Grants talk:PEG/Parlour Inc/Women Wikipedia Design

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

Samantha Donnelly: As a teacher in architecture and interior spatial design for the last 20 years I have been constantly working towards strengthening women's ability to deal with gender based issues which arise in the the workplace. This begins even in the university studio setting where women need to talk louder, with more confidence, and have to argue harder to have their ideas heard. I need not mention the underrepresentation of women designers and architects in many course outlines which I constantly try to address by introducing the female versions of the male heroes. To have a resource such as this proposed on wikipedia will help me as a teacher encourage my students, of both genders, to have better access to balanced information.

Belinda Allwood: Over the past twenty five years I have seen the valuable contribution that talented female colleagues have made to the field of architecture. It is time to recognise their achievements. The health, vibrancy and sustainability of the architecture profession depends on recognising and supporting diversity. This project proposal has been put together by people widely recognised and highly respected in Australia for their academic research and contributions to equity in architecture through Parlour. Felicitas Mossmann. Most of the german female architects, well known are in a partnership with a male architect and most of them are hiding behind their partners in public. There is no need to hide, but their is although much afford to do in the future to establish female networks in the building business.

Eligibility confirmed, Inspire Campaign[edit]

Inspire astrocat aqua.png

This Inspire Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for the Inspire Campaign 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 begins on 6 April 2015, and grants will be announced at the end of April. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us at grants(at)wikimedia.org.

Involving current Wikipedians[edit]

Hi, thanks for submitting this proposal! I'm wondering if you have given much thought to involving some currently active Wikipedia community members in this project, for the language versions you are targeting. We tend to find that workshops are most successful when experienced Wikipedians are on hand to partner and support the training. It seems like most of your community engagement plans involve architectural communities (which of course also make sense), so just curious to understand if/how you might be thinking to engage the Wikipedia community through this project as well. Best wishes! Siko (WMF) (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[]

Thanks Siko, that is very helpful feedback. We are very keen to involve current active Wikipedeans, and can see significant opportunity in doing this. We are very pleased to have been contacted by some Wikipedeans offering support already, including the fantastic Art + Feminism project. We would appreciate your advice on how best to do access the Wikipedean Community – we are quite new to this and our strong community connections are within architecture, as you already note. User:Smdgejc

Hello Siko (WMF)! We have added some further measures under our proposed activities, taking into account your remarks concerning engaging with Wikipedians, as well as the comments from Theredproject. Best, Eljoch

Art+Feminism, and building on existing materials[edit]

Hi All. I wanted to make sure you were aware of the work we have been doing with Art+Feminism. You may want to take a look at our PEG and IEG grants from the last round to see the overlap with what you were proposing, and see some of the discussion on the talk pages that may help you preempt any similar criticism. One of the questions we were asked, which you should be prepared for, is in what ways your project builds upon existing infrastructure, resources, and social organization. Or to put it another way, how can you build on our existing resources that we have completed, and are in the process of completing (as described in the grant)? It is to your advantage to figure that out, both because the WMF is not going to want to fund redundant work, and also, by working with our resources and with us you (and we) can accomplish more. In solidarity. --Theredproject (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[]

Thanks! we have looked at your proposals but will do so in more detail. We would be very pleased to build on the great resources you have developed! User:Smdgejc
@ Theredproject Thanks again for your constructive advice. We have looked at the extensive Art + Feminism list of wiki resources, providing extensive groundwork in terms of advice for organisers and editors. We believe we could build on this by translating advisory material for the German-speaking world, adding further research resources with a built environment and country-specific focus and developing further graphic and non-wiki web-based material. We have added these measures to our proposed activities. I see that graphic material development was part of your current grant also and would be interested to know more about what has been produced/will be produced and how we might similarly share such materials? In terms of social organisation, we would be very interested in connecting with and learning from the experienced Wikipedians who have led and assisted with your recent events, particularly any based in our home cities (New York, Melbourne and Berlin). User:Eljoch
By Graphic material, do you mean graphic design? We are planning to create design templates in our second half of the six month cycle. These should be complete by the summer.--Theredproject (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for More Female Architects on Wikipedia[edit]

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?
8.3
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
8.7
(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?
7.3
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
8.2
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • Given the significant and sustained success of the Art+Feminism program, adapting this program model to other domains (such as architecture) has a high potential for impact and scalability.
  • Seems like a reasonable idea -- broad enough to attract a large number of editors but narrow enough to succeed.
  • Excellent proposal, building in previous effort and dynamics that are already proving successful in achieving more visibility of women in the field of architecture.
  • Would like to see the participants collaborating with existing Wikipedia communities and projects.
  • While the community engagement is very impressive, it would have been a good idea to contact local chapters.
  • The budget appears high for the scope of the proposed program and can probably be made more efficient by reducing or eliminating direct expenses (e.g. venue costs, promotional materials, etc.) by using free alternatives or in-kind donations.
  • Time frame seems reasonable to have impact. However, the budget is very high. Would suggest adapting the Art+Feminism materials and at a smaller scale to pilot their idea.
  • Very ambitious. The goals seem set quite high.
  • The measures of success appear to be realistic and sufficiently quantified.
  • Concerned that the target of 75 new active editors is unrealistic but would be satisfied with new editors who regularly add content at in-person events.
  • The proposed project is worthwhile, but the return on investment should be improved by trimming the budget.

Inspire funding decision[edit]

IEG key lightblue.png

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for a Project and Event Grant through the Inspire Campaign.

WMF has approved partial funding for this project, in accordance with the committee's recommendation. This project is funded with 14,150 USD

Comments regarding this decision:
Thanks for engaging in the Inspire campaign! We’ll be in touch about setup soon.

Next steps:

  1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement.
  2. Review the grant implementation information.
  3. Make any necessary scope adjustments to your proposal page, as discussed with grantmaking staff.
  4. Start work on your project!

Questions? Contact us at grants(_AT_)wikimedia.org'


Grant proposal amendments[edit]

The following are scope amendments discussed with the grants team late in the approval process, but prior to grant approval. These amendments reflect an agreed, amended scope, corresponding to the approved grant sum, which was a reduced amount to that originally requested. Time constraints prevented a comprehensive review and amendment of the proposal scope prior to approval.

The italicised text is drawn directly from the proposal, with amendments below in bold.

We will identify gaps in existing graphic-format resources for digital and print dissemination and develop key additions, utilising and expanding our organisations' existing web presence (including the Parlour website). This will create pathways for participants new to Wikipedia, linking back to Wiki materials, and will draw on existing graphic material, for example the Systemic Bias Workshop Kit . We note that the architectural community is highly visual, and high quality graphic material is an important part of communicating with this group.

Amendment: Content only, graphic design component deleted

We will hold a series of Wiki-Introduction-Workshops for professionals and students in the field in New York City, Berlin and Melbourne. These will be based on the guides and resources outlined above, and will provide a facilitated, collaborative environment in which participants will learn how to develop, write and edit high-quality Wikipedia entries. These workshops will be complemented by a series of Wiki-Writing-Parties where existing research is shared and written into Wikipedia.

Amendment: 3 combined training/writing events in total planned per city

Once we have effective processes in place, we will support other groups who wish to run workshops in their own region with publicly available resources and advice. Project management will include towards communications with various groups in other countries who have already expressed interest (for example, in Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand). This will provide some remote support and quality control, and avoid abortive work from inexperienced organisers (recognising that this has been a concern for past similar initiatives).

Amendment: Delete from scope.

--Eljoch (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Eljoch[]

Thanks Eljoch. These amendments have been approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[]

Report extension request[edit]

As advised previously via email on 7/1/16, we would like to request an extension to our reporting date, to allow some additional time for resolving issues we've encountered with metrics and collating expenses documentation. We propose Monday 1 February 2016 as the new date. You may find our draft report here Grants:PEG/Parlour_Inc/Women_Wikipedia_Design/Report Thank you! Eljoch (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Eljoch[]

The request for an extension on the report is approved, thanks for keeping us up to date on your timeline. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[]

Outcome details[edit]

Most of the focus of the report is on the press outcome, which is understandable. Who created which articles and can we see them? In itself, knowing that 100 articles were created doesn't tell us anything about whether the attendees became good editors, or what sort of gaps were filled. Nemo 14:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]