Grants talk:IEG/Art+Feminism Editathon training materials and network building

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Finalize your proposal by September 30![edit]

Hi Theredproject. Thank you for drafting this proposal!

  • We're hosting one last IEG proposal help session in Google Hangouts this weekend, so please join us if you'd like to get some last-minute help or feedback as you finalize your submission.
  • Once you're ready to submit it for review, please update its status (in your page's Probox markup) from DRAFT to PROPOSED, as the deadline is September 30th.
  • If you have any questions at all, feel free to contact me (IEG committee member) or Siko (IEG program head), or just post a note on this talk page and we'll see it.

Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

I am curious why this domain was chosen, and if it has already been purchased? I see this email address associated with this proposal is artandfeminismwiki(_AT_) Give it some thought, but if "wiki" is an integral part of the project, you might consider a .wiki domain instead (, or similar; subdomains could also apply). FULL DISCLOSURE: I am affiliated with the registry behind .wiki, so consider this a COI, but I just thought I would float the idea. Could be a good option for this project, and, in my opinion, it's a little catchier! --Another Believer (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Another Believer we have not bought any domains. I think there are actually two other answers required to your question. One is about TLDs: we did not realize one could get a .wiki TLD, and were basing our decision of the .org TLD that is prevalent on (all?) WMF project sites. We decided on, so we could easily host subdomains, e.g. and wouldn't work very well. What do others think about the .wiki TLD in this case? --Theredproject (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Yes, the .wiki TLD is one of many released recently. I think the same naming system could apply to .wiki:,, etc… Just another thought. --Another Believer (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Another Believer- I'd love to talk with you more about options for a website/wiki/domain. As Theredproject says, we haven't yet bought a domain and are still looking into options in terms of design/structure/format. OR drohowa (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2014[edit]

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2014 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2014 begins on 21 October 2014, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Jtud (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

relationship between IEG and PEG[edit]

Hi there, and thank you for your proposal.

It's nice to see that you've done extensive liaising with other on-wiki communities. I am curious though if you have already reached out to translator communities to see about coordinating efforts to make your resources more accessible to ambassadors/participants working on non-English Wikipedias?

I also wondered if you could speak to how the IEG goals will be affected if the PEG for operational costs is not (fully or otherwise) awarded?
-Thepwnco (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments. We haven't looked into having the materials translated into other languages and welcome any suggested contacts you might have. As for the grant being in two parts, we had conversations with Siko (WMF) and AWang (WMF) and they decided it would be best to split the grant into two grants, an IEG and PEG. --Failedprojects (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Siko (WMF): is it possible to publish here your thought about grants been split? For me it's much better to evaluate the project in whole that evaluate separate parts bearing in mind that they are highly dependent on each other rubin16 (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rubin16, glad you asked :) It is a bit of an experiment split into 2 grants, but here's why we think it makes sense: The group is in this case asking for operating costs to continue running local events for 1 year. That clearly fits into PEG's scope, rather than IEG - funding repeat local events isn't really what we do here, and our initial investment in IEG is generally 6 months...continuing these local events should not be dependent on an IEG. What is within IEG's scope, though, is the focus here to build systems that can scale beyond this group's local events, by building larger networks and materials for others to use to grow this into a program around the world. This type of time-consuming and experimental community-building is work that goes beyond the scope of the usual PEG project, and something that an IEG may be well-placed to support. It wouldn't be the first time there was some cross-funding between programs: in the past IEG has funded the Grants:IEG/Women_Scientists_Workshop_Development project, but left it to PEG to fund the local event operations. In the case of this project, you may choose to recommend IEG funding be contingent on PEG funding, if you feel that is necessary...the PEG decision should be made well before we're finalizing funding in IEG. Does that help? Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for comments! Now I understand better the underlying logics, I will think about it now but I do agree with your approach rubin16 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relationship between "gender gap," editor sex and/or gender, and content coverage[edit]

First, I like this project! In my own work, I've had to answer questions re: the connection[s] between the "gender gap," editor sex and/or gender, and content coverage. In your proposal, you state: "Content is skewed by the lack of female participation." How might your IEG and/or PEG provide some empirical evidence for this claim, too? --Mssemantics (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you asking for evidence of this phenomena to justify the grant or asking if this project will provide new evidence? --Failedprojects (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a study indicating that articles about movies scored higher by women on an external site are less developed than movies scored higher by men. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wage justification[edit]

The wage is currently unjustified, for instance the proposal doesn't outline previous work experience in the field for the persons. --Nemo 08:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:Nemo_bis. Each of the organizers, who would be compensated for their labor, per this proposal, are listed and described at Grants:IEG/Art+Feminism Editathon training materials and network building#Participants. Each User page en:Wiki, offers more information about the background and Wiki experience of each organizer. The rate of compensation $25/hr, is based on an average rate of pay for an events coordinator/community organizer in New York City. Based on other recent IEG grants where organizer/project representatives have requested compensation, the precedent does not seem to be that previous work experience is outlined directly on the grant. Thanks, OR drohowa (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just a bystander and I don't care about precedents. When you ask a wage for activities that are normally done by volunteers, I want to see a justification, period. The grant doesn't need to include full CVs, but should at least state that a previous professional experience exists. Anyway, I now read the user page and they don't contain anything. --Nemo 07:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nemo, from what I'm reading in your demands for justification here, it feels like you are using proposals like this one to promote a personal view that time for community organizing should not (or rarely) be funded. If that's the case, this is not the venue for this type of conversation - at present, IEG is very willing to fund time for community organizing within reasonable benchmarks, and the proposers have provided the requested info to accomplish this.
As for the non-bystanders, I think we've got enough information about this particular line item in this proposal at this point. Thanks to the proposers for including the details they have about roles, past experience and location, that is sufficient for our benchmarking purpose. If the committee recommends this proposal and additional info is needed to confirm or adjust specific line-items of the budget, we can discuss it further in due diligence. Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, as a former Wikimedia chapter board member who has had exhaustive discussions in the past about such things, let me say that I completely understand the background of Nemo's question and I think some extra interpretation is required. There is a difference between project management of events and volunteer hours spent hosting or assisting at events. As a willing volunteer for local events I need to be regularly alerted by paid project managers because otherwise I just wouldn't know about various planned activities. Historically, one of WMNL's biggest challenges is actually using the funding they had reserved for activities due to a lack of such project management. The past few years this has improved dramatically with the addition of paid employees doing just this. Now the main challenge facing WMNL is finding willing volunteers and discovering ways to contact them - especially those who may only login to Wikipedia projects once every few months or so. Having said all that, I would agree that it is normal to state why these specific people should be hired, though frankly past experience is probably not even relevant as we are dealing with a green field here on the Art&Feminism subject. Jane023 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops! Sorry I just realized the user profiles have already been listed in the proposal. My bad, Jane023 (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organizer Comments on Sydney Editathon[edit]

There is an Art+Feminism editathon being organized at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney, Australia this weekend. Over 150 people have signed up on Facebook. We learned yesterday evening (via several channels, including the care and diligence of User:Wittylama) that the organizers have no wiki experience beyond the training modules, which they have completed. We are very happy that Art+Feminism is able to inspire 150 new editors and organizers to get involved, though it is unfortunate that they did not follow the advice/guidelines on our HowTo page which we sent them.

We the Art+Feminism organizers, as well as members of the community, have concern that while well intentioned, this editathon may not result in the best outcome. While this is not our direct event, we have taken steps (below) to ensure the best possible outcome.

We want to make clear that Art+Feminism is rhizomatic: we do not vet events, and we do not have control over satellite events. This is part of what has allowed it to grow. We let Edit-a-thons pretty freely adopt our branding, and list their events on the Art+Feminism page. We provide clear guidelines and advice on the HowTo page, as well as mentorship/ambassadorship support when requested through our talk pages, email list, or email account. In many/most cases these events are spearheaded by a team that already has at least one experienced editor, and in every other case the group has read our HowTo, and followed up with a request to be put in touch with an ambassador in their city. In each of these cases, we have found someone.

During the international editathon on February 1st, 2013, we had extensive communication with the 30 event organizers leading up to the event, finding ambassadors for almost every location event. We also had a Livestream tutorial video during the event for the more remote locations that were not able to find Wikipedian facilitators. This coming year (March 8th, 2015) we plan a more extensive training and outreach program, as detailed in these two paired grants.

We first communicated with the organizer from Sydney in September, and directed them to the HowTo page, and encouraged them to be in touch if they had questions. Unfortunately they did not. This is a first for us, and going forward, we should consider checking in with every event organizer that posts an event on the meet up page.

For this event, within hours of realizing that there was a problem, we:

  • arranged for an experienced wikipedian ambassador for the event
    • She will arrive early and do a train the trainers session, and then assist throughout the event
  • arranged for the ambassador to be given Account Creator permissions (Thank you User:Lankiveil!)
  • arranged to give video chat training to the facilitators
  • created an event page
  • urged the organizers to require that the editors focus exclusively on improving existing pages, rather than creating new pages, to avoid having new editors face speedy deletions. They will do so. They will be working from this list: en:Australian_feminist_art_timeline which has a four year edit history, and few redlinks.

It is worth noting that the IEG component of our proposal/project will ensure that this does not happen in the future by:

  • systematizing and documenting best practices for organizing an Art + Feminism event (or really any Gender Gap event)
    • for example: we have found that attendance rates are typically 25% - 50% of total FB attendance, so they should probably expect 35-75 people, not 150.
  • establishing a network of ambassadors to call upon to facilitate these events

We hope that this clarifies the origins, outcomes, and our takeaways from this situation. We don't pretend to know all the answers, and welcome the guidance and mentorship of more experienced organizers, especially as this project moves overseas, where we are less familiar.

On behalf of my collaborators--Theredproject (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to add to Theredproject's comments- I created the page, Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/TrainingLessonPlan, and have been coordinating with User:Wittylama,, User:99of9, User:Lankiveil, and Wikipedian Lindsay Kelley to get at least 1 Wikipedia organizer there doing a training on the day of. Update: it looks like we have found at least 2 Wikipedians to help out with this event and are helping to find more, even though this has been last minute. Thanks, OR drohowa (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An update from the facilitators: User:Lindsaytorte and report that everything went very smoothly.--Theredproject (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, the organizer Diana Smith reported back over email that they had around 50-60 enthusiastic people throughout the day with around 25 serious participants who came prepared with their laptops. That correlates with the sign ins on the event page--Theredproject (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for posting! I find it touching that you already feel so much responsibility for non-US events. That's great, but you won't get any less support from me if you just concentrate on the US. I think that is going to take a lot of energy, and language issues will only lead to burn-out probably. Maybe a separate grant could create materials for use by non-English chapters and Thorgs? Jane023 (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for callling Scope Creep on us, Jane023! That is a good idea to bracket this part at EN, and let the second phase for non EN be a second grant.--Theredproject (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Art+Feminism Editathon training materials and network building[edit]

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background) Score
1=weak alignment 10=strong alignment
(A) Impact potential
  • Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities?
  • Does it have potential for online impact?
  • Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
(B) Innovation and learning
  • Does it take an Innovative approach to solving a key problem?
  • Is the potential impact greater than the risks?
  • Can we measure success?
(C) Ability to execute
  • Can the scope be accomplished in 6 months?
  • How realistic/efficient is the budget?
  • Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
(D) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
  • Does it support diversity?
Comments from the committee:
  • Love the use of non-wiki materials and website with a view to future expansion
  • The results of the first Art&Feminism edit-a-thons were great, whether or not newbies stuck around. Great for increasing coverage of underrepresented topics as well as shifting biases, though we should not expect retention of these new editors.
  • Much needed addition to gendergap work in English Wikipedia, though it is limited to English language, and largely North America.
  • Some concerns about the way this may be received by chapters around the world. Would like to see a feedback loop that enables chapters to tap into this proposal as a way to help achieve their own local gendergap goals.
  • Ideas about how to capture and keep some of the enthusiasm from events are great.
  • Low on Wikipedian engagement, but high on target-community engagement.
  • Supports diversity and is designed with the specific intent to sustain community engagement and empower individuals within the target community.
  • Project has potential for online impact if the proposed deliverables (a systematic review and documentation of best practices for organizing an Art + Feminism event) are produced.
  • Scope can be accomplished within the proposed timeframe - encouraging to see that the necessary workshops ("train the trainers") are already scheduled and being planned.
  • The +Feminism group has proved to be popular in terms of gaining both press attention and participants at its events, and the grantees have a lot of relevant experience between them in terms of project and event management, training, and development of educational materials.
  • Not a risky approach -- capable people generating materials for an existing audience. Easy to measure success in terms of framework created.
  • Not necessarily innovative. Perhaps should be all-PEG funded?
  • Metrics are missing exciting and challenging targets.
  • May be over-promising the ability to train editors and workshop leaders in few sessions.

Thank you for submitting this proposal. The committee is now deliberating based on these scoring results, and WMF is proceeding with its due-diligence. You are welcome to continue making updates to your proposal pages during this period. Funding decisions will be announced by early December. — ΛΧΣ21 16:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider this another project endorsement...[edit]

Round 2 2014 decision[edit]

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, $14175

Comments regarding this decision:
Looking forward to seeing the facilitator network expand, and working together with PEG to create a reporting and check-in framework to support this project effectively. We encourage you to consider taking on another Wikipedian advisor as well - will send over some suggestions soon!

Next steps:

  1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
  2. Review the information for grantees.
  3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
  4. Start work on your project!
Questions? Contact us.

--Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another project advisor[edit]

Hi team,

As you continue to build your support system for this initiative, I wanted to suggest an additional project advisor to you:

Thepwnco serves on the IEG committee that selected your project for funding. She has experience with online community organizing, outreach, and human-computer interaction, and is really passionate about building capacity for non-coders to contribute to open source projects. I think you all should get along well. Hope you'll be in touch together to connect in coming weeks as your project moves forward! I'll make sure there is space for another advisor in your project's probox now, so that once you've agreed to move forward one of you can just add the username in the space provided (or let me know if you need help doing this).

Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Siko (WMF) for the introduction, and a warm hello to Theredproject, Failedprojects, Siankevans, and OR drohowa! I'd be thrilled to serve as another advisor to the team. If you're willing to have me, please let me know, and I'll add my username to infobox on the grant page. -Thepwnco (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Thepwnco, we welcome your advice and assistance. Most of our internal communication is via email. Can you email me --- michael(_AT_)mandiberg*com --- and we can go from there.--Theredproject (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]