Jump to content

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

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Thank you for your application[edit]

Hello, WMNL team! Thank you for submitting your complete application on time. We look forward to reviewing it in the coming weeks, and will contact you if we have questions or need more information. Do you happen to have a copy of your budget in spreadsheet form? If you do, that would help us speed up our analysis. You are welcome to send that to us by Email instead of linking it from your proposal document, if that's easier.

If any questions or concerns arise on your end, please do let us know so we can help. Best, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 11:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Winifred! I will send you a budget in spreadsheet tomorrow. Regards, Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello Sandra :).I have another question. Do you have an idea when your strategy paper might be available in English? Thank you! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Goodmorning Delphine. The translation should be ready by Wednesday or Thursday. Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Questions from FDC[edit]

Thank you for this proposal, and all these detailed descriptions of the logic behind each programmatic area.
In your progress report it states that "in September we will submit a funding application for a longer running programme to a grantmaker" with regards to an e-learning conflict management training, while in this proposal's budget it refers to "30,000 requested to support Gender Gap and Community Health activities, 40,445 not yet requested". And thirdly, in the Program 1: Community health section it refers to an "e-learning module being developed by eCoachpro". Are these all referring to the same thing and, was the grant application successful (if you know yet)? Wittylama (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this question, Wittylama. Yes, it all refers to the same line of activities. The programme on online communication and conflict resolution is a longer running programme. In our budgets for 2016 and for 2017 we allocated resources to provide a basic e-learning module. At the moment, our partner e-Coachpro is developing the content for this module. In 2017, we will bring this content online. We submitted a grant application which, if successful, will cover the costs budgeted for 2017, and allow us to considerably expand the programme. We submitted the proposal on September 21 and don't know yet whether it will be successful. The grantmaker will announce their final decision late November. (By the way: the '€30,000 requested' mentioned in our proposal's budget also includes a smaller application for gender gap work related to the 100th anniversary of womens' voting rights. Also still under submission.) Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Excellent, and thanks for the super quick reply Sandra! Good luck with that extra grant too. Wittylama (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello WM Nederland! Thanks for your proposal. Only one simple question: finally do you have the detailed budget in english language? Could you upload it as soon as you can? Thanks very much. Chandice (talk), 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Chandice. Sorry for the confusion. I sent the detailed budget to WMF-staff some time ago and forgot to add it to the proposal. There now is a link. Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
@SRientjes: Please could this be moved to a subpage of the proposal, similar to Grants:APG/Proposals/2016-2017 round1/Wikimedia Ukraine/Proposal form/Detailed budget? That way it'll be easier to find again in the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Mike Peel, done! The detailed budget is now on this subpage. Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Less is More[edit]

It's important that Wikimedia observe "The Rule of Truth" (TROT); in other words, that Wikimedia publish articles that are as close to the Truth as humanly possible. The Netherland proposal is partly about window dressing, partly about political correctness, partly about Affirmative Action (for women), and partly about potential censorship (hiring and retaining editors). There's no proposal on how to best handle bias in terms of fairness in editing to the point of censorship (if the editors have their own bias and agenda on what should or should not be printed in Wikipedia, then this just propagates censorship and potential propaganda, which can quickly morph into a careless disregard for the Truth)  ; there's no proposal on how to improve the accuracy of an article or expand the knowledge base with the most accurate, unbiased information available. The Netherland's proposal is for socio-political changes not TROT improvement. $400,000 is a lot of money. And this money is best spent on upgrading the accuracy of Wikimedia: to make it as unbiased and propaganda-free as possible, so that Wikimedia will be a beacon for lovers of Truth everywhere. This money is not best spent on socio-political changes. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Disjunction (talk)

Thanks for taking the time to read WMNL's proposal, user:Disjunction - your efforts are appreciated. We share your commitment to the accuracy of Wikipedia. Our plans are based on the assumption that unbiased information is best guaranteed if Wikipedia is edited by a large and diverse group of individuals: hence our work on Gender Gap and supporting new editors. By cooperating with major libraries, archives and museum we provide editors with access to information needed to write verifiable and accuracte articles, inter alia on topics such as the natural environment and the historical interaction between the Netherlands and other parts of the world. Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

More editors?[edit]

So you want to create a healthy atmosphere and more participants? I thought the most prominent Dutch Wiki-editors had a "we are making an encyclopedia; we are not a social network or a pub"-policy. I've seen prominent editors argue that they prefer a small amount of expert-editors instead of lots of editors who have no clue on what it means to make an encyclopedia. That showed in very rude behavior towards new editors, which was passed of as "humour" by moderators. On the other side, established editors, who are friends with the moderators were protected against petty "insults" by blocking those who disagreed with them. Maybe the situation can be improved, but I believe it is a large waste of money to invest in this mess. I am glad I left the place three years ago.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reaction, User:Jeff5102 - I am sorry that you stopped editing the Dutch language Wikipedia. When we surveyed the editing community last year, many editors indicated that there was room for improvement regarding working atmosphere. Making real changes will be a slow process but I think more and more people do want things to change. And that is reason to be a little bit optimistic. Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Strategy for 2017-2020 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland[edit]

Enthusiasm for free knowledge. Strategy for 2017-2020, Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland. Adopted by the General Meeting of 24 September 2016. Linked by SindyM3

Thank you! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

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) 17:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear RightCowLeftCoast. The amount requested by WMNL is based on an assessment of the resources needed to carry out the programmes outlined in our proposal, minus the amount of funding we aim to raise from other (i.e. non-movement) sources. This is described in full in our proposal and the detailed budget.
WMNL, like other chapters, exists to provide support to Wikimedia-volunteers and the Wikimedia-mission. This support can be in staff time for logistics, communication and project management, or financial support to cover costs of travel, event organising and small grants. Both types of support inevitably come with a price-tag. So, no - it would not be possible to accomplish our goals without funding.
Your last question I find impossible to answer. As said, all the chapters applying for an Annual Plan Grant exist to support Wikimedia-communities. Why would one community be more deserving of support than another? Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply