Grants talk:IEG/Comprehensive and wiki-like training pages

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

Why an IEG?[edit]

Hi Biosthmors, Thanks for sharing this idea! Can you tell us a bit more in your proposal about how a grant would help complete this project? What could you do with $40 and 6 months of grantmaking support that you couldn't/wouldn't do as a volunteer? Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Siko, thanks for asking. I think having an accepted grant will be a powerful motivator for me. I see the opportunity as great because I hope to eventually say that "I was entrusted with community money and I made Wikipedia a better place because of it". I see this desire as a natural one that builds upon Maslow's hierarchy of needs, given my passion for the place. I am also motivated by deadlines, and I have too many unexplored ideas about how to improve Wikipedia. An accepted grant will allow me to collaborate with the team here, to build relationships, and to deliver a structured product to the community. I also hope to use both of my grants as material to present at a Wikimania 2014 talk. I would be happy to meet with you over Skype or anyone from the Grants team to discuss further. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, it is helpful to have you clarify in this way. We've heard from some grantees in the past that they find the structure/deadlines/focus as-if-not-more helpful than the money, and I think this adds some useful info to that picture for grantmakers, committee members, etc to consider. Best, Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Oops and please let me know if I should explain any of that in the proposal itself. I didn't notice the "in your proposal" part to your original posting. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, it might not hurt to add some more explanation to the budget section of your proposals, so that folks don't need to hunt for it here :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a very good point. =) Biosthmors (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A couple of clarifications?[edit]

Can you clarify a bit what you expect the outcome would be for people taking the training? You say "enable editing and viewing through scrolling up and down a single page" and "A reduced number-count of slides could be a benefit by reducing the time required for training" — are you suggesting that people *taking* the training would do so on this page, or are you suggesting that by putting all of the slides one one page, editors would be able to see the entirety of the content, identify slides that can be removed, and remove them, and thus lead to fewer slides overall? It's unclear to me from the proposal now.

Can you also add more information about why you think changes to the content are needed? I'm not convinced significant edits to the content of these slides are needed; they've been adapted from a training slide deck we've been using since 2010, and thousands of students have gone through the training at this point. The feedback we get from students is generally quite positive in regard to the content, and the templates have been set up the way they have for easy porting to other language Wikipedias in support of the educational efforts underway in more than 60 countries. The feedback I've gotten from education program leaders globally who have translated or who are in the process of translating the slides is also overwhelmingly positive about the content of the training. While I certainly agree being able to see all the content on one page makes it easier to look holistically at the content, I don't see changes to the content being a particular necessity. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments LiAnna. I have made adjustments to the grant proposal. Please let me know if other changes would help. Strictly speaking, for the purposes of this grant, I have no firm expectations of changed outcomes for those taking the training. I just hope this small project might catalyze improvements, generally speaking. I suspect I'll find some minor things that could be tweaked here and there, which if I do, will be very valuable considering how many people take these trainings. But those edits aren't guaranteed to accompany this grant proposal itself.
I'm sorry my words read as ambiguous. I have changed some, I can change more. I do mean that by putting all of the slides one one page, editors would be able to see the entirety of the content. That's all I'm going for, strictly speaking. But I do want to look at the big picture in my volunteer time. I recently asked Sage Ross about who did the training videos. He said he did. I might try my hand at some in the future, and I hope this exercise will help me gear me up for that activity—even if future training videos won't be incorporated into these four training modules.
And I agree with you when you say that I'm not convinced significant edits to the content of these slides are needed. I just think this grant will simply force me and others to look, and it will also leave behind a sustainable place where others can look too. I find community value in the cognitive benefits of being able to see all the pages in one place. I hope this will further catalyze future projects. Biosthmors (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Time[edit]

As you're clarifying scope based on the above question, here is a follow-up as well :) How much time would you guess is needed to complete a project like this? At first glance, this sounds like a few hours/days work...curious to hear more about how a 6-month scope would be relevant for what you've got in mind. Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think hours to days is right, but as IEGs have no minimum amount, I'm taking advantage of this option. I'm also still motivated by deadlines and I want to collaborate with the team here. I could use the pages I create to then generate ideas for training videos I might submit for IEG's in the next round. I hope to use the reports I generate as opportunities to collaborate with the team to generate future ideas and possible projects. In addition to the IEG venue, is there a micro-grant program the WMF runs that might be more ideally suited for small projects? Or are small projects still welcome here? =) Biosthmors (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2013[edit]

IEG review.png

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

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

The committee's formal review for round 2 begins on 23 October 2013, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Siko (WMF) (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A script[edit]

Biosthmors, please see this script and its output (for the "For students" section of training), for which I only had to manually specify the order of slides in an input file. What do you think of its role in this proposed project? And how do the slides know which one is the next (I don't see it in their own source code of each individual slide)? Gryllida 08:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This, at first glance, appears remarkably awesome (and exactly what I was thinking an end-product would look like). I'll need to evaluate further to test it! Biosthmors (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
What has your evaluation come up with?
--Gryllida 20:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I haven't evaluated it yet. I'm giving a talk this Monday, so I expect next week I can devote some time to it. :-/ Sorry. I did, however, spot a factual error in the training materials which was fixed yesterday. Yay. Biosthmors (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Comprehensive and wiki-like training pages[edit]

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background) Score
1=weakest 5=strongest
Potential for impact
(A) The project fits with the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities 3.5
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact. 3.5
(C) The impact of the project can be sustained after the grant ends. 3.5
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects. 3.5
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 3
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4.5
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds. 4.5
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it. 4
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement. 2.5
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact. 4
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 3.5
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 3.5
Comments from the committee:
  • Committee was unclear on the purpose of taking on a grant for such a small amount of funding
  • The low budget reduced some risks from taking on this project, but also felt like a lack of commitment or significant investment on the part of the proposer - this could be an independent weekend project, perhaps not worth the bureaucratic investment involved in a grant.
  • Decent idea, but unlikely to improve Wikimedia projects beyond English Wikipedia.

Thank you for submitting this proposal. The committee is now deliberating based on these scoring results.

Funding decisions will be announced by December 16. — ΛΧΣ21 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Status update[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!

Comments regarding this decision:
We appreciate your engagement throughout this process, and wish you best of luck continuing working on this project in the IdeaLab - glad to see that the proposal garnered you a script to help complete this easily as a volunteer, if you’d still like to do so.

Next steps:

  1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
  2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
  3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
  4. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.