From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Individual Engagement Grants
current committee
join us
committee activities

round 2 2014 schedule

Proposals accepted: 1-30 September

Committee members finalized: 1 October

Community comment requested: 1–20 October

Committee review: 21 October – 3 November

Grantees announced: 5 December


Grants disbursed: December 2014 – January 2015

Midpoint reports: April

Final reports: July

2015 +

round 1 2014 schedule

Proposals accepted: 1–31 March

Committee members finalized: 15 March

Community comment requested: 1–20 April

Committee review: 7 April – 5 May

Grantees announced: 30 May

Grants disbursed: June

Midpoint reports: September

Final reports: January

2014 +

top of the page members

  1. Ailura
  2. AddisWang*
  3. Anne Delong
  4. Bellayet
  5. Hahc21
  6. Ilario
  7. Jane023
  8. Mabeenot
  9. Nhasive
  10. Ocaasi
  11. Pine
  12. Rubin16
  13. Steven Zhang
  14. Superzerocool
  15. Thehelpfulone
  16. Whym

*recused from round 1 review

To review and score proposals, the IEG Committee organizes into small groups to review sets of proposals with a common methodology, theme, or subject matter.

See working groups.

See inactive/past committee members

top of the page membership criteria

join the committee

We enjoy a large committee and do not run elections. Those who are determined to meet the criteria are invited to become members during an open call period each year. Membership is for a 1-year term, which may be renewable.

To be considered for membership:
1. Review the membership criteria and make sure you meet them.

2. Review the committee's tasks and make sure you're willing and able to fulfill them (we'll show you how!).

3. Add your name to the list of candidates. Please include a brief statement about your background and Wikimedia involvement, demonstrating how you meet the criteria.


1. Provide feedback on grant proposals: Check on new ideas, drafts and proposals, engaging in talk page discussions to help improve them and asking questions to ensure that sufficient information is provided and that goals and estimates are realistic.

2. Review finalized proposals: Read and research submissions, join a working group to score proposals according to rubric determined by selection criteria and give feedback to applicants.

3. Recommend proposals for funding: Recommend a shortlist of proposals for funding to WMF staff based on the available budget.

membership criteria


  1. Experience with the Wikimedia movement and at least one Wikimedia project.
  2. Experience with some aspect of Wikimedia programmatic or project-based work, e.g. editor engagement, WikiProjects or other on-wiki organizing processes, outreach, events, partnerships, research, education, gadget or bot-building, etc.
  3. Ability to edit basic wiki-markup (grant proposal discussions are largely conducted on meta-wiki).
  4. Reasonable facility with English, for reviewing and discussing grant proposals.
  5. In good community- and legal- standing (not currently blocked or banned, involved in allegations of unethical financial behavior, etc).
  6. Availability to actively engage in the selection process during the published schedule for that round (time commitment is about 3 hours per week, plus 1 extra day for scoring).


  1. Experience leading, coordinating, or managing projects with an intended on-wiki or online impact.
  2. Experience handling externally provided money and working within budgets, preferably in a non-profit context.
  3. Experience applying for grants or working in grants programs (in the Wikimedia, academic, or wider non-profit world).
  4. Ability to read and write in multiple languages.


  1. Members may apply for an Individual Engagement Grant themselves, but they will recuse themselves from reviewing proposals in the same category as their own during that round.
  2. Membership does not conflict with membership in other Wikimedia committees, including the Grant Advisory Committee or the Wikimania Scholarships Committee.

top of the page candidates

Would you like to join the committee? Add yourself to the list of candidates below!

Candidates, we'd like to get to know you! Please include a brief statement about yourself (like these), and answer the following 2 questions:

  1. What experience from Wikimedia and/or other related projects can you bring to help this committee?
  2. What kinds of projects would you like to see Individual Engagement Grants fund?

New members who are determined to meet the criteria will be added and notified according to the published schedule for each round.

Add your statement and name here[edit]

Candidate: Add your name/signature here!

Statement: Add your statement here, demonstrating how you meet the criteria to join.
Answer 1: What experience from Wikimedia and/or other related projects can you bring to help this committee?
Answer 2: What kinds of projects would you like to see Individual Engagement Grants fund?

Candidate: Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement: I am a long-time Wikipedian, and I'd love to get more involved in the workings of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm most active on the English-language Wikipedia, where I have over 100,000 edits and have created around 2,000 articles on a wide variety of topics. I also have been very involved at Commons, where I have uploaded (or coordinated the bot upload of) around 3,000 images. Outside of those two main projects, I have also contributed occasionally to the Spanish Wikipedia and to Wikisource, and I have recently become involved in Wikidata. I have been involved as an ambassador in the Education Program, and lately I have been working to jump-start the Wikimedia community in Los Angeles, where I have organized edit-a-thons in conjunction with museums, arts institutions, and libraries. Online, I have also been involved with editor mentoring through the now-defunct Special:Feedback, the Teahouse, and elsewhere. Outside of Wikimedia activities, I am an attorney at a national law firm. I can read and write Spanish comfortably but with occasional grammatical errors, and I can read French--and to some extent other romance languages--at a passable level. (I might also be able to write in French, but it's been so long since I've tried that I'm not sure!)
Answer 1: My experience organizing real-world meet-ups has given me insight into how outreach works and doesn't work, as the case may be... I have also been around Wikipedia long enough to have a sense for what sort of initiatives succeed and why, and to grasp Wikipedia's pressing problems (user recruitment and diversity, to name two). I would like to think that my lawyer's way of thinking -- critically identifying weaknesses, and then attempting to remedy them -- will be useful when evaluating proposals.
Answer 2: I'm most interested in technical grants, because I think these sorts of projects are least likely to happen without funding. More specifically, I would be eager to see proposals about improving the Wikipedia user experience, which is crucial to attracting new contributors. I'm also interested in the development of tools that enable users (including new users) to contribute in small but measurable ways. Take the recent Wikidata game, for example. Imagine a tool like this as the top banner on the Community Portal link of Wikipedia -- an easy way for users to get involved and feel like they're making a difference without needing to wade through code and possibly encountering early hostility. Cross-language collaboration, including but not limited to translation, is another area I'm interested in. Finally, I'm interested in grants for activities intended to combat systemic bias. (However, I think outreach grants in this arena merit scrutiny as to their sustainability after grant-related activities have ceased.)

Candidate: Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement: I have added 91,000 edits since 2005, primarily in the area of American history and modern history. My specialty is beefing up the bibliographies, as well as adding content in political, economic, social and military history. I am a retired history professor, and over the years have directed about two dozen large grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), as well as NIH and other foundations, including the Rockefeller, Spencer, and Japan foundations. Half of these dealt with training programs for humanities scholars in using online and computerized resources. I have served as a referee and panelist evaluating grant proposals for NEH, NSF, NIH and other foundations. Back the 1990s, I set up H-Net, a network with over 100 e-mail discussion lists for humanities scholars and graduate students. For 20 years I was the daily editor of the H-ETHNIC discussion group on ethnicity and immigration. I have done research on military history in libraries and museums around the world.
1. I have been active in the Wikimedia education program for the last three years, as a member of the planning committee that set up the Wikipedia Education Foundation. I serve currently as a regional ambassador. I wrote two grants this year to run workshops on Wikipedia editing for academic librarians and local history librarians. They were funded by Humanities Montana, and the Missouri Humanities Council. I have given presentations at Wikimania 2012, and at several history conferences in the US and Canada on Wikipedia, and have published a major scholarly article on how Wikipedia handles military history.
2. I would like to serve on the subcommittee that deals with offline outreach or partnerships. I would like to see partnerships with local and academic libraries and historical societies, as well as museums oriented toward military history. Richard Jensen Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Candidate: Thepwnco (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement: I am a fairly new contributor to WMF projects, having just completed a Round 8 FOSS Outreach Program for Women internship with Wikidata. During my internship, I worked specifically on outreach and engagement related activities, including the development of an on-wiki interactive tutorial for new editors (using the Guided Tours extension and loosely modelled after a previous IEG project, the Wikipedia Adventure). I also reviewed, revised, and created site documentation with a focus on communicating the value of Wikidata to those who either don't come from a technical background or aren't familiar with structured data concepts. I enjoyed learning about aspects of online community management and how to work more openly in order to engage others and encourage feedback. I'm passionate about building capacity for non-coders or programmers to contribute to open source projects and so also blogged about pathways for involvement for non-technical people over the course of my internship. As for my life outside of WMF contributions, I'm a recent graduate of a library & information studies master degree, and just started a new job this month working as a librarian for a non-profit. During my degree I completed a specialization in human-computer interaction and have just been accepted to CSCW 2015 for an original research submission on user experience.
Answer 1: I believe my being successful in the FOSS OPW application process (requiring the identification and proposal of a short-term project that could be completed within the 3-month internship period) demonstrates that I have some level of understanding of how to assess the feasibility of a WMF project. Through my participation in the program, as well as attendance at AdaCamp in Portland this past summer and professional activities related to research ethics and library programming, I also think I bring some working knowledge and awareness of what works (and what doesn't) when it comes to increasing diversity and capacity in outreach initiatives.
Answer 2: I'm most interested in projects that work towards increased and substantive diversity among contributors from marginalized or underrepresented communities, particularly if they are community-led projects. As a librarian with a preference for open source options and without access to a large budget for spending on technical infrastructure, I am also interested in GLAM projects with technical components that are collaborative (i.e. proposed by several partners or stakeholders), sustainable, and scaleable.

Candidate: --Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement: I am a female Wikipedian, contributing since 2005, active mainly on de-Wikipedia where I am also an admin, with some minor contributions also to Commons and recently to Wikidata. While I regard myself mainly as an author of articles (see the articles I started/contributed to substantially here), I have also been initiator and/or participant of a number of online and offline community projects over the years. Among these are OTRS work, being member of a project to clean up after a major copyvio case, organizing real life workshops such as OTRS-agents workshops, writing contest jury meetings, administrators' conferences, organizing regular socializing meetups, editing meetups, was a flow funder etc. I have closely followed the sometimes fierce debates about grantmaking and funding procedures in the German community and have only recently been working on an improvement of grantmaking guidelines of Wikimedia Germany.
Having a legal background, I am well acquainted with having to understand a complex idea based on written documentation in short time, to take various views into account and to assess risks and evaluate potential outcomes. Last but not least I think it important to be able to explain reasons for a decision to applicants, and generally to involve them in the process, while at the same time maintaining a firm approach regarding the application of criteria and guidelines.
Answer 1: I have been a recipient of grants and scholarships within the Wikimedia movement, but also in the academic context myself, so I know the receiving side quite well. As a long-time-Wikipedian I have over the years seen a great number of initiatives come and go - and I think I have an idea, why some of them proved successful, while others did not last. Sometimes a few minor changes to a project's scope or setting could have made the difference. I would see my role therefore not only in the assessment of final proposals, but also in providing feedback to applicants during the idea stage of their projects. As a lawyer I am dedicated to bring the intentions behind rules and criteria to work.
Answer 2: While I would like to see the committee fund a great variety of projects, I would want to concentrate on online and offline community projects. Involvement of other community members as well as sustainability would be important to me. That means I would like to see that projects are supported by a number of community members, are open to a broad range of participants and have a lasting impact or can easily be adopted by others.

Candidate: Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement: I’m a long-time contributor to the Wikimedia projects, having started in June 2005. Most of my editing activity takes place on the English Wikipedia, where I've served as a coordinator of the Military History WikiProject since 2006 and in numerous other roles.

I was one of the founding members of Wikimedia DC, and continue to serve on the chapter's Board of Directors. In that capacity, I've been involved with both grant-writing and grant-making activities, having helped to develop Wikimedia DC's submissions to the PEG program and implement the programs funded by those grants, as well as reviewing applications to Wikimedia DC’s own small grants program. In addition to my work with grants in Wikimedia DC, I was a member of the GAC in 2012–13, where I had the opportunity to participate in reviews of grant applications from a number of other movement entities.

I am fluent in English and Russian, and have a basic knowledge of French.

Answer 1: As someone with a long history of participation in high-impact projects both on-wiki and off-wiki, I believe I can provide some useful insight into why certain projects can successfully achieve their objectives while others do not. I think that, in many cases, project effectiveness can be greatly enhanced (or, alternatively, greatly hindered) by how a project is initially defined and conceptualized; by leveraging the experience of veteran community members, the IEG program can enhance this definition process and ultimately produce more successful and impactful projects.
Answer 2: I'd like to see more projects focused on on-wiki editor engagement, such as the Wikipedia Cooperative or the Teahouse (which was admittedly not funded through the IEG program). There have been numerous successful projects for off-wiki engagement and outreach, but relatively few that address the many issues impacting on-wiki processes, structures, and communities. By supporting such projects, the IEG program can more effectively promote editor engagement and retention not only in small pockets of off-wiki activity, but across the broader spectrum of the online Wikimedia movement.

for a grant


open proposals

IEG key lightblue.png

current grants

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