Grants talk:IEG/Expo 2015: Contributing to Wikipedia at Expo 2015

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

Problem statement[edit]

@Yiyi and Giuditta Nelli: Hey there. This is an interesting event to have Wikipedia represented at, and I like the set of events you've planned out here. I'm a little confused by the problem statement-- I'm not seeing a problem per se aside from the idea that not going to Expo would be a missed opportunity. It seems to be mostly about the venue, and less on what you want to solve with this grant. You've written that your proposal addresses the "improving quality" initiative, and while it's clear that your events are consistent with that initiative, your problem statement doesn't really contain much in the way about it. What types of content do you seek to have improved through these events, and why? I JethroBT (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Dear I JethroBT, related to the problem: yes, Expo is an opportunity. This is the short and most consensual answer, but this thing of the opportunity is rather a tricky one. Below my personal point of view (I actually checked with Dario if it was ok to say it); it is an issue related to the project, our introduction mentions it, but I do not think the project need to focus on it: I think it is much more fun to focus on what we can do.
So, going back to the opportunities, in Italy for the last years we have been told consistently that Expo is an opportunity: for Italy, Lombardy and Milan, for the infrastructures, for tourism, for the number of visitors, for the visibility, for projects and initiatives. “Ma che hai capito. Lo facciamo per i soldi" ("you are not getting it right, we do it for the money”) – explained me two years ago the promoter of a side-project of Expo. Well, Expo is indeed an opportunity but this all thing about opportunities has been a trap at many levels.
Our proposal is a Wikimedia project – conceived with our tools and approach – addressing a real Italian problem: the shame for what this international event – Expo – has become: a portrait of the worst dynamics Italy can be a setting for. What is horrifying is that this is not what we – Italians – are, and there are many people involved in Expo contributing honestly to it.
Giving our contribution to this event with a focus on content (quality) is a way to shift the perspective. In the contest of Expo this has a peculiar meaning and involves a series of side problems: A. the meaning of "content" is distorted: at the moment "nutrition" is far from being considered the content of Expo; when we talk about the content of Expo people are much more used in thinking about corruption, mafia and speculations. We want to reset the focus on nutrition, a topic with an enciclopedic relevance, and cultural heritage, which is linked to the experience visitors will have in our territory (and they can eventually contribute to. For more information about the content we will focus on please refer to content in the table under measures of success and please do not hesitate to let us know if you think further details should be provided) B. asking Expo to release documentation under cc by-sa brings up the reasonable question if in five-years time people taking the decision of releasing content for commercial use will be persecuted for an abuse. Crimes are definitely something different, but the current investigations are putting all people linked to Expo in a situation of fear and incertitude, even if adopting an open license versus stealing millions of euros and working with the mafia are very very different things and do not have any point in common. Clarifying the differences by involving people and institutions in releasing content under cc by-sa is a relevant challenge.
In this scenario, we – Wikimedians with our focus on free encyclopaedic knowledge for anyone – look undoubtedly pretty naïf. Excellent: this is exactly what is needed, it is not naïf and it is simply a healthy contribution in a pretty distorted situation Italians – and all the network of Expo – are currently immerse in (and I do not mention here also the even widest controversies about national and nationalist representations implied in the format of universal exhibitions deeply rooted in the wold imperialist history, another relevant issue related to this event).
To conclude Expo is indeed an opportunity: not only for Italy, Lombardy and Milan, for the infrastructures, for tourism, for the number of visitors, for the visibility, for projects and initiatives, but also to increase quality about nutrition and cultural heritage on the Wikimedia projects, to involve our community, and to invite a rather large number of people to contribute to free knowledge. We are aware of the problem framing this proposal and we are providing our solution which is not political, but focused on content, and coherent and consistent with the Wikimedia mission. We trust the lesson learned from this experience can be relevant also for other Wikimedians wanting to engage in similar situations, unfortunately not so uncommon. Furthermore it is relevant for our encyclopedia to improve content related to cultural heritage and nutrition (sessions of articles about countries, articles about culture and cuisine, articles about agriculture and techniques of production...). --iopensa (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Wikimedia Italia[edit]

Thanks for submitting this proposal. I can see that Wikimedia Italia members are involved and endorsing, but I'm curious to hear why a project like this isn't being led directly by WMIT? Particularly since institutional partnerships are involved, this seems like a logical fit for a chapter. Curious to hear your thoughts, Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[]

I might have misread, but:
  1. I don't see any mention of a fiscal sponsor and if there is no need for one then I see little reason for more intermediaries, when Iolanda is supervising;
  2. I also don't see any mention of institutional partnerships to set up or sign so I assume there will be none: "only" some sinergies with the mentioned GLAM activities, which are 100 % WMIT projects (conducted by members under board supervision), and with Wikimania 2016, which has its own "consortium" behind.
I'd like WMF to clarify if a fiscal sponsor is needed/financially advisable; and the grantees to clarify whether they plan to need institutional support e.g. for trademarks use. --Nemo 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[]
To clarify, Nemo, this question wasn't raised based on seeing a need for fiscal sponsorship, and I don't think that's the issue here. I expect that the individual proposers here have a bank account that would work just fine in terms of funds-transfer. It is more that this is an event happening in Italy, and we have a Wikimedia organization also in Italy, so we want to better understand the points of connection. In general, WMF grantmaking would prefer to not fund something that a Chapter is best placed to support, so that's more the line of inquiry here. Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Hi Siko, thanks for your question. I am speaking on behalf of Wikimedia Italia here. We have been in touch with Yiyi and iopensa, which - by the way - are members of Wikimedia Italia, since the inception of the project and we have been discussing the possibility to present this project through the chapter itself. We are ready to provide them with any support they need, especially with communication, but they felt it was easier for them given the nature and budget associated with this project to go through IEG. The contacts with the Expo's communication team have been initiated, held and led by Iolanda and the concept of the project has entirely been developed by Yiyi and her so we don't want to "hijack" their project, especially if they feel that this format is more suitable to their needs. That said, on the partnership side some details have still to be ironed out with the Expo's communication team, but we are ready to sign a partnership (as Wikimedia Italia, I mean) if needed. --CristianCantoro (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Hi, CristianCantoro. Thanks for this reply - it is useful to understand from Wikimedia Italia's perspective, and to hear that you are ready to provide support where needed as well! It will also be useful to hear from the proposers a bit more about their perspective in terms of the nature and budget associated with this project that makes it a better fit for WMF funding. Just to be clear, this isn't a large show-stopping issue I'm raising here, it is simply something we want to be sure we understand the nuances of, in order to figure out how to support cases like this most effectively for the movement. Best wishes, Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Please find below my reply. --iopensa (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Moving to a Project and Event Grant[edit]

Hi Yiyi, giudittaN and iopensa

Thanks for this thoughtful submission! Based on an initial read of your proposal, we believe this project would be a better fit for our Project and Event Grants program, which is setup specifically to fund projects targeting a 1-time event, like this Expo. The matter of whether this is an individual or group-led project should not be a barrier to entry for PEG either. Assuming you'd like to proceed, my colleague Alex Wang can help you to move your proposal page into a Project and Events Grant, and I expect she will be well-placed to advise on other touch-points as well to help you move forward. I'm updating the status of this proposal to "draft," meanwhile, to allow space for that discussion to move forward outside of the IEG review timeline. Please let us know if you have any questions! Best wishes, Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[]

IEG versus PEG[edit]

Dear Siko (WMF), before applying we have been discussing on Wikimedia mailing list and on the phone with CristianCantoro about the suitability of a IEG or a PEG, and Dario gave me the task to select the grant program. The reasons we are applying for a IEG are the following:

  • The proposal fits the IEG eligibility criteria both in terms of applicant and project. It is a proposal promoted by individuals, it is self-standing and it can be implemented independently by the group (of course with the necessary engagement of the community), it focuses on 6 months (with the potential benefit of an extension), it focuses on a series of Wikimedia projects, it fits with the Wikimedia's strategic priorities, it produces content with an open license, and the budget is in line with the possible request.
  • Wikimedia Italia gave its support to the project and it offered the possibility of applying for a PEG, fitting the basic requirement: a project promoted by a chapter. Although possible we decided to apply for the IEG because it corresponded better to the nature and approach of our project.

The difference between the IEG and PEG – and the reason why we are presenting a IEG – is determined by the different selection criteria of IEG and PEG and consequently to the way we would like the project to be analyzed, framed and evaluated. The IEG emphasizes the "impact potential", the "innovation and learning", "the potential impact greater than the risks"; on the other side the PEG does not emphasize on innovation, and it appears to rather focus on the structured solidity of the project execution and the applicant.

  • Our proposal "Expo 2015: Contributing to Wikipedia at Expo 2015" is a project around the event Expo, but it is not an event (we are not organizing Expo and we are not "participating" in the canonical sense to the event); it is indeed a series of three events contributing to a another event. It appears to us feasible but indeed we do not know.
  • The proposal creates links with an institution but it is not a GLAM project since it needs to establish an unusual collaboration with an institution linked to other 163 institutions (independent, hosted by Expo but over which Expo does not have control). It appears to us feasible to involve a percentage of those linked institutions, but indeed we do not know.
  • The proposal is conceived bottom-up (in the sense that the protagonist are the volunteers and the structure is light and meant to support their participation); the proposal has a budget of 10'000 euro even though its scope is to involve a rather large number of volunteers and a pretty wide event (1 million square meters exhibition and 20 million expected visitors). Since we considered the project feasible but we do not know, we planned the project with a light budget (to reduce risk) and with the most fun and engaging activities conceived to trigger participation: a series of three events – two already consolidated formats (the use of QRpedia and the wikimarathon) – inviting volunteers to take part in the project in a sustainable way (basically one day for each event) and focusing the efforts on the event rather than on a series of ongoing activities.

To apply for a PEG we would have planed the project differently.

  • We would have reinforced the constant activities throughout the project duration to guarantee a series of results (with an increased budget).
  • We would have considered since the beginning a partnership agreement with Expo (even if this approach limits the independence of the project and its bottom-up nature).
  • We would have limited the activities to formats already established with a focus on schools and partners Wikimedia Italia is already working with (always to reduce risks and to guarantee results).

We trust the project has different elements which can be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends (contribute as a Wikimedia team to a large event, working simultaneously with a large group of institutions, testing a treasure hunt); the proposal is conceived and planned with an emphasis on individual engagement, "impact potential", "innovation and learning", "the potential impact greater than the risks" (the IEG emphasis) and not on the structured solidity of the project execution and the applicant (the PEG emphasis). We consider the support and endorsement of Wikimedia Italia an important asset and the demonstration of the engagement of the community and we will communicate Wikimedia Italia in the credits of the project since we are perfectly aware that Wikimedia Italia (we do feel represented by) can guarantee the continuity of contacts and the follow up of communication which can emerge from this initiative.

Moving the project as it is from an IEG to a PEG, it is not simply a metter of having Wikimedia Italia involved (Wikimedia Italia is already involved). It will chance the the way our proposal will be analyzed, framed and evaluated, and indeed the PEG does not correspond to the way the project was planned.

We are of course happy to discuss it, but we would like to understand if there is a problem with the eligibility criteria of IEG, any issue with the project, or if you see any specific benefit – for the project or the PEG program – in moving the application from IEG to PEG, taking into consideration the characteristics, plan and approach of our proposal. Thank you, --iopensa (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure I imagined this would be a point of high controversy or concern, to be honest - it appears we've uncovered some tension though :) Briefly: It is technically eligible for an IEG, yes, and I'd rather not have you feel that we are turning you away prematurely by suggesting another program. Here was my rationale for the suggestion: PEG funds a higher percentage of submissions in general, and the PEG staff and committee should be well-equipped with some useful experience and systems to support projects centered around a 1-time event, even different sorts of events like this. On the other hand, events generally aren't a key focus for IEG and I'm truly not sure if this is something our committee is likely to recommend that an IEG fund. As you strongly feel this project should continue as-is via IEG, though, that's fine! I'm going to update your status to put you in the IEG review queue for now, and we can leave this to the committee and ongoing community discussion to determine further. Best wishes, Siko (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2014[edit]

IEG review.png

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.

Siko (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[]

institution participation and intended outcomes[edit]

Hi there,

Thanks for this proposal. Very interesting to read through, and think that the Wikivoyage communities would play a natural role in helping to devise itineraries for the third event!

Apologies in advance if I didn't quite understand or missed mention of it somewhere, but have you already made contact with some of the institutions of Expo you wish to engage in this project? If not, how will you ensure they are interested and willing to participate in this project? One thing that worries me is that the institutions will have a lot already to do — including coordinating and preparing for publicity through Expo's official press office — and may not think Wikimedia activities worthy of their time and energies. I also wonder — given the discussion above related to the problem statement of your proposal — if some institutions will prefer to distance themselves from a project that is intending to address as its problem some of the negative aspects and dynamics of Expo (mismanagement, corruption, etc.), much in the way that city representatives and athletes often chose not to comment on similar issues during other international events like the Olympic Games and the World Cup. I see that you later write that the project will not highlight these negative aspects which have already gained a lot of media attention, but instead will "reset the focus on nutrition" because it is a topic deserving of Wikipedia coverage; I am of the opinion that the negative aspects also merit content coverage and think it somewhat of a contradiction with the problem statement to say otherwise. Having said all that, the discussion of Wikimedia engagement with international events *is* an interesting one, and I think this proposal would be all the more stronger if you were able to articulate a clearer link between the problem statement and the anticipated deliverable/outcome of testing a methodology for involving a number of institutions during a large international event.

-Thepwnco (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[]

dear Thepwnco, thanks for your comments and remarks and sorry for my delay.
  • Wikivoyage. We agree, it is an interesting link. Dario has already informed the community in Wikivoyage in Italian and they already have a project called expeditions Expo 2015 which is already nicely linked with the possibility of a connected treasure hunt.
  • Involvement of institutions. At the moment we are in contact with Expo. The reason we are applying for an IEG is that it can support the work behind this experimentation and because this is not a traditional GLAMWiki partnership; we have no guarantees that the institutions will do what we are inviting them to do (we already expect 70% failing - this is why we defined 50 institution involved out of 173 in our expected results and metrics). The reason we consider the project feasible is that we plan to involve the institutions in few specific activities:
    • Allowing to add QRpedia in their exhibition space. This is the most challenging part because each institution (country or NGO) is responsible for its own space. So we will have to ask permission to each of them. I think though it is something they might like and it requires essentially an authorization; they are not asked to do make and add the QRpedia codes themselves.
    • Releasing content under an open license to facilitate the Wikimarathon. Institutions are not meant to be directly involved in editing Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects (of course though they can participate with their staff if they wish and they will be informed). Also in this case, the project requires an authorization which is not obvious to obtain of course, but it does not require a wide amount of work for the institutions neither. At the moment Dario is selecting 5 series of content of Expo to make a pilot in checking if it is possible to release content under cc y-sa (in general it is content related to the 10 projects organized by Expo in collaboration with researchers and other institutions); the challenge is that content owners are quite numerous but this is the most interesting part of this project: we can pilot an experience, check if it works, produce the necessary materials to explain the process (how to identify relevant content for the Wikimedia projects and how to release it) and learn how to do it for the future if it works.
  • Including the negative. Currently the articles about Expo 2015 (English and Italian) do not have a session about controversies; the session about controversies exists on Wikipedia (it is part of the articles' structure) and I agree that this session should be developed. In general though I do not believe that a project related to an institution on Wikipedia should focus on the institution; for me the focus should be on the content at the centre of this institution. This is an approach which is specifically important to disseminate: very often when we present GLAMWiki partnerships to institutions they often think it is a partnership meant to develop their article (their brand): no, GLAMWiki are meant to develop Wikimedia content with the involvement of institutions, not their own related article. So
    • We trust the controversies related to Expo should be documented on Wikipedia, but this project is not meant to do it (it would be unhealthy to have a partnership related to the institution' article and it would be confusing and too mixed up).
    • We trust this project will bring attention to the issue and someone will further develop the article about Expo also with its controversies.
    • Controversies are not something we are hiding or not taking into consideration, and my impression is that the almost 200 institutions/countries/projects involved in Expo are aware of controversies but their problem is not much about how to take distance from Expo, but how to collaborate with Expo it in a relevant and healthy direction. A focus on content related to nutrition we trust can be a relevant and healthy direction and Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects (with their focus on free knowledge and collaboration) do trigger this working direction.
  • Link between the problem statement and the anticipated deliverable/outcome of testing a methodology for involving a number of institutions during a large international event. The deliverable/outcome of this project focuses indeed on testing a methodology for involving a number of institutions during a large international event – and it is important to add – on the core topic of this event; this to me is a form of activism; of course specific, related to they way Wikipedia works but which does contribute to a series of broader issues:
    • ephemeral versus permanent. Content comes out of the event to be usable, reusable and modifiable permanently and it is remains on the Wikimedia sites beyond the ephemeral nature of an event.
    • entertaining versus developing knowledge. Events do focus on visitors but they are meant to produce preliminary research, content and an advancement in knowledge; what we do is focusing on readers and in emphasizing the capacity of events in producing content. Please note that the project will probably highlight that not all content is relevant and sufficiently developed to be uploaded or used on the Wikimedia projects. Furthermore the content used will be open to be reviewed, corrected, and further developed; differently from social media, the Wikimedia projects do not focus on "the news", but appreciate quality of encyclopedic knowledge and it makes it very visible; in doing so they highlight the capacity of an event of producing preliminary research, content and an advancement in knowledge (something which is a bit lost in a lot of events); and it open the possibility to also improve and correct this content.
    • transparency and procedures. Applying cc licenses requires a series of authorizations (the majority of content at Expo is not under public domain); it is very interesting to notice that often the process of applying cc licenses shows the gaps in procedures: contracts not including rights managements, limited authorizations in using content and lacking of clear contracts. Making institutions aware of the importance of rights management does have the capacity of improving procedures and transparency.

--iopensa (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Treasure hunt[edit]

I'm not totally sure what is envisioned by the "treasure hunt" -- could you explain this better? 4100 euros seems like a lot for a one-off event, where I'm not sure exactly what the goal is. How long is the that event expected to last? 50 euros per participant, in addition to the costs of coordinating the event, seems quite high. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[]

The cost of 50 euro per participant is calculated based on an average second class train return ticket in Lombardy Region (20 euro + 20 euro), plus 10 euro for a lunch. Participants are expected to test the treasure hunt. The rest of the costs is to prepare the game and to produce some printed materials; the event is all designed to develop and test and tool which will remain fur further use. We are still deciding if the game is general (you can apply it to different locations) or specific (focussed on a specific area or site). In any case the game is a tool to produce content and to guide in the production of content: you are asked to go in a place (this is why we need the reimbursements; we could look for local wikipedians but it is more fun if we have a little group of people and we didn't select the locations jet, so we don't know the availability of people jet), and once you are there you are asked to take a photo and upload it on Wikimedia Commons, check an information on Wikipedia (or review the status of an article), add an info to wikivoyage... --iopensa (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Thanks! You may want to clarify for budget that line item that it includes transportation costs for each user. I was trying to figure out how you could get to 50 euros with drinks and lunch.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Expo 2015: Contributing to Wikipedia at Expo 2015[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?
6.0
(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?
5.7
(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?
6.9
(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?
7.1
Comments from the committee:
  • Success could be measured along the proposed metrics.
  • The project could improve quality and increase participation to some extent. It has only a little potential for online impact (mainly part 2). Part 3 does not really fit with any strategic priority, though. Main focus will be the offline experience of the participating public, which is nice to have, but may be somewhat out of scope here.
  • Suggest limiting scope to parts 1 & 2. 3rd event, the treasure hunt, has the potential to absorb all of the staff with minimal benefits to the project. Dropping it would make the other 2 parts much more feasible
  • Treasure Hunt will specifically endeavor to develop a tool for travelers in the Lombardy area and will therefore have limited benefit to anyone but those who are lucky enough to be able to afford to travel in the Lombardy area (according to Wikipedia, one of the richest regions in the whole of Europe…)
  • Budget seems high – unclear value from subsidizing costs of travel and food for the Treasure Hunt.
  • Because project is tailored to the Expo, probably not so easy to adapt, sustain, or scale.
  • Not highly experimental - QR-Codes in exhibitions and public spaces are not new, edit-a-thons and the like around such events are also well established. Treasure hunt is novel, but not strategically aligned.
  • Support of the local community and endorsements are a plus. Chapter's support is great.
  • Unconvinced that there is a significant lack of Wikipedia coverage on the particular topics related to the event (food issues and Lombardy cultural heritage) or that this project is the only or best way to achieve increased coverage of the topics.
  • A key problem has not been convincingly articulated and it is therefore difficult to assess whether the proposal presents an innovative approach to solving the problem. Does not seem to be solving or attempting to solve one of our key problems.
  • Could deliver most impact by providing: 1) documentation or a framework for partnerships with (non-cultural heritage) institutions or individuals during large-scale events; and 2) a licensing agreement or template for making (typically copyrighted) content immediately available to Wikipedia -- these deliverables could be invaluable for knowledge mobilization within the WMF community. While both of these have been discussed by the grantees, we're unsure to what degree this is a focus given the statements provided in the "measures of success" section.
  • Unclear whether the team has necessary experience to coordinate or attempt to negotiate new licensing agreements for releasing content
  • Unconvinced that volunteers working on clerical tasks for a few days can be considered meaningful engagement, or a level of involvement that will lead to more sustained participation in WMF projects.
  • Can reach a large audience potentially in those who attend the Expo, including the exhibitors who may want to use Wikipedia to disseminate their information on food and Lombardy.
  • Like the hook of tapping into a large pre-existing event that is already involving a PR machine. Some people from tourist information offices may be tempted to contribute to one of the projects (WikiVoyage?)
  • Enormous organizational skills are needed to pull it off
  • Recommend greater emphasis on helping the exhibitors deal directly with Wikipedia. This would involve handouts explaining CC-by-SA licensing.
  • Project is too big for IEG, though it could be done if considered as a collection of small events. As a one-off event, it seems to be more suitable for PEG
  • Suspect the wins of the event would come from uploading photos (like Wiki Loves Monuments) and not from text added to Wikipedia

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 16:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Please find below further details related to the issues brought up by the evaluation and do not hesitate to contact us if we can clarify issues.

The Treasure Hunt specifically aims at developing a tool for travelers in the Lombardy area; these travelers are expected to be 20 million in 2015 during Expo. The reason we included this “social and fun” invitation to contribute to Wikipedia is because we are telling with our QRpedia codes installed in Expo (event 1) that Wikipedia is there and we expect people to maybe have a look. If the community is ok with it (this is why it is important to work with the community in event 3), with a site-notice we can invite people to join the game. The game is a treasure hunt to collect information; these information are uploaded on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects; the concept is that we identify what is missing and we guide the hunt there; or in the hunt they need to find what is missing and get it. The format is inspired by geocaching games, with the difference that we want people to upload information as part of the game. If the game works, it can be of course replicated on other territories. Triggering participation – and testing new ways of triggering participation – appears to be one of our strategic priority.

Experimental. There are three aspects of the project which are experimental and which can be scaled:

  1. contacting and discussing contributions to the Wikimedia projects with many countries at once during an international event (different nations are physically present at the same time in one single territory; other international events present a similar situation, i.e. international biennials, and every year another expo)
  2. testing a physical and virtual game in a moment in which we expect we can target a pretty large amount of people (expected 20 million)
  3. dealing with a large scale event in a relatively short time (involving our community to volunteer and enjoy the challenge, finding a way to actually get visitors of the expo to do things on Wikipedia not only read it, contributing to content with the content of an exhibition and on its topic, working with many institutions at the same time).

Content. We focus on the topic of expo (food and the resources of the planet) and on Lombardy region. There is significant lack of Wikipedia coverage on both topics. To get a sense of which themes we will focus on you can have a look at the countries participating at expo with a description of their topics here http://www.expo2015.org/en/participants/countries. Just to give you some examples of related articles:

For content related to Lombardy region an example is content about museums. If you browse the list of museums in Lombardy by province, you can see a lot of black names (or there would be a dominant of red).
We actually expect to get more texts than images because images are often third parties so institutions can not easily release them under an open license.

Other outcomes. We are more than pleased to share templates and to create learning patterns for

  1. documentation or a framework for partnerships with (non-cultural heritage) institutions or individuals during large-scale events; and
  2. a licensing agreement or template for making (typically copyrighted) content immediately available to Wikipedia -- these deliverables could be invaluable for knowledge mobilization within the WMF community.

It appears that this would also contribute to solve a problem of the community. We have already experience in collaborating with institutions (authorizations and licensing - Dario and Iolanda) and this project can really contribute to the work of other people wanting to create collaborations with many institutions at once.

Efficient of the budget. The project does outreach with 144 countries (with national presences at Expo), 3 international organizations, 13 civil society organizations and 3 corporates (we contact all institutions involved to ask to provide content) and with the expected 20 million visitors of Expo (we communicate Wikipedia using the QRpedia codes and we invite people to play our treasure hunt). Our measures of success define our expected results, what we imagine we can guarantee as a result. Working with big numbers is pretty new, so we do not really know how it will go. Yes, enormous organizational skills are needed to pull this project off: the funding requested allows us to have a coordinator, a formalized project to refer to, and some reimbursements to facilitate the organization of events which involve volunteers (we need other wikimedians to get this done); we could do the project anyway, but without a structured and financed project, and without the feeling that around us there is also the encouragment of a “yes, go for it!”, we would end up doing a little bit, exactly because it is pretty challenging. Considering the numbers above and the amount of work required for a project like this one, it appears to us that the amount requested of 11'000 euro is reasonable, and it does represent the important support to get it done.

--iopensa (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Round 2 2014 Decision[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:
Although we appreciate the potential of experimenting with many institutional partnerships at one big event, the high coordination costs and risks seem fairly large compared to potential online impact. Ultimately, we felt that a this idea would be a better fit for funding in the Project and Events Program, so we encourage you to consider adapting your proposal for a PEG submission. Because the Treasure Hunt is less clearly tied to the Expo event itself, you would be welcome to return to IEG in a future round to experiment with that idea if you have interest in exploring it again in the future.

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.