Grants talk:IdeaLab/Wikipedia Gender Concerns Reporting Tools

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Moderators[edit]

I'd like to hear more about who might moderate. I've done some reading about the emotional work in which moderators must engage (for example, see Hate Sinks), and it would be good to consider this factor in any kind of implementation, training, and maintenance of said gender concerns reporting tools. --Mssemantics (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Djembayz, QEDK, and Snowcats—by coincidence I've just read the New Statesman article—it's a good piece. Data collection is a key issue, I believe.

A few suggestions, but they're rather raw at this stage, I'm afraid:

  • I wonder whether you might think about narrowing the targets for developing this worthwhile idea, so that it can be managed as a prototype, as it were. For example, do you have any particular WMF sites in mind?
  • Some of the six bullets from the article, listed on your project-idea page, could be modified for our context.
  • Maybe opinion from the Community Engagement (Product) would be important at the right stage of development—probably not quite yet, though.
  • Are there any other data-gathering proposals? (I haven't yet looked, but if there are or will be, it might be possible to coordinate them for better impact ... or it may not ... it's hard to tell, yet.)
  • Since it's so important that the right kind of data be gathered on the gender gap, and there's such a vast ocean from which data could potentially be collected, one thought-experiment might be to work out the kinds of things we need to know about harassment on WMF sites, and to walk backwards from them to your ideas.

Tony (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

grant deadline & connection with other Inspire campaign idea[edit]

@Djembayz, QEDK, and Snowycats: hi all and thanks for your idea. You've already had quite a few endorsements of your idea and I'm hoping that you're planning on expanding it into a full proposal. To do so, go ahead and click the 'Expand your idea into a grant proposal' button at the bottom of the idea page. Just a friendly reminder that the deadline for finalizing proposals is March 31st.

By the way - there are other Inspire ideas that are somewhat related to yours that you may or may not have already seen. I recommend checking out this idea in particular to see if any connections or collabrations can be made. -Thepwnco (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Djembayz: You there? --QEDK (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thepwnco, QEDK, Snowycats, and Bluerasberry: Hi QEDK, Thepwnco, Snowycats, Bluerasberry! This month I've been busy in RL with WikiDC events; also at work. So, the ball's in your court ... --Djembayz (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Djembayz: This is a bit hard to do without a developer. Could we get someone? --QEDK (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: Good question. I see WMF developers here and a Wikitech-l. Any possiblity they would be interested? --Djembayz (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Djembayz: IdeaLab is a volunteering effort, so unless a dev volunteers... On the other hand, I am thinking of collaborating with Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap admin training and it's not a bad idea. --QEDK (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Djembayz: Can you please just expand this into a grant proposal? I can take on from then. Make sure yo make it compact, there's no need of unnecessary expenses. Just make it and I'll trim down whatever I can. I just think that your idea can then be better expressed. --QEDK (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Developer[edit]

@QEDK: mentioned you needed a developer. I asked around and I have a friend who might be interested. However, she wanted to know what kind of developer you needed? --Xttina.Garnet (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is to setup a lightweight, speedy framework to report gender concerns. It can be in any programming language and we'll host it on Wikitech or so, so that's not a problem. We can also use any of the helpdesks available online and set it up on our custom domain, so someone who'll be able to centralize all this and work on the back-end when required. It's not much but it's not easy. --QEDK (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: My friend says, Three options: 1) most expensive option: If they want someone with a lot of experience, I know a guy who freelances websites for a living. I could talk to him. 2) least expensive option: if they don't care about experience, we could post this in the Scripps (women's college) CS majors group. Somebody would probably be interested 3) I could do it myself if the deadlines are loose enough (I'm currently working full time, taking a class, and working on an independent study, so fairly swamped but totally willing to do it given enough time)

She's never done freelance before, so she's not sure about the range of expensive, but she did some internet research: I'll ask some actual humans too, but the internet seems to recommend charging $75-100/hr for development (plus or minus based on experience, scope, etc). Since it's a nonprofit (right?) it might be cheaper.

Another point: do they have a designer, or does the developer need to design the site as well?

--Xttina.Garnet (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Djembayz (talk · contribs) hasn't responded yet. Let him frame this into a grant proposal and we'll see after that. Also, front-end can always be done using Bootstrap, I'm pretty familiar with that so it's fine. Hosting's not of a problem I suppose. But first, the proposal, I need the idea creator to put it forward. Also, I would like to hear from Snowycats (talk · contribs). --QEDK (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Xttina.Garnet: Djembayz will turn up later. Can you get in touch with the developers?
I'm already in touch with "option 3" who said she'd do it, depending on timeframe. She also said that $75-$100/hr is standard for freelance work and most developers won't be comfortable doing design.
@QEDK: @Xttina.Garnet: Hi folks, I'm here in an advisory capacity only ... happy to support you, so let me know what you need from me. One question for you: have you looked at what's already in use at OTRS, and do you feel this should be compatible with the OTRS system?
(A comment: given all the talent already on staff, it seems more than a little odd that this project would fall to someone like me to attempt in my spare time on nights and weekends, rather than to someone like Damon Sicore, who has the chops to get these things built from scratch, or to someone like Sage Ross, who has put together a project with paid developers.)
That said, I'm looking forward to hearing more from the developers you are in conversation with. I hope folks will keep exploring the possibilities here even if it takes longer than the specific timeframe set out by the Inspire campaign, ... --Djembayz (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback from Community Advocacy[edit]

Hello all! This is Patrick from the Community Advocacy team at the WMF. Online harassment on the Wikimedia projects is one of the things our team works with, and I'm very happy to see people taking initiative on this issue. It is sorely needed. I'm here mostly to ask about one specific aspect of the proposal: the guidelines mentioned in point 4 of the Solutions. A big part of moving towards a more inclusive, safer, and more civil movement are the expectations we place on each other as editors. Some questions:

Thanks, and best regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent questions!
  • Could we set up some knowledge base Wiki pages to focus on different aspects of the three questions you have raised? This could produce interesting ideas-- hopefully a little more free-form and extensive than the quick question-and-answer instant recipes of the Learning Patterns ... (Added links in your remarks to get this going, feel free to modify.) --Djembayz (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wikipedia Gender Concerns Reporting Tools[edit]

Scoring rubric Score
(A) Impact potential
  • Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both?
  • Does it have the potential for online impact?
  • Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
 7.3
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
 6.3
(C) Ability to execute
  • Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe?
  • Is the budget realistic/efficient ?
  • Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
 5.0
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
 4.7
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • Has potential for online impact and builds on existing recommendations/guidelines/best practices. The project's processes, if not software and technical infrastructure, could be scaled and adapted elsewhere.
  • Not sure it will can be replicable on other Wikipedias.
  • Would not directly increase gender diversity of content or contributors. But, the current system for dealing with harassment is not adequate and has a negative effect on the Wikimedia movement. Solving issues related to harassment would have a strong positive impact. This is not a simple project that could be completed in the timeframe of the Inspire campaign, but beginning work on developing a tool for reporting could be done with this proposal.
  • Lots of crossover with other proposals (Gender gap admin training, Conscious Raising Repository, etc.).
  • Nice to see so much community support.
  • Would be nice to see more engagement at the onset of the project to confirm/validate system requirements and co-design solutions; it may end up being that Mojo Helpdesk is not the most appropriate platform for this idea.
  • Targeting all Wikimedia communities now would not be practical because of language barriers. There would need to be a narrowed focus for an initial trial development of a tool.
  • It seems as though the system proposed could be set up, but the proposal is missing the critical element of how reports are processed.
  • Successful execution relies on community engagement/outreach so that editors actually use the tool. Promotion of, orientation to, and education about the tool isn't specifically mentioned in the proposal and I don't think a banner is enough to encourage people to re-visit and share traumatic and possibly triggering experiences. It also seems that the timeframe relies on/assumes the use of the Mojo Helpdesk, which I do not really support using as it is not FOSS and seems not secure to me - partly because it requires month-to-month payments and partly because of this statement in its terms - "Metadot [the corporation that owns Mojo] reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service at any time for any reason with or without notice."
  • Not clear whether the people involved have the skills and experience, but they seem willing to recruit people to assist them. The main issue is moderation of the community and having it interface with other current policy and procedures.
  • Not sure improving female editor retention by 50% or more is realistic or really measurable.
  • Would be hard to show that this tool increased recruitment and retention of women. Instead, I would focus on satisfaction in the community with the process with the idea that over the long term recruitment and retention will increase as negative attitudes around harassment are overcome.
  • Don't think it makes sense to fund a reporting tool without arranging for paid or committed volunteer staff who can adequately respond to reports. I think reports that go un-dealt-with are worse than no reports in the first instance.
  • I support funding a tool for reporting harassment as a first phase of an overall plan to address harassment, including gender harassment. The budget is modest and needs to be verified if workable. This project could work if the people involved have the ability to project manage it. It will need integration with WMF, with the community, and also developers.
  • Would like to see the participants from similar/complementary proposals work together to craft a solution.

Inspire funding decision[edit]

This project has not been selected for an Inspire Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!


Next steps:

  1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
  2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
  3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
  4. Check the Individual Engagement Grant schedule for the next open call to submit proposals or the Project and Event Grant pages if your idea is to support expenses for offline events - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in the future.
Questions? Contact us at grants(_AT_)wikimedia.org


Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Wikipedia_Gender_Concerns_Reporting_Tools&oldid=12080968"