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)

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)

Query about scope of grants[edit]

I am an intermittent photo contributor. Over the years my camera equipment has gradually gotten better, but I continue to be on a budget. As a result I continue to by used equipment (camera lenses and bodies) and generic accessories (lens hoods, UV filters, and remote shutter controls). The result of my buying used equipment has been that some of my sessions in which I have attempted to create photo content for the project have produced results indicating that my equipment needs significant calibration and adjustments. I have also found that my generic accessories sometimes cause problems. However, I do not know if individual photographers are eligible for grants for general photography contributions. I have no specific event in the next six months that state I need equipment for. I might not even attend another event for picture taking for another 4 or 5 months. However, I can point to recent events at which I produced lackluster results due to newly-acquired used equipment. E.g., on September 19, 2014, I attended a baseball game between the Dodgers and the Cubs. It turned out to be the 20th victory for the best baseball pitcher of the current generation (w:Clayton Kershaw). The odds are not very long that this could be the first time since 1968 that a pitcher wins w:National League MVP. I feel like the game amounts to the 20th win of the best season of the modern day w:Sandy Koufax. I shot 3803 pictures. All but 228 of them were with a newly-acquired used w:Canon EOS 7D and a w:Canon EF 70–200mm lens. It turns out that my 7D and this lens are not jointly calibrated and when used together they produce results bearing a problem known as front focusing. Over the next few weeks, you will see some of these less than perfect images at Commons:Category:2014-09-19 Cubs v. Dodgers baseball game at Wrigley Field. My generic accessories, cause problems too. E.g., during the game, I was using a generic remote shutter release cable. Sometimes this did not trigger shutter release immediately when I pressed it. If you look at Commons:Category:Matt Kemp you can see that I was shooting for shutter release timing like File:2011 Home Run Derby - Round 1 - Matt Kemp.jpg with the ball coming off of the bat. However, with my generic shutter release control, I ended up being a split second late and got File:20140919 Matt Kemp home run (1).JPG, File:20140919 Matt Kemp home run (2).JPG and File:20140919 Matt Kemp home run (3).JPG instead. I just am at a loss to describe what my specific engagement is however, because I am not a professional photographer with specific event responsibilities to attend to. I have specific equipment needs that would enable me to be a better photographer (A body and a lens or two). Can you give me advice on whether it is worth applying and how I might approach applying?--TonyTheTiger (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: One point I would like to note is that, as larger impact to the Wikimedia projects is desirable, I believe a project that will help many people would be more likely to be funded, than helping one person. Grants:IdeaLab/Cameras for Commons photographers is a similar idea with a bit broader scope; I suggest looking at its talk page if you are interested in expanding the scope. Another idea might be to seek fund from a chapter or user group near to you that can help finding fund for shared equipment in a more informal and quick way. whym (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki extensions[edit]

"Any technical components must be standalone or completed on-wiki. Projects are completed without assistance or review from WMF engineering, so MediaWiki Extensions or software features requiring code review and integration cannot be funded."

I don't think that's true. There are plenty of volunteers with +2 on extension repositories and core so major projects could easily be completed without any assistance from WMF engineering. It's a shame that IEG restricts people to working on gadgets, when they could and should be real MediaWiki extensions. Legoktm (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This restriction, at least, does not promote complying with MW's coding conventions and using a peer-review system (which probably should be endorsed). -- Rillke (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)