Grants talk:Project/Effie Kapsalis/Smithsonian Wikimedian-in-Residence for Gender Representation

Feedback

I want to note that@Digitaleffie: has asked me for multiple rounds of feedback on the larger Smithsonian project as well as the proposal to fund the residency. I have been collaborating with her since 2011 when introducing the Smithsonian to Wikimedia DC and the the larger Wikimedia ecosystem. In general, I find the project very persuasive in that:

1. it introduces attention from the Smithsonian (one of the biggest institutions in the world) on one of the more challenging problems on Wikimedia (representation of gender and minority communities)
2. it focuses explicitly on low-barrier to entry ways of contributing to Wikimedia projects around GLAM -- something that we don't have a lot of explicitly documented case studies around.
3. it is partial funding of a position that has the potential to grow into a much more extensive long term investment.

I still have a few questions about the project, in how it's documented that I think may help the grant committee:

• First, what kinds of content do you expect to be able to share as part of the project? Is there going to be batch integration of content into Commons and Wikidata? If so, how is that resourced?
• Second, what is the kind contribution happening from the Smithsonian? There is mention of partial funding for the role coming from this grant: how does that compare to the full amount of investment in the project?

I am happy to continue supporting Wikimedia D.C. and Digitaleffie in evaluating the project as it moves forward. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and questions thus far, @Astinson:! To answer your questions: 1. What content Smithsonian will share: At the moment, we will focus mostly on our CC0 data with select media contributions to Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, and Wikipedia. The Smithsonian's current TofU limit how much media we can contribute at the moment, however, there will likely be big changes to that in 2019 and the women's initiative is first in line to take advantage of that, and I am working to prepare for that inevitability. 2. For the WIR, the Smithsonian will contribute approximately 30K in kind. We are hiring 6 full time/temporary (3-4 years) curators at the GS 11/12 level and I am spending approximately 20% of my time on Wikipedia and open access policy activities. --Digitaleffie (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Advisor Search

If you are interested in advising on this project please sign up if you have experience in these areas:

• Leveraging GLAM resources to increase the representation of women/diverse/intersectional communities on multiple wikimedia projects; wikidata, commons, and wikipedia.
• Strategies for increasing the number of diverse and female editors to write their own history.

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2018

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2018 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through January 2, 2019.

The Project Grant committee's formal review for round 2 2018 will occur January 3-January 28, 2019. Grantees will be announced March 1, 2018. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Some questions for clarification

I have a couple questions about your proposal, Digitaleffie, and am interested in your thoughts on these:

• In your project impact #1, you mentioned "Create 3 new Smithsonian partnerships with Wikimedia Chapters, User Groups, and WikiProjects to increase participation and contributions around gender." Did you mean 3 partnerships in total or 3 for each of those areas?
• How will you plan to "Demonstrate the benefit of sustained engagement with open knowledge projects to Smithsonian leadership" in order to justify their creating this new internal position? If they have thus far resisted, what strategy do you have planned for making this happen?
• Are the "4 new micro-crowdsourcing models" you plan to try things that were used elsewhere or are you developing new ones? Also, why 4?
• If this proposal is for partial funding of this new position, where will the remaining funds come from and are they already approved?
• Also regarding the budget, how will amounts for office space, technology, and fringe be accounted for? Will there be any travel needs?
• Under the project plan, it is unclear what will happen by when. Can this be expanded and explained in some detail to better understand the overall scope of this work and when it will happen?

I look forward to your replies on this. --- FULBERT (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• • 
    

Hello FULBERT! Thank you for these and my apologies for not seeing these questions until now. The U.S. government is shutdown so I am not allowed to check work email which complicates things quite a bit! Here are some answers, and do let me know if you have further questions:

• Question #1 - I meant 3 new partnerships in total, but it may end up being more. We already partner with our local chapter, Wikimedia DC, so that wouldn't count.
• Question #2 - Fair question! It's mostly timing. We have had episodic WIR's on board at the Smithsonian that were focused on whatever the museum or archive wanted them to focus on. This time, we are working on a central leadership priority, the American Women's History Initiative (AWHI), which was launched at the same time as the digital goal of 'Reaching 1 billion people a year with a digital-first strategy." Leadership is investing significant resources in AWHI with new scholars coming on board to write new resources on women's history, across multiple disciplines with a focus on more diverse American history. We want to show how much further our work can go with leveraging our scholarship, in a more coordinate way, into open knowledge systems. It's part of the whole digital approach that I'm piloting.
• Question #3 - I've experimented with 1 micro-crowdsourcing activity in Wikidata in the past, so would like to try 4 more to see what ones work. Having a menu of 5 test cases to see what sticks I think would give us at least one that's worth pursuing on going. I chose 4 so there would be one/quarter. If we have time for more, we will do it!
• Question #4 - The remaining funds will come out of my budget which I raised for AWHI digital work. I have been explicit about working with open knowledge systems in our digital strategy.
• Question #5 - As this position doesn't need to be co-located at the Smithsonian except for during larger events, the amount does not include office space and other expenses. It does include vacation and sick time. When the WIR is visiting DC, we have included budget for travel and ME&I.
• Question #6 - We certainly will do a more in-depth plan once we get the person on board as I'm somewhat relying on their expertise, as well as the availability of partners we intend to work with on the topic. I have already been talking with potential partners online, via Skype, and at WikiConference North America. So I'd like to hold off on the schedule until he settle on the best strategy for the year and that will take input from the WIR.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digitaleffie (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Effie Kapsalis/Smithsonian Wikimedian-in-Residence for Gender Representation

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?	7.8
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	7.5
(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?	8.0
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	7.8
Additional comments from the Committee: Fits with strategic direction of knowledge equity. Good potential for online impact as the Smithsonian is a major GLAM partner and there is nice alignment between the Smithsonian American Women’s History Initiative and Wikimedia’s activities around gender equity. I also like the idea of experimenting more with micro tasks. Considerations around sustainability of work and partnership are built into proposal. I am excited to see this proposal, and the parties involved. I would love to see how you might engage with other scholars and academics to exploit the Smithsonian collections. This proposal seems potential impact for the movement, especially given the resources that are available to this project that are not otherwise being integrated and included in the Movement itself. Risks are minimal. Would like to see to see more specifics around content and participation goals but as the Smithsonian has already identified an experienced WiR I am not that worried about this. The project goals are very achievable and measurable. What I would like to focus on though are the pieces this project embodies that cannot be measured. The elevation of women in our content and community has long been a discussion point, and I am glad this project is centering women as a focus with one of the largest GLAM institutions in the world. The news of this partnership alone is going to encourage similar projects by other GLAM institutions. This takes work and Movement successes in related areas and applies them to new areas of need. In this way, it should iterate on prior solutions and fill a large gap within our work itself. Experienced team with good ties to the local chapter. The project partners have all be involved in this work before and the goals, activities and budget are all very realistic. I would love to see something about engaging with scholars around the country so they could both learn from this partnership as well as utilize the content (something like a fellowship for people to come to the institutions for a period of days to exploit the content within the Smithsonian). This project seems doable given the grantee and the advisors. This is a knowledgeable group of Wikimedians who should execute this in a way that demonstrates great value for all involved. While the costs are not all covered by this grant, the grantees has assured us all else will be covered externally. Community engagement plan is clear and I have no concerns with this team's ability and willingness to engage with the community throughout the grant period. This grant is a model for engagement, including the information presented on the Talk page in response to queries and based on the statements of support on the grant page itself. I believe this project should have more funding than they request, though what they ask for is reasonable.

This proposal has been recommended for due diligence review.

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal and recommended it for due diligence review. This means that a majority of the committee reviewers favorably assessed this proposal and have requested further investigation by Wikimedia Foundation staff.

Next steps:

1. Aggregated committee comments from the committee are posted above. Note that these comments may vary, or even contradict each other, since they reflect the conclusions of multiple individual committee members who independently reviewed this proposal. We recommend that you review all the feedback and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page.
2. Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on March 1st, 2019.

Questions? Contact us.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Round 2 2018 decision

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for a Project Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, $46,750 USD

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support this project to establish a Wikimedian-in-Residence at the Smithsonian for the purpose of increasing the representation of women, as a part of the institution’s American Women’s History Initiative.

Prior to finalizing a contract, we ask that you provide a job description specifically outlining the activities of the WiR role (we are now making this request of all WiRs).

Please note that we consider funding for WiR activities to be short-term. Grant funding that the Wikimedia Foundation provides for WiRs is not intended to support ongoing workflows, but to leverage the partnership to build a sustainable platform that ensures outcomes long after the WiR has completed their service. Their work should secure long-term outcomes that do not depend on ongoing grant funding.

Next steps:

1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
2. Review the information for grantees.
3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
4. Start work on your project!

Upcoming changes to Wikimedia Foundation Grants

Over the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has been undergoing a community consultation process to launch a new grants strategy. Our proposed programs are posted on Meta here: Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021. If you have suggestions about how we can improve our programs in the future, you can find information about how to give feedback here: Get involved. We are also currently seeking candidates to serve on regional grants committees and we'd appreciate it if you could help us spread the word to strong candidates--you can find out more here. We will launch our new programs in July 2021. If you are interested in submitting future proposals for funding, stay tuned to learn more about our future programs.

Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure User:AWang (WMF). Please see below.

Smithsonian Institution’s Office of the Provost Smithsonian Wikimedian-in-Residence for Gender Representation Request for Quotes

Scope of Work

The Wikimedian-in-Residence for Gender Representation will support the Smithsonian American Women’s History Initiative’s (AWHI) goal of building an awareness of women’s contributions to American history online. The contractor will work under the Office of the Provost’s Senior Digital Program Officer, Effie Kapsalis, to:

1. Capitalize on the Smithsonian's American Women's History Initiative to increase the representation of women on Wikimedia projects in partnership with other cultural heritage organizations and gender equity WikiProjects; 2. Demonstrate the benefit of sustained engagement with open knowledge platforms to help the Smithsonian achieve its strategic goal to “Reach 1 billion people a year with a digital-first strategy”; 3. Identify, develop, and test strategies to increase the number and diversity of Wikimedia volunteers working on women’s history content.

Resources allocated to Work Elements and Deliverables may vary according to the status and progress of Smithsonian units and outside partners.

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): The COTR for this Purchase Order is Effie Kapsalis, Senior Digital Program Officer, Office of the Provost.

Statement of Work and Deliverable Dates 1. Capitalize on the Smithsonian's American Women's History Initiative to increase the representation of women on Wikimedia projects in a series of campaigns in partnership with other cultural heritage organizations and gender equity WikiProjects; a. In consultation with the Senior Digital Program Officer, develop a process for capturing the work of existing and new Smithsonian American women’s history curators to re-purpose for Wikipedia and Wikidata to-do lists; b. Create 3-5 “to-do lists” for Wikipedia and Wikidata; c. Sync Smithsonian “to-do lists” with other women and gender-focused Wikimedia projects; d. Strategize a coordinated campaign with 5-10 in-person events in coordination with Wikimedia DC Chapter and Metropolitan DC-area cultural heritage, government, and non-profit organizations. e. Create five new Smithsonian partnerships with Wikimedia Chapters, User Groups, and WikiProjects to increase worldwide volunteer community participation and content contributions around women’s history and gender content.

(Ongoing January 7, 2019-January 7, 2020)

2. Demonstrate the benefit of sustained engagement with open knowledge platforms to help the Smithsonian achieve its strategic goal to “Reach 1 billion people a year with a digital-first strategy”; a. Work with Senior Digital Program Officer to identify metrics systems to track volunteer engagement and growth; b. Work with Senior Digital Program Officer to identify metrics systems to track AWHI content performance on Wikimedia platforms; c. Track agreed upon metrics and prepare three summary reports with back-up detailed metrics for Smithsonian senior leadership (due June, September, and December 2019). d. Share findings on Smithsonian blog.

(Ongoing January 7, 2019-January 7, 2020)

3. Identify, develop, and test strategies to increase the number and diversity of Wikimedia volunteers working on women’s history content. a. Work with Senior Digital Program Officer to asses current volunteer base and identify potential volunteer groups for partnerships; b. Test 3-5 new micro-crowdsourcing methods for Wikidata and/or Wikipedia; c. Share findings on Smithsonian blog.

(Ongoing January 7, 2019-January 7, 2020)

IV. Travel. The contractor will attend four (4) in-person meetings to plan and execute campaigns. Quotes should include travel costs from the contractor’s home to Washington D.C. Travel dates will be scheduled in coordination with the Senior Digital Program Officer.

--Digitaleffie (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Cofinancing and selection

Usual comment: I hope this project has a sizable co-financing by the institution and that it follows best practices to choose the best WIR available. The Smithsonian, while hit hard by the recent shutdown and budget dispute, is still an enormous powerhouse and it's not a mid-sized non-profit's job to fund it.

I appreciate that the grant request is a significant improvement over some others we have seen recently, in that it doesn't appear to pre-determine the selection of one involved person and that it seems to imply some sort of co-financing by the institutions benefited by the project ("Partial salary and benefits for full-time Wikimedian-in-Residence", emphasis mine). It would be even better to make it explicit. Nemo 09:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Digitaleffie and Nemo bis: Thank you. I think Nemo's request is fair, as it is usual for applicants to note other sources of funding on their proposal and what it is being used for. Effie, could I ask you to provide the amount that the Smithsonian is co-funding for the WiR position in the budget section? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF) and Nemo bis: Thank you for your question and I will attempt to answer it as best as I can in our quasi-federal landscape. For the specific WIR role, we are matching $24,800. We are unable to use federal dollars for event refreshments (which is also true for our trust budget), so no matching there. Approximately 20% of my time (GS 14) is dedicated specifically to open knowledge policy-making, planning, and internal outreach at the Smithsonian. While there is 10% overhead for our central Office of Sponsored Projects included in the grant proposal to manage the funds, there are people at varying levels in my office specifically who support budget and administrative activities related to managing the money and the WIR contract. The Smithsonian receives $2 million/year from the U.S. federal budget for the American Women's History Initiative most of which is used to hire 7-9 4-year curators across the Smithsonian's multidisciplinary 19 museums, 9 research centers, libraries and archives, as well as the multiple millions of non-federal dollars raised to increase collections, data, exhibits, educational resources, paid internships, and public programs, most of which will be fed into Wikipedia to-do lists and batch Wikidata contributions.