee for The Wikipedia Adventure[edit]

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. 4
(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. 4
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. 4
(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. 4
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement. 4
(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:
  • This could be the next big idea. Games can be of great help at improving difficult learning processes.
  • It could be an interesting case study.
  • The concept behind the proposal is quite innovative and could help retain new editors thanks to the proposed non-threatening environment.
  • Proposer seems able to pull it off.
  • Not so sure this could be replicated in other wikis.
  • Measures of success and budget descriptions are vague.
  • Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia projects) should not have a "welcome island" set-aside area which has a series of tasks they have to complete before "graduating" to the real experience.
  • Would like to see the technical knowledge to implement the program from the beginning, and a convincing explanation of how the program can be updated to reflect the implementation of the Visual Editor and Echo.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for The Wikipedia Library[edit]

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. 4
(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. 4
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 4
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds. 4
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it. 4
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. 3
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 4
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 3
Comments from the committee:
  • While this proposal may not be very innovative, there appears to be strong community to support and Ocaasi has a track record of success and demonstrated capability.
  • Although reach would apparently be English Wikipedia, translations could make it go beyond that. Quality of articles would be improved with access to these sources.
  • The budget requested seems reasonable.
  • In the long term it has potential to increase the amount of editors, and the quality of our articles. These resources that would be provided in The Wikipedia Library would make it easier to reference articles with high quality sources, write new articles about obscure topics, and improve existing articles.
  • Hopeful for the integrated system that this proposes, more than the addition of individual new references sources.
  • One of the risks would be failing to decide how to fairly distribute the donated accesses. As it grows larger, the existence of inactive registrants and how to track them will be important to handle well.
  • Would like to see improved measures of success - numbers are important.

Other[edit]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for A revival of Outreach to Increase Participation[edit]

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. 2
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects. 4
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. 4
(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. 4
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement. 2
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact. 2
(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:
  • The India education program failed with some similar outreach strategies. However, this project might serve as a pilot for the A2K team if it tries a modified approach. The drop-out rates may significantly increase if the participants are not trained to type Odia, which can be cumbersome, or if the accessibility to internet is poor, so a plan should be in place to address this.
  • Some concerns about volunteer sustainability after the end of the grant.
  • The project may be interesting to create some Evangelist-like volunteers, but it misses this objective
  • A laudable project, but as planned won't teach us anything new that can be scaled across the movement - it's not "piloting" anything or producing infrascruture others can build on.
  • Suggest considering online solutions, like geek-nic where people leave a note on a site about a proposed local meeting and invite people to it with the only costs being website running/maintenance costs.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Community engagement in Portugal[edit]

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. 4
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. 3
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 2
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 3
Comments from the committee:
  • Project plan includes many good ideas but needs a bit more development.
  • Would like to know how many videos they are going to make, what they are going to be about, where they are going to target the local population, etc.
  • Scope is overly broad. Each component (online tutorial videos, mainstream media campaign, in-real-life engagement campaign, merchandise) may be separate and potentially viable, but not when done all at once. Suggest focusing on just one element for a project.
  • Videos may be more useful after the Visual Editor is complete and deployed to avoid becoming obsolete.
  • Measures of success are vague.
  • While increasing participation could potentially be achieved, the problem of pt.wiki is in retaining editors. This project does not address that, aims to improve community health by sheer numbers.
  • Suggest undertaking a survey to gather some hard data to help make a more concrete plan.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Convidando o Brasil[edit]

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. 2
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact. 2
(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:
  • Focus seems to be very broad.
  • Measures of success are vague for a large grant. In the current design it will be hard to determine if new editors are added because of any one component of the project.
  • Retention seems to be a problem in the PT community, but this project does not address that.
  • Presenting lectures in all regions of Brazil seems undoable, given the size of the country, and no roadmap is provided to support this ambition.
  • Methods for intentionally targetting gendergap issues are not indicated, though that is a stated goal.
  • Proposer has not addressed the stated overlap with the Catalyst program already underway.
  • Budget adjustments may be needed, particularly for the video component.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for GIS and Cartography in Wikimedia[edit]

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 3
(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. 4
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. 3
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 4
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 3
Comments from the committee:
  • A good idea.
  • Budget and measures of success are well-detailed.
  • Still some open questions about potential for OpenStreetMap integration or the relative value of existing GIS maps quality and format.
  • Scope may be too broad or ambitious to be achieved in 6 months, bringing up sustainability concerns after the life of the grant.
  • Because the USED program has had varying levels of success, we wonder to what degree integrating cartography into the program will increase chances of successfully engaging and retaining contributors.
  • Would like to see more demonstrated Wikimedia experience in the project team.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Mapping History: Revision History Visualizer and Improvement Suggester using Geo-Spatial Technologies[edit]

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 2
(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. 4
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects. 4
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 2
(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. 2
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it. 4
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. 2
(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. 2
Comments from the committee:
  • This could be a good tool for researchers and would be interesting to see visualized.
  • Project has potential but the scenarios presented appear to be unrealistic.
  • Direct impact on editors and readers is likely to be small, and the prospect is further diluted due to Wikipedia's privacy policy which limits the input data to anonymous edits only.
  • Budget seems very high considering the proposer's experience and anticipated impact.
  • Would like to see more familiarity and significant involvement in the Wikimedia community from the project proposers.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for MediaWiki and Javanese script[edit]

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. 4
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds. 4
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it. 4
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. 3
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 4
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 4
Comments from the committee:
  • Proposal has some things to be polished, but it can work and produce good results.
  • Project can improve general participation and have a long-term impact as the language tool is developed and deployed.
  • Its promotional effect might go beyond the scope of the particular language community.
  • The materials should be able to be reused.
  • The focus is unclear as to whether it is about improving software support, increasing editorship, or increasing access to the content.
  • Audience is limited to a small number of people.
  • Would like to see more concrete measures of success.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for More books in the Bashkir language at Wikisource[edit]

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 3
(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. 2
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. 4
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. 3
(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. 4
Comments from the committee:
  • 500-book threshold seems ambitious but even 200 new books and some new users in the project would be worth a try.
  • Could be a huge help to the language community.
  • Without a plan to utilize the equipment after the 6 month period, it does not seem cost effective.
  • Paying students may discourage them from pro-bono contribution in the future.
  • Persuading authors to release their materials seems unrealistic. They live on royalties, and it is unlikely they would give it up in exchange for small gifts.
  • Measures of success appear unrealistic
  • The impact this project may not be large enough to justify the expense.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Studying content interest and editor engagement factors with new editors[edit]

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. 2
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4
(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. 4
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement. 2
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact. 3
(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. 4
Comments from the committee:
  • We appreciate the interest in this subject as it aligns with strategic priorities.
  • The researcher seems well-qualified and we expect he would have some interesting findings to share.
  • The study may have significant redundancy with what has already been learned about editor engagement or what is already being worked on in teams like WMF's Editor Engagement Experiments.
  • Budget is very well broken down but sample size appears small for the funding requested.
  • Unsure if what is learned from this project would be easily applied to Wikipedians across geographies and languages.
  • Measures for success do not appear to be sufficiently concrete for a scientific study.
  • We would prefer to see more specific hypotheses that can be turned into actionable recommendations when verified, so that the project aims for more direct impact.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for TapAMap[edit]

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 3
(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. 4
(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. 2
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4
(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. 4
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. 2
(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 aim of expanding the presence of Wikimedia projects in the mobile world.
  • Open source and free licensing would be required for use of donor funds to develop software, so issues with releasing code under CC-BY-SA or similar must be resolved before funding could be considered.
  • Does not closely align with strategic priorities.
  • A similar app, Wikihood, is already available for Android, and this project would need to demonstrate why another is required.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Targeted recruitment of contributors[edit]

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. 4
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 2
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4
(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. 4
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. 2
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 4
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 4
Comments from the committee:
  • We support the idea of reaching out to experts and asking them for their opinions, references, and important materials for content and think it would be great to develop a set of best practices that editors can refer to when they want expert input on a subject.
  • Measures of success are a good start but there may be room for even more improvement.
  • Project plan feels overly broad and could be improved with more specifics, including a timeframe.
  • While the success rate of one-to-one outreach might be high, it is also appears inherently limited in scale as currently designed. We'd like to see further thinking on the scalability issue to determine how article content would continue to be improved after the life of the grant.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wiki Makes Video[edit]

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 3
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact. 4
(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. 4
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. 4
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. 3
(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:
  • Focus on video seems valid, and the proposer seems to have enough skills and experience. We trust the proposers competence to do what they propose.
  • Unsure how this project aligns with the current priorities.
  • Image and video processing and design and is not easy to learn, difficult to achieve these goals within a six month timespan.
  • Potential sustainability issues and measures of success are vague.
  • The app needs reconsideration, given the overlapping efforts by WMF Mobile.
  • This is an expensive project with, relatively speaking, modest strategic benefit - notwithstanding the importance of video.
  • Not sure it can be replicated on other wikis - creating video requires certain equipment, not just knowledge.
  • Not a very cost-effective use of the money and the time of the proposed members to have workshops and competitions over the world, could possibly achieve similar impact online. Suggest online trainings (even Google Hangout w/ YouTube recording), and a training workshop at Wikimania.
  • Would like to see deeper community consultation (particularly on Commons).

Aggregated feedback from the committee for WikiNarratives[edit]

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 3
(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. 2
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects. 4
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 2
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds. 4
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it. 4
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. 3
(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:
  • Great job with the budgeting.
  • An expedition can help bring a lot of pictures about the tradition, culture and rituals of Europe as they have in India and elsewhere.
  • "WikiExpeditions" have been run by Chapters before successfully, but their primary aim is to foster collegiality amongst the local community - not outreach as this is proposing to be.
  • The proposers have not made significant edit contributions to Wikipedia in the past. Lack of endorsements suggests a lack of community interest.
  • Difficult to scale without further funding.
  • More than 3 people visiting the same places significantly increases the expenses, but does not increase the output proportionately.
  • The measures of success are vague.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wikipedia Massive Open Online Courses[edit]

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. 4
(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. 4
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement. 4
(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. 4
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 3
Comments from the committee:
  • Highly ambitious proposal.
  • Proposer and collaborators seem to have the required skills and experience.
  • A big project, but a seemingly manageable one. It has a clear purpose that leverages an existing platform which make for a big plus.
  • This could be the next big thing.
  • Potential to have a big impact on getting new active editors, although perhaps not several thousand as stated.
  • The English Wikipedia community seems at best to feel cautious about the idea of flooding the site with thousands of new editors, making the project seem risky.
  • The cost and time accounting for this project is more vague we'd like for a large request, stronger justifications for time and costs should be provided.
  • Course design and contents are not yet well-defined, the project may be premature.
  • Well-attended courses on sites like Coursera inherit a lot of materials and experiences from well-attended courses in the traditional style, performed by the same lecturers. This project doesn't seem to have a lot of them - there are open-content materials about Wikipedia, but if the new course were to reuse those already available extensively, it could attract less attendees who would like to see something new. To complement, it would have to be considerable amount of research and design.
  • Would like to see numbers in the measures of success.

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

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.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Writing Coaching for New Editors[edit]

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 3
(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. 4
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 2
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4
(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. 2
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact. 3
(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:
  • Project plan would benefit from further details, including budget and goals.
  • Would like to see more demonstrated experience working with new editors on Wikipedia from the proposer.
  • Would like more details on the coaching methodology.
  • Would like to see more community endorsement.
  • Measures of success may be difficult to measure as currently described.