Grants talk:IEG/GIS and Cartography in Wikimedia

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:
Thanks for the interesting idea, hope to see more of your participation in the future!

Next steps:

Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
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.
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.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for GIS and Cartography in Wikimedia[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
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact.	3
(C) The impact of the project can be sustained after the grant ends.	3
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects.	4
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.	3
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds.	3
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it.	3
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement.	3
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact.	3
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful.	4
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement.	3
Comments from the committee: A good idea. Budget and measures of success are well-detailed. Still some open questions about potential for OpenStreetMap integration or the relative value of existing GIS maps quality and format. Scope may be too broad or ambitious to be achieved in 6 months, bringing up sustainability concerns after the life of the grant. Because the USED program has had varying levels of success, we wonder to what degree integrating cartography into the program will increase chances of successfully engaging and retaining contributors. Would like to see more demonstrated Wikimedia experience in the project team.

Duration[edit]

Hi, thanks for submitting this proposal. To be eligible for an IEGrant, your project must be scoped to 6 months. At the end of the 6 month period demonstrating the promise of the approach, you might potentially apply for a second phase grant of an additional 6 months, but we would want to see outcomes and impact in a final report at the end of this first 6 month grant. It looks like your timeline for this project runs for 9 rather than 6 months. Can you please provide more information about the nature of this request and explain how it fits with the given criteria? Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice! The issue is that this project will be tied in to the academic calendar, and fall semesters and winter quarters last until December. We could aim to recruit summer courses into the USEP and focus our final report upon them, although GIS and cartography summer courses may be shorter and fewer in number. If there is any possibility of extending the report deadline from October to December we could start the project in June, making the project last 6 months. EHammid (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A request to delay the start of your project until June and run June-December seems reasonable. I'll mark this proposal as eligible for review and we'll see how the committee would like to handle that request. Can you please update your project plan to reflect this adjustment? Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal and Wikiproject activity[edit]

You mention that revitalizing inactive Wikiprojects and other labs/portals/hubs is going to provide the on-wiki support/resources/encouragement for these students. Although I appreciate that you are thinking about the online support component, I wonder how you intend to revitalize those community spaces and ensure there are experienced Wikipedians hanging around before and after the students cycle through? It is difficult to imagine that an influx of students will revitalize these projects on their own (have we seen that happen from any of the Education Program work in the past?), and I'm not sure if you believe that will be as simple as updating pages yourselves, or if you've got other ideas in mind. Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Siko - we definitely don't believe that revitalizing inactive community spaces is going to be as easy as pointing students there and doing nothing else. We're hoping that we will be able to turn them in to useful vital spaces by attracting a critical mass of cartographers - student, recreational, and professional - so as to ensure that any requests for maps are filled in a timely fashion and advertising this effort in appropriate community forums so as to attract more Wikipedians who are in need of high quality maps.

A lot of Wikipedia articles are in need of high quality maps and would benefit if we were able to create a more lively community space oriented around map creation. As an example of an article this space could benefit: the en:San Joaquin River Delta article is using a map that shows the extent of land subsidence in 1995. Land subsidence has been a continuing problem for the delta; an up-to-date map would improve the article significantly, and public data would allow for one to be created. EHammid (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Experience[edit]

May you define exactly our experience in Wikipedia or in projects related with Wikipedia? The project has a big impact and should attract some professionals to contribute in Wikipedia, but it's unclear to me your experience. This may be a risk because Wikipedia is a complicated field and the experience may help a lot. --Ilario (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ilario! I've edited the English Wikipedia, although not as much as many others have. I've been a student in a couple of classes that have participated in the US Education Program (one of them is this semester, though the on-Wikipedia portion of the class is yet to start.) I've also been to a number of bay area editathons/meet-ups, though I realize that doesn't count for too much. I do realize that we will need the counsel of more experienced Wikipedians for this project to be a success - I talked to a couple people while writing this proposal, and intend to actively seek out the advice of and participation from relevant communities if this proposal is accepted. EHammid (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenStreetMap[edit]

Would it make sense to compare this project with OpenStreetMap (a collaborative project for creating open-content maps)'s offline activities [1]? What would be the difference, and is there any chance of collaboration between the two? --whym (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whym, thanks for the question. We will definitely be reaching out to the OpenStreetMap community during our project, and expect that a lot of OSM'ers will be interested in participating in it. A lot of OSM'ers already do participate on Wikimedia projects. There is a significant difference between OSM and what we are suggesting to do, though: OSM focuses on producing open mapping data that can then be used for other purposes, and their raw output isn't generally suitable for inclusion in encyclopedia articles. We will be encouraging new contributors to produce high quality map artifacts suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Take a look at en:Geothermal_areas_of_Yellowstone - currently, it links to a google maps overlay of geysers in the park, and also has a small gallery of maps at the bottom, which are mostly either trail maps or historical maps of geyser basins that don't emphasize the geysers. I think the article would benefit significantly if it included a cartographically treated up to date map of Yellowstone with the geothermal areas overlaid, major geysers indicated, etc. EHammid (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I guess I see your point. It sounds like you are focusing more onto geographically interesting (and probably encyclopedic) maps with richer information overlaid, rather than just "streets". --whym (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharemap.org[edit]

Hello, we also had a well advanced GIS wikipedia-friendly project, http://Sharemap.org . Collaboration welcome. The polish team is dynamic and looking for dounding. We will happily learn from your Grant request and collaborate with you to push forward GIS mapping ! Yug (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info Yug! Sharemap.org looks really great. If I end up doing the GIS project I will certainly be in contact with you and other Sharemap contributors. EHammid (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]