Jump to content

Grants talk:IEG/Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Pine in topic Update: successor project
Note: this project is now inactive. Please see outreach:NavWiki for the successor project.


Subjects that may be included[edit]

  • Main titles (Pine has a plan for an engaging introduction and is keeping it secret until launch day so that everyone can enjoy it, or may reuse the introduction from the English Wikipedia celebration video for its 5 millionth article milestone) (This will probably involve remixing other content)
  • About this video course
  • Purpose
  • Wikipedia
  • Wikimedia Commons
  • Wiktionary
  • Wikisource
  • Module format
  • Recommended playlists
  • GLAM
  • Education
  • General
  • Special case: Medical content on English Wikipedia (MEDRS)
  • Special case: translation courses
  • For educators
  • Ediathons
  • Workshops
  • Wiki Academies
  • About Wikipedia
  • Reach, distribution, viewership, and "engagements"
  • Viewership: who reads Wikimedia?
  • Authorship: who contributes to Wikimedia?
  • Victor Grigas video: "The Impact of Wikipedia"
  • Visualizing how active Wikimedia is
  • Motivations for contributing
  • Personal fulfillment of sharing knowledge with others
  • Affiliations: Sharing knowledge of my culture, language, religion, history, political beliefs; connecting with others who share the same (e.g. Native Americans)
  • To write people/events into history (see Emily's motivations for her video)
  • A brief history of Wikipedia (may not be necessary, perhaps an optional module)
  • What is a wiki?
  • How does Wikipedia work?
  • Five pillars (see Wikimedia Argentina video that's on the Outreach.wikimedia.org homepage)
  • Brief expansions on each of the five pillars
  • Friendly space; civility
  • Conflict of interest, how to avoid it, and how to spot it
  • Copyright and plagiarism
  • Anonymity, privacy, sockpuppetry, legitimate alternative accounts, advocacy, disclosed and undisclosed paid advocacy
  • Account creation and first edits
  • Why create an account?
  • How do I create an account?
  • Create an account
  • Create your user page (optional but encouraged)
  • Say hi to someone you know on their talk page; include your signature (only on talk pages!) (Also mention article talk pages)
  • Edit your sandbox (don't use your signature)
  • Article history, diffs, and edit summaries
  • Intermediate-level talk page and wikitext/wikimarkup skills (skip this in rapid-introduction editathon version of the video)
  • Bullet points, indentations, section headers, links, bold, italics, and signatures
  • Intermediate-level research skills
  • The Wikipedia Library
  • Intermediate-level cultural and social skills
  • Nominations for speedy deletion and regular deletion processes
  • What to do if your article is nominated for speedy deletion or regular deletion. Note that different language Wikipedias may have different procedures, so we might need to produce language-specific variants of this short segment.
  • Edit wars; talk page consensus
  • Options when two editors disagree
  • Bold-revert-discuss cycle
  • Note: use preview; everything can be reverted, so mistakes are reversible. "Breaking the page" rarely happens, and it's fixable when it does.
  • Article talk pages
  • User talk pages
  • Off-wiki discussion (may not be the best idea due to lack of public record)
  • Third opinion
  • ANI (please avoid whenever possible)
  • Arbitration (please avoid whenever possible)
  • How to deal with personal attacks, harassment, or trolling
  • Gender statistics and issues in Wikimedia
  • Social roles on Wikipedia (optional module; may not produce this)
  • Banned editors (local vs. global bans); blocks vs. bans
  • IPs (can comment but can't vote in discussions; some productive editors; some trolls, vandals and spammers)
  • Confirmed and autoconfirmed editors
  • Edit count and other productivity statistics
  • Good and featured content; DYK/ITN
  • WikiProjects
  • The Signpost
  • Other news sources like This Month in Education, This Month in GLAM, Tech News, and the Wikimedia Blog
  • Reviewer, rollbacker, autopatrolled, AfC reviewer
  • Account creators and course instructors
  • IPBE
  • Administrators
  • CU and OS
  • Arbitration Committee; BASC; Audit Committee
  • Bureaucrats
  • Stewards
  • Meta-level committees (grants, ombudsmen, communications, elections, architecture, research, etc)
  • Mailing lists
  • Affiliate program leaders
  • Affiliate boards & EDs
  • WMF board & ED
  • Discuss role vs. status; how to join a role or move between roles
  • Common mistake: thinking of adminship as the exclusive or primary indication of a leadership role

  • Creating new articles (this could also be the outline of the 20 minute version)
  • (I suggest first getting experience editing your userpage, a talk page of a friend, and an existing article before you attempt to start a new article)
  • Understand the Criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia: Notability (General Notability Guideline). Once you understand these, select your topic and look for references
  • Understand which kinds of references Wikipedia considers to be appropriate
  • Understand the 5 pillars
  • Understand the basics of VisualEditor, including how to add sections and citations
  • Understand the basics of Conflict of Interest
  • Have available to you the English Wikipedia's "Cheatsheet" page or A printed Wikimarkup cheatsheet
  • Understand the basics of how to handle possible disagreements: Bold-Revert-Discuss (BRD)
  • Note: use preview; everything can be reverted, so mistakes are reversible. "Breaking the page" rarely happens, and it's fixable when it does.
  • Know where to go to ask questions: the Teahouse, Wikiprojects, article talk pages, IRC, OTRS,
  • Suggestion: start your new article in your sandbox. (Can also try Draft namespace, or Articles for Creation).
  • Walk through creating an article in a sandbox, posting notes on the talk page, asking a question at the Teahouse ("how do I move an article"?) and then moving the article
  • Motivation: readership and sharing what you're passionate or interested in. Show number of visitors stats 24 hours to 10 days later; emphasize "share what you know and what you're passionate about" (like many writers), and talk about collaboration with others via WikiProjects and personal meetups.

How can I contribute to Wikipedia? (We'll talk about Commons in a separate module)[edit]

  • https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:VisualEditor/User_guide
  • https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/GIFs
  • Edit an article. Video of how to do this. (Suggestion for English Wikipedia if you want to try this on your own: look at the queue in Guild of Copy Editors. Find any article there that interests you, find a typo, and fix it. We'll talk more about WikiProjects later)
  • Find a Wikiproject that interests you. Introduce yourself on the talk page. (Waiting for Michael Gilbert's research about activity levels of Wikiprojects. Also, some smaller wikis might not have Wikiprojects).
  • Where can I get help?
  • Teahouse
  • WikiProjects
  • Article talk pages
  • User talk pages
  • IRC
  • Help desk
  • What if I have a disagreement with another editor (BRD and related processes)
  • What if I have a suggestion for how to improve Wikipedia's technical features or community policies? (Village pumps)

How can I contribute to Commons? (We'll talk about Wikipedia in a separate module)[edit]

  • Image licensing
  • Upload a single image (demo only, no interactive feature due to Commons protection against duplicate files)
  • Categorizing images
  • Bulk uploads
  • Where can I get help?

Information to include for GLAM-specific module[edit]

  • Your organization's Wikipedia page
  • Your organization's Wikidata entry
  • Reach, viewership, distribution, and "engagement" about your organization and your holdings
  • About specific holdings of your organization
  • Wikipedia
  • Wikidata
  • Commons
  • Wikisource
  • Wikispecies
  • Wikivoyage
  • Including Wikimedia info inside your physical location:
  • Education extension (original version)

Information to include for education-specific module[edit]

Information for translation courses in education programs[edit]

  • Case studies from Arabic Wikipedia

Information for medical content contributors and editors[edit]

  • HIPPA and privacy in general
  • Global impact, especially in areas which are underserved by medical professionals and on public health
  • Epidemiology and Wikimedia pageviews


@Pine:, great to see this proposal, and I can see the huge value it could add for education and GLAM activities in our communities around the world. It's not clear to me if this would be a single video that would last 30-60 minutes or a series of smaller videos that would be a couple minutes each, and could be viewed in succession or ad-hoc. I think the latter (series of short videos) may have more use cases. I find it easier to digest chunks of information in spurts, and I like the flexibility of watching one or two modules, taking a break, and resuming after that. Maybe you could clarify how this would work in a modular way, since you also say certain modules could easily be updated as needed to keep the whole thing relevant as things change. I may just be struggling with the concept of a modular video vs. a playlist of videos.

I'm happy to see that it will be subtitle friendly from the start and would love to find some volunteers to help with other languages that could benefit from this resource. Tighe Flanagan (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tighe Flanagan (WMF), thanks so much for the feedback.
  • The intention is that users can decide which modules they want to watch and whether to watch them continuously or with breaks. Some people may prefer to watch everything straight through so that they complete their viewing session as quickly as possible, while other people may want to take breaks or practice what they learn in certain modules before proceeding to the next module.
  • Another objective of the modular format is to allow users the flexibility of creating playlists of modules that are suited to different use cases. For example, there may be one suggested playlist for education programs, another one for GLAMs, and some optional modules for specialized but relatively common use cases like translation classes or the editing of medical content on English Wikipedia.
  • I would definitely appreciate it if you could find translation volunteers. Maria has volunteered to help with the Spanish translation, and I've sent emails requesting translation help to people I know who might be able to connect this project with volunteer translators for German, French, Dutch, and Chinese. If you can find some translators in any language other than Spanish and English, I would appreciate it. You can ask them to post on this talk page or one of my user talk pages.
Thanks again for your feedback. --Pine 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the clarifications, Pine! I like the sound of this a lot :) Tighe Flanagan (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Pine:, to follow up on what Tighe Flanagan (WMF) said, the series of short videos for this project is a great idea. The way DVDs are set up is that viewers an chose a specific scene to play from via the main menu, and the shot video series is a similar concept. So I think it would be better than one long video because the series of short videos might be easier for viewers to navigate. Sam.gov (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Pine:, just learned about the initiative & ready to help with Russian – it will be helpful for 30 existing language communities supported by Wikimedia Russia + more in the incubator & others from ex-USSR/Soviet Block countries. How/Where can I start translating subtitles?--Frhdkazan (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Frhdkazan: Thank you very much for volunteering. The project is many months away from being ready for translation of the script. I will add your name to the list of translators for when the script is ready. In the meantime, it would be very helpful if you could translate Grants:IEG/Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia/January message to village pumps into Russian and post the translated message on the Russian Wikipedia's equivalent of the Village pump. --Pine 08:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Offers to Translate[edit]

I (Milimetric (WMF) / Dan Andreescu) will try to translate a few of the scripts into Romanian. Milimetric (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Video clarification[edit]

Please let me know if any roles or concepts proposed might need clarification. Happy to help VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Modular format[edit]

I very much like the idea of a modular format. Some of this has already been done. Some of that needs to be done better and some of it likely can be reused. Some of what you do will need to be updated from time-to-time.

Just a quick example - could Jimmy Wales Ted talk be reused in the history section? Jimmy Wales: The birth of Wikipedia, TED (conference)|, 2005. Maybe Jimmy would like to update this, or maybe Lila could do it - and that might be better in a presentation aimed at women.

I'm almost certain that several "introductory edit-a-thon talks" have already been filmed, and almost equally certain that most of them could be done a lot better. There are also games and readings that could be used.

So I suggest that a first step would be to gather a list of materials that could be used, then plot out how they might be used in a comprehensive "Intro to Wikipedia". Then focus on the weakest links, what you could do better that would make the whole package work better.

After you've got some content to present, I'd invite in some of the folks who might use this and say "from all this material, please put together your own package. So if you want an intro aimed at college freshman, pick and choose the pieces you want, let us know what else you need, and please feel free to make some of your own content and share it." Same thing for intros aimed at GLAMers, women, photographers, LGBT, etc.

This might seem like I'm asking you to do a whole lot, but actually I'm only asking you to set up a format, do a few key pieces, and let others do the rest. It will never be perfect, but it should continue to get better and better. Good luck. Smallbones (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Smallbones, thanks for the comments. I think that the Jimmy talk linked there is too long for this video series, but we could list it in a set of suggested additional materials. Regarding inviting additional contributors to add their own modules or create their own playlists, that's certainly welcome. When we get further toward the public rollouts of completed modules, which will likely be 6 to 12 months from now, that can be done. --Pine 19:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
"Additional materials" is a good way to handle it. I'm just suggesting that one "little project" like this can't handle everything we need, but could form the core that would spring to life as others add their own pieces, and that setting it up so that updating is ongoing would be a great advantage. Smallbones (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

As-is analysis[edit]

I think it is a great idea, it is important to produce communication tools and it is surely always new what we produce.
I think it is also important to have an idea of what we already have. Italy has produced video tutorial for quite a few topics. I know about other project. making sure we know what is available makes sense. Always.

Another objection I have is that I believe we should look for no (or very limited) post-selling service. We need people who start edit and they can actually sort things out by themselves: these kind of people are the most efficient. I think considering our target very cleaver is cool. Maybe more admiration and seduction than instructions --iopensa (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point. I quickly checked what YouTube informative videos on Wikipedia had about the same views as Wikimedia Italia's or more and the result is quite curious: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Some are in channels with millions followers, others just few dozens; most are 3 minute long or so, but the Indian one is over ten minutes. --Nemo 18:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Really good points. I had a look at German WP videos.

Pine, do you plan to do some "As-is analysis" (commons:Category:Instructional videos on using Wikipedia) and what lessons can be learned from earlier WP videos? --Atlasowa (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • I've viewed a sampling of existing instructional Wikipedia materials. It's not always clear to me why some get more viewership than others, but I have noticed that a number of them have a tone that I would describe as a bit too academic to engage a broad audience, and too long to keep people engaged. I am hoping that the video segments that are produced during this project are in a tone that is more engaging, and that the modular format will encourage more viewership than a single long video would.
  • The points about promoting the video after release are important. The good news in this regard is that several Wikimedia affiliate organizations have expressed interest or support for this video series. The interest of the affiliates is very promising for the viewership and usefulness of the videos. --Pine 18:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

9/29/15 Proposal Deadline: Reminder to change status to 'proposed'[edit]

Hi Pine and NLaFleur,

This draft is looking like it's well on its way. I'm writing to remind you to make sure to change the status of your proposal from 'draft' to 'proposed' by the September 29, 2015 deadline in order to submit it for review by the committee in the current round of IEG. If you have any questions or would like to discuss your proposal, let me know. We're hosting a few IEG proposal help sessions this month in Google Hangouts. I'm also happy to set up an individual session. Warm regards, ------Marti (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

A note about software and hardware for video creation[edit]

@Mjohnson (WMF): Separate from this project, I'm currently producing a short video to mark English Wikipedia's upcoming milestone of 5 million articles. I have shared some pre-release cuts with you.

The rather old software that I'm using frequently freezes, and this is for a video that's only about 2 minutes long. The segments for the video in this grant proposal are likely to be longer than 2 minutes, perhaps substantially longer. Therefore, as a part of this grant proposal, I am requesting funds for newer video software. After the project is finished, I plan to do one of the following: reimburse WMF for the software and keep it myself; request WMF permission to transfer the software to Cascadia Wikimedians or another eligible Wikimedia affiliate; or send the software to WMF.

Also, I might need to increase the amount of memory that my computer has. In order to work around the question of "If WMF funds the memory, who will keep it when the project is finished?", I plan to buy the extra memory myself if it's needed so that I can keep it and possibly resell it after the project is finished.

Please let me know your thoughts on these points. Thanks, --Pine 01:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Additions: I'm requesting a mid-grade professional microphone and headset. I've talked to a couple of people who are of the opinion that if we're going to do this project, we should do it well and that the relatively small amount of extra funds is worth the investment. After the project is complete, I'm happy to return these items to the Wikimedia Foundation, or they can become the property of Cascadia Wikimedians. In either case, they would be available for re-use and lending for projects. --Pine 22:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pine, apologies for my slow response. We are willing to fund software and hardware if the impact potential of the project justifies the cost and if there is a plan in place for what will happen to them after your project ends. WMF prefers not to become the manager of a lending library, for capacity reasons, so your suggestion that Cascadia Wikimedians become the owners/managers at the end of your project is a good one. Let me know if this doesn't sufficiently answer your question! --Marti (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi Marti (WMF): I would like to ask for clarification. If Cascadia Wikimedians becomes the owner of the software and equipment, then it has the choice (not a requirement) to sell those items and use the funds for other purposes. If WMF requires Cascadia Wikimedians only to manage the software and equipment, then Cascadia Wikimedians must retain that equipment, which it might not want to do (I, for one, don't want more clutter that's not getting used). I think that a transfer of ownership would be preferable from Cascadia's perspective because Cascadia may have more use for the funds than for the software and equipment. Please let me know which option WMF would prefer. --Pine 06:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Pine: please be more specific, what does "old software", "newer video software" really mean? I don't know if your request is grounded or not, but I strongly suggest WMF to never support anything with such vague description (I know price is just $110, but I still would like to know details why do you need it. Maybe even you may need software that costs much higher of maybe just free open source software. But it should be explained)--Ilya (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi, just want to suggest you to take a look at Kdenlive and/or Blender - both are popular free software tools. I use Kdenlive myself (I made this video with it for instance). I'm suggesting free software not because of the cost, but because it opens the option to also publish the source files that would allow anyone to freely remix the video without also having to buy the the proprietary software package (and potentially also proprietary operating system) that may as well become unavailable at some point in the future. Free software means open formats and no vendor lock-in. Since you are also emphasizing a modular approach, I think this is an important aspect to consider. --Yury Bulka (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi Ilya, I currently have 32-bit video editing software that is prone to crashing when I render 1080p video files, largely due to the 32-bit memory address limitation. The software that is budgeted in this grant is 64-bit so it won't have this problem. --Pine 23:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
32/64bit difference makes sense, still why don't you name the software? (Disclaimer: I'm not nitpicking at the 110$, but it was discussed in our community, and if you explained this maybe it would not raise questions)--Ilya (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying to avoid making it sound like I'm giving this software some kind of official endorsement. The software that I've selected is Cyberlink PowerDirector 14 Ultimate. PowerDirector seems to get mostly positive reviews, and appears to be true 64-bit software. --Pine 00:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi Yury Bulka, I previously used Blender and found it very difficult to accomplish what I wanted with Blender's 2D video features. I'm not familiar with Kdenlive. --Pine 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree that Blender has a learning curve, but Kdenlive is a different story - it's very similar to the other video editors like Adobe Premiere and definitely easier to use than Blender. Blender, on the other, hand has a very powerful 3d stack. --Yury Bulka (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks for the suggestion. It looks like Kdenlive is available for various flavors of Linux and Mac but not Windows, and I use Windows. It appears that at one time there was a Kdenlive option for a live DVD or USB but those options are now depreciated. If I get a Linux of Mac OS at some point then I may consider Kdenlive. --Pine 18:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Audience goals[edit]

The goals seem quite low. The Italian-language wikiguides were seen up to 100k times on YouTube only in 5 years, plus a certain number on-wiki which would be tedious to extract right now but you can esteem from mediacounts. --Nemo 18:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • Thanks for that info. I was told by someone else that the viewership goals seem too high rather than too low. Naturally, I am happy to have high viewership. Estimating viewership at this point is pretty difficult but as we move forward and segments are produced we will probably be thinking about use cases and how to expand viewership by publications and outreach efforts on multiple fronts. --Pine 21:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Simple language[edit]

The videos are meant for people around the world and to be translated to many languages. Therefore I suggest you to try to keep language as simple as possible. For example, consider the Basic English combined wordlist, and try to avoid long, complex sentences. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC).Reply

  • NaBUru38 thanks for the note. I agree that simple language may work better for many parts of the video. Also, I think you might like to know that I've asked a Spanish-speaking Wikimedian, Dulacia, if they are willing to get some video of Spanish-speaking Wikimedians discussing Spanish Wikipedia's similarities and differences relative to English Wikipedia. --Pine 05:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2015[edit]

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2015 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 2015 begins on 20 October 2015, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia[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?
(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?
(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?
(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?
Comments from the committee:
  • Yes, we need more video material for outreach.
  • The concept of using instructional videos for training Wikimedia contributors is an interesting one. However, there does not appear to be any prior research into whether videos would actually be effective in replacing face-to-face instruction, or whether they must be regarded only as augmentation to traditional in-person training methods. Consequently, it is unclear whether the impact described by the applicants is realistic.
  • By supporting new users with videos, this project fits with the strategic priorities of increasing participation. Has potential for online impact - a standardized series of videos could make edit-a-thons more productive and provide individuals who cannot attend outreach events with important educational resources to get started with editing. I like that this project can be easily adapted to all language communities, however, it's less clear to me how additional videos - created after the project ends - will be managed and monitored for quality control.
  • A solution like this must be "viral" but I don't see how this distribution will happen.
  • The project seemed productive with a great impact potential but I'm particularly concerned about the video circulation, its distribution among academic institutions.
  • Video is way outside the comfort zone of most Wikipedians, so old tech but innovative for us.
  • The measures of success are poorly defined, with the only quantitative metrics being collected at the 12-month mark, making it difficult to evaluate the impact of this effort until well after it has concluded.
  • Since video tutorials for Wikipedia have been around for a while, I do not regard this as innovative. Yet the risk is low and it does have some potential. Success can be measured.
  • I this the project could help address a few problems, including training or finding experienced Wikimedians to help out with events and customizing learning materials for individuals at different levels. I'm curious to know if there is any evidence of videos supporting onboarding of new users (in or outside of the WMF movement) but generally I think the potential impact is worth the potential risks. Measures of success are provided and seem attainable.
  • Measures are under-developed.
  • If anyone does it then it should be these folks I think. They have the enthusiasm, knowledge, and video experience.
  • The proposed labor rates seem high for the work to be performed. It is unclear whether the applicants have considered whether some or all of the listed work could be performed by volunteers instead.
  • Scope can be accomplished in 6 months, but I regard the budget as rather tight for 60 mins of completed video tutorial. Yet I do trust the skills, especially since Victor Grigas is involved. However, I am not convinced about the idea to have one 60min video, but would prefer a series of shorter (3-5mins) tutorials that can be viewed consecutively or may stand alone. German experience with such tutorials (see Atlasowa's comments on the talk page) show that there is only little usage of such tutorials in the context of edithathons etc, and that a broader audience is interested, but this interest is focussing on specific questions such as "Write a Wikipedia article about yourself", rather than on a general introduction in the topic. Please also bear in mind that the kind of people we need and which will thrive in the Wikiversum are curious people who will find their way also on their own - this is a further reason why short video modules seem more appropriate than a full 60 minute video.
  • I think the work proposed can be accomplished in 6 months. The project team is very capable and I'd be somewhat concerned about the writing/framing process were it not for all the support/participation I see from WMF staff. The budget also seems fine (however I thought the going rate for IEG grantees was rarely above $20-25 an hour - it'd be good to have guidelines on assessing stuff like this).
  • The accomplishment of the goal is realistic in 6 months and the budget is efficient. The participants are experienced enough.
  • There is a reasonable degree of community engagement and support.
  • Loads of community support.
  • The target community is the (English language) education program and others. There is community support and a good plan to engage with stakeholders.
  • Better to have a series of short videos than one lengthy feature.
  • Before developing new video content, I'd like to see a review/evaluation of existing videos (for example, I know the Art+Feminism team produced a lot of new training videos as part of their IEG project), as well as some clarity on how additional videos - created after the project ends - will be managed and monitored for quality control and approved as part of this standardized series of videos.
  • Would like more explanation of the need and the channel of distribution.

Round 2 2015 decision[edit]

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, $8,805

Comments regarding this decision:
The Committee supports your work to provide modular video trainings for new volunteers, expanding the potential reach of current outreach efforts when live Wikimedian volunteer trainers are not available. We especially look forward to seeing the results of the collaborative script-writing process, which has potential to be translated and produced in multiple languages.

Next steps:

  1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
  2. Review the information for grantees.
  3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
  4. Start work on your project!
Questions? Contact us.


As requested on IRC, here is some more information about OTRS.

To create a ticket in the OTRS system, send an email to one of our email addresses. A good example is info-en@wikimedia.org, which is the main address for the English Wikipedia. There are several hundred addressed used at any one time. We also have info-commons@wikimedia.org, for Wikimedia Commons related inquiries.

References: Meta, English Wikipedia

If I can be of any more help, let me know! ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 04:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comment on Commons module (moved from Grants:IEG/Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia/Scripts)[edit]

Comment: Can I suggest that it briefly mention that one should always upload an original, uncropped, untweaked copy where possible before uploading an edited copy? The number of files that Commons gets of historical media with undocumented tweaks, or information such as the original captions thrown out is depressing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

My review[edit]

Pine and I just had a check in about the current outline, and overall I thought that it was pretty good. I think it's 90% done. My notes are below:

  • I like the modular format (as chapters)
  • I don’t think we should incorporate other video content (unless we have a section about remixing specifically) because 1.) social media outlets can exclude the video if we use cc content, and 2.) I wonder how it may translate in case someone wants to fork this script into another language.
  • I like the idea of Special cases (as their own video chapter). It makes it easy to add editions to, like how encyclopedia britannica would publish updates.
  • I was curious about a Main titles sequence, seems like something we could put off into the 'nice to have' category.
  • I didn't understand why 'listen to wikipedia' was introduced where it was and Pine explained that it was to show the constant updating that happens. I thought that it might be confusing without showing a section on reuse and copyright first.
  • There should have a bit about copyright law / creative commons at the beginning, before viewers get into writing, editing and uploading anything.
  • Account registration should be earlier.
  • The links about how much wikipedia is edited I was curious about how to put them into a video. on a webpage they are fine, but in a video you cant click them and would have to freeze-frame and type everything out, so this should be curated somehow. I suggest that maybe a study guide to add to video might be useful?
  • The why do people contribute section felt 1.) somewhat speculative and 2.) like it was selling wikipedia when it didn't need to. People who read the tutorial about how to ride a bicycle don't need an explanation about how they can use the bicycle to deliver groceries to their home, its fair to assume that if you are watching the video that you already have a personal reason to be watching such a tutorial. If you need this section the dialogue could be very short.
  • The how to get help section is great.
  • I thought that the disagreements section should move down to later because 1.) that's something someone may (will?) experience later in the workflow after starting and account and learning all the copyright stuff and 2.) its disheartening to present that early on.
  • The general anatomy of a WP article should be higher up
  • I had a question:

How many people had seen this so far?

  • Generally my thoughts about this draft are that

1.) Lets teach philosophy and anatomy first, 2.) then get to editing, and conflicts 3.) The whole video should be as public domain as possible 4.) In terms of style, I'd advocate for plainness, because that makes it easier to fork (the forker won't have to replicate the style and it eliminates things that could be confusing in translation)

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think Victor's comments are on-point. I'm eager to see some full scripts for the highest priority couple sections, as I have trouble thinking about a project like this as a whole without having a clearer idea of what the parts look like. --Ragesoss (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for continued conversations[edit]

Thanks Pine for regular communication about the scripts. I have no particular comments to share as text at this time but I do appreciate talking to you by voice and video as we have over the past year or so about this video project. It is nice that you always find time to take feedback.

I continue to believe that this a great project both in itself and as a step toward developing more video. Last year I casually reviewed the Wikipedia videos that were popular on YouTube and I know that the demand for more video content about Wikipedia is not being served otherwise except by what this project promises.

Thanks for your continual thought and development of this issue. It is a priority for the movement and you are making the best progress that anyone could make. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@ Bluerasberry. Good write up about video & Wikipedia. Have you seen this?
Wikimania 2013 documentary

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Midpoint report accepted[edit]

Hi Pine,

Thank you for submitting characteristically thorough documentation of your work on this project to date. I especially appreciate how well you've kept everything up to date given some of the twists and turns your plan has taken in response to life's curveballs. I'm accepting this report with the following feedback:

  • Bravo on completing the script outline. As you know, the potential pool of information available to initiate a new Wikipedian is sprawling and it's no small feat to think through what to prioritize and in what order, let alone to do so in a collaborative context. Congrats on getting a good draft in place.
  • I've noted that there have been concerns expressed about keeping the scope of the script compact enough to pave the way for a succinct usable training product. Perhaps the most difficult part of managing a collaborative, open script-writing process is figuring out where to say no. In our next check-in, I'd like to take another pass over your outline and make sure that your scope matches the time and resources you have available to write the full script. If needed, we can cut some parts out to allow you to bring high quality attention where you can.
  • I've filled in your Finances table based on what I understand to be the current standing of your budget, based on what you've indicated in your Midpoint Report. Please take a look and reply here letting me know if it looks right.
  • Thanks for creating a learning pattern on tracking hours in Google sheets. That will be a useful tool to share with future grantees.  :-)
  • Glad to hear you've felt well-supported in the first phase of the project. I know it's been a challenging period and we're grateful that you've been willing to seek out solutions that made it possible for you to continue on with the project.

Thanks for all your work on this, Pine! I appreciate how diligent you're being and am looking forward to seeing the Priority 1 modules at the end of this project.

Best regards,

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mjohnson (WMF), thanks for the comments. I have made a modification to the finance page to clarify that the information about expended funds is as of the midpoint and will be updated for the final report. Regards, --Pine 01:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Redirects from "LearnWiki" and "Learnwiki"[edit]

@Mjohnson (WMF): I have created redirects from the pages LearnWiki and Learnwiki on Meta to Grants:IEG/Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia. If you want to get to the project page quickly in the future, or want to tell others how to get here, the redirects may be helpful. --Pine 22:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: Hi, I just saw your mention of a "LearnWiki site" in this email. Are you considering (or planning) a separate domain? If so, I strongly recommend reconsidering, for all the reasons I outlined in this email - specifically the many benefits of being a part of the central meta-wiki domain [sharing a watchlist, SUL (single user login), pre-existing templates/gadgets, the large community of translators and janitors, and much greater chance of interested by-passers]. Cheers, Quiddity (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi Quiddity, at this time my plan is to have LearnWiki (the name is tentative) be a non-WMF domain. While I appreciate WMF's support and cooperation with the project, I have memories of WMF's use of Superprotect, and I do not want to give WMF the opportunity to interfere with my work. There may come a time in the distant future when the cost of storage, bandwidth, and computing resources are high enough that I decide that I should find external funding for those costs and/or find someone who is willing to provide those resources at their own expense, although WMF would be a long way from my first choice. ---Pine 05:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hey Pine, I'd encourage you to reconsider. Besides all the good points Quiddity makes, The WMF of the past is, well, in the past - in many visible and not-so-visible ways. Leadership, working together with care, and approaches to working with communities have all matured just in the last 2 years of my experience as staff (and longer as an outside observer as a volunteer). I think we as an organization have learned a lot from our past and I'd hate for bad memories to prevent us from trying again. I understand if you don't wish to and appreciate the consideration. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi CKoerner (WMF), while I think that there has been some progress at WMF, I feel that it has a long way to go. Financial considerations may lead me to request further WMF funding for this project and/or to place the project on a Wikimedia server, but I prefer to avoid those actions if possible. Given my guarded views of WMF and my experience of WMF's priorities being in opposition to those of the community, I think that I would be in a very difficult position if I was requesting and/or accepting WMF financial support. If I was receiving WMF financial support, I think that I would be more likely to keep quiet the next time that I have concerns about WMF decisions.
I am hoping that I can work on this project incrementally and that its popularity will be moderate enough that I can support it myself and/or with non-WMF funds, but I may revisit revisit this question in the future. In order of likelihood, I may request WMF funding for a contract video editor/producer to create and edit videos for which I write the scripts, funding for non-WMF site hosting (non-WMF hosting ensures that WMF can't swoop in with an action like Superprotect), and compensation for my time on this project if and when I feel that the project has achieved some success and that I would like to work on this project more intensively than I am willing to do on a volunteer basis.
Perhaps there will come a day when I feel less guarded about my relationship with WMF, although I think that will be years from now.
--Pine 03:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts about this project 'failure' - (It's not actually a failure)[edit]

So here are my thoughts about the 'failure' of this project:

  • I don't think it's a failure actually. The result is a wonderful series of scripts and script outlines. If you look at it as an investment in scripts, for the money spent this is a very inexpensive investment.
  • The author was ambitious and totally inexperienced in video production, so I'm actually not surprised the scripts haven't gone to a production phase. Early on, I knew it was possible that he might crash through the project because that's what most 1st year film students do. They crash. That's how they learn. Everyone who signs up for film school wants to be a director, but they don't come out of school doing that because really being director is the worst job - you get all the stress and all the responsibility. Even big productions don't make it past a script sometimes. These things are complicated. It's easy to see a final video that's 3 minutes long and not quite appreciate the time and effort that went into it.
  • The budget was teensy, so almost nothing could be handed to a professional to manage. You'd need tens of thousands of dollars in the budget to hire a professional to manage production of a comprehensive video series like this. That wasn't there.
  • Again, I don't think this is a failure. Anyone can pick this script up and run with it now. That's what makes it awesome.

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Or, more simply, one should have started smaller. Wikimedia Italia has been at the forefront of video tutorials for Wikimedia projects with the wmit:WikiGuide (mostly around 2010). We initially made just one (~7 min), with a few thousand euro for a friendly professional and a lot of work from some experienced chapter members, and then continued from there. Nemo 09:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi Nemo, in hindsight I agree with you. I had a meeting with Marti last week in which we discussed how to do a project like this in small steps, which is what I wish that I had done in the beginning. I still think that the vision is good and I intend to continue to work on this project incrementally, probably over a period of years. --Pine 01:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Update: successor project[edit]

@Mjohnson (WMF): I am updating the notices at the top of pages for this grant, such as here. I would be interested in hearing your comments regarding the successor project's coordination space on the Outreach wiki; please comment on that project's talk page on Outreach if you would like. ↠Pine () 15:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply