Grants talk:PEG/Amical/Glam & outreach

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

Thanks for the submission. I must admit that you have really a great list of projects that clearly make a good justification for the amount requested. However, I need a little bit more clarification of some estimates in the budget. In the costs for Museums and Libraries you have 8,000 and 2,000 euros respectively for Pdcost. Could you please give a further explanation of these two figures and how you came up with them? One of your measures is to raise the women editing ratio. This is one of the few main priorities of the movement, but it is very vague to say what of the activities will create a good base to increase the number of women editing. What is the current participation of the women editing the Catalan-language projects, and do you have any prediction that some of these activities you have will help better to increase the participation? In other way, I am really impressed with the number of people that will work on the activities and your long-term perspective. And since the program is expected to last more than a year, I'd like to suggest for you to measure the success periodically, so you can better manage with the weak points and additionally support the strengths. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kiril. Thanks for reading deeply our proposal and for your interesting suggestions. I comment our idea.

The per-diem cost is computed based on the number of days devoted to attend the workshops multiplied by a standard 50€ / day to pay for meals and miscellaneous costs of the monitors. On average we calculate 2 monitors for each event (400 trips for 200 events in the case of museums and and 100 trips for 50 events in libraries) so it is 25€ man/day.

We regularly survey among readers of the Catalan Wikipedia where we measure a large number of parameters. The last one was in December 2011. The results can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AIV_sondeig_WP_ca_-_Resultats_preliminars.pdf&page=1

In the Catalan edition the situation regarding the number of women is worse than in general. Only 8.5% of editors who answered the survey are women and we have failed to improve this figure. It remains constant since 2010. What has improved is the number of women who read the Catalan Wikipedia. This figure in the survey of 2011 is 23% while in the 2010 survey was 18%. This difference in the percentage of female readers has suggested that it would be interesting to do a survey on the street instead of the Internet to calibrate the data to rule out a possible lower propensity of women to answer surveys. We do not have resources do so yet.

The measurement of the impact will be done subproject by subproject and activity by activity instead of on a regular time basis because this is the frame that allows us to measure the result. This will be based on direct counting of the new editors recruited in each activity. The number of women will also be based on direct count of the number of women who have started editing thanks to the workshops and activities organized and who continue editing. We don't have a quantified prediction of the increase of women. We expect this result because our targets are sectors where women are majority.

In the next survey to be carried on about the end of 2012 (mid term of the activities) we will attempt to quantify the number of new editors recruited passively through Internet and those actively recruited thanks to the activities carried out by the association. This will allow us to improve the design of pending activities.
--Gomà (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. The idea to support activities carried out in the sectors with majority of women sounds nice, and could be a good example for the similar projects in other countries as well. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Trips[edit]

Thanks for your grant submission. I am not understanding the "Trips" column. For instance, let's take "Museum Partnerships" -- 400 trips. Is this really feasible/realistic? Are you planning to go do outreach to museums for 200 times? Abbasjnr (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Abbas. I understand the surprise for the number of programmed activities. Indeed the plan is ambitious but it is not a new activity but the following of an already started a job where museums have been progressively joining. There are two factors to consider.
The first is the opportunity to organize activities at different museums. Regarding this factor we have a particularly advantageous situation. Further down Kippleboy gives a summary list of interested museums. They have been classified according to activity level. In "A" group those who are interested in a very intense collaboration and are willing to organize a couple of activities a month. Group "B" those expecting one activity each month. And group "C" those which are staring with a couple or three activities a year. Currently we have 4 museums in group A, 6 in B and 14 in C. Hence comes the anticipation of the 200 events: 4 * 24 + 6 * 12 + 10*3 +4 * 2 = 200.
But this is not the limiting factor. In fact there are more museums pending and wiling to increase the intensity. What limits us is the ability of our people attend. The team of volunteers that we have allow us to cater a more than half of the commitments but not all. So we opened hiring a full time GLAM project manager: [1] This position was announced at the Wikipedia Vilage Pump[2] and have received several candidacies. We are choosing among the top 5 and it is expected in early next month we will hire this position. In this grant we are not asking for money to pay the salary of the professional, we are asking only for the travel and subsistence expenses of volunteers and professional attending the events. The budget for the salary come from other revenues of Amical.
--Gomà (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

GAC members who have read this request but had no comments[edit]

Needless to say I agree with the project, as presented, with an budget estimate, to make it viable. But it not falls to me to reflect on this occasion, as it coincides my role as a member of the GAC and, in turn, treasurer Amical Wikipedia, the grant applicant.--Josepnogue (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)