Jump to content

Grants talk:IEG/Promoting Wikivoyage

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Tbennert in topic Responses

Ready to propose?[edit]

Hi Tammy,

I am guessing this proposal is ready for submission today, as it looks like you created all the required fields, etc. So, I'm going to update it to status=PROPOSED for you (this step is a bit confusing so I'm guessing it was simply overlooked). If that was wrong and you're actually not intending to go through review during this IEG round, please let us know and I'll change it back to DRAFT status.

Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2014[edit]

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 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 1 2014 begins on 21 April 2014, and grants will be announced in May. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

measures of success[edit]

Hello! It seems that I am the first IEG member commenting here but please don't think that we ignore your project - it's just quite straightforward :) I propose just one change in measures of success: "Establish dialog with at least 50 contacts. Can be verified by CCing all emails or logging GoToMeeting sessions." I think it's better to set number of positive replies as a metrics, not a number of sent letters. What do you think? rubin16 (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply


Hi Tammy, it seems like $500 budget will be used for powerpoint and video. Would you mind to explain a little bit more about how it's counted? Like cost of software, maybe renting some devices, human capitals and etc.--AddisWang (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Additionally the budget of $600 listed in the body of the proposal does not match the budget of $300 listed in the sidebar. You should correct this. Zellfaze (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply


As I see it, these bureaus may have just as much trouble as the general public in differentiating between Wikipedia and Wikivoyage and it would be great to be able to present why they should contribute to the one rather than the other. I think your target group would be great for improving content on Wikipedia regarding the US State parks, but it would be nice to see how you explain what belongs on Wikipedia vs. what belongs on WikiVoyage. It's nice to see this proposal though and I would be very interested in your progress! Jane023 (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Promoting Wikivoyage[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:
  • So refreshing to see a proposal for WikiVoyage! This is a reasonably scoped plan for a new and emerging project, aligned with the Wikimedia mission.
  • Project is well-scoped, has a clear activity plan, and the budget is very reasonable.
  • Clear measures of success. It's not the most innovative idea ever, and it is very US-focused, but is low cost, low-risk, and it's been made very clear what it expects to provide as an outcome.
  • Sustainable after the end of the project, especially if a relationship is built with the Chamber of Commerce.
  • State Chambers of Commerce usually have really friendly and knowledgeable people working there who could benefit Wikipedia projects a lot. Getting them to contribute to WikiVoyage will be a challenge, but this project could become a recipe for engaging with other tourism bureaus in other countries. This is a new kind of outreach to a community of commercially and locally focused operators we rarely consider allies. It's unclear if it will work but it appears we'll definitely learn something useful.
  • Judging from the feedback on the WikiVoyage community page, Tammy has lots of backup and buy-in for her proposal, although we’d have liked to see more support in the form of endorsements on the proposal here.

Thank you for submitting this proposal. The committee is now deliberating based on these scoring results, and WMF is proceeding with it's due-diligence. You are welcome to continue making updates to your proposal pages during this period. Funding decisions will be announced by the end of May. — ΛΧΣ21 23:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply


Thank you all so much for reading and commenting on the proposal! I am embarrassed to say that I checked the page for comments but must not have ever scrolled down. Huge apologies for not responding more promptly. For ease of reading I'm replying all in one section.

  • rubin16:Absolutely - measuring positive response is a much better measure than simply sent letters. I was trying to convey the thought by using "dialog" thinking that meant a back and forth rather than one sided. The intention is to convert 50 webcast attendees into editors. Hopefully that is closer to what you were looking for?
  • AddisWang: The $500 part of the budget is all human capital. I planned for 25 hours at $20 per hour to create the presentation, design and create supporting materials and quick how-to videos, and create resources the local Chambers can use to advocate and promote Wikivoyage to their business community. There will certainly be time needed in addition to this for implementation and support both on and off Wikivoyage and that will be done as a volunteer.
  • Zellfaze: Thank you for the note. I have corrected the infobox.
  • Jane023: You are right! There will need to be some clarification on what kind of information should be on Wikivoyage. I'm hoping the structure of Wikivoyage will do the heavy lifting. With each location having the same sections, and the labels being mostly straightforward (do, sleep, eat, etc.) new editors are herded, in a sense, to adding the right type of information.
By explaining the purpose of Wikivoyage and how it is beneficial to their community to monitor, at the least, I'm optimistic that the difference will be clear. If they want to edit on Wikipedia as well, that is a bonus.

Thanks again everyone! --Tbennert (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Round 1 2014 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, $600

Comments regarding this decision:
Looking forward to our first Wikivoyage IEG, and to learning along with you as this project progresses!

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.