Grants talk:IEG/Philippine Music Survey

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


I don't understand what this word means in this context: are you talking of reimbursements, or wages? The descriptions seem contradictory. --Nemo 17:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's neither a wage nor a reimbursement. We are not employed to this project. Thus, it's not a wage. It is not also a reimbursement because we won't be releasing money on our own pockets that would be later reimbursed. We really refer to this as allowance as defined here, which is money given for a specific purpose. This is similar to per diem or stipend but definitely not wage. I hope this clear things up. Thanks for your question. --Jojit (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The definition you linked is extremely vague so it doesn't really help. The definition of "wage" of course depends on each fiscal system so I understand it's hard to match meanings, let's drop it.
What I meant in my question is that one item says "This covers meals, transportation and incidentals", which seems to signify that the persons are expected to have some extra expenses for the project which the "allowance" is somehow expected to compensate. On the other hand, there are items such as "Allowances for expedition works" which don't seem to refer to any expected expense. Can that be clarified?
Alternatively, if my question is unclear, I'd be interested in knowing how the amounts were calculated. --Nemo 08:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's a table that explains how the allowance were calculated:
Volunteer type Headcount Spot allowance Max admin allowance per week Max meal allowance per month Max transportation and incidentals allowance per day Approx. duration (weeks) per activity Approx duration (days) per activity SUB-TOTAL Notes
ADMIN 20,000 This is for taking care of administrative work in January 2016, which includes meals, transportation and incidentals.
:Lead 1 3,000 1,000 3 10,000
:Co-Lead 1 3,000 1,000 3 10,000
:Lead (scouting & expedition) 1 700 2,700 9 25,000 Scouting activities is from February 6 to 8, 2016 and fieldwork or expedition works are from February 20-25, 2016
:Co-Lead (scouting & expedition) 1 700 2,700 9 25,000
:Expert Volunteers (expedition only) 4 1,000 2,750 6 67,000 Expert volunteers include an Academic Consultant, a Field Researcher, a Photogapher, LGU Coordinator. The illustrator or draftsman has a separate line item.
:Student Volunteers (expedition only) 2 1,500 3,000 They will be editors/writers and at the same time recordists.
Let me know if you still have questions. Thanks.--Jojit (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear @Jojit fb: I like this table and, maybe, change the term you use in the grant to per deim. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion but we are going to stick with the term allowances. --Jojit (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2015[edit]

IEG review.png

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) 01:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Community notifications[edit]

Hey there, Buszmail and Jojit fb, and thanks for building this proposal to increase coverage of musical instruments indigenous to the Philippines. I've done some editing on Japanese folk instruments on, where some information is quite localized and sometimes difficult to obtain. I think it's great you've set up a plan to deeply explore and expand access to information on this topic. I see you're targeting a number of Wikipedia projects in addition to Commons in terms of where you expect increase content, and I think it would be helpful to alert each of these communities to your proposal as soon as you are able. For instance, you might consider alerting WikiProject Music and Village Pump/IdeaLab on, or on, the community discussion board. Let me know if you have any questions, or if you need help with crafting a message. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done sending notification. See the list. --Jojit (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

comments from Thepwnco[edit]

@Buszmail: hello and congrats on your grant proposal being confirmed as eligible for review! I have a few comments and questions for you, and am excited to watch this project develop before the formal review period begins (I am part of the IEG committee).

Hello as well, Thepwnco, for the purpose of my reply, I consulted Dr. Verne de la Peña, Chairman of the Department of Musicology of the University of the Philippines College of Music. Verne and I go back decades to our student days in the conservatory, and despite our disparate interests (me in world fusion, and he in indigenous musical research) we found a common goal in this proposed project. Here are our shared responses: --Buszmail (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Buszmail: thanks to you and to Dr. Verne de la Peña for taking the time to answer all the questions I have at this time. Thanks also for the note on terminology (i.e. use of word tribes). Cheers. -Thepwnco (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it is a great idea to direct efforts towards improving and expanding Wikipedia and Commons content of Indigenous peoples. I think it's also wise that you've chosen to limit the scope of this project (phase 1) to focus on one specific region. But given that CAR is still quite large, can you please provide more information about what communities you are hoping to visit and include in this project?
Given that tribes in CAR, as close as adjacent towns, have variations in vocabulary and speech (and therefore, variances in music and culture) we are compelled to go for broad strokes. As such, we will focus on the following representative communities: (1) Sagada (Kankanaey/Bontoc); (2) Banaue (Ifugao); (3) Tabuk (Kalinga); and (4) Baguio (Ibaloi/Kankanaey). --Buszmail (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm glad are already thinking in advance of appropriate agencies and organizations that you will need to coordinate with for this project, for example, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. I see from your timeline that you think this process should take about a month (January). I'm curious to know what this is based on, because in my own experience (in Canada), this type of process and consultative work typically takes much longer. I also wanted to clarify whether this coordination process includes determining whether there is interest from tribes and individuals in participating in this project.
We will need to conduct a "pre-visit" to the four targeted communities, in order to establish our local connections and make arrangements. We are hopeful that this will be done in January, or at least --in that month-- to introduce ourselves already to the agencies concerned. --Buszmail (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I note that you are planning to collect information primarily about instruments but potentially also on tribal beliefs and history.
Our main objective is narrow: to conduct an "organological" survey (focusing on the physical properties of the instruments and their respective social or spiritual functions).  We will not have the luxury of time, nor the very specialized training for a granular study of CAR music culture. Consequently, we must seek guidance from the U.P. College of Music's Department of Musicology, for whom we shall conduct Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons training. --Buszmail (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Because this knowledge may be sensitive and highly contextual - and given some of the issues surrounding the documentation, appropriation, and ownership of Indigenous knowledge and traditional cultural expressions - can you indicate how you plan on ensuring that tribal/traditional knowledge is respected and protected? If you don't have experience with this, perhaps the University of the Philippines Center for Ethnomusicology does?
All data collected will be attributed to specific and named local experts. This is also why the "pre-visit" is necessary; so that we can identify these expert individuals. All activities on the field will be done with the consent of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples whose mandate is to safeguard traditional knowledge. --Buszmail (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Is it possible to include tribe members in the Wikipedia editing workshop? I ask because involving Indigenous peoples in editing is potentially another way of improving quality and coverage of Indigenous peoples (and thus in line with your project goals).
For one, we have since learned to discard the term, "tribe" – as we are now looking to gather information from identified members (experts) of each targeted CAR community. And yes, it will be advantageous as such to have a local expert in our team. Perhaps we can forge a collaborative effort with regional cultural groups who will function not merely as information sources but even co-authors of our articles. --Buszmail (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks in advance. -Thepwnco (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Lam-ang[edit]

Greetings Buszmail and Jojit fb. I agree that there are diverse musical instruments across the Philippines and I would also like to see articles and documentations about them across Wikimedia projects. Part of the reason I think that these instruments are not well documented is that most tribal and other communities in the Philippines mostly draws upon their traditions through oral history, as a result, too few published written sources are available to even start stub articles. It is mentioned in the proposal that the outcome of the survey will then be written and uploaded to the online projects of Wikimedia, which other projects do you have in mind (I get uploading medias to commons), and if you write articles on Wikipedias based upon the results of the survey, how will you go about doing that without being tag as original research?--Lam-ang (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lam-ang, thanks for your questions and the Project Team is delighted that an Ilokano Wikipedian is interested in this project. We will be writing articles first in the English Wikipedia and later on this will be translated into Tagalog, Pangasinan and Ilokano then those translated texts will be created in their respective Wikipedia versions. As for the original research issue, the UP College of Music Library and UP Center for Ethnomusicology will help us in acquiring reference materials. As you can see in the proposal, we have allotted a budget for research materials that will be used as reference for the articles to be created in Wikipedia. Based on what we learned while touring the UP College of Music Library, there is ample amount of reference materials for native Philippine musical instruments. Just in case that during our survey, there are undocumented musical instruments, we will seek the help of our partner, the UP Center for Ethnomusicology, to have the said instruments published. --Jojit (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

very good audio and video equipment[edit]

Dear @Jojit fb: I noticed that you do not ask to purchase very good audio and video equipment? Will this be supplied by the university or the volunteers? Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"Some of the volunteers will also take pictures and draw illustrations of the instruments; and record sound bites and excerpts from the instrumentalists." is a quote from the grant. Please do not just record sound bites but whole songs and performances. This would be a great opportunity to preserve folk culture, similar to what was done in West Virginia, USA. Geraldshields11 (talk)
Hi @Geraldshields11: thanks for your questions. As much as we like to include audio and video equipment, I think that WMF discourages incorporating gadgets as part of the budget in the grant request. Since this is an IEG, the problem that we might have is disposing the equipment because of unclear ownership. Unless the WMF categorically suggests that our project should have a budget for equipment, we won't include it. As of now, we will be using personal equipment that aren't high-end but good enough for proper documentation. I think that the main priority of the Wikimedia movement is providing free knowledge and having a high-quality content is just a bonus. As for your other concern, at the minimum we will provide "sound bites" that will be uploaded to Wikimedia online projects. This will be done because we might encounter copyright problems if we upload the whole performances. Although we will record whole performances, the uploading of the whole performances will depend on the consent of the performers and masters of the instruments if they allow to have their performances licensed under CC-BY-SA. I hope this answers your questions. --Jojit (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Jojit fb: Yes, this answers my question and I understand. Thank you for the response. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Philippine Music Survey[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:
  • Not enough impact potential and project is not sustainable.
  • Greater familiarity with these instruments could be conducive to content donations from scientific cultural institutions. Institutions release substantial material on Commons hoping for more information (cf. Dutch museum of the Tropics). Very cool idea, could be scaled to other contexts such as Netherlands folk music (though the Dutch wiki might object to it as original research).
  • The sound bites are valuable. Otherwise, this appears to be mainly original research, which is beyond the scope/purposes of Wikipedia. Yet I can see the need for this kind of documentation and I don't see where in the Wikimedia universe this would fit in. Maybe something like an ethnomusic repository should be created?
  • This proposal fits with the WMF priority of improving quality and coverage, specifically on indigenous Philippine musical instruments. I think there is potential for impact through the development of a new approach for including knowledge from remote or unconnected communities and uploading it to WMF sites. The project does not seem to be intended for sustainability in the sense that renewed funding and wages for the project team would be required to complete next stages of the work.
  • Love the idea of just going there and recording the finds.
  • Since this is original research, this is not a feasible approach. (My own life as an editor for example of food articles would be much easier if original research was I absolutely see the difficulties here, but: that's how the rules are and this is a rather fundamental one).
  • I think conducting an organological survey is an innovative approach and while I initially had some concerns about the framing of the project, I am satisfied by the responses from the applicants. They appear capable of completing this project with minimal risk - they have relevant experience, a partner, and are aware of the some of the issues surrounding use and documentation of Indigenous knowledge. Concrete measures of success have also been provided
  • Seems relatively easy on execution, but the budget is not very efficient.
  • It's a huge project with a time limit (6 months). With the grantees experiences, I expect that the project could be accomplished in the time limit.
  • Seems straightforward and the proposers look like they have the proper cultural music experience to do this.
  • The budget is very detailed, which is encouraging. As far as I can tell the budget seems appropriate although it does also read that we are subsidizing academic research - this is ok, but I think we should push to make sure there are more deliverables/outcomes for WMF and not just academia. As mentioned above, the project leads have relevant experience
  • It has some community support, and this project supports Asian Wikimedia Community, through it does not seem to engage much in the Wikimedia community
  • Not much involvement but that is because their target audience is not on Wikipedia yet. If they start this project, that may change. Lots of endorsers which is good.
  • Communities have been notified and the project is endorsed by Wikimedia Philippines. Project supports diversity in terms of content - would be nice to see more support for participant diversity (i.e. including members of cultural groups in the workshop/wiki training)
  • More likely to be a university research project than a Wikimedia project.
  • Wonderful idea
  • Appears to be an original research project.
  • Would like to see more explanation of a plan for sustainability and more outcomes for the Wikimedia community. Perhaps the project team could commit to creating some sort of guide, reflection, or roadmap for engaging Indigenous communities in Wikimedia content creation?
  • Too focused in a specific topic to produce a long term impact.

Here is the project team's reply on the concerns that the committee raised:

General comment
Our Philippine Music Survey initiative was, in fact, brought forward in a group session during the 2015 Wikimedia Conference, facilitated by Anna Koval. Its educational and cultural impact as information for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons was welcomed rather well. We were therefore very enthusiastic about this project from the response of those who knew about this particular project of ours, as broached by our co-team leader and WMPH representative to WMCON2015, Juan Baustista Alegre.
Regarding the impact of our initiative in the Wikipedia context, one of our aims is to bring to light the gender diversity prevalent in ethnic Philippine music. It was noted by our team from the outset that women play a traditionally significant role in the performance of the music, including their inherent social and ritualistic permutations throughout the various Philippine tribes. This, together with the diverse ethnic cultures that we shall be documenting for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, will be a treasure trove of free information for the world. It is very important to implement this project soon, as our tribal cultures are functionally dwindling through modernization. Despite a wealth of material already compiled by the University of the Philippines Center for Ethnomusicology, our first-hand access to traditional sources will allow us to make measurements and expedite concise media material for uploading. Lastly, and most importantly, we intend to recruit and develop the academe of Philippine ethnomusicology into the ranks of Wikipedia contributors.
Perhaps, sustainability is the weakness of this project given that there will be renewed funding for the next phases. The project is built on phases because there are indigenous people in practically all of the 18 regions of the Philippines. Few months are not enough to cover all those regions. We are planning to finish the survey in seven years with the following extrapolated timeline:
  • 2016 – Phase I – Cordillera Administrative Region
  • 2017 – Phase II – Regions I, II and III
  • 2018 – Phase III – Region IV-A, IV-B and V
  • 2019 – Phase IV – Regions VI, VII, VIII and Negros Island Region
  • 2020 – Phase V – Regions X and XIII
  • 2021 – Phase VI – Regions XI and XII
  • 2022 – Phase VII – Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and Region IX
Original research
We are puzzled with the comments that this project will result to original research. In the proposal, we clearly stated that we will allocate a budget for published reference materials, and we also stated that there is extensive research and documentation about indigenous Philippine music. We also replied to a query in this talk page from an Ilokano Wikipedian regarding original research; and note that he is satisfied by the answer. I like to reiterate that there are many reliable sources or reference materials for ethnic Philippine musical instruments. Some of those materials are already in our possession. As far as we know, however, there is no readily available freely licensed material about indigenous Philippine instruments. Thus, we are proposing this project to make the information (backed with reliable sources) about those musical instruments available freely for the whole world.
Community involvement
We have announced this in various noticeboards in the online Wikimedia projects, and only a handful responded. Perhaps, only a few Wikimedia contributors are interested, or feel capable, in the field of musical instruments. We strongly believe that there will be additional community support once we begin uploading the first results of this project. We will try to create a guide on engaging indigenous communities in Wikimedia content creation. Hopefully and optimistically, members of those indigenous communities themselves will attend our wiki editing workshops.

I hope that our reply addressed your concerns. Kindly let us know should have additional questions or concerns. Thanks. --Jojit (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Round 2 2015 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:
The committee sees a potential for impact through the development of a new approach for including knowledge from remote or unconnected communities. However, as we ultimately struggled to determine whether the project would require original research, and believe this would be beyond the scope of the Committee's decision. We would have liked to see a developed plan for sustainability, but also highlight and recognize the detail in this proposal’s budget, as well as the experience and expertise involved in this project.

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.