Grants talk:IEG/Gamification as a service

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

Divulgação[edit]

Olá pessoal, acho que deviamos divulgar essa proposta para tentar conseguir apoio pra que ela possa seguir. Chegaram a contatar a comunidade brasileira? Rodrigo Padula (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Obrigado pela dica, Rodrigo. Conforme está referenciado na proposta esse assunto já foi debatido várias vezes na comunidade brasileira, mas de fato esse IEG não havia sido. Estamos fazendo essa divulgação e iremos reportar as ligações na página do projeto. Crang115 (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Acho a ideia muito interessante. Se quiserem marcar um encontro (virtual ou presencial) tenho interesse. Na medida do possível deixo meus comentários aqui. Sds,OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Também tenho interesse em dar auxílio, inclusive to perturbando o Padula com uns comentários/dúvidas que posso levar a vocês logo-logo, a exemplo de saber o que vocês vão absorver e usar dos projetos anteriores. Caçador de Palavras (talk) 02:08, 28 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(_AT_)wikimedia · org .

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Gamification as a service[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?
5.1
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
4.2
(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?
5.2
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
2.3
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • This is an encyclopedia, not a game. That said, I am a big fan of games. Big. Fan. Of Games. I have often said that Wikipedia is, in fact, a game. And I really really liked the speech by Raph Koster at Wikimania London. However, I am against making games randomly for the sake of the technology that can do it. It's better to start with a game that answers a specific need and then develop the software to build it (such as Magnus' gender game, which has enabled us to add gender to most biography items on Wikidata).
  • Gamification is an under-explored approach to increasing participation, and effective research and exploration in this area has significant potential for impact. However, the proposal does not present a credible plan for building a gamification tool.
  • I have a hard time deciding where this project fits (and if it fits with a strategic priority). In theory an ORES-like tool for gamification could be used by others to develop programs that increase volunteer retention and engagement. However, I find it the lack of endorsements of this proposal troubling. I also am not sure that the absence of a gamification service is the reason why gamification initiatives have failed to develop/materialize over the years.
  • Wikipedia as a game is a real need.
  • On principle, gamification is great: it can be a great way to bring in new users who have fun and can join a community. However, I'm not so sure the current proposal works well for that.
  • Our knowledge base is so large which can be offered as encyclopaedia gaming as a service! It's a great thing with potential impact on branding, engagement and many possibilities. If a nice presentation of data can be present by API, it's a nice to have. A game engine, well, I am doubtful how general could it be. Moreover, unfortunately it may not fit into WMF's radar. Personally, I do think it can open up an opportunity for younger generations.
  • I suppose the software would allow metrics for usage.
  • The proposal does not include well-defined quantitative or qualitative measures of success.
  • Assuming the software is developed by the end of the project, I think there is still risk that the service won't be adopted/used by others. I'm also not sure whether it's possible to develop one service that can be general enough to meet the needs/paramaters of other projects or be adopted by others who want to build new games.
  • I demand a better API from MediaWiki. I curse the old ugly XML. Gaming engine builds upon on old API. It's unclear whether it helps with getting data from Wiki or providing a place for other applications to use. How many databases are possibility open and synced by WMF? How can documentation can be found? It’s an even bigger problem. A new engine wouldn't help because it's another The Emperor's New Clothes story to our old MediaWiki. Besides, an engine wouldn't be enough for the great many of needs for application developers. I can imagine they would still need to access Wiki API anyhow.
  • Probably doable, though the breakdown in activities is unclear at best.
  • The proposal does not present a credible implementation plan or timeline, and the proposed team appears to have little or no experience with gamification.
  • The scope seems very large: can the grantees conduct a community consultation about criteria/parameters for a central service, develop the software, and build and test it in 6 months? The grantees do however, seem to have relevant experience in software development and gamification.
  • I'm unsure what the actual deliverable of this setup is - it seems very vague. I would suggest having: 1) specific games targeting specific communities, 2) reasons why they are difficult to capture with Distributed Wikidata Game, 3) Why this project would do better than (2), 4) Commitment to actually building (1)
  • It's doable considering the experience of veterans. With the huge amount of time investment, I won't doubt there will be a prototype. The concern I have in the proposal is that it doesn't have anything related to technical fundamentals. Speaking in terms of a level of game engine (backend service), I think that must be included.
  • There is little community involvement--perhaps because the applicant needs to start with the need that a game addresses, then state the game, then development, not the other way around.
  • I'm worried mostly about impact + sustainability. This seems to describe a framework for gamified services, but not actual games. This makes it really hard to track actual deliverables. No particular games or communities have been identified either, which doesn’t inspire confidence. The highly successful Wikidata Game, nor the similar 'Gamification Engine' Distributed Wikidata game have been mentioned.
  • It only helps enabling possible diversity of many games. But it generally does not fit to a community. At least, who will run the demo program? Who will operate the hardware and software env?
  • Nice idea (the best in the last rounds!), but the applicants do not have a clear impact after the grant ends, and they do not know how they can measure the success of the project. The budget has a medium risk so I will remain Neutral.
  • There are some key differences between ORES and this proposal. The ORES was intended to address a major problem of critical wiki-work and an identified need by the community; it also had tons of community support and WMF staff backing. In my opinion, the case for a gamification service has yet to be made.
  • I like the idea and mainly the API solution but I don't understand the 70 days of development. It needs an expert's evaluation.
  • Good idea, but poor execution in this phase would not be a good sign.
  • Personally, it's a great idea to me. But the approach does not address the initial problems. Solving old problems by opening a new problem standing on old problems--it’s difficult.
  • We already have Wiki labels for this. I would prefer to see more development put into that instead.

-- MJue (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the IEG Committee

Thanks for this feedback, MJue (WMF). It will be very useful for us to improve the project as we start its development on a volumtary basis. Crang115 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Round 1 2016 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!


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.