Grants talk:PEG/WM US-DC/Projects 2014

Discussion

Hello, WMDC!

Thank you for your grant proposal. I think we all agree that editathons/hackathon/other-a-thons are a proven and wanted activity for a chapter. Small grants is a proven concept as well (I think it was my chapter which started this mechanism :) ) and I would like to express my full support.

Your goals look ambitious and encouraging. My key concern is: in Measures of success you write: Number of events, numbers of volunteers and volunteer-hours, number of institutional partners, number of articles created or improved, number of digitized documents, number of completed technical projects. - however, you did not provide a handy checklist there. :)
We read further about 2 scan-a-thons, 3 hack-a-thons (for 2 projects) and 10? edit-a-thons (including 8 with partnering institutions - ambitious goals!) - I let myself to add a summaried checklist there - please verify me. What is more, some additional numbers like a number of participants (total or Wikimedians/GLAM/tech people) you are expecting per event or a number of new items/images/etc. could be benefitial to monitor your success and check if e.g. the budget for food is appropriate (not too big, not too little).

Having written it, it can be a very productive year for your Chapter. Wishing you luck, aegis maelstrom δ 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Personally, I wouldn't consider the number of events held, etc., to be measures of success, so much as they are the means by which we may (or may not) be successful in our goals. However, the checklist is fine if it helps with reviewing the proposal

Regarding the edit-a-thons, we're actually looking at holding around 13. Here's the math on that: we are looking to hold events with eight institutions, of which the Smithsonian is one, and we want to hold six with the Smithsonian. Seven non-Smithsonian edit-a-thons + six Smithsonian edit-a-thons = 13 total. That said, we're budgeting for ten since sometimes all of the event needs are covered by in-kind donations.

As for attendance figures, it's an interesting question because only recently have we begun collecting reliable attendance information (before, we relied on estimates). We are interested in measuring aggregate volunteer rates because our goal is to build a volunteer base, and counting the same person twice because he or she attended two events is counterproductive. For per-event cost accounting, we are starting with the $420/event mean price, with the understanding that some events will cost more and some will cost less. F/B orders for an event will depend on the number of RSVPs. If we ultimately save money on edit-a-thons, we can use the money on more edit-a-thons and more program activities for Wikimedia DC generally.

We have set targets for edit-a-thons because we have enough experience with them that we have a good sense of what a good number to short for is. The other program areas are relatively "experimental" for us, so it would be less reasonable to expect a specific outcome without the benefit of experience. That said, we will be measuring the things we do, so by next year we should be able to set more specific outcome targets.

harej (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt clarification! I do agree, things like events held are mere operational goals at best (better of worse suiting depending on the planning quality) and we too often fixate on them - but still many people find them useful to check how good we are in implementing plans :) and what obstacles were found.

Regarding the number of participants: not only it is valuable to evaluate costs (btw, do we have any "best practices in catering" etc. in the movement? :) ), but also it is telling something about your outreach, retaining the existing volunteer base etc. Basing on the trust principle I will not perform a cost control (I won't be able to audit it anyway :) and your number looks legit); however, if you are trying to observe numbers and their dynamics this is IMVHO important and more than fine. As a side note: being a chapter person myself, I am simply interested how your GLAM events look like and I need to remember to read your reports. :)

Once again good luck, aegis maelstrom δ 00:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Post Scriptum: I have noticed that you have mentioned Cato Institute as one of the partnering organizations. Being an economist myself I recognize a very strong ideological stance of this org, which is set to promote highly controversial yet supported by U.S. establishment "very-rich-friendly" messages ("trickle-down economy", global warming denialism etc.). My belief is that assistance of such organizations will be always limited to obtaining the sources (like the Congress archives - but for me these can be even Ayn Rand's archives) and not giving them a stronger influence on the analytical part of the articles. I hope you understand and share my concern. Best, aegis maelstrom δ 08:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for inquiring. The partnership with Cato concerns articles on legislation proposed in the United States Congress; see w:Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data. The project is oriented around using information provided by Congress itself as well as reliable third-party sources, so that information about Congress' activities can be read about on Wikipedia. Early on in the project I read and provided feedback on the Wikipedia articles that were written. I found them to be neutral and unobjectionable, and I trust that their efforts to date have been beneficial for the encyclopedia. harej (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

* Understood, aegis maelstrom, and I share your concerns. I'm on the Wiki DC board and I pay attention and I think it's going well. I attended two wiki events (edit-a-thons basically) at the Cato Institute in the past year. We improved online free content and connected with new people. As far as I could tell there was not much ideological discussion, or discussion of trickle-down, tax cuts, global warming denialism, or other ideological topics. Our main host did not point attention in those directions. One subject of interest there was getting standard information online about the costs associated various pieces of legislation, which is sometimes gigantic. It was an entirely appropriate free-knowledge mission with neutral content. Another subject was to discuss how to appropriately store and track information on legislation. Good standards there would benefit the public, and things have not always moved along there as fast as they should. Cato tried to move it ahead.

Empirically: I don't think I heard any complaint by attendees or our ideologically-diverse chapter members that we went off track trying this partnership. This is important to watch and a criterion to apply is that when somebody objects, we hear it and note it and try to respond.

I think our chapter can be brave along the dimensions you mention and experiment broadly. Consider some constraints simultaneously:

(1) Most if not all partners have some interest other than broadly free knowledge. GLAM institution staff may want to show their collections, cite and wikilink to their own Web site, demonstrate relevance to the public, and draw attendance and donors. Academics may want to express their own views and findings and to cite themselves and to incorporate the points of view and terminology of their own fields into public discourse. Historical societies have focused and sometimes narrow interests on what was important and must be remembered. Partners have ideological predispositions and non-random funding sources. Partners are like that.

(2) They want more than just to provide sources. We invite them to participate in our system and and we need to be trust them at the keyboard. If we do not team up with them, they may do it anyway, using other sites or technical standards or evidentiary standards, and that's not for the best either.

(3) We are in Washington DC. We must be attentive to the institutions which are actually here and want to be partners and what they can bring to a partnership.

(4) Many of these partners receive government funding directly which is fine. We can improve free knowledge and neutrality by making sure to hear those who do not, and those who want to reduce it. The various players have legitimate and diverse motivations.

(5) We are obliged generally to identify our partners in public permanently.

(6) We are obliged to look after the fact at what happened. We will probably want to cease or rethink partnerships which generate conflict and complaints, or produce poor content, or systematically non-neutral content.

(7) We are obliged to watch for evidence of going off-mission. Our chapter's mission is clear and so far we haven't lost track of it.

==> Our chapter can experiment broadly and courageously and adapt to evidence. We are resolved to be careful along the lines you mention. -- econterms (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation by the GAC

GAC Members who approve this grant request

1. Good Luck! aegis maelstrom δ 14:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
2. --Ilario (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Impressive plans. -- Roel (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Great request.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)