From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Grants:IEG(Redirected from Grants talk:IEG)
Jump to: navigation, search

Individual Engagement Grants

Go ahead, add a topic and ask us anything you like about Individual Engagement Grants! We may use these for building out FAQs later.

for a grant


open proposals

IEG key lightblue.png

current grants

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

Pages associated with this project[edit]

I find the IEG pages nice to look at but a little hard to edit as the Media WIki markup is complicated and there are no edit buttons for each subsection. We also do not have the standard TOC and there is a fair bit of white space between section. IMO it is usually best to keep markup simple so more people can get involved. Anyway just my 2 cents. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this would be quite helpful. Libcub (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

IEG Committee[edit]

Hello! I've wanted to ask - when will a new round for election of new Committee members be announced? As I see at this page, I can add myself even now but Grants:IEG/Committee/Candidates/Selection_process says that candidates are added according to schedule of rounds, though I see no schedule for future rounds... So, I am a bit confused whether I can apply or not :) rubin16 (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi rubin16! You'd be welcome to add yourself to the list of candidates now :) We'll be announcing the call more formally along with the proposal open call on March 1, and the new members will be announced by March 15 (see here for the schedule of this upcoming round. Hope to see you there! Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Siko (WMF)! Let's try to do it :) rubin16 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Siko (WMF), hello once again :) According to schedule committee members were to be finalized at 15 march but I see no changes on the list of candidates yet. Are there any changes to schedule? :) rubin16 (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi rubin16. We are almost done closing the committee discussion and should have our consensus out this week. Sorry for the delay! (IEG Committee) Ocaasi (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia merchandise for volunteers[edit]

While copyediting and revising the Pronunciation Recording Gadget proposal, I discovered Wikimedia merchandise for volunteers in a comment below Tools, technologies, and techniques -- what would be covered by "Wikimedia merchandise"? Would it be possible, for example having a pronunciation rally and issuing a merchandising article to the winners? Would I have to check whether participants are legally allowed to take part in such a rally (there are restrictions in some countries ...) -- Rillke (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rillke, I think having a rally with merchandise as prize is definitely possible (although I'll defer to your understanding of local restrictions, we haven't come across much of these yet). Past IEGs have included some funds in their budget for WMF merchandise (as contest prizes, thank you gifts for volunteers, etc). and in those cases how it works is you include a line item in your proposal for the amount of money you plan to spend on merchandise overall (see the WM shop for an idea of prices and what's available). Then, when making the grant, we'd work with you to see what specific items you'd like to order, and most likely send you the items directly instead of that portion of funds. Hope this helps, Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Use non-gender-specific terminology[edit]

The infobox instructions include Guys' Name. I suggest changing that to Person2's' Name. Libcub (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Will have a lookout for issues like these in our next template-update sprint, thanks! Siko (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

next round deadline[edit]

The deadline for proposals for the next round should be 30 September, not 31 September, since there is no 31 September, right? Sumana Harihareswara 13:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You are so right. Fixed! :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Two suggestions[edit]

Hi, I wonder whether "step 1", "step 2", etc, could be made a sharper colour, in line with their reasonably high position in the hierarchy of headings. At the moment they're a very light shade of grey.

"We are best able to support proposals submitted in English"—that does sound as though you've got a better chance of approval if the application is in English. I'm not sure that's what you intended to mean. Perhaps it would be better to say "Proposals submitted in English are dealt with a little more promptly, since they don't have to go through the process of translation." That would be more neutral ... if it's what you intend to mean. Tony (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising these, Tony. Paging Heather for considering the feedback regarding color changes in future design updates. As for the text about languages, agree it is clunky/discouraging as currently phrased! What would you think about something more like "You are welcome to submit a proposal in any language. If you are not submitting in English, we'd encourage you to submit your proposal as early as possible to ensure time for translation. If you have questions about this, please contact us to discuss." Seem better? Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Siko, your suggested text sounds very good to me. (May I propose a slight tweaking of the text? "You're welcome to submit a proposal in any language. If you're planning to submit in a language other than English, we encourage submission as early as possible to ensure time for translation. If you have questions about submitting a grant request in a language other than English, please contact us to discuss.")? I see that a similar question has been raised about languages other than English at GAC. Perhaps grantmaking staff and GAC might consider your suggested wording for that process too? I've left a note there. Tony (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Tony, sounds good, and I've updated the IEG rules as discussed :) Thanks!Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


In reading WMF's proposal to the FDC, it was stated that the WMF's grant-making goals were focused on "Structures, systems, and processes; Learning and mentoring; Diversity". Is this true for IEG's prioritizing and evaluating individual grant proposals or are these loose guidelines just provided for a general proposal for the entire WMF organization? Thanks. Liz (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Liz. As a committee member, I'd like to point you to the IEG selection criteria:
Impact potential - Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities? Does it have potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
Innovation and learning - Does it take an innovative approach to solving a key problem for the Wikimedia movement? Is the potential impact greater than the risks? Can we measure success?
Ability to execute - Can the scope be accomplished in 6 months? How realistic/efficient is the budget? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
Community engagement - Does it have a specific target community within the Wikimedia movement, and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support? Does it support diversity?
The total amount of funding available - annually approved by the WMF Board.
I'm sure Siko Bouterse will have more to say on that, but I know that these are what guide us in reviewing and rating applications. Best, Jake Ocaasi (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing to add here, Ocaasi covered it! IEG has its own selection criteria, as described above, which is aligned with the broader WMF grantmaking goals, but they are a bit more specific to IEG's aims. Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


This discussion page is getting long and a bit hard to navigate. How about setting up automatic archiving by date (for example, with a threshold of 180 days initially)? @Sbouterse (WMF), Heatherawalls: will there be any complication in styling when auto archiving is set up? whym (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree, great idea, whym! I don't think it will break the styling, since the bot should just be looking at sections below that, but I guess we'll find out :) Any chance you want to set it up? :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's now turned on. A regular run in a day will (supposedly) archive threads older than 180 days. whym (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you whym! It looks like the bot ran. Is there a way to have it add links to archival pages in the archive template here, for those who want to browse rather than search archives? Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
There was a parameter missing. This edit should fix it. whym (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem with a template on the final report page[edit]

I need some help with a template. In the final report page you are asked to fill in a template to report "Progress towards stated goals and targets". The content in the first row left ("Planned measure of success (target)") does not appear. I have checked also other final reports and also there – even if content is provided – it does not appear. I had a look at the template but i'm not good enough to identify and correct the mistake. Can someone have a look? here is an example of how it appears Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision/Final#Progress_towards_stated_goals_and_targets and here are the templates I have looked at:

thank you, --iopensa (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Heatherawalls:, I took a look but it's above my paygrade. Cheers and hope you're well. --Jake Ocaasi (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Got it. The parameter was changed in the template but not on the pages, so it wasn't calling anything. If you want to change it to target, all the pages where the template is used have to say target=, too. I switched it back to goal because it's the easiest way to solve it. ;). Yay for an easy fix! Yes check.svg Done heather walls (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)