Grants talk:IEG/ZARZUELA: The Hispanic Musical Theater in Wikipedia

Eligibility confirmed

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for review and scoring. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period (through 2 May 2016).

The committee's formal review begins on 3 May 2016, and grants will be announced 17 June 2016. See the round 1 2016 schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us at iegrantswikimedia · org .

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes in the proposal

As this proposal have been selected to pass the next round, we talked with the participants to communicate this good new. One of the participants, Ana Marset, can´t help us, and because of familiar reasons, she can not develop this work. I have talked with the other participants and we have reorganised the team. Joaco Alegre, musicologist, writer, graduated in business administration and community manager will replaces Ana Marset. He also will help in the management and administration of the project to gain support from other institutions and to make this proposal from being a pilot project to consolidate into a solid project that can be developed over three years. César Casares, counselor, will collaborate in the development of the whole plan, initially as a volunteer.

Joaco, our music consultant and business controller, has reviewed the budget and found a mistake in the final sum. We have changed it from 13.702,00 USD to 14.245,00 USD. --Jacinta Grey (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Weak points of the proposal

After receiving the good news of the selection, we have been comparing our proposal with other selected. We need to:

• List of stakeholders who can or must support us.
• Dissemination and communication of the project among its stakeholders, and links to this communication.
• Establish the areas of volunteerism and seek support from volunteers.
• Search for support, reviews, ways to improve and develop the project by Wikipedians: in the areas of information and coordination of Wikipedia and its different sections: Wikimedia Digitization User Group, Village Pump-Commons, Commons:Café, Wikipedia en español:Café, Wikidata:Café, Wikisource:Café, Wikidata:Project Chat.

--Jacinta Grey (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for more community engagement

I found out about this program through the Wikipedia group in New York City, which has an interest in promoting Hispanic culture. This seems like a request for Wikimedia Foundation sponsorship to digitize an archival collection. Historically, these kinds of requests have not been funded. There are a huge number of archives in the world which are seeking funding for digitization. There is not enough money to fund them all, and the Wikimedia community in the past has avoided choosing to fund any one because there are no criteria for saying what should and should not be funded.

Something that is possible to fund is community engagement programs to support an archive. This is an important collection, and of interest to the Wikipedia community. The amount of money is not a concern. If this same amount of money were requested, but the funding would go to community engagement, outreach, Wikipedia training for volunteers, and anything else that encouraged unpaid volunteers to do all the labor of developing the archive, then I can imagine that would be funded. It is almost without precedent to use funding in this process to pay staff to develop the archives.

In this grant request, I recommend being much more clear on how unpaid volunteer labor is likely to be recruited in this program. I also recommend being clear that any staff paid by this grant will not do the work of content development, including legal research on individual files, uploads, metadata processing, or anything else that is usually done by volunteers.

This is a great program and idea and I encourage you to continue to have conversations about what can be funded. And I could be wrong - perhaps this program can be funded as it is written. Please find a way to make this work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for ZARZUELA: The Hispanic Musical Theater in Wikipedia

Scoring rubric	Score
(A) Impact potential Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both? Does it have the potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	6.8
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	7.0
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe? Is the budget realistic/efficient ? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	6.4
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	5.9
Additional comments from the Committee: Content ingestion is always welcome, especially when we don't have much of it yet, which I believe is the case here. This project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priority to increase and diversify the contribution of knowledge. In this proposal, the content in question that would be obtained by the WMF is important cultural heritage that would be great to have on Commons. However, I have some concerns about the sustainability of the project: namely, that the greater ask is for support for at least 3 years, but there does not seem to be a plan to encourage volunteers to take on aspects of the project over time. Very specific content. Yes, I like the idea of development of bots to import content. The approach seems to be modelled after that of a recent IEG project, FJD (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Fundaci%C3%B3n_Joaqu%C3%ADn_D%C3%ADaz). In general I think this is a logical approach for completing this type of work, although the FJD project initially dealt with more files and only budgeted for 1 person, not 3. I also wonder why it is necessary to create a new bot instead of using existing tools, such as the recently released Pattypan. The main risk is that we would not receive the files, which seems to be what might have happened with the FJD project. Interesting approach for Wikimedia projects. I think uploading the content to Commons and Wikisource at the very least can be done. The applicants do seem to have the relevant skills and connections for this project. I think the scope is ok but my recommendation is that it should only include activities that cannot be performed by volunteers (i.e. applicants should focus on cataloguing, processing, and uploading to files, not linking the files to articles and creating new articles). This approach would also help lower the budget as the project would only need 1-2 people, not 3. Biggest problem: copyright. The approach seems to reveal a clear vision about the archive but has an unclear vision about how things work on Wikimedia projects. Yes, there is support. The long-term plan for this work would intend to engage communities with edit-a-thons proposed for 2017, but as I stated above I do not think this should be the focus. I have concerns about community involvement. The outcome of this content creation campaign seems relatively low compared with its budget. I would say yes if the applicant coordinated with the local community and chapter, identified how to utilize more volunteer capacity, and decrease the budget. I see Wikimedia España as a good chapter to make some GLAM initiatives spread into Iberocoop chapters. I see a well-presented project, with a larger staff. Go for it, and hopefully it could be a template for future projects in the performing arts. I find these types of projects difficult to evaluate. I think the best chance for success for completing work that could not otherwise be completed (i.e. by volunteer editors) is to have a project plan that is simple and straightforward. To me this means that the project should focus only on cataloguing, processing, and uploading files, not linking the files to articles, creating new articles, online/offline community organizing, or hosting edit-a-thons. The risk with this approach is that there may not be enough there will not be awareness or interest in the community to conduct these activities successfully. Overall, I think it begs the question: is it enough for the movement to gain access to and preserve cultural heritage and knowledge without the necessary community engagement? In Switzerland we have several GLAM contacts with sound archives, and the biggest challenge is copyright issues. The same physical support may be protected. For so big a project there should be a clear plan connected with feasibility. We need a better breakdown of the budget. I would suggest that the project scale down. I do not quite understand the purpose of the mentioned travel. This project is probably more suitable for a chapter, as coordination with local authorities would probably be important.

--MJue (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the IEG Committee

Echoing some of the concerns from above

I love the idea of getting more non-image multimedia from archives, and from the digitization projects I have seen come from our community, this particular project has quite a bit of expertise, and I know will meet the level of quality expected by the archival community.

However, in my role as GLAM-Wiki Strategist, the questions/concerns raised by Bluerasberry and the committee (i.e "Overall, I think it begs the question: is it enough for the movement to gain access to and preserve cultural heritage and knowledge without the necessary community engagement?"), seems to be the most pressing one here. There are mounds, and mounds, and mounds of cultural heritage that hasn't been digitized or successfully shared with the world, and if the WMF starts becoming the funder for almost any kind of project, as long as it enters our ecosystem, what does that mean for other community efforts that need funding , especially when they involve more volunteers? I don't want us to set the precedent where digitization projects are something we always fund, just because we are convenient funders for that work -- and funding sources elsewhere are not being proactive about their cultural heritage preservation projects, WMF funding is a bandaid on a much larger problem of unclear paths to funding digitization. It would be like WMF supporting a wikifarm of random open licensed wikis with donor money, just because there is no other source of support for those communities -- without them joining the "Wikimedia movement" and deeply utilizing our expertise as knowledge sharing projects, a collaborative community contributors, etc. etc.

Thus to make sure that we are doing digitization as part of our community's expertise, engaging communities and crowdsourcing:

• I would recommend engaging more volunteers on more parts of the process -- the current plan reads like two different projects: digitization and organizing volunteers. I am no so sure if I see the continuity. Moreover, most of the money is going towards the digitization part of the material -- not the volunteer management. I am left with a lot of questions as: What does that mean for our international donor's funds? Why is this collection one to be doing that with? Is there a demand for this work among researchers (besides it being a novel and unique historical collection)? As much as I like the idea of us preserving rare cultural heritage -- just because something is rare doesn't mean its valuable to the public or the scholarly community.
• The project is contingent upon continued funding in a number of ways for the pilot to be successful -- I would really like to understand where you expect that funding to come from. Do you have a partner ready to support if the initial workflow gets proven? Could this be more of a joint project from the beginning instead of WMF bearing the brunt of the non-community work? How does the startup funding from WMF translate into tangible support from other organizations?
• What does it mean for your partner if the metadata that you develop during the processing of the content, could change at the will of our volunteer community? Best practice for long-term preservation suggests that their also needs to be a stable form of the digital records. How do you plan to do this?

I hope this feedback helps, and its just feedback from my perspective. I hope that you find a successful way of refining the project to make it more compelling for the committee. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on specific aspects of the proposal to the Committee

As all knowledge is built, this proposal, thanks to the participation of many Wikipedians and the committee, is being re-built. All contributions have allowed us to reflect on the international scope of the project, its educational function, and the necessary cooperation among several chapters of Wikipedians in various Spanish-speaking countries. Still, we wish to clarify certain points that do not appear to have been properly explained.

• It is not a proposal for digitization. Digitization is a process that is ongoing, it began in 2011 by Fundación de la Zarzuela with spanish government funds - Dirección General de Archivos y Bibliotecas y Dirección General de Proyectos Culturales-. This digitization process will be continued with funding of private companies; the international support of the Wikimedia Foundation is an important factor to get funding and prestigious, but our IEGrants proposal is intended for classification, organization of the "Archivo Sonoro e Iconográfico" and edition/ publication by Volunteers in Wikipedia. We have already talked with other partners, private companies, and they will join the project of digitization.
• Complexity. It would be very easy to make a list of 30 or 40 international artists associated with Zarzuela, creating “The Zarzuela Project” in Wikipedia and the different tasks, organize a Edithaton and let Wikipedians Volunteers to create articles and links. But this has continuity over time and often not quality. We need to create a solid basis for a lasting project with a theme that allows the cooperation of Wikipedians in more than twenty countries, with content on zarzuela that can be found in the same countries and over 300 years. This solid foundation requires a complex beginning in which it is important to "order" the database and train researchers / editors. The organization of this is impossible to do with one or two people. The beginning has to be strong to make this project successful. The number of volunteers achieved will depend on the dedication, work and the strategic design of the whole project.
• Volunteers. We have included volunteers in the following stages of the reorganization of the database to incorporate new data using templates, with no way to alter the original database and always with the aim that these data are incorporated automatically (using bots) to Wiki Data, Wiki Source and Commons. We will need the advice of Wikimedia Spain to recruit, organize and train volunteers and also the contributions from other chapters of Wikimedia in other countries.
• Compared to Opera. Zarzuela is little known, but we need new resources and adaptation of all content to digital and unrestricted. Zarzuela is comparable to the Opera but in Hispanic countries. We think the contents of the Zarzuela have the same merit as the Opera and deserve to be with the best quality in Wikipedia.
• Communication Plan. Today communication is very important. The Zarzuela / Wikipedia binomial is very powerful: the union of the old with the most advanced, technologically and in terms of philosophy of knowledge (shared knowledge, built collectively). We want to make a communication campaign. So far, the musical composers, were a very important factor of power in the SGAE (Spanish entity for the management of intellectual property rights). The Zarzuela / Wikipedia binomial breaks all the schemes because it allows to recover the musical and artistic creation and make it available to everyone.
• Pedagogical System. We believe that the double and interdependent approach (digital with classroom) allows creating a system of training of researchers and editors in arts and social sciences that can be useful in the future, for any other project of Wikipedia in which these issues are addressed.

--Jacinta Grey (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If this is not a digitisation project, what is it? Most of the work described seems to be about making a catalogue, which is generally considered the first step of digitisation and is also an highly specialistic job, to be performed and overseen by professionals (cf. [1]); Wikimedia is not competent in this either and would not be able to assess the quality or even completion of the work. Most of the work paid for will end up being a sort of black hole, like the lossless recordings which went missing (and are probably lost forever) in the other project. Can't you find a partner for this, for instance an Europeana institution?

Converting and uploading 300 files (based on ready digitised materials and metadata), putting 100 of them into use and creating 20 articles, also with the use of an editathon, is clearly in scope for Wikimedia activities. Nemo 09:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC).

If this is not a digitisation project, what is it?

It is not a digitization project but a project of research and creation of new content by volunteers. These volunteers will be trained in techniques of social and artistic research and methodology wiki.

The process is simple:

Collection Arturo Gil Perez-Andujar → Digitalisation → Archivo Sonoro de la Zarzuela →Database
(Work in progress funded by the Spanish Goverment - Dirección General de Archivos y Bibliotecas - Currently 6000 digitized files).

What is being proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation by the IEGrants:

Database "Sound Archive de la Zarzuela" → Adding new parameters → Adaptation to Wikimedia → Training of volunteers in research and use of databases in social sciences projects and methodology wiki → Uploading Data to Wikidata, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons by Volunteers → Create content in Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia by volunteers→ 300 new files → linking and conecting 100 articles → 20 new articles (at least).

Training:

• Design and development 3 workshops of research and use of databases in Social Sciences and Wiki-edition (Madrid/ Villena-Alicante/Valencia)
• Creating a digital workshop research and use of databases in Social Sciences and Wiki-edition (Webinars, Slide-Share) for volunteers in Spain and Latin America.
  

Professionals: Database created by Jorge Vicedo will be adapted to the needs of Wikimedia by Joaco Alegre, Jorge Errando (BBDD professional and volunteer) and César Casares (volunteer) and with the advice of Belén.
This new database (contents) will be used by volunteers, with training of Jorge and Belén, to upload to the Wikimedia projects.
Through research courses and wiki editing (classroom and digital) volunteers will create content for Wikipedia and W. Commons

Partners in Europe: There are already other partners (companies, institutions) with which we have had conversations (SGAE, two private companies interested in the project). They will be ready when we have the Wikimedia Support.

Budget

I'm unable to read the budget. The image is too big, the font has rendering issues: phabricator:F4153305. Please find a computer which is able to produce readable images (probably Windows is not able to, you'll need a modern OS like GNU/Linux; also, PNG is more appropriate than JPG), or use LibreOffice to export the table to wikitext format. --Nemo 08:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

We´re trying to export the LibreOffice to wikitext format by a "Wiki publisher" but we aren´t be able. We keep on. Meanwhile we have changed the jpg budget images by png images. --Jacinta Grey (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Round 1 2016 decision

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 recognizes and deeply appreciates the generosity of Fundación de la Zarzuela and its willingness to donate its significant collection of hispanic musical theater. However, as WMF encounters growing need for funding to support the donation of digital archives, we are driven to become more strategic about how we can best use our limited funding resources in support of sharing knowledge freely. We are not resourced to support the international scale of demand for funding of this nature. In the case of this proposal, the committee had some concerns about how to measure the potential for online impact from this project, given the lack of clarity about what proportion of the collection is currently in the public domain and appropriate for donation to Commons. Though they ultimately recommended against funding this proposal, the committee would be very glad to see this valuable project move forward. They encouraged the applicants to pursue alternate funding resources, perhaps including grant programs more specifically charged with preservation of cultural resources.

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.