Grants talk:IEG/WikiProject Siriono

Objectifs[edit]

Salut Eölen, concernant la partie sur les objectifs, il est écrit

Audio recordings and pictures in Commons

Penses-tu qu'on peut donner un chiffre réaliste pour le nombre d'enregistrements audio ? Genre 100 enregistrements dans le mois, ça fait environ 10 par personnes, on peut faire mieux ou pas ? Ça dépend surtout du matériel disponible, j'imagine. Pour le point sur les conférences :

Conferences about Wiktionary to defend the possible uses for linguists and speakers of endangered languages

Pareil, est ce que tu penses pouvoir donner un chiffre réaliste du nombres de conférences sur place (2, 3, 5 ?) ainsi que celles de retour en France. Je pose ces questions étant donné qu'il est préciser dans la demande qu'il est conseillé de donner des objectifs chiffrés. Pamputt (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour tes questions, je vais préciser ces deux points. En fait, les enregistrements audios, ce n'est pas très compliqué, nous pourrons en faire par sessions de 100 avec chaque personnes, donc à mon avis avoir des enregistrements pour plus de 75% des entrées relativement facilement. Pour certaines entrées, ça sera plus compliqué. Pour le matériel, je compte solliciter mon laboratoire de recherche et ça m'étonnerait qu'ils refusent de me laisser emmener un enregistreur numérique Zoom H4n. Il est possible que je puisse aussi emporter une caméra, mais c'est moins sûr. J'aurai mon appareil photo personnel en plus.

Pour les conférences en Bolivie, je n'en sais rien. J'aimerai que ce soit au moins 4, mais ça va demander pas mal de préparation et si le contact passe bien avec les gens de Wikimedia Bolivie, il est possible que ce soit davantage. De retour en France, j'envisage une conférence à l'école d'été 3L qui devrait avoir lieu à Lyon, Leiden ou Londres dans l'été à venir. Si elle ne tombe pas pendant le projet, ça serait le lieu idéal. Sinon, je verrai selon les appels à conférence qui apparaîtront sur le thème des langues en danger d'ici là. Je pense que ça pourra être deux ou trois présentations, si possible en visant des espaces qui mènent à des publications dans des revues avec des relecteurs, mais c'est assez difficile. N'hésite pas si tu as d'autres questions ! Eölen (talk) 12:03, 29 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) 01:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for WikiProject Siriono[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?	7.7
(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?	7.1
(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?	6.3
(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?	6.9
Comments from the committee: It would be so cool to prove that Wiktionary is a good tool for use in the preservation of small endangered languages. Maybe if this turns out to be a success we can get more of these on board. We need more success stories and the smaller the language the better! Wiktionary has traditionally been under-utilized relative to other Wikimedia projects, due in part to a lack of any unique application. If successful, this project would demonstrate Wiktionary's value in preserving endangered languages, generating increased interest within the linguistics community, greater expert participation, and opportunities to engage with related programs. This fits with the priority to improve quality - if WMF projects are intended to contain the "sum of all human knowledge," then they must also contain the knowledge of endangered languages. This has potential impact for projects like Wiktionary to contribute to language protection and revitalization. Project presentations and development of a guide and tool all contribute to sustainability and scalability. I would have appreciated if the project was based on remote collection of all information and data. I don't think that these expeditions can produce a long-term impact. Some travel is necessary to engage and train the Siriono people on srq.wiktionary in order for it to be an important language resource for the community. As a new use case for Wiktionary, the proposed project is inherently innovative not only with respect to endangered language preservation, but also more broadly with respect to working with indigenous language groups in the Americas and elsewhere. Innovative approach with low risks, costs seem justified. Success can easily be measured. Through partnering with other groups and initiatives also working towards Siriono language revitalization, the potential impact of this project could be very high. I am happy with the measures of success provided and think the Wikimedia movement stands to gain a lot (particularly through promotion of the work and development of a guide to explain the process for others interested in doing the same) Proven track record working with Siriono speakers. Has not yet recruited onsite staff Attracting new contributors is generally difficult. The proposed budget could be more detailed but appears reasonable for the planned scope of work. Proposal seems realistic and members of the team have relevant field work experience. The project timeline seems reasonable and it's very encouraging that the project lead has so much experience with the Sirionó people and working to document the Sirionó language. My concern is the high costs for flights from France to Bolivia. While travel for the lead (Noé) seems essential to the project, I am less sure on the need for 2 others (especially without knowing what relevant experience they will bring to the project). I’m concerned about how much of the project resources will go toward travel. This incubator project requires a lot of time, and traveling/logistics may inhibit progress and delay results. Wiktionarians appear to be on board. It’s less clear whether there is/will be support from Siriono speakers. There is a reasonable degree of community engagement and support. Working with endangered language communities directly engages with the diversity goals of the movement. The target community, in my opinion, is the Siriono people and not a community within the Wikimedia movement. Online communities have been notified but it's hard to tell how much support there is from the Wiktionary community to help create the export-import process from FLEx to Wiktionary. Would want to know more about FLEx (wikilink?) and its usefulness in linguistic projects. Making a tool is tricky and the added value is not clear to me. Let’s pilot with something small to find out more about it. Would like more information about the import/export tool (how difficult it will be to develop; how much development relies on the larger Wiktionary community) and the project team (do there need to be 3 people? Could the project be completed with just 1 person?) Could be funded partially only to cover FLEx and srq.wiktionary creation in incubator.

Thank you a lot for your feedbacks and thanks again to MJohnson for the nice advices she gave us. We are trying to expand our proposal to make clear all the choices we made during the writing of this proposal, especially about the need for three people to teach computer and Wiktionary to a large group of students. If some more comments or questions arises, from the committee or any one that read the project, please let us know and we will be glad to answer. Noé (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 2015 decision[edit]

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:
Without a better understanding of how data transfer from FLEx to Wiktionary would work, and in light of the fact that current Wiktionary capabilities are perhaps too narrow to broadly accommodate the needs of linguistic researchers, we are concerned that this project would not scale. When weighing the high cost of funding the project team’s travel to Bolivia against concerns about the potential for long-term impact, we felt that this project was not ultimately a good fit with Wikimedia’s scope at this time. You might consider the possibility of resubmitting your proposal in the future as a more narrowly focused pilot investigating the feasibility of data transfer between Wiktionary and FLEx, and establishing best practices for accommodating linguistic research on Wiktionary.

Next steps:

Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
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.
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.

Dear Wikimedia staff, dear jury, @Mjohnson (WMF), Ilario, Steven Crossin, Jane023, AddisWang, Rjensen, Thepwnco, Kirill Lokshin, Hubertl, and Wikicology:

This decision sheds light on three points for me and calls for an answer. Disclamer: sorry for my mistakes, English is not my mother tongue.

The technical aspect of integrating a database into Wiktionary seems to be the only thing that matter. Fact is: Human communication is not data! Ok, I understand that the work of a linguist has to be described because you completely ignore what it is (spoiler: it is not feeding a database). More than that, I feel the nature of the language itself is misunderstood. A linguist does not compile words in a list one by one, completing a glossary only by speaking with peoples next to a fire camp. A linguist works with people about a very personal part of there life, and when we talk about endangered languages, it is often connected with affects and trauma (authority prohibiting to speak the language, insult against the 'salvages', etc.). Describing a language is a collaborative work between a researcher and a community of speakers based on respect and mutual understanding. Sounds odd, and I am sorry for those who think it is obvious, but the words used in the decision gave the impression it is not clear for everyone. I spent five years to study the Siriono language, recording stories, understanding the grammar and building a lexical database but I don't pretend I speak the language or I own it. I feel I can't share my work in Wiktionary without consulting and including the speakers. It is dishonest and pointless, because they will never know it is online if no one show them, and they will feel betrayed when they will discover that.
Wiktionary is a project that IEG jury and Wikimedia staff do not know. I didn't realize I had to explain what is Wiktionary, but it appears I had to do this as a preliminary of my proposal. Wiktionary is not an ongoing database for words. It is an open and collaborative project. That means that incorporating a database is only to have a canvas to sew on it, with peoples. Maybe it wasn't clear in the proposal but the importation process was only a basic step that had to be done before to reach the core of the project: collaboration! I think linguists will not care about how easy it is to format their data to make them fit with Wiktionary templates if the only goal is to archive data. Because, archiving is not the goal of the Wiktionary, and there is a lot of other online places to do that. My point was to show how good is the tool for a collaborative task! To promote and develop the language with the speakers, through the Wiktionary. I feel the position of IEG regarding the Wikimedia Strategy is not clear, because my proposal was pretty thigh with the scope of the Wikimedia Strategy (Encouraging Diversity, bringing new expertise, organizing showcases in the key location of Latin America) but IEG mostly focus on technical projects to increase the quantity of data and not for collaborative projects. I am incline to not encourage people to write collaborative proposals in the future.
Writing "current Wiktionary capabilities are perhaps too narrow to broadly accommodate the needs of linguistic researchers" is insulting for the Wiktionaries and the people working on this project for a decade. For one hand, it shows the Wikipedia-centered vision of the people but it also illustrates a lack of external communication from the Wiktionarians. People outside of Wiktionary do not know how good is this project and how powerful it is, but the people who know do not tell to the world about it enough. So, yes, Wiktionary capacities are great and some project already interest linguist and people doing linguistic research. A lot of contributors are linguists or lexicographers and there is scientific publications about Wiktionary, including in peer-review journals. For example, this article about a corpus-based analysis made on Wiktionary (in English) and the same development (in French). Another example : in French Wiktionary, Naturaliste du midi is importing is own scientific work about animal sciences into Wiktionary, showing it values more this open database than his own online website. Wiktionary is also frequently presented in public conferences, like Pas sage en Seine in June 2015, an event about open-knowledge or during the 22th Days of Dictionaries (Journées des dictionnaires). Slides are available on Commons. Finally, I can add my name on the list, as I am a PhD student in linguistics, writing my dissertation right now, and if I choose to spend hours on building this project and writing this proposal in three different languages it is because I do believe in Wiktionary a lot. I may think about writing an essay about linguist in Wiktionary but I though a proof by example may be better to develop this idea.

I hope I was constructive in my critics. I started a discussion on French Wiktionary, English Wiktionary and Spanish Wiktionary, to let them know about this decision concerning a project designed for Wiktionary and to ask them what they do about information spreading. Thank you for the time you spent reading my prose. Noé (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noé, we on the IEG committee are willing and eager to fund projects for Wiktionary and have done so in the past. In future it may be useful to review IEG proposals made for Wikitionary in the past and talk to those grantees about their experience asking for funding. For what it's worth, I wondered about this FLEx software. What is that? In your answer, I don't see it mentioned. The main concern for funding as I recall was the ability to keep FLEx or get rid of it, based on the license of the thing, whatever it is. I think if you had left out this FLEx bit your funding chances would have been higher. IEG does not fund software dependencies or hardware in general. If as you say we need someone on the committee with Wiktionary experience in order to fund stuff, by all means put out a call to action to get people interested, so we can forward Wiktionary proposals to them for review. Best wishes and good luck with your dissertation! --Jane023 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jane023: Thank you very much for your answer. I already had a look at projects granted and focusing on Wiktionary. None are finished yet, or I haven't find them. I found a project to develop a pronunciation recording tool in 2014 and a project to import a dictionary about birds in Serbian in 2015. Both are really different than the project I submitted mostly focus on technical aspects and not collaborative. Another rejected project planned to create visual material with Indian kids in 2014 and was quite similar as what I proposed: mostly collaborative and creating a visual result useful for every projects. This is what led me to write the second paragraph above. I may have missed other projects, thanks to let me know, I am willing to change my opinion on this point.

About FLEx, after the comments from the committee, I update my proposal to include a screenshot of my own database in FLEx and wrote some words about it. FLEx webpage was also included. I told Marti it may be nice to write a Wikipedia article on this software but I wasn't able to do this on time, because I never wrote an article on the English Wikipedia and I have no idea on how to describe a software. I may do that article before to submit another proposal. Our plan was not to code something but to design it and to discuss about it with FLEx developers. I realize this step was poorly described in the proposal, because it wasn't the core of the project for me and I was convince it will be really easy to do. We had a meeting in person with Pamputt in November to discuss this issue and I was in touch with someone from Spanish Wiktionary to help for this process. As the decision was wrote, I feel it was the main concern of the jury, so I am not convince they will like a similar project without this step at all (if it is done first).

Finally, I don't blame the committee for not having someone from Wiktionary project, it is our fault if no one was interested to be part of it and if no one answered when the call was made. I realize Wiktionarian have to be more responsive. I am mainly concerned with the lack of knowledge on Wiktionary goals. I think now this is due to our lack of external communication about how great Wiktionary is and all we can do with it. I think we will try to be better on this aspect in the future. I will try to make react the other communities (as it seems the French one is quite good on this since a year) and I made yesterday a category on Commons with the presentation made about Wiktionary in French to help other people to build similar ones. I hope to impulse something in this direction, at least

Noé (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction[edit]

For those who still follow this page, I am glad to let you know that I and two wiktionarian colleague will be at Wikimania 2016 to talk about How the French Wiktionary became a grown-up project! Noé (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I havent kept this page up-to-date but I am still very active in the Wiktionary community and I made happen the first Wiktionarian in residence in 2020. It was a great experience for my colleague. I didn't defend my doctoral thesis but I still work on the area of language documentation. I do not plan to go to Bolivia in a near future Noé (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]