Grants talk:IEG/TapAMap

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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:
Thanks for your participation! The missing plan to develop open-source code was a show-stopper for us, but should you change your mind about this in the future, we hope to see you back in future rounds.

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.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for TapAMap[edit]

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background) Score
1=weakest 5=strongest
Potential for impact
(A) The project fits with the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities 3
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact. 3
(C) The impact of the project can be sustained after the grant ends. 4
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects. 3
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 2
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds. 3
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it. 4
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement. 3
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact. 2
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 3
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 3
Comments from the committee:
  • We appreciate the aim of expanding the presence of Wikimedia projects in the mobile world.
  • Open source and free licensing would be required for use of donor funds to develop software, so issues with releasing code under CC-BY-SA or similar must be resolved before funding could be considered.
  • Does not closely align with strategic priorities.
  • A similar app, Wikihood, is already available for Android, and this project would need to demonstrate why another is required.

Complete, or still drafting?[edit]

Hi Scott! Thanks for this submission. I've made a few updates to your page, including adding some fields to the infobox - please correct/update as you see fit. I wanted to ask if you're still planning to add anything else to this draft. If not, please change status= from DRAFT to PROPOSED, and then it looks like you'll be ready for review by the February 15th deadline. Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to other projects, license[edit]

How does this project relate/compare to existing, similar efforts like the displaying of nearby articles in the official iOS and Android Wikipedia apps (soon to be expanded to the mobile site itself), the Google Maps Wikipedia layer, or WikiMiniAtlas?

Thank you for your question. The main difference between TapAMap and Wikipedia Mobile, is that users access Wikipedia through touching a map. It is a mobile-based map-interface with Wikipedia content. I believe the simplicity of touching a location in order to retrieve nearby articles is unique, too. It provides a very intuitive way to access Wikipedia content based on location if users don't know a specific name to type in.
I read the blog on GeoTagging. It looks very exciting and useful. The GeoTagging feature seems that it provides a way for contributors to easily supply coordinates to articles. It also allows users to see a list of articles near their location. TapAMap allows users to see a list of articles near any location they choose. That's the main difference.

Also, will the code funded by the grant be released under a free software license?

That's another good question. I have already created an iOS version, it's on the App Store (free). I'm supportive of the principal of open source software, too. However, I have spent six months on my own time creating the code, so I'm not sure that the code itself would be released, as there are parts of it unrelated to the Wikipedia content which I hope to continue to develop.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments on code[edit]

I like this idea, but it seems to me that if this application is to be developed with WMF funds then the entire relevant source code should be open source and freely licensed. I wouldn't object to someone developing an application like this with their own funds and keeping it closed source and/or with a paid license, but I don't think I could support providing WMF funds for this unless the code is open source and has a free license. --Pine 20:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, wholeheartedly. If you want to protect your intellectual property, that's fine, but why should WMF funds be branted to develop something that is "yours"? --Cryptic C62 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't expect there would be many in the community or on WMF staff who would disagree, this being an open culture movement in practice as well as principle. I don't imagine that developing proprietary software is going to pass the Wikimedia test for good use of donor funds, because it is not just about believing in open source, it is also about putting that belief into practice. So, I guess the real question is, would you reconsider your plans in light of this? Siko (WMF) (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-community endorsements?[edit]

Who are all these people that have endorsed this project? Looking at their crosswiki contributions, some of them don't appear to be active members of any Wikimedia projects. --Cryptic C62 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Benjamin Bengfort, added by 1 previous edit to Wikipedia. No userpage search results for "Benjamin Bengfort". Probable match with iTunes customer review from "bbengfort".
  • Peter Billings, added by 1 previous edit to Wikipedia. No relevant userpage search results for "Peter Billings".
  • Bonnie Sterling, added by 0 previous edits to WMF projects. No relevant userpage search results for "Bonnie Sterling".
  • Phil Rowe, added by 0 previous edits to WMF projects. No relevant userpage search results for "Phil Rowe".

And so on and so forth. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but something is very clearly not right here. --Cryptic C62 (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If he's looking for consumers as opposed to editors to endorse, this isn't necessarily a big problem. However I can see how this could be meatpuppetry if it's been abused. I don't think there's a way for us to be sure one way or another. But in any case, without a change to the license, I expect this proposal to be declined by the Committee. --Pine 03:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Pine. If a project's main impact is something that primarily targets improvements for readers instead of editors, it is reasonable to have readers considered to be a community that would be notified and involved in the discussion/endorsements. In this case, what I'd call readers is probably what you're calling consumers. They won't necessarily carry equal weight in the committee's decision, and backgrounds are certainly problematic to verify, but since endorsements are considered additional input/perspective rather than any formal vote process, I'd agree it's not necessarily a bit problem (although good to be aware of). Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)