Grants talk:IEG/Gamified Microcontributions

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

Finalize your proposal by September 30![edit]

Hi Protonk. Thank you for drafting this proposal!

  • We're hosting one last IEG proposal help session in Google Hangouts this weekend, so please join us if you'd like to get some last-minute help or feedback as you finalize your submission.
  • Once you're ready to submit it for review, please update its status (in your page's Probox markup) from DRAFT to PROPOSED, as the deadline is September 30th.
  • If you have any questions at all, feel free to contact me (IEG committee member) or Siko (IEG program head), or just post a note on this talk page and we'll see it.

Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 20:09, 25 September 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.

Jtud (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Existing work[edit]

I started building something similar to this idea at en:User:Kaldari/wikigrok.js. Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hey Adam, great minds think alike :) The WMF mobile web team is working on something similar to this. Check out the gallery of screenshots below. You can already see this feature in action if you go to English Wikipedia on a mobile phone, log in, and opt into the beta site (Anne Dallas Dudley is one of the articles that it'll show up on). Would love to talk more with you about ideas for future micro-contribs – I'm hoping WikiGrok is just the beginning of many more such features. Come hang out with us on IRC: #wikimedia-mobileconnect! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification ping[edit]

Protonk, thanks for getting this together, but we need to get the word out (if you have already, sorry - we just need some links at the bottom of the proposal page). Ping me if you need help choosing notification spots! PEarley (WMF) (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Deliverables and sinergies[edit]

The proposed deliverables are ineffable and practically unassessable: please lay out concrete deliverables. Also, for mw:GSoC we don't accept any application which doesn't come with a completed microtask; similarly, I propose that for this to be funded you first complete a microtask such as fixing an existing bug or feature request in one of the two things mentioned in #Existing work or (IMHO preferably) Wikidata Game (or other gamification tool of Magnus'). --Nemo 09:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

IEG comments - rubin16[edit]

Hello! Could you, please, provide more details about the budget? What is the schedule of the project, how many hours would take every stage? How many hours are you expected to work in total and per week? What is cost per hour used in the calculation? What is travel to "GLS" and "GDC" in budget breakdown? I am also not happy to buy devices for one-off tasks, is it really a need to buy a tablet/similar device for testing? Doesn't anybody from your friend have such one? It won't be an efficient use to buy devices for testing of each project... rubin16 (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts, particularly re the tablets... Maybe the tablets could be sent back to WMF after-the-fact and be used as loaners for similar work by other developers later? Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about solving edit authorship problem first? If the project will be successful, it would be a pity to get stuck at such questions in the end, I would suggest working on them first rubin16 (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Gamified microcontributions[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?
8.4
(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?
7.7
(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?
5.1
(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?
5.4
Comments from the committee:
  • Great idea – innovative.
  • Definitely time for a transition of the Wikidata game into a Wikipedia setting, it could be so much fun and so incredibly useful, for new and experienced editors alike.
  • Seems to be a reasonably well thought-out proposal, and illustrates an understanding of the key problem facing Wikipedia and its sister projects today.
  • Questions regarding budget and experience remained unanswered. Perhaps the proposal has been abandoned? Would like to see more engagement from the proposer.
  • Has a clear target community, and says it is planned to engage intensively. But missing notification of or other support from volunteers. Little endorsement, no communication, doesn't bode well for engaging 1500 users in 6 months.
  • Should be easy to measure success, but some clarification of how this is defined are still needed - are we looking at 1500 users to have used the tool once, or on a monthly basis, or follow the Foundation's approach of looking at "active" based on a number of contributions (using the tool) per month? Some clarification on this is needed.
  • The participant seem to have an understanding of the potential problems they are likely to face during their project. However, a one-off purchase of tablets and phones solely for the purposes of testing is inefficient, and the participants have not yet responded to concerns on the talk page.
  • May be better to have a team rather than just one person.

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 17:05, 13 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:
We saw a lot of value in this idea, and would welcome you or others who want to pick up this project to return to IEG the future, with more time dedicated to community engagement.

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.