Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2016-2017 round 1/Wikimedia Argentina/Proposal form

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

Please use the requested number format[edit]

Hello, WMAR team! As noted in our Email, we request that you use the same number format as other applicants per the instructions included in the proposal form: "Please use the following numerical format throughout this proposal form: 1,222.04. Otherwise, you will be asked to go back and redo some parts of your proposal." You have permission to make these changes to the number format throughout your proposal, and there is no need to use strikethrough for this. We are requesting this because receiving different number formats from each applicant makes the proposals too difficult to analyze as a group. We realize this number format may differ from the one you use locally. Thank you! Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk !
We are so sorry for this inconvenience! We have already correct all the numbers, as you proposed! Let me know if it is correct now? Hugs--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Difference between table 1 and table 8[edit]

According to table 8 WMAR requests 241,140 US$ in APG/FDC funding. According to table 1 that amount is 244,100 US$. The first one is correct, isn't it? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ad Huikeshoven,
Yes, the amount requested by WMAR is 241,140 USD. The other amount - 244, 100 USD- as it is point out in the note under the table, refers to the amount requested in our letter of intend. Hope it is more clear now! Hugs--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Corrected amount requested: $244,140[edit]

Note that we have approved the change to Table 1 made by WMAR, so that it now reflects the correct amount requested, or $241,140. Community review references have been updated accordingly. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 18:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Strategic plan in English[edit]

Hi!
We have translated our strategic plan in english. You can find it here. Hope it helps! --Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Gracias/Gràcies Anna! ;-) Delphine (WMF) (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


It would be good to render your strategic plan in Strategy Markup Language (StratML) format. User:Owen Ambur 13:07, 19 October 2016 (Eastern US)

Public budget[edit]

Hi, the budget spreadsheet linked from the proposal is private. Can you share it please? --Itzike (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Itzike,
Sorry! Now is public! Let me know if it works now! Hugs!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Logic models[edit]

Thank you WMAR for providing fifteen logic models in your proposal. You are leading the way! I hope this all translates in realiazation of outcomes and impact we want. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Crítica constructiva[edit]

Argentina en un rico país por su historia, su cultura, su geografía y sus gentes. Por eso me llama la atención lo politizados e ideologizados que están los proyectos de Wikimedia Argentina. Pienso que sería más coherente con el espíritu de Wikimedia que ampliaran un poco el ámbito de sus intereses. Cordial saludo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.46.234.86 (talk)

Hola anónimo,
Gracias por tu observación!
Igualmente perdona que no la compartamos. La realidad es que toda nuestra propuesta gira en torno a poner en valor la cultura y el patrimonio de Argentina. La única actividad que realizamos sobre DDHH, es Wikilesa, un proyecto que nació en la comunidad y que impulsamos a través de espacios académicos y culturales también apoyados por nuestra comunidad.
Me gustaría si pudieras apuntarnos qué en concreto considerás que es político o ideologizado para poder darte una respuesta o explicación más acorde.
Desde ya te mando un abrazo, --Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
1. Es de buena educación firmar los comentarios. 2. Aunque soy chileno (y un enamorado de BAires, debo añadir), después de leer tanto la planificación estratégica como su sitio web, no encuentro nada politizado y/o ideologizado en las propuestas presentadas por Wikimedia Argentina. Si de algo ayuda, you have my support. Tromaster (talk)
Edito y agrego: Después de leer la propuesta elaborada por Anna en Grants, me saco el sombrero. Clara, completa y transparente. Tromaster (talk)
Hola Tromaster,
Gracias por tus palabras! Intentamos a través de nuestras actividades poder representar y poner en valor el patrimonio de Argentina en Wikipedia y la resta de proyectos. Desde ya nos encantaría poder tener tu feedback, igual que el de los demás, sobre los proyectos que presentemos a futuro, así como escuchar cualquier idea que puedas tener.
Te mando un abrazo, --Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Coincido con esta observación, tal vez se refiera a símbolos ideológicos (o más bien políticos, ej. "Juicio y Castigo") que se ven en las imágenes. Más teniendo en cuenta que en la actualidad hay críticas sobre las irregularidades de este tipo de juicios. Creo que puede apartar a otros participantes. --Gdafs (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hola Gdafs,
Gracias por tu observación. Dejame que te explique. Wikimedia Argentina trabaja con diferentes contrapartes y organiza diferentes actividades, de índole distinta. Para llevarlas a cabo, usamos espacios distintos, que no específicamente deben no tienen que representar la actividad. Igualmente, volviendo al Grant, hablamos de una actividad organizada por la comunidad y que nace de la comunidad, pero que no deja de ser una entre las más de 50 actividades diferentes que hemos organizado para este año. De todos modos, tomamos tu apreciación para que a futuro lo podamos tener en cuenta como corresponde.
Un abrazo, --Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Gracias por la explicación, un saludo! --Gdafs (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Tanta insistencia en el gender, la historia reciente de Argentina, las iniciativas feministas... llega a cansar. Podría, además, dar lugar a malentendidos, como que algunos grupos ideológicos se quieran servir de los proyectos de Wikimedia para sus propios fines (conflicto de intereses). O que las iniciativas no surgen tanto de la base (la comunidad) como de la cúspide y son generosamente financiadas. O que se ignoran algunos de los pilares, como el punto de vista neutral. No sé, veo más inconvenientes que ventajas. Me parece que los objetivos son mucho más amplios: poner la cultura universal al alcance de todos; fomentar la memoria histórica (pero desde el Big Bang, no desde hace 40 años); reducir brechas y gaps, pero no a base de inclinar la balanza en sentido contrario. Y escuchar más a la comunidad: a esos miles de wikipedistas anónimos. Es posible que el gap sea entre los intereses de los editores y lectores, por una parte, y los intereses de WMAR, por otro. Gracias por su atención. --83.49.123.19 19:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hola anónimo,
Gracias por participar en esta discusión. El presente plan fue aprobado por la comunidad, en la Asamblea de socios y por la Junta Directiva. Así que no consideramos que haya un gap con la comunidad. Si te fijas estamos proyectando el 54% de nuestras actividades definidas por la comunidad, y del otro 46% - 38% son actividades vinculadas a educación donde coordinamos de manera acorde con la comunidad docente y nuestros voluntarios del programa. La resta, son actividades como editatones, que como bien queda asentado, aún no están definidas, lo estarán durante el año.
Por otro lado, sólo 1 actividad de Wikimedia Argentina está enfocada a los últimos 40 años de historia argentina.
En materia de digitalización estamos definiendo liberar al menos 200 libros de cultura argentina. Los libros mayormente son del siglo XVIII y siglo XIX.
Gracias por tus aportes, esperamos haber resuelto tus dudas. Sería también muy bueno saber quién eres.
--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Gracias, Anna, por tus respuestas. Realmente debería haber dicho que el proyecto de digitalización es el que más me gusta. Os felicito por ello. En cuanto a la comunidad, me estaba refiriendo, como es evidente, a los wikipedistas de la wikipedia en castellano (o español). Me parece que es WMAR la única que presenta sus propuestas en esa lengua. Por eso nos aparece el banner para que opinemos aquí. Ahora comprendo que tú te referias con "la comunidad" a los socios de WMAR. Y es ese el hueco o gap, que me parece que hay: entre los editores y lectores de Wikipedia, por un lado, y la WMAR, por otro. Si quieres preguntamos, por ejemplo, a los 500 editores más activos. La encuesta a los lectores ya me resulta más difícil. --83.49.123.19 19:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Questions from FDC[edit]

from Liam[edit]

Dear WM-Argentina, thank you for your incredibly detailed and diligent work in building this plan.

  • With regards to your two 'grantee-defined metrics' it seems to me that you have selected two that are rather complicated to measure and difficult to explain - quality of articles relating to your strategic themes; and % increase in partner organisations. I note that below the table where the metrics are calculated, you have three bullet points called "table 3 notes" in which you explain why the two 'grantee defined' metrics you selected are difficult to apply to your programs. In the case of the education programs you note that "adding and improving articles as of quality under the WMAR ratios is more difficult when it comes to students" and with regards to the GLAM programs you note "We are more conservative regarding the number of counterparts because we want to continue working and strengthening the bonds with our current counterparts". Both of these statements are perfectly valid and understandable. But, if those difficulties are the case, why did you select these metrics in the first place? Wittylama (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wittylama
Thank you for your question.
Firstly, I would like to tell you that our metrics have been approved by Wikimedia Argentina’s General Assembly and the Grant has been approved and improved by our community, when our approach was already qualitative as we presented it.
According to this, I will answer your question point by point:
  1. Qualitative metrics: It is not a coincidence that our first metric is one that considers quality. The community of Wikipedia in Spanish is very concerned about the quality of the articles in the Wikimedia projects and that concern is reflected by the community of editors that has worked with us this entire year to define the ratios we have presented. This concern is present in each and every activity that we organize. When we organize an edit-a-thon or an editing contest, for instance, the editors involved in the analysis of the activity always evaluate the quality of the new articles.
The establishment of this metric responds, above all, to a need that’s present in our community. What we have done, by getting Wikimedia Argentina’s active editors involved, is bring the community together and thus establish criteria that allow everyone to evaluate similarly.
Regarding the bullet-point comments that you find underneath the grid, maybe we didn’t express ourselves correctly. We don’t think that the metrics are hard to evaluate. We meant that, education-wise, the activities cover very different levels and students of different levels. For example, in elementary school we particularly promoted photography contests, so boys and girls can improve articles through images. The learning process of high school students depends not only on the students’ level but also on the resources of the institution. Many times they work (offline) in groups in the educator’s home and each student contributes with small editions that together make a whole. These editions would not be considered of quality under WMAR ratios but are necessary to position Wikipedia in the classroom. Accordingly, we do expect quality editions from high school and university students who have the appropriate resources and also from educators involved in online activities.
That is why Wikimedia Argentina has standardized processes of evaluation. During 2016, we used templates such as this one (note that until very recently Global Metrics were compulsory, hence their presence. Also this is just an example) or we evaluated gender in this way, for instance.
The templates for this year are currently being designed.
  1. % of institutional growth: this metric expects to measure the number of new counterparts that join the Wikimedia movement through the activities organized by Wikimedia Argentina. Maybe we could have defined it as number of counterparts, but instead we translated directly from Spanish, where we use the phrase “crecimiento institucional”.
The number of new counterparts is a key metric for us. As we have explained, one of the greatest contributions from chapters is new strategic counterparts that can help improve the content of the Wikimedia projects and also become producers of content.
This year, we expect to grow significantly in terms of the number of educational counterparts and those acquired through our community. In GLAM, we have been working with counterparts that still have a lot of material, documents, books, etc to be liberated and to be made available to all.
Our strategy is to maintain these counterparts and add two new ones to complement the current shortage.
The truth is that cultural institutions in Argentina have a lot of limitations, both technical and human-wise. But we also want them to understand the importance of free culture, and that’s why our Digitalization Project is focused on technical and human support. You can see that in our case of study.
Also, we find it tricky to define, for example, the organizations with which we will carry out edit-a-thons next year since we have a portfolio of organizations with which we must define our agenda. In this metric we have not included the organizations that may only be involved in one-time activities.
We hope we have answered your doubts appropriately, Liam, and we thank you for your inquisitiveness.
Please don’t hesitate to contact us with any other questions.
Kind regards from the staff of Wikimedia Argentina.--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Questions from RightCowLeftCoast[edit]

Why this amount? What is the minimum amount that the grant submitter believes is needed to accomplish these goals? Can the grant submitter accomplish the goals stated in your proposal, without funding? If the grant submitter can't, why not? If the grant submitters grant request is not approved, what alternative sources of funding are you seeking? If only one grant is approved during this round of grant approvals, why should this grant be approved rather than all the other grant proposals--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you RightCowLeftCoast for your question. I have seen that you posted the same question to the rest of the chapters. As they already said, we hope to get the amount requested to implement the plan presented.
We can't not answer the last question. We, the chapters, all work as a network and for the same goals. We all deserve the funding support. Hugs --Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)