Jump to content

Grants talk:PEG/WM CZ/Presentation & Outreach/Report2011

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Thank you for putting together this report. Some questions:

  1. What is "CAP"?
    CAP is Campus Ambassador Program. There is a group of people around WMCZ who do cooperation with educational sector and they uses this name. CAP is also being recognized by WMCZ as an activity supported by the Chapter - as far as I know.--Juandev 23:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
    If you are in educational-l, we have seen a report which desribe this group.--Juandev 21:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Found it, thanks! Ijon 00:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  2. Has there been a report about WikiConference 2011? If so, please link to it. If not, please prepare one. More generally, add links to event pages where such pages exist, including 3rd-party pages.
    A report is available in Czech, please see below for English summary. If you're interested we can translate the full report. --che 23:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, this is excellent! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 17:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  3. Please state what money is actually spent on, e.g. under Fairs and Exhibitions -- travel reimbursements? Anything else?
    You can have a look on our tracker system how much money was spend. When submitting a report, there were only the travel costs, but later a reward to Danny for organising fairs was paid. --Limojoe (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  4. What is "Board Games for project Chráněné území approx. 10.000 CZK"?
    1. Hi, see link for more details and report. Regards --Chmee2 07:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  5. Please expand your answer to the impact question at the end. Currently, it just explains how the hardware was used, but not what the impact for our mission was from all the P&O actually carried out.
  6. Please add a clear balance statement -- how much money was spent so far, out of how much total, and how much is left of the grant money to be spent in 2012.

Thanks in advance for your further elucidations. Ijon 18:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Some comments


Firstly some comments to the actual report. I am sorry if misunderstood, but I have difficulties in understanding "English" of this report.

  • However, the eye asks that in all cases were members of the eye mailing list notified by a message in P&O (po@granty.wikimedia.cz), so that a request would be concerning what and where and in what form was filed (it is difficult to watch 4 channels at once). - this is not the truth. If you look on actual grant page on Meta. As I spoke with "eye" members they probably have this guideline in their internal documents, but it is not in the guidelines for applicants. In fact there is no guideline for applicants on Meta how to apply for a grant.
  • Applicants can expect the eye to answer it via email… this is very sad. Because Travel expenses ISP (International School of Prague) & NZM (National Agriculture Museum) approx. 500 CZK is my application, which was applied more than 3 month ago and until these days I was not notified from the committee about its status.
  • Sooner or later we will want the applicant to be openly presented the details of the grant community (internal, ticket, or meta), then keep your eye overview of the applications here, the internal wiki. - internal wiki of Wikimedia Czech Republic is accessible just for members, thus it is not "open presentation to the community".

What lessons should be learned


Beside above lines, with which I disagree let me present a point of view of someone who left the Chapter and for some time applying grands on PO.

The major problem of "eye" - people who evaluates grant applications - had been inactivity. Eye members haven't established procedures how to receive new applications and how to work on them. This slowed down an activity of the community in presentation and outreach activities, because most of the applications listed in the report are regular and expectable events, which happened before the establishment of new committee.

To depict my frustration, let me show you some waiting times for final approval/disapproval of my applications:

  • Cursor highlighter for presentations and training - 3 weeks
  • Business cards for WMCZ members - 5 weeks (no information at all)
  • Travel expenses ISP (International School of Prague) & NZM (National Agriculture Museum) - 9 weeks (after 9 weeks "eye" told me, they don't know about this application, after 14 weeks I got information about acceptance via this report!)

The fact they didn't know about my application was explained by one of the committee members, that I hadn't filled edit summary on wiki via "standard way". But as I mentioned above it was never set to guidelines how to apply grant. Thus everybody uses his way. And how does it come that other 2 committee members, haven't figured out, there is an application on the wiki?

Note that dates above are set to the November 7, 2011 when I was told that I may not get any support from WMCZ for my acts done before.

So lessons to learn:

  • you should say to your committee members they are responsible for a success of the grant
  • it they doesn't work you should motivate them or replace them
  • the committee should set up clear guidelines for applicants (even telling such "stupidity" like how to apply for grant is important)
  • committee should set up internal mechanisms how to work (deadlines, who communicates with applicants etc.)
    • it is important to communicate with applicants saying "yes we got your applications and we start to work on that"

Finally, I would like to stay, that my evaluation might be inaccurate, because I don't have an access to the wiki of WMCZ and newest information there. When I was deeply involved I was heavily frustrated by that inactivity (and it is not so long time ago, I lost that involvement). I am missing such information in the report and I have information from WMCZ interior, that the committee is still not working. I think that inactivity of such people might kill enthusiasm in people. And Chapter needs enthusiastic people.

PS: sorry for my English and wording, I am writing this in hurry as I don't have much time this part of the year.--Juandev 23:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikiconference 2011 short report

The following is an English summary of a longer Czech report; written by Okino in Dec 2011

Wikiconference 2011 took place in Prague's National Technical Library (NTK) on November 26, 2011. The conference served again as a valuable tool of promoting Wikipedia and its movement to public audience. The program included presentations about Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, presentation of the winners of the Ceny za rozvoj české Wikipedie (Czech Wikipedia development awards, CzRČW) and panel discussion about Wikimedia community. Among the major guests invited were philosopher professor and Wikimedian Jan Sokol and publishing house history researcher Jan Halada, both took active part in the program of conference. NTK participated in the organization as well as in the program with presentation of its Polythematic Structured Subject Heading System.

The financial sources of the conference were Presentation & Outreach WMF Grant (P&O), CzRČW budget and participation from the NTK. P&O funds were used to pay for printing materials and for transportation of material.

Although the attendance numbers were slightly lower then in the past two years, when the evaluation was carried out after the conference, the results were from above-average to high positive.

If the conference is to be organized in 2012, the organizers should focus on attracting a wider public as well as a wider field of contributors.