Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Structured Community Consultation Tool for Wikimedia (wiki-polis pilot) (ID: 23948166)
Applicant details
[edit]- Main Wikimedia username. (required)
Effeietsanders
- Organization
N/A
- If you are a group or organization leader, board member, president, executive director, or staff member at any Wikimedia group, affiliate, or Wikimedia Foundation, you are required to self-identify and present all roles. (required)
N/A
- Describe all relevant roles with the name of the group or organization and description of the role. (required)
Main proposal
[edit]- 1. State the title of your proposal. This will also be the Meta-Wiki page title.
Structured Community Consultation Tool for Wikimedia (wiki-polis pilot)
- 2. and 3. Proposed start and end dates for the proposal.
2026-09-01 - 2027-01-31
- 4. What is your tech project about, and how do you plan to build the product?
Include the following points in your answer:
- Project goal and problem you solve
- Product strategy or project roadmap
- Technical approach (infrastructure, tech stack, key tools and services)
- Integrations or dependencies (if any)
On-wiki decisions on policy about nuanced, multi-part questions are hard to reach well. Communities often rely on talk pages and project pages, or on secret polls. This system was designed in an era of exponential growth and requires a high amount of effort to engage meaningfully.
For complex topics — where there is no single contained answer to a range of subtopics — both scale badly: loud voices dominate, positions harden, and it is hard to see where consensus actually lies. I want to build on experiences from the democratic innovations tradition and see if we can find versions of a tool available that (sub)communities can choose to use to prepare decisions.
This project makes a Community Consultation Tool available for structured consultations on nuanced topics, usable by community groups and affiliates. The design is based on the proven approach of Polis (e.g. vTaiwan), adjusted for a Wikimedia setting: where Polis optimises for wide participation by a citizen audience, this adaptation is designed for deeper participation in a community context.
The tool lets a group collect input on a topic by splitting it into atomic statements (each a single idea) that volunteers vote on, for or against. The resulting clusters quickly show which statements are controversial, which gain easy consensus, and how they relate. The organiser can then run an argument-mapping round to surface the "why". Finally the first round can be repeated with the top arguments shown and a more limited set of proposals, allowing broader participation.
An initial prototype was built over the past months (codename wiki-polis; open source on GitHub [1], deployed on Toolforge [2]). This grant would support and accelerate the work to mature it — making it translatable, more robustly moderated, and refine its design through feedback from pilot groups and more structured user feedback.
The grant funds three linked workstreams:
A. Hardening
[edit]- Verified automated backups plus a restore drill (daily off-site dump, retention).
- Internationalisation: externalise UI strings and enable translation, so the tool can run in languages beyond English (a prerequisite for movement-wide use).
- Continued user-interface improvement and workflow adjustments based on feedback.
B. Deliberation quality (so results are trustworthy and worth acting on), in decreasing priority:
[edit]- Aggregation/clustering: determine a clustering approach that works well under our conditions, using simulations and available real-world data. The goal is not perfection but a justified, workable choice.
- Statement-quality feedback: surface signals that help participants and moderators write and select better atomic statements. Goal: a basic feedback tool.
- Granular moderation support: finer-grained moderator controls to handle abuse (barely present in the traditional design); requires user testing with real moderators and real data.
- Statement prioritisation when assigning statements to voters (random vs. information-maximising), especially important for smaller conversations.
C. Two real pilot deliberations plus write-up
[edit]- Recruit host communities and frame genuine questions with them.
- Facilitate end to end (statement seeding, moderation, phases).
- Publish an open, on-wiki write-up: the clusters, the consensus statements that emerged, and what worked and what did not — so the movement can judge the method.
- One pilot may be partially in person, for richer direct feedback; this would require travel within Europe (project-implementation travel).
The tool is open source (GitHub [3]), deployed on Toolforge, [4] and built with AI assistance. The core clustering/"math" engine is based on the established Polis codebase.
- 5. What is the expected impact of your project, and how will you measure success?
Include the following points in your answer:
- Milestones and progress tracking
- Project impact and success metrics
Milestones and progress tracking:
The aim is to complete the bulk within 2–3 months, leaving a mature prototype that communities can experiment with and further build on. Progress will be tracked through the open GitHub repository (shipped code and documentation) and public on-wiki write-ups after each pilot.
Project impact and success metrics:
- Whether further investment of time and energy in Polis-style consultation is desirable in a Wikimedia decision-making context.
- What adjustments would make it more likely to be useful.
- Which community processes and questions are most likely to benefit from methods based on democratic innovation.
We explicitly keep open the possibility that this is not the right design for most processes in our community. Even if the tool ends up little used, the insights may be valuable to the community, and the tool may be useful externally.
Wikimedia targets in numbers:
- Participants: ≥ 50 distinct participants across the two pilots (30–80 per process)
- Editors: No new editor recruitment anticipated.
- Organizers: 2–4 (pilot hosts/facilitators)
- New content contributions per Wikimedia project: N/A
Participants are Wikimedians taking part in the pilot deliberations — an estimated 30–80 per process — drawn from each pilot's host community or group. I am already in conversation with a few groups that may want to try the process. Initially, strategy processes may be a low-risk environment to engage with. Before each pilot I frame genuine questions with the host and seed initial statements; during, I facilitate the phases and moderation; afterwards I publish an open on-wiki write-up. An ongoing on-tool deliberation will also let the community weigh in on the tool's own future development while trying it out.
The most relevant groups for the initial phase are likely affiliates, committees, wikiprojects with well-defined topics as we develop the scaffolding and understanding further in our context.
Community engagement: The goal of this grant is to run an actual experiment with communities. Benefits are hard to imagine and grasp just on principles, people need to try the tool to be able to assess its use. A draft post for Diff is in preparation. The prototype was crafted so that community discussions can happen about the tool with the tool.
The prototype lives on GitHub ( [5] ) and Toolforge ( [6] ).
Tools to measure: The tool's own participation data (distinct voters, votes, statements per conversation); the public on-wiki write-up(s); and the open GitHub repository for shipped code and documentation.
- 6. Who is your target audience, and how have you confirmed there is demand for this project? How did you engage with the Wikimedia community?
Include the following points in your answer:
- Project demand and target audience description
- Links to interaction(s) with Wikimedia community
- Evidence from community consultation such as the [Community Wishlist]
Participants are Wikimedians taking part in the pilot deliberations — an estimated 30–80 per process — drawn from each pilot's host community or group. I am already in conversation with a few (off-wiki and on-wiki, but all Wikimedia) groups that may want to try the process. One of them has preliminarily agreed to try it out. The prototype lives on GitHub ( [7] ) and Toolforge (https://wiki-polis.toolforge.org ). After just the bilateral conversations, 28 users have entered at least one conversation.
Initially, strategy processes may be a low-risk environment to engage with. Before each pilot I frame genuine questions with the host and seed initial statements; during, I facilitate the phases and moderation; afterwards I publish an open on-wiki write-up. An ongoing on-tool deliberation will also let the community weigh in on the tool's own future development while trying it out.
The underlying challenges have been described in academic literature before and are well-known. This experiment is a relatively low-cost way to estimate one approach' feasibility.
The goal of this grant is to run an actual experiment with communities. Benefits are hard to imagine and grasps just on principles, people need to try the tool to be able to assess its use. A draft post for Diff is in preparation. The prototype was crafted so that community discussions can happen about the tool with the tool.
The most relevant groups for the initial phase are likely affiliates, committees, wikiprojects with well-defined topics as we develop the scaffolding and understanding further in our context.
- 7. How will your team predict and manage potential user security and privacy risks, and what risks do you currently see?
Include the following points in your answer:
- The level of in-house or consulted security and privacy expertise you will have available to you during delivery of this project
- How your development, testing, and deployment processes mitigate the introduction of unnecessary security or privacy risks
Schiste has security and privacy expertise from his current professional occupation. Effeietsanders has academic training with human research data in computational social science.
Potential risks we see are unintended release of opinion data connected to usernames.
We're careful to collect only data that we need. We typically store less personal information than would be made public voluntarily if the same conversation would happen on-wiki; perhaps aside from the usual technical logs. For example, we're requesting minimal data from the users when the log in (their username, perhaps eventually whether they activated their email), and we store the opinion data separately from the behavioral data, such that after the process is complete, that link can be destroyed easily.
Once the prototype is more mature (or earlier, if so desired) we're happy to engage in conversations with Wikimedia in-house experts to address or fix any concerns.
We have made an effort to be very transparent about what happens with the opinion data, and to arrive at a good balance between publishing less and maintaining usefulness. What we have not yet addressed is for example people uploading private data to open-ended fields. We expect to address this through the planned moderation features.
- 8. Who is on your team, and what is your experience?
Include the following points in your answer:
- Your experience as a developer, relevant past projects
- Wikimedia SUL (developer), Gerrit, Github, Gitlab or other relevant public account handles
- Other team members, their roles and expertise
I am the applicant, primary developer and facilitator (username: Effeietsanders), funded in part by this grant and contributing additional time as a volunteer. Professionally I work in the research and evaluation of democratic-innovation technology. Development is done with AI assistance; the code is open source and reviewed with embedded colleagues, and the core clustering/"math" engine is based on the established Polis codebase. I will draw on volunteer feedback and possible academic collaboration during the pilots.
Other colleagues that help on the project include (in a volunteer capacity) user:Schiste and user:Tarkowski (both with an extensive grounding in Wikimedia and open knowledge organizations). Schiste has complementary security skills and Tarkowski has more experience with using Polis in open communities. They are not part of the grant, but support it.
The tool is open source and deployed on Toolforge, which provides free hosting for Wikimedia-related tools. The primary maintainer is the applicant (Effeietsanders), with volunteer contributions from user:Schiste and user:Tarkowski. By making the prototype available to community members we can learn if and how structured deliberation can offer an additional pathway for Wikimedians to set policy together. Long-term, if the tool proves valuable, community adoption and volunteer maintenance through the Wikimedia ecosystem is the intended path. No ongoing expenses are anticipated beyond Toolforge hosting (free) and the applicant's volunteer time.GitHub: [8]
Toolforge deployment: [9]
Wikimedia SUL: [10]
- 9. How will the project be maintained long-term?
Include the long-term maintenance plan with maintainer(s) in your answer. If you expect the long-term maintenance to incur expenses, please list those and the plan for long-term expense coverage.
This is initially designed as an experimental prototype, not as a long term maintained tool. That will depend on the uptake. If successful, it will likely also be useful to other communities, and possibly academia. In such a scenario Effeietsanders may be able to support it through professional means. This will be part of the evaluation.
- 10. Under what license will your code be released, and how will you ensure the product is well documented?
Include the following points in your answer:
- Code license and compatibility with Wikimedia projects
- Documentation plan
The code is released as open source on GitHub (https://github.com/lgelauff/wiki-polis), GPL 3. The core clustering/"math" engine is based on the established Polis codebase ([11] ; AGPL3). The license is compatible with Wikimedia projects and Toolforge hosting requirements.
Documentation will be maintained in the GitHub repository, with public on-wiki write-ups after each pilot deliberation documenting what worked and what did not, so the movement can assess the method.The tool is deployed on Toolforge (Wikimedia's free hosting for community tools). The clustering engine is based on the Polis open-source codebase. Development uses AI assistance tools. No proprietary third-party services are required for core functionality.
The most important documentation is the lessons we're learning though - and that will heavily depend on what we're actually learning. This is also why I have reserved a non-significant amount of time for that. Writing those up may take a bit longer than the project though, if we want the outcomes to be robust.
- 11. Will your project depend on or contribute to third-party tools or services?
The early prototype is already running independently but is using WMCS and Toolforge. We have already contributed some bug fixes to the polis ecosystem and if we find more, will continue to do so.
- 12. Is there anything else you’d like to share about your project? (optional)
Budget
[edit]- 13. Upload your budget for this proposal or indicate the link to it. (required)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J6qfR_MLtTEbIZgkvBRsPjx8EOm4ahFhT2bmZ2Q-yjc/edit?usp=sharing
- 14. and 15. What is the amount you are requesting for this proposal? Please provide the amount in your local currency. (required)
4400 EUR
- 16. Convert the amount requested into USD using the Oanda converter. This is done only to help you assess the USD equivalent of the requested amount. Your request should be between 500 - 5,000 USD.
5000 USD
- By submitting your proposal/funding request you confirm that you have read and agree to the Application Privacy Statement, WMF Friendly Space Policy, and the Universal Code of Conduct.
Yes
Endorsements and Feedback
[edit]Please add endorsements and feedback to the grant discussion page only. Endorsements added here will be removed automatically.
Community members are invited to share meaningful feedback on the proposal and include reasons why they endorse the proposal. Consider the following:
- Stating why the proposal is important for the communities involved and why they think the strategies chosen will achieve the results that are expected.
- Highlighting any aspects they think are particularly well developed: for instance, the strategies and activities proposed, the levels of community engagement, outreach to underrepresented groups, addressing knowledge gaps, partnerships, the overall budget and learning and evaluation section of the proposal, etc.
- Highlighting if the proposal focuses on any interesting research, learning or innovation, etc. Also if it builds on learning from past proposals developed by the individual or organization, or other Wikimedia communities.
- Analyzing if the proposal is going to contribute in any way to important developments around specific Wikimedia projects or Movement Strategy.
- Analysing if the proposal is coherent in terms of the objectives, strategies, budget, and expected results (metrics).
This is an automatically generated Meta-Wiki page. The page was copied from Fluxx, the web service of Wikimedia Foundation Funds, where the user has submitted their application. Please do not make any changes to this page because all changes will be removed after the next update. Use the discussion page for your feedback. The page was created by CR-FluxxBot.