Grants talk:IEG/AutoresAr

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

April 12 Proposal Deadline: Reminder to change status to 'proposed'[edit]

@Scanno and Zeroth: The deadline for Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) submissions this round is April 12th, 2016. To submit your proposal, you must (1) complete the proposal entirely, filling in all empty fields, and (2) change the status from "draft" to "proposed." As soon as you’re ready, you should begin to invite any communities affected by your project to provide feedback on your proposal talkpage. If you have any questions about finishing up or would like to brainstorm with us about your proposal, we're hosting an IEG proposal help session tomorrow on April 12th from 16:00 - 17:00 UTC on Google Hangouts.

I'm also happy to set up an individual session tomorrow if needed.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

why a separate database instead of wikidata[edit]

Why make a separate database instead of putting the records in wikidata, possibly with a front end to display the relevant data in a way that fits your audience's needs? To be clear, I don't necessarily think it should be in Wikidata, I'd just like to see a rationale for the choices made. Bawolff (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Hello Bawolff, first of all, thank you! for taking the time to read the proposal. I think that there are many reasons why this should be a separate database. First of all, diversity is a good thing! Not necessarily all things need to be created inside Wikimedia projects, although it's really simple to export the content afterwards, in the same way in which AutoresUy is already doing (we already have a lash in the website for doing so, although it's still not connected to our database because we're still working on arranging some of those things). Second, it's not just an audience thing -it's also making a simple, friendly GUI for the people that are entering the data into the database. We also want to showcase better the public domain works, something not so easy to do inside Commons and Wikisource (and believe me, we've tried!). And lastly, the idea of the database is not only to have a centralized register of argentinean authors, but we also think of it as an instrument to give some copyright law discussions. Often, legislators have the idea that "public domain is an abyss" in which PD works simply "fall", or even worse, that it's "no-man's land". Having this kind of registers of its own, respecting our own cultural context, will allow us, when having these kind of discussions, to show that it's not an abyss but a thriving garden of beautiful works, in a simple, accessible manner for non-experts. If the point is still unclear, I can explain it better or expand it. --Scanno (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Scanno: Hi Scanno. Both Bawolff and Superzerocool have both mentioned an important point here that I didn't pick up on in our initial conversation: If the goal here is to build an external database to highlight public domain content, it should be designed and harnessed in a way that fits with improvements in content quality or increased participation in Wikimedia projects. These are two strategic priorities that could fit with this proposal. Therefore, a commitment and plan on how you intend for the material to be incorporated into Wikidata, Commons, or other Wikimedia projects, should be prioritized. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): Hi Jethro, where should I add that kind of information? The idea is to use the database as an input for workshops. Right now, if an author appears in Wikipedia, is linked inside the index card, but most authors (or at least, not-so-well-known authors) don't have an article in Wikipedia, even when they meet the criteria to have an article inside WP. That's something easy to solve through the database, just by doing a search inside it by "missing WP link" (is an internal category of the database). So, the idea is to run the workshops using the database + the bibliographic resources to improve quality & quantity of the articles. Besides that, the database has an export data lash that could be used to import data inside Wikidata. But I don't have clear where I should add that info. In the part of activities is also stated that the idea is to conduct some WP edit-a-thons that will add content to both sites. Best. --Scanno (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Scanno: Thanks, I think the clarification here and on the proposal under Activities that the workshops will focus on direct improvements to author profiles on Wikipedia using the database is helpful. It might also be helpful, under What is the problem... to link to previous attempts to implement something like this using Wikidata / Commons, so folks understand that those approaches may not be practical. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
autores.ar it's intendend to be an index of every argentinian author, (in public domain or not) and of every kind of work (sound, plastic works, texts, photographs, movies, etc.). It has some differences with wikidata, wikisources and commons, like the possibility to show statics of argentinian authors by public domain vs. private domain vs. unknown status, gender, geographic location, etc. Easy way of searching works and authors by the kind of work they created, etc. Anyway, the objective of autores.ar is not to sustitute any project, but to complement the kind of things you can do with one or the other, and the contents and data generated by autores.ar will be easily imported into those projects, like autores.uy is doing. Moreover, autores.uy (and soon has been of great help in the creation of articles in editathons for example, since you have one place in which to look for the authors that doesn't exists in wikipedia. The same thing happens with commons and commons/wikisources: it's easier to search for authors in public domain to digitize in a database whose main objective is to identify the public domain authors and works, and later upload this work to commons/wikisources, that the other way around.--Zeroth (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Scanno: [Responding to your first response]: I'm not sure I agree that diversity is a good thing when it comes to structured data. It seems to me that fragmentation of data sources makes it hard to use data in a consistent way. I personally think it would be cooler to have a simple interface for adding this type of info, that uses Wikidata as the backend (via OAuth), and then a custom front end to expose information in ways that suit your target audience's needs. But taking that approach might represent a lot more work, and it sounds like the separate database approach already exists. Bawolff (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Sorry for the delayed response, crazy weeks. Indeed, as you stated, doing what you're suggesting takes a lot more work (and possibly a lot more money), and besides, it's something I'm definitely not capable of doing (and I believe I might not even be able to judge who could be suitable for doing that job). The separate database approach already exists because Autores.Uy started the project and then exchanged the information needed with us, so we didn't have such a hard time in deploying the interface. However, I do think that something that we could incorporate to the project is a better way to export the dataset so as to make it easier to import the data into Wikidata. Any piece of advise on how to export/do this in a better way, would be highly appreciated. Best, --Scanno (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Some questions[edit]

Hi, thanks for your proposal. I've read all it, but I have some question:

  • Why the WMF will fund an external project (creating/expand an external database) if exists Wikidata?
  • You want buy two cameras for the DIY scanner. After the grant ends, What will happen with the cameras?

Thanks in advance! Superzerocool (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Superzerocool: Hello Superzerocool, as I said to Bawoulff, thank you for reading the proposal. Regarding your questions, the first one it's some way already answered above. But to make something something clear: the money is not for creating the database, which is already created and already hosted in some place else. We're asking money to buy bibliographic resources, buy some cameras for the DIY Book Scanner, and a few extras (such as graphic design) to make our project better, and to improve outreach of the whole project (expanding, spreading the database + creating/improving WP articles on argentinean authors + digitizing/uploading PD works to both projects). The datasets can be exported from the AutoresAr database, and then imported to Wikidata easily, and we could add that commitment to our project if needed (as AutoresUy is already doing), but we believe that as for today it's easier for different reasons to start entering the data into this special database. Regarding your second question, I think it's a good question and we could add that information in the "Sustainability" part of the project. Our idea is to keep on digitalizing public domain works, and eventually we'd like to leave the DIY BS in a library if possible. We're searching for a library that can have the DIY BS open to the public, in the sense that if someone has a PD work that he/she would like to digitalize, but doesn't have the means to do it, can do it inside this library. We've been involved in conversations with several libraries regarding this point but they have their own times :) . Anyway, to make long story short, after funding of the project ends, our idea is to keep on digitalizing works, and place the DIY BS in some place where all people can use it. Feel free to ask me any other question you might have. --Scanno (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed[edit]

Inspire astrocat aqua.png

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for review and scoring. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period (through 2 May 2016).

The committee's formal review begins on 3 May 2016, and grants will be announced 17 June 2016. See the round 1 2016 schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us at iegrants@wikimedia · org .

Noting that this proposal will require further review and possible revisions to confirm eligibility for funding, but I am sending it through for scoring by the committee. IEG supports work that improves Wikimedia projects, not third party sites. To the extent that this project is primarily focused on improving AutoresAr, it may not be eligible. However, the significant emphasis on harnessing volunteers to create content on Commons, WikiSource and Wikipedia is within scope. Thanks, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mjohnson (WMF): Thanks! I can always add extra activities and reduce the number of activities for AutoresAr, if that's the problem. The idea is to use the data in AutoresAr as part of the input sources to expand/improve/create Wikipedia articles, and add works in the public domain from Argentina. --Scanno (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for AutoresAr[edit]

Scoring rubric Score
(A) Impact potential
  • Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both?
  • Does it have the potential for online impact?
  • Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
6.7
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
5.7
(C) Ability to execute
  • Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe?
  • Is the budget realistic/efficient ?
  • Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
6.8
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
5.7
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • The project has some online impact, but on a different site.
  • Great idea.
  • A comprehensive database of public domain works for a country could be used as a framework for automated, large-scale incorporation of those works into various Wikimedia projects, particularly Commons and Wikisource. The evolution of AutoresAr from AutoresUy indicates a high potential for scaling this approach to other countries.
  • In improving accessibility to public domain works, this project fits into WMF strategy. However, by placing all this information in an external database with no apparent links to Wikidata or the Wikipedias, this may be out of scope. Wikimedia communities also play no significant role in this project.
  • Interesting idea, but the activities don't seem to match with the initial proposal.
  • The measurable metrics are clearly defined, but some of them cannot be measured on Wikimedia projects.
  • Yes, this project would make use of an existing project with a solid group of users, and would replicate that for the local language. Smart thinking.
  • The proposed projects entails minimal risk and has a robust set of quantitative measures of success.
  • This proposal has clear parameters for measuring success, but anticipates little or no impact for Wikimedia projects.
  • The main participants have sufficient skills to accomplish this project, but some activities would depend on new volunteers.
  • Yes, this project is very doable, as this has been partly done already.
  • The proposed schedule and budget are reasonable for the proposed work.
  • Planning, skills and budget look good.
  • There is confusion around the activities, as they may not match the goals of the proposal.
  • This proposal has some community support.
  • There are a high number of endorsements for this project and also from users of the model.
  • The proposal has a limited but reasonable degree of community engagement, and strongly supports geographic/cultural/linguistic diversity.
  • This is quite detached from the communities and there is not much community involvement in the plan.
  • Creating an external site may not be the best IEG project to fund at this time.
  • The Wikiverse needs to protect reliable sources wherever it can, and build on Wikisource and beyond, like this does. This is fundamental to the future of the movement.
  • I would support this, but not as an external database, and ultimately would not support, because the necessary changes would be massive. The database should be part of Wikidata and copyright information, and the project’s presentation should draw information from Wikidata, even if presented and discussed elsewhere.
  • Interesting idea, but the proposal should match more of its initial goals.
  • I do not believe graphics design is especially vital for the project. I am also not completely sure of other items in the budget, as they seem too imprecise. This project may be better suited for a chapter since it would involve cooperation by local authorities in addition to the actual work.

--MJue (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the IEG Committee