Grants talk:APG/Proposals

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Annual Plan Grants process is meant to be community led, and the community is encouraged to actively participate. If you have a question or feedback that you would like to provide,


FDC proposal/Program should not be a container template[edit]

Hi,

One of the most infuriating thing I find with the APG forms is how {{FDC proposal/Program}} is a container template − the all content is supposed to go in the |overview= parameter. This disallows − probably among other things − one of the most useful features there is when it comes to editing long documents, section editing.

On User:Jean-Frédéric/Sandbox, I have shown how using two templates − one header and one footer − allows the same formatting without losing section editing. I would strongly suggest altering the form preload Grants:APG/Proposal form preload/7. I will probably be bold and do it myself unless there is opposition.

(cc @KLove (WMF) and Wolliff (WMF):)

Jean-Fred (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Fred, I'm really sorry that the APG forms are frustrating. You are welcome to go ahead and adjust the preload as you suggest; I don't think it will break anything. :) thanks for being bold and pitching in here. Warmly KLove (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift answer KLove (WMF)! I went ahead and changed the preload. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, my friend! KLove (WMF)

FDC proposal form vX preload[edit]

Hi,

If one tries to create a proposal form from the entity hub, eg Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016 round2/Wikimedia Norge, it loads the following, which uses Grants:APG/Proposal form preload/5 (to which Grants:APG/Proposal form preload currently redirects). However, I believe we are now at v7 Grants:APG/Proposal form preload/7.

Could this please be clarified as soon as possible? One would not want to use outdated forms for their proposals...

(cc @KLove (WMF) and Wolliff (WMF):)

Jean-Fred (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, dear Jean-Fred. Great catch. Turns out those hub pages are using an outdated hub page template, and thus linking to an older version of the preload. While all four organizations have created their proposal forms already, I notice most of them have not yet added most of the content. Therefore, what I will do is Email the group of applicants today to ask them if they are OK with me manually switching over the information they've put in the old forms to the new forms. If they are, this should solve the problem and given that we have only four applicants in this round I think it is do-able. I just don't want to do it before consulting them, as it might be rather shocking. Will post update here once I confirm. Thank you so much for catching that. While I don't think it would be the end of the world to use the old form, the new form is actually easier, and it will be more comparable to what Round 1 organizations used. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 23:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


Comentario del estudiante, Balademar Tomàs Baten Baten.

Estudiante tiene pocas opciones de elegir un trabajo debido a sus especiales horarios. Sin embargo hoy en día es una necesidad trabajar y estudiar a la vez. A pesar que el mercado laboral sea algo duro para distintos, estos son algunos de los puestos de trabajo en línea más comunes y las oportunidades para los estudiantes puedan financiar su preparación profesional.

News outdated[edit]

The "Important News about Annual Plan Grants" section should be updated entirely. Looks like all the four items are outdated. Eduardogobi (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge to Grants_talk:Start[edit]

There are many grant discussion pages. None of them get much conversation alone. The collective effect is that the current system splits similar conversations which ought to be together. Sometime soon, I will merge all talk pages for grants into Grants_talk:Start. Even with many pages merged together I do not anticipate that this one page will get much traffic in the near future.

Sometime soon I will merge this page! If you have comments, please post at Grants_talk:Start#Proposal_to_merge_talk_pages_for_grants. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Reports for annual plan grants vs. Category:Annual plan grant reports[edit]

These two categories should probably be combined. Some template may be fixed to add whichever category is canonical. --Nemo 10:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

.

I don't have the time, but I do have general ideas/questions[edit]

I don't have the time to post on these grants. One could have a full-time job of just going around and commenting on whatever the WMF might want people to comment on, I imagine! That said, can all WMF employees and staffers, and all WMF chapter staffers comment on these proposals? Or is strongly discouraged for some WMF staffers to comment? How is commenting thought of as "appropriate" and "inappropriate"? The banner that brought me here says "help the [FDC] decide how to spend US $6 million in Wikimedia donations". I wonder this: does the FDC have to spend all the $6 million now only on these proposals? (Note: the appearance of a COI disclosure: I am applying for a grant for about $9000 USD myself, but I'm not sure if it will pan out because I haven't identified appropriate talent to help with the software development, as I mention on the talk page.) Biosthmors (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Biosthmors:
Thank you for taking a look. These are both good questions.
  1. The US$6 million number is the maximum amount the FDC may recommend for proposals during two rounds of the FDC process: 2013-2014 Round 1 (proposals due October 2013) and 2013-2014 Round 2 (proposals due March 2014). While the FDC may not recommend more than that amount, the FDC may recommend less than that amount.
  2. Comments are welcome from all, including all chapter members and staff, and WMF staff.
    • Members and staff of the chapter submitting a proposal are strongly encouraged to respond to feedback and questions on their proposal's discussion page about their proposal. They are also welcome to comment on other proposals in the round. We expect that chapter members and staff will be very engaged in proposal review.
    • FDC staff (this includes me, Katy Love, and Anasuya Sengupta) are the only people on the WMF staff who are responsible for posting questions and requests for clarification on proposal discussion pages as part of their staff roles, and we also include questions from others on WMF staff with relevant expertise as an input into this process.
    • Many WMF staff are also volunteers and community members outside of their staff roles and are welcome to comment on the proposals in that context just as any community member would be.
We hope that is clear. Please let us know if we may clarify further. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 18:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Two requests[edit]

First of, thanks for putting this up for comments!

  1. I request you to kindly extend the review period for another 15 days for at least the Proposal from Center for Internet and Society, India as it looks like not many people in India are aware yet that this has been put up for comments. The global notification is doing an excellent job getting attention of editors, but I feel that more time is needed to read through quite elaborate Proposals and comment appropriately. I have heard the same from fellow Wikimedians who intend to comment on this as well.
  2. I back suggestions already posted on this discussion of including a summary or synopsis on the page. A highlight of Proposal Form should also be a good idea and a link to the talk page could be a good inclusion too. As of now, it is several levels to get to the real thing! '

Thanks again! --H P Nadig (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree. The current time given is not enough. ----Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, H P Nadig and Rsrikanth05:
Thank you for your engagement with the community review process!
  1. Unfortunately, due to time constraints around the proposal process (the start of the grant terms on 1 July on the one hand and the proposal submission date of 1 April on the other), we aren't able to extend the community review period. The reason we close community review on 30 April is so FDC staff have time to thoroughly read and summarize the complex discussions taking place before staff proposal assessments are published on 8 May, and so the FDC has time to thoroughly read community commentary along with the many other inputs into the proposal process prior to the deliberations during the third week of May. We need a fixed end date to ensure that community commentary is included as an important part of the review process, along with those other inputs. We understand this may be frustrating, but that's why we can't consider comments after 30 April for this round. We will definitely be looking at ways to modify the process in the future to increase community participation, and we can see if there are other adjustments we can make to the timeline to extend the review period if that would be an improvement.
  2. Regarding the suggestion of including a summary, would you please comment on my suggestion above regarding the use of a summary box with text from the proposal itself? That can still be implemented in the way we've suggested if folks think it would be useful.
Cheers, Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team) talk 23:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

to persian language :دو پیشنهاد برای مخارج ویکی[edit]

باسلام ! دو پیشنهاد برای مخارج ویکی دارم :۱- قراردادن جوایزی برای کاربران و ویرایشگران ویکی تا موجب بالاتر رفتن سطح علمی و کیفی مشارکتها شود . ۲- قراردادن روشهای ساده تر برای ارسال کمکهای مردمی (همه کشورها) . نظر من این است ، بعلت اینکه بعضی ها دارای حساب ارزی نیستند ، ارسال کمکها محدودیت داشته است . در خاتمه کلام به اطلاع شما میرسانم که پیشنهادهای دیگری در خصوص سایر قسمتهای ویکی دارم که در موقع لزوم تقدیم مینمایم . با احترام . صبح دولت (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC).my email address(offer : irajhomayonpor@yahoo.com

traduction de la poésie croate en français traduction de Molière en langue croate autres traductions du croate

Money should go to server expansion and maintenance AND prizes/awards for most and best contributing authors in community[edit]

Refer to subject headline.

Tips and thoughts from FDC members[edit]

The FDC members have some good experience in reviewing APG applications and have some thoughts and tips for applicants as proposals are developed. Below, as individual members, they will offer you some of their ideas. Feel free to ask questions and engage! KLove (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


Here's some of my suggestions/requests for how to format an APG application that would make it easier for me, as a reviewer, to use. These are not recommendations about any particular project/applicant, but about how to make the process of applying clearer for reviewers (the FDC) based on my personal experience. Wittylama (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Indicate project-related costs divided by project
This particularly applies to budget items like "travel" but also to to things like "event prizes". If you have one generic budget item called "travel" for the annual plan, that is really difficult to understand. It could include scholarships for your members to go to Wikimania, or flights for board members to go to WMCon, or local train tickets for members to go to meetups. Grouping it all together is vague and could make perfectly sensible allocations of money instead look "lavish". Please list the costs associated with projects with their project heading in the budget. Wittylama (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • From my perspective, I'd be sufficiently satisfied to see approximations and percentages. Using the "travel" example, the total budget line item may be USD30,000, of which 30-35% will be spent on Wikimania scholarships, 40-45% on travel support for members to attend local/regional conferences, and 25-30% for leader attendance at the Affiliates conference. For prizes and gifts, there may be a total budget of USD5000, of which 25% is cash prizes for Competition A, 30% cash prizes for Competition B, and 45% for give-aways at meetups, conferences and displays. I note that some chapters include these "line item" costs in each individual project and others have an aggregate amount. Those who are already costing things out by project shouldn't worry about this, you're already doing what we're looking for. :-) Risker (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
From my perspective the original request/tip is unexpected. We are talking about unrestricted grants and I'm not sure budgets are planned this way for the kind of organization that applies to APG. I might be wrong as I'm not working directly on budget, though I review it carefully and it doesn't looks like something I could tell you easily. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
PierreSelim, project-based-accounting is not something that is done by many, including by the WMF (yet). But, it is preferred when possible. When the affiliate is running many projects - each with its own allocations of staff-time, travel, etc. - it becomes difficult to review an overall budget. For example, if the WMF says that it has an "engineering staff" budget but doesn't indicate the time/cost equivalent for each project within engineering, it becomes impenetrable for the community to know how much investment is placed into any given project. It is not necessarily easy to make such accounting documents if the organisation is not set up that way, but it would be preferable if possible :) Wittylama (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Indicate how staff salaries/associated costs are in your country's context
To be clear - I do NOT need/want to know what each employee is being paid. In some countries that is required to be documented publicly, in some countries it is illegal to document that publicly. What I care about is not "how much" your organisation is paying staff, but whether it is within the standard expectations for your country's non-profit sector for the kind of work being done. It is difficult to know what is "appropriate" for paying staff (plus other things aside from wages, like meals, insurance, travel - depending on local laws) in so many diverse countries. This is not just a question of the potential for Chapters paying their staff too much - it's actually much more likely that Chapters might feel urge to pay their staff too little because we're a volunteer-driven movement. So, It would be very very useful simply to state within the application that the salaries correspond to standard practices of your country by linking to an externally published guideline (e.g. from a national non-profit best practices institute) that you are basing that claim from. Wittylama (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Do not feel tied to the Global Metrics
Personally, I would much prefer to see an application that uses metrics that are relevant (and explains WHY they are relevant), rather than using metrics which are standardised across the Wikimedia movement yet aren't relevant to the context of the applicant/their programs. As far as I'm concerned; An application will NOT be punished for using its own Quantiative/Qualitative metrics instead of the Global Metrics if it can A) adequately justify why the metrics it is using are appropriate, B) their methodology for arriving at the results they have. Doing A + B might actually be harder than using the Global Metrics and in that case, please feel free to use the Global Metrics if you prefer. But do not feel you HAVE to use the Global Metrics to produce numbers that you know are useless if you would prefer to use something else (and can justify why). By all means - use a combination of both if you wish. Wittylama (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Mention your problems, address previous FDC recommendations
It is very useful to specifically identify in your application document information about how you addressed the problems that have happened in the last year and/or the comments from the previous year's FDC recommendations. That is: don't try to hide the fact that you didn't reach a specific goal, but overtly say it and - much more importantly - explain why you think this is the case and what you've done to learn from it. It might be that you targeted too high last time, or that key employees/volunteers left halfway through the year, or that the government of your country stopped funding the libraries you were working with. Whatever the reason - I would personally prefer to see an application that said "we didn't reach x target for y reason and as a result we've changed z" as compared to an application that says "we met our targets" [and nothing else].
Very related to this - please also specifically refer to the comments that were made in last year's FDC recommendations, and say how you think you've addressed them in this year's plan. If last year the FDC said "you're growing too fast", and this year you've decided to have a similar grown in budget, then it's important to acknowledge the recommendation from last year and say why you think your circumstances merited a continuation of growth. If, continuing that example, instead you didn't address last year's recommendation about growth speed then it would appear like you've not noticed it/don't care. Wittylama (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd add to this: please bear in mind the general recommendations/comments that the FDC makes each round. These summarise the FDC's thinking about particular concerns and strengths that multiple applications have demonstrated in that round. Don't just look at the last set of recommendations: also look at comments made in previous rounds and take them into consideration too, if you haven't already. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Reference the successes of other organisations
Reporting on best practices, and writing 'learning patterns', has been a standard practice among the more developed Chapters for quite a while now. But, while the quality of the information shared improves, it is much less often that Affiliates are overtly incorporating the lessons learned into their own plans. So - I strongly encourage applicants to overtly link the descriptions of plans to the successful work of others. This can be to refer to 'learning patters', or the annual/interim reports, or FDC comments etc. The point is that the FDC is looking to fund things that have a higher likelihood of success or, if not successful, then something we can all learn from. Incorporating the best practices of others who have tried something similar, or replicating their successful activities, is an excellent way to do that. Wittylama (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
This is really helpful - thanks to all the FDC members who contributed to this! It helps a lot to understand the needs and challenges of "the other side", we will do our best to adress these in our next proposal where possible and I will be happy to share were we might struggle /encounter difficulties providing the information. Please do add to this list if you come up with more tips during the current round :-) --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Offer for applicants to chat with FDC members about application format[edit]

As a follow-up to, and extension of, the ideas at the Tips and thoughts from FDC members section (immediately above - on this page)...

This APG round, in particular because the Wikimedia Foundation is effectively a 'first time applicant' and because it will be a very complex set of documents, the WMF's Chief Financial Officer (Jaime Villagomez) will be meeting with the FDC members (by phone) to discuss the best way to format the WMF's application. In order to ensure fairness, and also to improve the mutual-understanding with applicants about kind of documents the FDC is wanting to receive, this offer is now being extended to other APG applicants. This is a trial to see if a) the APG applicants actually WANT this (over-and-above the excellent support that is already provided by the program staff (Katy and Winifred), and b) if it is feasible in a practical sense to coordinate that kind of meeting with committee volunteers around the world in a way that is not too time-consuming, and c) if the result is actually helpful for the applicants!

If any of the applicants to the current round (Norway, CIS, Armenia, France) would like to organise such a call with a few representatives of the FDC (by Skype/Hangouts), please get in touch and we can attempt to arrange a convenient time (also, please read the "tips" above! ). Note: this would not be about the details of your annual plan per-se, but about how to make sure that the application is saying what you want them to say, and the FDC has all the information it needs in the format that it prefers.

Ping: WMNOastrid (WMNO), SusikMkr (WMAR), Nathalie_Martin_(WMFR) (WMFR), Pavanaja (CIS)
Sincerely, Wittylama (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this update and the tips and thoughts above. I think Wikimedia Norge gets all the support we need from Katy and Winifred by email. I´ll reach out in the beginning of next week if we think a call would be a good idea. --WMNOastrid (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting,but do every wikiuser /individual also can get grant? Golodg (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary of grantee-defined metrics[edit]

I have summarized all the grantee-defined metrics in the 2016-17 Round 1 applications. This is the first time that organisations have been asked to define their own cross-programme metrics alongside the WMF's "global metrics" and it is interesting to see what the different organisations have chosen to measure. It is interesting to see that the following areas appear several times: diversity of contributors, quality of contributions, retention of contributors, amount/quality of volunteer engagement, growth in network of partner institutions, and communications metrics. Also interestingly of the 3 organisations reporting on "quality" only one is using a pre-existing community process to do so, while two have developed their own. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Org Metric Definition
Amical Member engagement % of organisation members involved in one or more activity
Amical Repetition % of projects that are repeated
WMAR Quality % of article contributions from programmes that meet org's own quality criteria
WMAR Institutional growth Number of new projects that are due to previous WMAR projects
WMCH New partnerships Number of new partnerships with non-Wikimedia institutions
WMCH Reach in nation Total audience reached by org communications and activities (off-wiki)
WMDE New editors with 10+ edits Number of new editors on de.wp reaching 10th edit
WMDE Wikidata usage Number of data uses from Wikidata in Wikimedia projects
WMDE Usage of media Number of uses of new media items (resulting from 2017 GLAM cooperations) in the Wikimedia projects
WMDE Usefulness of volunteer support Aggregated internal metrics for volunteer support programme
WMDE Policy influence Qualitative indicator of impact on policy proceses
WMIL Continuing editors recruited Editors taking part with contributions 2+ months after activity
WMIL Leading contributors Participants going on to take lasting roles in projects (on or off wiki)
WMIL Face-to-face participants Participants in face-to-face environment
WMIL Continuing professors Number of professors in education programme continuing in future years
WMIL Partner growth Increase in partner organisations (e.g. Schools)
WMIL Article quality % of articles that meet org's programme quality standards
WMNL Contributions in other languages Additions to or contributions to Wikipedias other than native language
WMNL Participant retention Number of participants still active 3 months after activity
WMRS File usage % of media uploaded through programmes used on Wikimedia projects
WMRS Event numbers Number of events in org programmes
WMSE Blog posts Number of org blog posts/newsletters. Used as a proxy for visibility.
WMSE Gender diversity % of participants in org activities that are female, or identify as other than male or female
WMUK Volunteer hours Total time of all volunteers on charity programmes
WMUK Audience reach Total audience reached by org communications and activities (off-wiki)
WMUA File usage % of media uploaded through programmes used on Wikimedia projects
WMUA Geographic diversity Number of regions where events take place
WMAT Quality of media Number of media files from programme reaching valued or better status on-wiki
WMAT Diversity Number of participants who are women, LGBT, disabled, or from minority ethnic/linguisti/religious groups

The Land What a wonderful chart. Wikimedia NYC tracks pageviews. I am surprised to see that pageviews are not on the list, because views/hits/clicks/impressions is the primary metric of interest for most web platforms. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. Personally, I think pageviews is certainly part of the picture when we are looking at what should count as "high impact", alongside things like quality and importance. However, pageviews has never featured as a WMF grantmaking metric. I've never heard it spelled out why, but I guess it's a mixture of technical problems of tracking pageviews across lots of articles an organisation has affected, and also the desirability of people focusing on high-pageview areas.... Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The Land This is not the place to discuss pageviews, but just to state the point to any bystander here: I live in New York, and the Wikipedia community here has a lot of partnerships with New York City organizations. None of them care at all about WMF global metrics, and all of them care a lot about pageview metrics. When we establish partnerships, the persuasive argument is never "we can get Wikipedia editors to post your content" but rather "we can get Wikipedia's audience to read your content". Practically all institutional partners would rather 1 editor manage all their content rather than to crowdsource the posting of their content. Crowdsourcing is a tactic for reaching an audience with limited resources, but given the option, organizations would rather reach the audience with fewer, much deeper Wikipedia contributor relationships. I expect that there has never been a Wikimedia partnership that valued increased contributor numbers over audience metrics. Wikipedia is more attractive to partners for the audience it reaches than it is for the contributors it recruits. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if pagesviews is the best metric. Most of the organizations don't aim only to create only new articles, but also to improve and add new ones. If pageview is a value metric for them, organizations will look into improve the popular ones, rather the ones who really need attention. That's relevant also to creating new articles - will we prefer to write on celebrities and internet trends rather than historical women that missing articles? It's true that for our partners impressions are important - but maybe it's relevant when they give a highly value content such as images. But I don't think we, Wikimedia, judges are articles only by pageviews and impressions, but also by the historical relevant and the encyclopedic value. --Itzike (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Itzike "organizations will look into improve the popular ones, rather the ones who really need attention" - What does that mean? Popular articles are the ones that are most important for improving, right? Why would anyone prioritize unpopular articles over popular ones? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Even not considering its role in partnership, pageviews are a very clear metrics for impact in term of making content available (which is not, however, the only important thing: in particular, long term impact for us requires building a strong community, and in that pageviews have only a secondary role). Of course there are a number of biases, but is definitely relevant (when I do something, I often consider that). - Laurentius (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My favourite metrics from these are Quality, New partnerships, New editors with 10+ edits, Usage of media, Continuing editors recruited, Partner growth, Participant retention, File usage, Blog posts, Gender diversity, File usage, Geographic diversity, Quality of media, Diversity. Thank you for creating the list! --Nikola (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

2017-2018 Round 1?[edit]

@Notafish and Delphine (WMF): We're missing the whole infrastructure for FDC proposals 2017-2018 Round 1, and LOIs are due in only a few days... --FiliP ██ 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Filip, actually, it has been up for a week or so, sorry for noticing this only now. Delphine (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Delphine (WMF):I guess I expected a section here, and there was none, so that's what prompted me to make this comment. I guess I didn't notice the big green box at the Information page xD --FiliP ██ 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Title error: FDC proposals 2017-2018 Round 2[edit]

I wish to point out that the first title "FDC proposals 2016-2017 Round 2" is erroneous. It must be replaced with "FDC proposals 2017-2018 Round 2". Thanks. ManasaRao (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)