Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016 round 2/Wikimedia Norge/Proposal form

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

The community review of this proposal runs until the end of 30 April 2016.

Information

We welcome speakers of all languages in this discussion. Please comment here in any language you wish; staff or other volunteers will translate your comments to English if possible.

Комментарии на русских языках[edit]

Предлагаю направить средства на работу по написанию новых качественных и доработке старых статей в обеих норгепедиях. Потому что на всякие там Викитеки, Викисправочники и прочие побочные проекты, особенно на двух "языках", которые мало чем отличаются от шведского друг от друга - никаких денег не хватит, а вот Википедия - это нужно. Гимцедизм (разновидность инклюзионизма, лишённая признаков когданибуддизма) - это всегда хорошо. А норгепедии надо выручать. Обе. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Большое спасибо за комментарий! Мы с нетерпением ждём ответа на нашу просьбу! --WMNOastrid (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Community manager[edit]

It's good to see the emphasis on liaising with the community here. However, in general, I'm personally always wary of a model where there is someone whose job it is to liaise with the community, as it makes it easy for other staff to leave the community side of things to that person rather than integrating it into their work. I see your rationale for why you think this is a good position for you to hire for now, but I would be curious to know which other models you've considered here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We see your concern. Since we are few staff members we are used to trying to find ways to integrate each other's work. I think we have to work this way to get things done with currently 1,3 FTE. We integrate gender gap issues in glam work, glam work with academia and so on. We will concentrate on doing the same if we get the chance to hire a community manager. We think there is a potential of finding ways of involving our community more in our work and WMNO in projects that editors run, for example with Wikidata. As we wrote in our proposal, we will ask the community (and I think we should include some of our partners as well) to evaluate the position after 6 months.
These were our considerations:
1 Continue with the model we have tried out over the last year: slowly getting to know our community online and by organizing events to meet face to face and building a reputation as an organization that is here to support. The more people we know, the more people we can ask for advice, ask to come to meetings with us etc.
But this is slow work, and it will be very concentrated in and around Oslo, which editors have commented on. As I see it, the position of a community manager doesn't have to be based in Oslo.
2 Hire a community manager: this is explained in the proposal. We talked this over with several other chapters to get their experience and advice.
Please let us know if you, or anybody else, has other models you think we should consider! --WMNOastrid (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Impact[edit]

From the global metrics numbers in table 3, I see that you've mostly focused on the number of people involved, rather than having targets for the outputs of their work (articles edited), although I appreciate that you don't have a good baseline for these numbers yet. There also aren't many points about impact in the description of the projects - you have plenty of events and activities, but it's not clear what your aims are for a lot of them beyond doing the activity. Would you be able to expand on some of these as examples, please - e.g., what impact/key outcomes are you hoping to achieve with the scholarships, the increase in your membership numbers, the GLAM guided tours, and the educational interns? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Our focus on numbers of people involved reflects our wish to get to know our community and build a reputation. The key outcome of the examples you mention, scholarships, the increase in our membership numbers, the GLAM guided tours, and the educational interns, are all focused on our goal to get to know and support our community better. People have applied for the scholarships for very different reasons; improve technical issues or help pages, photo safari, travel grants and organizing wiki meet-ups for women in the city of Trondheim. We didn't know if anybody at all would apply and for what projects. This as an example to illustrate that we still are doing a lot of our work for the first time, and because of this are unsure what outcome we can expect. Our aim with the increase in our membership numbers (and the other examples) is to establish WMNO as a supportive organization for more wikipedians and wikipedians from different groups.
WMNO has had staff for 2,5 years. I think our first year was concentrated on finding and building partnerships, the second year on securing good governance, and this third year we, the staff, are very glad we can focus more on our program work and understanding how we can measure the impact of our work. We know there are a number of great tools available. We have struggled with how to measure impact with the global metrics and this is also a task where we had help from community members and where we think a community manager will come very much to use.
Hope this answers your question? Please let us know if you have more comments or questions! Thanks. --WMNOastrid (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @WMNOastrid: thanks for the reply. :-) I think you're missing my point here, though. Getting to know your community is definitely a very good thing to do, but that isn't impact. It's what you do with the community, and what you achieve together with them, that is important. Taking scholarships as an example, the aim of these might be to share expertise/experiences with others in the community through presentations or reports by the recipients, or to enable new connections/projects between different community members that wouldn't have otherwise met each other. With GLAM guided tours, it might be to get more freely-licensed photos of that organisation's collection, to get people editing articles on that topic, or to use curator's experiences to expand content. It comes down to the question: what is WMNO enabling that might not otherwise have happened? Hopefully that makes sense? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Mike Peel: that makes sense :-) Some examples:
The scholarships enables projects that otherwise would have been difficult to do on a volunteer basis, for example on improving help pages, which again can make new editors feel more welcome and stay. Scholarships enables participation at Wikimania which gives community members the chance to learn and meet wikipedians from all over the world. Scholarships also enables content. One scholarship will be used on taking images with a drone at places that are difficult to reach.
The meet ups for active editors enables editors to meet face to face, to resolve discussions and keep active editors on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Statistic shows that the number of editors with more than 100 edits is no longer dropping and for editors with more than 5 edits the drop has stabilized at no.wp.
The educational interns enables more activity in social media where we can connect with wikipedians and partners across the country. They enables us to write articles for journals on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Norge's work. Many of them have also had great web design skills and has redesigned no.wikimedia and next is wikipedia.no.
The increase in membership numbers will enable more editors and community members to be invited and join at different events and activities, meet face to face and help editor retention.
The GLAM guided tour enables exactly what you describe, but they are also a great way of building and maintaining partnerships because of discussion we can have during /after tours with volunteers, WMNO staff and staff from partner organizations.
I hope I have answered your question. Let me know if I should add anything. Thanks. --WMNOastrid (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Queries about a couple of dates[edit]

A couple of minor queries about dates: In the table 2 notes, you say "As of August 2016 we have an outside accountant" - is this the plan for August this year, or something implemented last year (2015)? Also, the #Wikinobel project (which is a great project!) has a date of 7. Oktober 2017, which is outside of the funding period - will there be a #Wikinobel 2016 project? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments! Numbers can be difficult! You are right, it should be: "As of August 2015 we have an outside accountant" and #Wikinobel is taking place 7. October 2016. I will correct this in our proposal - hope that is ok. I´ll get back the two comments above later this day. Thanks. --WMNOastrid (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Also about dates: in the staff and contractors section, on the Academic program manager, there are 0 FTE for the end of the current funding period and 0,3 FTE for the end of the next funding period, but it's written that "Jorid Martinsen started working as a Academic program manager January 2016". Is she already working 0,3 FTE in that position? - Laurentius (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, she is. But she is also working some hours on gender gap to keep this project floating. --WMNOastrid (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the progress report, I understand that at the end of the current funding period will be 0,3 on academic (Jorid) and 0,1 on gender gap (Åsa), right? - Laurentius (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. --WMNOastrid (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External funding[edit]

Wikimedia Norge just got approved yearly funding from a private funder. The amount is 36,000 NOK a year / 4,137.27 US dollars. --WMNOastrid (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Congratulations. Thanks for letting us know, Astrid. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 15:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)