Grants talk:PEG/WM ID/Wiki Apsara Indonesia

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

GAC member status for this application[edit]

Studying the proposal[edit]

  • The question of Wiki Training Center and Re-Granting Program seems to me strange because it's like a delegation of grants. This is not a problem, but it means a delegation of responsibilities. --Ilario (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Waiting for more details[edit]

No objection[edit]

Ok, Mayur (talkEmail) 04:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


Objection[edit]

  • Thuvack (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC) -- See my comments below.
  • -- Namayan (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC) For the following reasons:
    • Re-granting program -- WMF has just funded a Flow Funding Grant worth $20K to "experiment" this method, before a re-granting system can be introduced it would be very ideal to see the outcome of the experiment. Perhaps a microgrant worth much less would be ideal. Also, much of what WMID has granted doesn't reflect Wikimedia work.
    • Training center -- facilities would be under utilized unless it is used for 2-3 times a week, it's better to rent out equipment and spaces, than under utilizing facilities and equipment, that won't entail maintenance cost.

Abstaining[edit]

  • Personal acquaintance with chapter (for the record, I had no prior knowledge of anything concerning this application). Tony (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Dear Applicant, thanks for submitting your grant application. Do you mind translating the budget breakdown (in the Google Docs) to English? I have a problem understanding it, as I don't speak Indonesian. Thanks. Abbasjnr (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abbas, your request was similar with Winifred's and it is already done by Ivonne.--22Kartika (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to include project budget details as part of the grant submission[edit]

Thank you, Ivonne, for renaming the request and for translating the detailed budgets to English so that the GAC may review them more easily: please monitor this discussion page for more comments.

Since this submission requests funds for several distinct projects within one submission but only a budget overview is included on the submission page itself, we request that you include these detailed project budgets on the grant submission page itself rather than using external links. We are requesting this because WMF needs to have a verifiable public record of funds requested (and approved, if applicable) that also allows us to track any changes to the grant submission during review and after a decision.

I hope this is not too cumbersome a request. If it is too time-consuming to produce the tables on wiki, you might consider including these project budgets as images or in portable document format (just ensure that the file is uploaded to Meta and clearly linked to from the grant submission). We will also add this suggestion to the grants index to avoid confusion for future applicants.

Thanks for your cooperation, and let us know if you need any clarification on this point.

Regards, Wolliff (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Winifred,
We already moved all the external links for detailed budget in this section. Thank you. --22Kartika (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


Great! Thank you for doing that. Wolliff (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit translation[edit]

This is probably an off-topic comment. But Apsara in Sanskrit traditionally means a female deity or being, the translation for vidhyadhari is correct as knowledge owner/giver, but I have never heard the two terms being equated in the same meaning, nor in the same context within this culture. This might be one of those cultural things[1] but it occurred to me at first, in case someone else also noticed, otherwise please ignore this comment. Theo10011 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, Vidyadhari is an alias of w:en:Saraswati, not w:en:Apsara. But yeah, this is from my limited knowledge of Sanskrit, Indian culture and mythology. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Time frame, manpower and detailed breakdown request[edit]

Hi guys.

Pretty big grant request this one. Any ways, can someone redo tables or presentations to show likely time frames, volunteers required for each project and a detailed breakdown for each? I am having trouble to imagine the scale of these projects and Wikimedia-Indonesia's capacity to run these concurrently or even separately in one year.

Will comment further once more information becomes available.--Thuvack (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thuvack, sure will do working on your requested table. If you are interested to know Wikimedia Indonesia's capacity in running several projects in one year, I recommend you to see our previous project (2011): Wikimedia_Cipta. Similar like Wiki Apsara Project, the previous one consists of around seven different projects/activities, particularly in three cities.--22Kartika (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Thuvack, Kartika is being modest :-) . I'll give the number for you so you can have a clearer view on WMID capacity. In 2011 we receives 40 grand from WMF, our total budget in 2011 is 750 grand, WMF grant covers 5.3 percent. In 2012 we have around 600 grand to play with (see our financial report), and 0% from WMF. For 2013 number is embargoed but it will go up, this time the grant request probably make it to 10 percent of a total budget. Siska.Doviana (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this a little misleading? It is my understanding that the majority of that large amount was entrusted to WMID as a fiscal agent to fund non-Wikimedia work. WMID's function as a fiscal agent to promote other non-profit work in Indonesia is commendable, but I think it is misleading to create the impression WMID has been doing $750,000 dollars' worth of Wikimedia activity. Do correct me if I'm wrong. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Asaf,

Q: Isn't this a little misleading?
A: No, it is for Wikimedia Indonesia activities. Wikimedia Indonesia is Wikimedia. If we were to say do we use this grant to do Wikipedia activities? Depends, it's not a wikipedia, we DO take some of the money to fund a Wikisource Project, we DO take some of the money to fund Javanese Language Wikipedia Project. We DO take some of the money to pay for lawyers to draft agreement with Wikimedia Foundation in 2011. I would say that a wikimedia activities. So let's just be specific and activities shall we? This assumption shows that you did not take time to understand your Global South chapter. Please do not answer question for our behalf, your knowledge in how Wikimedia Indonesia operate is very limited, and you did not asks us or confirm. If you answer or accuse using other people words, you are hurting Wikimedia Chapter with a wrong answer.
As a serious part why we're not misleading - some "chunk" of the budget is to funded Creative Commons adaption in Indonesia. Before Wikimedia Indonesia, there is no Creative Commons, Wikipedia and Commons has been operating outside the Indonesian law. You may call the license international, but who would Indonesian asks for licenses problem on Creative Commons? Guessing? God? With the grant we're able to make communication material, approach the ministry, and do all sort of things wonderful things. Including funding the next Creative Commons Asia Pasific Conference 2012 where a Wikimedia Foundation trustee will attend. Misleading? Or a simple do not understand enough?
Q: WMID as a fiscal agent <snip>
A: WMID is a granting body to other organization in Indonesia. The grant recipient need to be transparent, they need to be strategic, they need to license all their creation under the Creative Commons License. All grantees understand better the license, use wiki to report, we even build their capacity bu utilizing ushaidi - a social media and mobile aggregation. By understanding the license they promote "Free Knowledge". The grant body trust that we can handle USD 700 thousand, and we did. Not only transparently but also strategically. Oh, also the other 50 thousand, WMF can have the recognition for the 40 thousand and the 2.5 thousand that still under review up to more than 8 months later (like now), even though the project is done last year and successful. So we are operating beyond Wikipedia, but still fall under Free Knowlege, other institution has come to us for help. We are NET POSITIVE to the movement. Misleading? Siska.Doviana (talk)
+1 On Asaf's question above. I got the impression that all the budget you had from previous years was for Wikimedia activities??--Thuvack (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Asaf, may I ask: as a fiscal agent to whom? Do you have any specific example(s)? Have they done anything that's not mission-aligned? Abbasjnr (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Abbas, you can take a look at the link Siska posted above -- these are all projects funded under the Cipta brand, and if you click the "Laporan penggunaan dana" links under each of them, you can see the amounts (in Rupiah) allocated to each. I believe this supports my assertion above that it is misleading to imply WMID has been doing $750K's worth of Wikimedia work in Indonesia. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Asaf, do you mind to explain what is the connection of your questions above with this grant proposal? If you want to know about Wikimedia Indonesia deeper, you can ask the question in our organization talk page and we will be happy to answer in that page because it is a little bit sounds irrelevant here. You can see Siska's explanation about the 750k $ spend and FYI, before WMID decided to accept the offer as granting body to other organization, we already consider that this work still align with Wikimedia Indonesia and Foundation missions. --22Kartika (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Activity Time frame[edit]

Wiki Apsara 2013 time schedule

Hi Thuvack, here is the details. Let us know if you have further question :)--22Kartika (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, thank you for this response and the time table is quite helpful. I will go back and double check the budget this weekend. I must say that I am impressed with the Preffesionalism you guys have handled this grant request and previous grants with. It is admired. I am currently working with a dedicated team in South Africa to set up structures to enable to us to organise big local projects. Am taking notes. In general I support chapter activities as that is where capacity building for the movement is done. Will revert back this weekend with my final comments.--Thuvack (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

External Funding[edit]

In light of the above, can you guys put a section on your proposal to show any expected external funding that can and will be used to supplement this grant should WM decide to only fund a percentage?--Thuvack (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)\

No, our report on 2011 shows that a non profit entity supporting a non popular effort like Banjar Language Wikipedia is difficult to get funding, specially if it is asked by non professional fund raising individual (read: volunteer). The report shows a 2% success if they (the volunteer) spent 60 percent of their time begging for sponsors money and not concentrating their time and effort to the project. Should we continue on that path, you will get enough money to run a project and a crappy project (read: a crappy result submitted). Getting a dedicated volunteer in Indonesia to run a project is difficult enough, more over to beg for the money that is non popular. Should you asks why am I keep using the word popular, bare in mind by participating in this kind of effort you will not get famous as participating in Indonesian Idol, or "Indonesian Future Leaders" using TV as a medium, or supported by a large news paper, or media main stream, or similar effort now being run by for profit targeted to the same age group we're targeting. While old people, in our limited try out, can't handle the technology - too complicated.
My answer above is given to you assuming you can handle the answer. Since you pointed out about funding, however, I should take note whether begging to Wikimedia Foundation, with 10 million dollar to spare, to fund and support it's own effort by community is now considered difficult. For your other question below, since you are already objected, I don't see a reason why I should waste my time voluntarily, to answer. Siska.Doviana (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Siska. Emotions aside. I have listed items in the budget which in my view should not be funded, yet that does not mean that I object the project intact I am happy with every other items in the budget except the ones I pointed out for the reasons I gave. You can either remove them from your budget or provide reasons why they should be funded. Ultimately Wikimedia Foundation will make up their mind to fund the project or not. I don't have the final word. Much love.-- Thuvack (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Thuvack,
Allow me to be clear on the attitude of "I don't think we need to persuade you, either grant it or not, please be clear, we have time frame in our plan."
I am the head of Wikimedia Indonesia, I oversee all projects, like I said above, our total funding reaches 750 thousand dollar, you keep saying we don't have capacity - I disagree, funding wise our organization proves net positive to capacity. Yup, we could spend that much, especially, like you objected below: re-granting. Our expertise is re-granting. You are disagreeing on our expertise, it's your judgement from what I believe lack of information on your side.
When Kartika and Ivonne comes to me and requested permission to submit grant to Wikimedia Foundation, I asked them do they have time to run it? If they don't have time, forget it. Ivonne confirm she has time, next year, to run it. I have no doubt in her capacity to run it, Kartika said she will help her in her voluntary capacity. Bare in mind that Ivonne only have next year, the year after - she will left the country to pursue her education.
I have no intention to remove anything from the budget, this is not my grant, however I kept answering questions about the previous grant and regarding Wikimedia Indonesia, as the organization, capacity. So I will return this question back to Kartika and Ivonne as the request person, personally, I would like to exclude myself from the whole thing. But since you are talking to me, I will pointed out some of my experience in this kind of grant request.
"Free location to do training"
Naive: "You should have them free donated by other party"
Factual: Free location provided is accidental. If you have a plan to do accidental thing *once*, the venue is easy to get. But if you are planning an intensive training like Wikimedia Indonesia did, a lot of universities would say: "We need that room for ourselves, we have student that will use it", a lot venue would say: you can have it this week, but you can't have it next week. So where should we go next week? Spending time making accidents happened? Our greatest resources in the movement is time, you wasted it to find free venue, we lost volunteers and people that wanted to come because the venue keep moving around uncertainly. But if we have the venue clear, you can make events happened. On a side note, lobbying for a free venue take a long time, currently we are lobbying a free venue, it's been on going since July 2012, I met the guy three times and he kept saying "We'll reply to you", it's been four months and no word. If I let Ivonne running around spending her time trying to have a free venue, she probably have lost one year looking for a free venue and not having training. What is the priority? Free Venue or Training?
I kept telling my grantees, think strategically, every time they use their brain and time to save money, they lost their strategy. I bang the table and asks them, is your grant request is to save money or to reach the goal? If you want to reach your goal, don't waste my time by sending me proposal to save money, or send me another grant that the goal is to save money. We have training to sharpen both the budget and the goal using logical approach. Ivonne and Kartika both knows this.
Naive:"The laptops are expensive"
Factual: Around 70% wikipedian I met think like you, they don't think they worth the technology. I got this particular English Wikipedian in Yogya that type from a crappy laptop whose keyboard and motherboard went sideways. This guy spent a lot of his time contributing thousands and thousands article, some of them you can see in Indonesian language Wikipedia as feature article. Not only he had a crappy laptop, he had a crappy cellphone too. He wasted my time by technical things like his "2" key is not working so he can't call me. This is not just one person, there's a lot of volunteers feel this way, one of my intern also felt this way. I slowly increase his salary and send him to places. Now he can speak about free knowledge with a more strategical approach, and a lot of gadgets. He started to appreciate himself, because I appreciate him, because the organization appreciating him by rewarding result. A lot of volunteers feel that they aren't worthy of the technology to make their life easier. Not only about having or not having laptop, but also about having an "updated" laptop so the volunteers/ staff can be up to date with the technology. We're also not aiming for a fancy laptop, just standard one a normal person would get. So if you are saying, "it's too much, you're not suppose to do this". I disagree, that is why in your later effort, for any effort, if you keep subscribing to these kind of thinking that people are not worthy, you will have more problems than solution. Much much love and experience back to you *mmhuuah* Siska.Doviana (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My comments on budget line items[edit]

Hi guys, I read your grant application again and I have a few questions with regards to some line items in your various budgets:

Communication Costs and Modems for committee -Are these being rented or bought? The cost sound bait steep (at least in South African context)

It is bought. It is not new for us, we also use modems for Javanese Wikipedia competition as you can see the ongoing activities report [2].

Stipend for trainers and Compensation for Jury - I believe that it is a general policy not to pay for these and to utilize volunteers as far as possible? At least not to pay hard cash for work that can be done by volunteers?

Beside volunteers, we also pick lecturers from university or some expertise in local languages. Considering the low amount of this payment, it is more likely a volunteer compensation of their transportation and food for learning Wiki and evaluate the participants works one by one. In our past experience, jury from volunteers donated back all their compensation fee for Wikimedia Indonesia.

Laptops for Winners -What kind of laptops are these? Generally speaking it sounds a bit excessive to me.

Laptop that meet the allocated budget criteria. We give laptop as prizes since 2010. You can found some of the previous laptop prizes here. With around 500-600$ as mentioned on the budget list, we can buy a laptop with standard specification. Never being to excessive by buying Apple or expensive Sony Vaio.

Preparations for Wikimania

  • Pass ports for Winners
  • Insurance for Winners

-I believe that Wikimania scholarships for wikimedians does not cater for both the above items. It would be gross unfairness to pay these for winners of this competition.

You are right, Wikimania do not cover these two items. My question is: If you are the winner of our competition, we provide you only with ticket and accommodation. But you don't have passport, never been abroad before, and do not have clue and money to prepare the document. It can be happen in my country. Should WMID let his ticket and opportunity be vanished? In past competition, we WMID help winner candidates to prepare their document, passport application, paying their insurance & passport, and teach them how to handle it.

Venue rentals -It is generally preferred to seek venues from partnering institutions as "in kind" gift and not to pay for it, unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that all options in this regard have been exhausted.

If we got a place from partnering institution then we will return the amount we are not use.

Re granting -Can someone explain to me what this is about?

v. To grant back (cite:dictionary by Farlex). We receive grant/funding from WMF and we give it to other volunteers based on our selection and criteria. We are already in contact with some volunteers in South East Asia that show interest on doing similar project in their Wikipedia language. We have no intention on doing project in their jurisdiction, however we thought it would help to funded their project. By granting the funding needed for their project. We have no intention on doing project in their jurisdiction, however we thought it would help to funded their project. By granting the funding needed for their project. This grant will involve training on how to handle it, using a transparency and success measure like ours.

I must state that after perusing the budgets, I oppose spending on above line items until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Wikimedia ID does not have capacity to execute the projects with local wikimedian volunteers. --Thuvack (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for spending your time on reviewing this grant request :)--22Kartika (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Some comments[edit]

Thanks for the submission Ivonne. The request looks good and detailed, but my main questions are related to some of your measures of success:

  1. You mention that the first Free Your Knowledge Competition was held in 2010. Can you point to any report with the results and effects from the execution of the first edition of this project? Sounds great that you tend to double the number of very active editors. But do you think that its viable on long-term or only in the period of 120 days?
  2. Can you point to a specific report about the Writing Classes in 2011? What were the effects from these classes? How many writing classes were held and how many people participated? You can use some of the numbers from your previous project to quantify the measure of success for this project.
  3. Can you tell us more about the copyright holder of the Indonesian Encyclopedia? Do you have any contacts to the owner of the rights and what is the possibility to make the content free?

Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kiril, thank you for your questions.
  1. Here is 2010 Free Your Knowledge Competition report. To explain more about the increasing number of very active editors, i want to point out this statistic chart. Yes, it is clearly showed the double editors number only happened whenever Wikimedia Indonesia did intervention through competitions. From our lesson learned, only about 10% participants that will remain editing in Wikipedia.
  2. Here is the 2011 Wikipedia Indonesia Writing Classes report. In total, there was 11 meetings (we divided into three levels) with 38 participants. It is a great suggestion to use this number to quantify the further measure of success.The important and positive effects of this classes is WMID able to accommodate public interest in knowing Wikipedia (it attracted potential contributors from journalist, students, community, and professional workers) and new WMID volunteers had more confident and experience in teaching audiences. It also helped new contributors to deal with Wikipedia community, their rules, and guidelines.
  3. We are looking for opportunity to release either one of two kinds Indonesian Encyclopedias, the first one published on 1954. According to Indonesia copyright law, the content will be released to public if the only copyright holder (writer) had been died for 50 years. It the copyright has been diverted to publisher, the content is free 50 years after the first publishing date. This encyclopedia is still on old Indonesian spelling, so will need an extra effort to make put it on WikiSource. The second, is from year 1984, available in 5 encyclopedia series. The chief editor was already died, but we contacted his daughter some months ago, we haven't reach a decision yet. However, we still need further investigation to the publisher, too. Some visible literature which are likely to be put on Wiki is "Mitra Noe Tani", a farming book in Sundanese language (1879) and Indonesia tourism encyclopedia --> the encyclopedia was initiated by our late tourism minister and his family show goodwill make the content free. We have a volunteer works in Indonesian National Library and he is being helpful to find old and free-license script or books.--22Kartika (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Addition of viable long term or period only[edit]

Kiril, I will add some of my thought in the "its viable on long-term or only in the period of 120 days?"
It's an interesting question and rest assure I was asking myself the same thing when I first initiate it as an experiment. I will took this opportunity to elaborate further and update my finding.
My answer would be that it is "naive" to expect a result for a long term engagement using a short term effort. When we launched it in 2010 (and did not continue with the same scale on 2011 and 2012), I promised to double very active contributor and we did. So what happened on 2012? This is the statistic of 2011 using only 1 university intervention. If you consider the statistic in 2012, although the very active user (>100 edits) is increased with the tendency to drop on September 2012, the active user (>5 edits) exponential increase during "events" is stable, and the number is holding on. Maybe they are attracted by the new and improved 1,386 articles within 72 days of competition, maybe they learn how to edit wikipedia through Wikimedia Indonesia multiple slideshare guide on how to edit wikipedia in Indonesian language - since it is viewed 4,839 times and downloaded 184 times combined? I don't know, and I won't take credit for it for the statistic raising or falling down beyond the time that we promised the project will hold. We keep what we promise, we won't take credit after if it is successful, or if without intervention the Indonesian ID contributors fall. I think it is, at least, fair. Siska.Doviana (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Question on grants program[edit]

Can you provide information on how your grants program ensures that funding is only being given to individuals or organizations permitted to receive funding under Indonesian and United States law?

Gbyrd (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am curious about this point -- how does the WMF ensure this is the case for our own grants? I don't know about Indonesian law, but it is famously hard to figure out who is permitted to receive funding under United States law. For instance: do we offer any guidance for others who are trying to understand how to check compliance with US Executive Order 13224?
Since this law in particular is a hairy problem faced by any US-based global charity, I started a separate page about it: International grantmaking and US Executive Order 13224. SJ talk  06:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

HI Garfield, thanks for the question. I am not aware of the United States law, so I am answering the Indonesian law part of the question. When drafting the grant request we consulted with our legal counsel. We have checked that Indonesian law does not regulate granting from Indonesian entity to another entities abroad. Under Indonesian law, two things are regulated: 1. Grants from overseas to Indonesia and 2. Overseas organization that draws donations from Indonesia. Any grant will be based on contract between Wikimedia Indonesia and its grantees. 06Ivonne (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

06Ivonne thank you for your response, but as SJ has covered in International grantmaking and US Executive Order 13224, the Indonesian chapter will need to verify that any funds granted by the Indonesian chapter to any individuals or entities are permitted to receive funding under US Executive Order 13224 and the US Treasury OFAC list. How does the Indonesian chapter plan on doing these checks and how will they provide verification to the Wikimedia Foundation that the checks have been done?Gbyrd (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
SJ we are working on refining our process, but our current FDC process includes a verification that any organization receiving funding from the Wikimedia Foundation is not covered by US Executive Order 13224 and all individuals who may have control of funding provided by the Wikimedia Foundation and Board members are being checked against the OFAC list. Our current process was reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation Audit Committee.Gbyrd (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Garfield, I have checked the list published by OFAC and we will make sure later that none of our future grantees will be any of the entities or individuals listed on it. None of our previous grantees are on the list and I am happy to confirm that Wikimedia Indonesia nor Wikimedia Foundation is on the list. Anyway, terrorism is never of our interest. We are interested in spreading free knowledge! ;) Thanks, 06Ivonne (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Garfield. And thanks for your good humor, Ivonne. We have to jump through the same hoop ourselves when making grants; unfortunately, this hoop is a string that is attached to any re-granting program. Regards, SJ talk  07:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
That's right. I've now added a useful lookup resource for the SDN list on the OFAC site to the page SJ has created. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

PPV[edit]

Hi, I've been watching the discussions closely. I understand the position of GAC members, much so the position of WMID. I've read through WMID's reports before and I could say they've accomplished a great deal of projects with success. I guess what fumes the proponent is the lack of knowledge about WMID's capability and background. Having submitted grants and defended these myself, it should be incumbent upon GAC members to check the proponent's track record, and not as it's the first time they are presenting proposals. I apologize if anything below might have been answered, as I may have overlooked them.

I'm very supportive of these efforts, every single article contributed in these these languages is very precious. The situation is the same in the Philippines (where we have 8 Wikipedias in Philippine languages). It must be stressed that it would be really unfair to compare it with European languages where the speakers have a culture of writing, thus article contributions are sustainable for a long period of time.

I have full confidence with WMID capability, I just have reservations on the Wiki Training Center and Re-Granting Program for South East Asia Contributors.

  • I think in establishing a facility such as a proposed Wiki Training Center, it must be seen that it would be regularly used (maybe two days in a week) and not seasonally, otherwise the facility/equipment would be underutilized, depreciation would seen eat up the value of the equipment. Aren't there business centers/school facilities which could be leased or rented to conduct training? Most likely there are laptops for rent, projectors/screens for rent available there too. I think the frequency to conduct these training must be laid down first before seeing this as necessary.
HI Namayan, we have seven projects, one of them are regranting and training center. Other projects alone would occupy the center with enough frequency. For rental equipment, we don't need to rent any of them since we already have them so we are not requesting a fund for it.
  • I laud WMID's initiative in coming up with a re-granting program for Southeast Asia contributors (though it should take note there's also WMPH in Southeast Asia), though currently WMF is embarking on an "experimental" (I'm not sure if that's the right word to use) $20,000 Flow Funding Project, where flow funders identify projects they could fund. I'd like to look at this though as a microgrant in a macro sense, but it shouldn't go overboard, as what could be the probably basis of such figures to re-grant. Since it was mentioned it is their expertise, has there been any precedent that you would really require $50,000?
The $50,000 we are requesting is to fund 5-6 projects from 10 people we invited. And speaking of expertise, Wikimedia Indonesia has expertise in regranting $50,000 to several entities.
  • In the table you have provided:
SEA Wiki Training Center 2013.jpg

30% already goes to transportation, to my understanding trainees would be accommodated and flown to Jakarta to be trained. Wouldn't it be cost efficient if the trainers are the ones who would go to the communities where these trainees are based? To my understanding in a conversation I've had, it's too risky to transport equipment (that's true) but I can't imagine these localities where the trainees are based wouldn't have available facilities to conduct training seminars which could just be rented out; otherwise once they go back to their localities how can the trainees be trainers themselves? Wouldn't it be more cost efficient to fly 1 or 2 trainers than flying a bunch of trainees to a training facility. If the WMID trainers wouldn't have the luxury of time to travel to do that, that would seriously question the capability of WMID to execute the above-mentioned proposal. As stated above should you find a partnering institution the money would be returned, that's a given but why couldn't the proponent look at just renting venues?

Kiril asked a similar question. You may see below.
  • Also in the same table, the coordination meeting is proposed to be $3,892, does it really cost that much to hold meetings for 1 year, unless this would be so very often?
As a comparison, last year we conducted 125 meetings in total and that does not include trainings held. The coordination meeting item mentioned in the budget is for an office rent fee which is divided by six projects.

I'm not trying to be an antagonist, I'm also naive and I would like to be enlightened. I understand the frustration from the grilling I just need further understanding and expounding of the plan. -- Namayan (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Namayan, thanks for the questions and I hope the brief answers I provide above is clear enough. 06Ivonne (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Budget questions[edit]

Some questions about the individual items listed in the program budgets:

  • BP #1: I assume this refers to local travel by the organizing committee? Why does the budget list 10 months if the program will end in July?
  • BP #2: As with BP #1, why does the budget include 10 months of costs?
    HI Kiril, on the budget you could see that the competition and its preparation took 9 months. An additional month after the competition is needed to prepare the final report of the project. The first to third months would need more fund allocation on local travel since we will do a roadshow and initial training. While on the tenth month we would not need as much fund, but we could allocate extra unused fund and divided it through six projects.
  • BP #6: What are the costs associated with the press conferences?
    We would spend the Rp. 6.000.000,- allocated under this item to fund meals for participants during the press conference. There will be media partners and jury of the competition. We expected 30 people to come. The cost per head for the coffee break and lunch approximately is $20. There will be two press conferences with the duration of three hours each for the opening and closing ceremony. If we are using a free of charge venue (like we did on 2010), there will be additional fees i.e. safety and sanitation fee.
  • BP #7: Do these costs refer to the purchase of modems, or to the associated data costs? How is this item different from BP #2?
    BP#7 is the fund allocated to purchase modems while BP#2 is the fund allocated to buy credits.
  • BP #9: What does the jury compensation entail?
    It is for cash compensation for jury. It serves as the incentive for them to do the scoring. According to past experience, even when they were compensated it was quite hard to get them to report the scores on time. We do have backups but their name were published publicly.
  • BP #12: The budget includes costs for 5 passports, but only 2 winners will attend Wikimania. What is the purpose of the other three passports?
    Reflecting on what happened in Free Your Knowledge 2010, we could use more preparation for the winner's travel documents. Most of the time, the participants have never travel abroad and does not have passports. Even close to the winner announcement, anything could happen and we cannot be 100% sure a particular person would win the competition. Our solution is to pick the top 5 just to be safe and asked them all to prepare their passports. The bureaucracy in Indonesia demanded that we invest a month's time to arrange travel documents such as passport.
  • BP #14: What does the insurance for winners entail?
    Travel insurance is sometimes a part of visa application so to get the visa one needs to be able to show that they have travel insurance.
  • KM2012 #3: What are the costs associated with the training materials? Can they be reduced by using electronic materials?
    The material as sample on the participant first edit is custom to each participant. Print material is needed to speed up the process (reduced training time up to 3 hours) and avoid copy pasting. Electronic materials is provided to use for all participant.
  • KM2012 #5 and #6: What is the difference between the taxi fare (#5) and the transportation (#6)?
    Taxi fare in KM2012 #5 is for travel to and from airport only while transportation fee means it is local transport from hotel to venue and back., and it is part of the per diem.
  • KM2012 #7: What does this office fee cover?
    If you see the fund allocated for Central Administration (including office rent and administrator) is 0. This is because it is divided by 6 projects.
  • ABP #9: What does this office fee cover?
    See above.
  • PPW #1: Is it assumed that all participants will be non-local (and thus require airfare)? Can the travel costs be reduced by transporting the trainer(s) rather than the participants?
    The training is intensive, it will be both. One participant (project director) will be invited and he will return and tell his/ her committee. The trainer then come to help guard the project along with the head of project and his/ her committee.
  • PPW #6: What does this office fee cover?
    See answer for KM2012 #7.
  • BMW #2: What services will be provided by the consultant?
    The writers will write the manual, but they are not an expert on media wiki. The consultant is an expert on media wiki and he would help on media wiki part. Everytime a session take place, we assume the expert willing to be paid that much.
  • BMW #6: What do these shipping costs cover? Can they be reduced by distributing the book in electronic form?
    No, it's for the library. Electronic form also will be available for download.
  • BMW #7 and #8: What do these draft costs entail?
    Trial and discussion with user, whether the book is understandable to them. Several people from several background is invited and paid to read and try the book.
  • BMW #9: What does this office fee cover?
    See answer for KM2012 #7.
  • WSBI #1: What does the trainee compensation entail?
    It is actually the compensation for committee who will be trained first so we called them "trainee. It is just a matter of terms, actually.
  • WSBI #15: What does this office fee cover?
    See answer for KM2012 #7.
  • MHBR #10 and #11: What are the proposals referenced here?
    The proposals serves as a brief explanation of the competition and will be sent to potential universities. Those who are interested in joining the competition would contact us. We sent these to as many possible and in this case 10 while maybe there are only 3 universities who are interested.
  • MHBR #15: What does this office fee cover?
    See answer for KM2012 #7.
  • WISMKI #6: What are the costs associated with the training materials? Can they be reduced by using electronic materials?
    See answer for KM2012 #3.
  • WISMKI #7: What does this office fee cover?
    See answer for KM2012 #7.

Thanks! Kirill Lokshin [talk] 01:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Regards, 06Ivonne (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for the answers. Based on them, I have a couple of additional questions:

  • The "office fee" line items across all projects total approximately $27,253. What specific costs are being covered by this amount?
  • BMW includes equal funding allocations for the graphic designer, consultant, writer, and editor. Will all four people be working the same hours? Are all four necessary for all three months of the program? Can any of the four be replaced by volunteers?

Thanks! Kirill Lokshin [talk] 02:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

HI Kiril,
  • The office fee line items is not $27,253 but around $38,933. As I had answered previously, the cost covers administrator salary as well as administration fee and all other overhead costs for the projects. If you need the breakdown details please see here. The reason we put "0" on our administration cost is because that administration fee is spread between 6 projects. Based on our previous experience, paying the overhead for administrative only worth if there are at least 6 projects around it. One person is fully dedicated to make sure that the funding flows and the report is done correctly.
  • The graphic designer, consultant, writer, and editor are not working in same hours. But we keep that budget is flexible, we need to assure the funding is there if extra hours from one of the expertise is needed. There has been some translation done by volunteer and by OSM but both still didn't meet the quality needed for public. We believe if we are serious in doing this, we should stop wishing for volunteers to contribute because it has been 4 years waiting and nothing get done. As with the graphic designer, we have problems finding one that wanted to be paid, the right graphic designer is not easy to come by even if we have the money. Volunteer graphic designer, in our experience, like to do their own designed, not by order or request, and cannot finished using time line given. 06Ivonne (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, you're treating the office and administrative costs as an overhead factor in the cost of each project? If that's the case, then why are the fees the same for each proposed project?
In my experience, an overhead rate for an individual project is typically calculated on the basis of relative resource usage (such as labor hours worked, floor space used, and so forth), not as a flat fee amount.
Do you anticipate that each of the proposed projects will require an identical amount of resources relative both to each other and to any other projects using the office?
As we don't operate like any other common organization, we have decided that every coordination meeting for projects under WMID is calculated under one item of central administration. Especially for this WMF grant request, every project is interwoven to each other. If one of the project is cancelled then the overhead cost will go up for the other projects. This system of centralized overhead cost is used solely for this WMF grant request to ease administration process for each projects. Other non-WMF funded projects have no relation to this so that if this grant failed to be funded, other projects could run as planned. This is due to the unpredictability of this grant. 06Ivonne (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You mention below that most WMID employees are working on non-WMF-funded projects; what are the overhead rates for those projects? Kirill Lokshin [talk] 02:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The overhead for those projects is around 25 percent of the total budget. Regards, 06Ivonne (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions and comments from WMF staff about the project budget and activities[edit]

Please answer a few questions and respond to a few comments about the project budgets and activities outlined in this grant request. Thank you, Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Winifred,
Some questions maybe easier to explain directly. Do you mind if we arrange phone call or skype? You can provide your account information or number in email. And I will try to answer some question here.--22Kartika (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
We are committed to keeping the conversation about grants public, so we'd like to do the substantive discussion here on the talk page. However, by all means, we can have a phone call if you feel confused about what we're asking about, or what remains unclear. Please do let us know if and when you feel a phone call would help clarify something so we can get back to public discussion. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Free Your Knowledge 2013[edit]

We have a few questions and comments about the project budget:

  1. The link to information about this project provided in the budget table appears to be a broken link. Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    HI Winifred, I remove the link, I think it is added by mistake from our part. There's no page both in Indonesian Language or in English for the effort. 06Ivonne (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    Winifred, I did put the empty page, sorry to make you confuse. There was no page for this project/competition.--22Kartika (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    Is there any planning page for this program then? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. Regarding the organizing committee,
    • Please provide more information about the work the committee will be doing and the amount of time its members are expected to devote solely to this project. Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Based on our experience, the work done for the volunteers would require 8 hours per day work for the entire 7 months, these includes but not limited to:
    • Lobbying 10 universities (travel to ten different location) so they can approve and allow the competition to happen in their universities and with their student representatives.
    • If the universities agree to join, then the committee will post posters in the 10 universities to attract the students to join the competition.
    • If the universities disagree to join, then the committee have to find other universities that are interested in joining until the quota of 10 universities is fulfilled.
    • When the posters are on, the committee should answer any competition-related questions from the would-be participants through email or text messages.
    • Then the committee will contact related governmental department (such as the ministry of education and the ministry of communication and information) to participate in the launching event.
    • The committee then send an invitation letter to the department
    • Then the committee report to the university regarding the interested students/participants
    • The committee will contact all of the participants who are intested through email and text messade
    • They inform the date and place for wiki training
    • If there are any participants who are not available, the committee must prepare another wiki training in another time
    • The jury who are lecturers and/or staff from universities needed to be trained and informed regarding the scoring deadline and everything
    • The jury will met the committee for a Q&A session
    • If there are jury who is unavailable the committee must set up another time
    • The committe will set up invitation and prepare for the launching press conference
    • They invited all the jury and the media through email, text message, and fax
    • They prepare press conference and send it through email and fax after the launching
    • They announce the start of the competition through email, text message, and wiki discussion pages to all the participants
    • During the competition the committee needed to provide information and answer all questions that came up from participants. They also needed to fix the articles made by the amateur participants who have zero knowledge of wiki editing before
    • The committee then review the contributions by participants and if they did no editing for three days in a row they are informed through email and text message that they had failed the competition.
    • They informed the participants one day before the participants failed through text messaging and email.
    • They informed the participants to choose their best article for judging through text messaging and email.
    • They decide the deadline and inform all of the participants and the jury through text messaging and email.
    • If the participants did not choose any article until the deadline, they will choose it for them.
    The list could go on and on until forever, do you want me to continue? 06Ivonne (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    It depends on the phase of this competition. Like for example, in the first round of competition, it will take more than 4 hours a day for 30 days to read participants article, show them how to fix it, guide them one by one (online). They also work as police patrol, documented the participants contribution, call and send message to warn participants if they are not editing, etc.
    Thanks, this really helps understand the scope of work envisioned for this organizing committee. It is certainly much more work than we could have imagined, so I'm glad you were able to lay it out.
    This description includes many activities (not all!) that we'd usually expect the general editing community to perform (as volunteers). Can you help us understand the situation in terms of volunteer availability for on-wiki work like coaching and monitoring contestants' contributions? Are such volunteers available? Are they interested in and supportive of this initiative, specifically? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The cost of meals, transportation, and communication seems high for the scope of these activities: please provide some details about how you have calculated these amounts. For example, it is currently unclear why data / communications costs are so high. Are these plans needed for all 5 committee members?
    Please see the above work load. 06Ivonne (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    Could you help us understand the context for all this text messaging? Is e-mail not enough to reach students? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Also, you have not explained how this cost was calculated. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Who is expected to serve on this committee? Are committee members likely to simultaneously be organizers of other projects? In that case, how will you guard against multiple/overlapping reimbursements? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    We have potential candidates which we can't disclose now since we don't know whether the event is going to be funded or not. No. See above. The workload is too much already. 06Ivonne (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    Am I correct in understanding that there are no less than 14 suitable people available for hire as organizers for these committees and trainer roles? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Please disclose whether any board members (executive or trustees) are interested or likely to assume these paid positions. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    I should point out, just to be clear, that the Wikimedia Grants program cannot be used to fund full-time positions. Funds for those can only be secured through the FDC process. I expect WMID would be eligible for the FDC in the coming rounds. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. Please explain the purpose of the budget item “modem for committee and participants”. Who will be using this modem and why is it required (especially noting that data / communications plans for the entire committee are already provided)? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    The answer was given above (this is same question from Thuvaks and we already answered).
    Right. We missed that. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. Explain the prize structure. How many winners are there? There are 5 laptops allocated in addition to 2 Wikimania tickets: will the prize winners be receiving both laptops and scholarships to Wikimania? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, the winner of Wikimania prize also get a laptop.
  5. In your estimation, is it impossible to carry out this project without a paid jury? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    It is possible, but we would like to include lecturer from related universities in order to establish long-term cooperation between organization and institution also.
    Thanks. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Indonesia Writing Classes and Media Wiki Workshop[edit]

We have a few questions and comments about the costs associated with this project:

  1. How long is each planned training session? 1 or 2 hours? 1 full day? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Three hours in minimum.
  2. How did WMID calculate IDR 900,000 for the trainer stipends? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. How did WMID calculate IDR 250,000 for per diems for the trainers? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Based on organization rule and it refer to Indonesian national regulation that regulate travel cost of workers in Indonesia.
    Is it impossible to carry out these writing classes without paying the trainers a stipend (as distinct from actual expenses)? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Free Knowledge Events[edit]

Please explain why there is a need to plan as many as 4 - 12 events in one year. (4 events are planned according to the “PS” in the budget table, while events are planned every month, according to the description in the grant proposal’s main text.) Thanks, Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The event is planned to be held every 3 month. There's a typo there. Preparation for a national & international speaker usually took 2,5 months to prepare so the preparation would take daily for one year. Please consider the mistake is corrected. The text should say: "These events are designed to be held every 3 month". 06Ivonne (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Training Center and Re-Granting Program for South East Asia Contributors[edit]

  1. Please clearly explain the relationship between the training center and the regranting program, if any. Thanks, Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    The grantees will use our reporting procedure and standard for every grant approved. The grantee will need to be train on how to do it according to the standard required by WMID from budgeting, execution, to reporting. 06Ivonne (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. And is this the sole use of the training center? If not, what other uses are planned, and at what proportion, compared to this use? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 02:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. A few questions about the idea of the training center:
    • Does this project involve renting a permanent venue? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Please see below answer regarding office. 06Ivonne (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    That answer was not clear either, about whether a venue is secured permanently or not. I asked for clarification below. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 02:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Who is expected to work at the center, and what expenses will be incurred as a result? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Please see below answer regarding employees. 06Ivonne (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I understand. The training center, it seems, is to train WMID's own grantees. If we do not agree to fund the regranting portion of this request, there would be no need for the training center. Or would there? The employees mentioned below (but never called "employees" in the original proposal, which is unfortunate) are described as working on different projects. Does that mean those other projects assume and rely on the availability of this training center? If so, then again, if regranting and a training center are not approved, are those projects not feasible any more? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 02:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • What would be the criteria for selecting prospective trainees to attend the training programs? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Experience, expertise, and availability of their time. 06Ivonne (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    Could you describe the kind of experience WMID would be looking for? We would like to get a more concrete idea of the kind of grants WMID is proposing to be giving based on this grant's prospective funds. I will state clearly that I disagree with the statement made below, that all the work WMID is currently supporting with other grant funds is aligned with the Wikimedia Mission, and more particularly with the current Wikimedia Strategic Plan. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 02:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. A few questions about the regranting program:
    • What criteria and processes are in place to support these regranting activities? For example, how will applicants seek funds, what is the process for evaluating proposals, and who will make the final decisions? Where are these procedures documented? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    We have made initial approaches to individuals in South East Asia who showed interest in doing it. As mentioned, the grant will only cover 5 - 7 projects. It won't be an open grant application, since our funding is very limited, we screen potential grantees through tight Q&A and training to assure success. Decision is taken by the trainer and Q&A result. All of the procedures will be documented in the report. 06Ivonne (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If approved, are you prepared to comply with US laws, in particular to screen potential grantees against the Department of the Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals list? [3] Feel free to respond here, or in more detail to Garfield’s question above. Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Please see my response to Garfield above. 06Ivonne (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 02:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiSource Indonesia[edit]

  1. We are concerned that WMID is requesting funding for this project now while it appears from your comments above that the materials have not actually yet been released. Is there a concrete timeline in place? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    We have one Sundanese literature (I mentioned before in Kiril's question) that ready to be put on WikiSource anytime soon.
    But the "Ensiklopedia Indonesia" is not yet released. Spending ~$16K for a farming book in Sundanese and maybe a tourism encyclopedia is not a strong investment. To fund this project, we would need to see a clearer interest (and commitment) from the Wikisource communities. It is neither feasible nor appropriate to do this work entirely on a paid basis. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 02:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. The budget refers several times to a “Winner” but we did not see a description of a contest associated with this project. Would you please elaborate? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Hi Winifred, please look at this page: Wikimedia Indonesia travel scholarship through WikiSource mini-competition. We conducted this competition on July 2012, the purpose is to put 569 pages of English-Sundanese dictionary by Jonathan Riggs (1862) in 18 days-competition. This is the scoring table for all the participants, there were only two winners. We are going to do the same pattern because it proved work well.
    So is it your experience and opinion that only paid work, or materially-incentivized work (e.g. prize-bearing competitions), can generate significant contribution to Indonesian languages Wikisource? I have sampled a few of the participants in the July 2012 contest, and saw that none of them continued contributing after the competition ended. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 02:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiMedika[edit]

  1. Are these prospective editing workshops agreed upon, in principle, with the students involved? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Yes. For this project, the initiative came from Association of Indonesian Medical Student Council. We already did one trial training by their invitation (held after Indonesian Medical Olympiad 2012 Malang), here is the report.
  2. Are the expenses listed in the budget the only expenses associated with these workshops? For example, are venues for the workshops provided by the students or by the universities? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, these are the only expenses associated with workshops.
    Sounds good, thanks! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 02:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions and comments from WMF around strategy and impact[edit]

  1. Inquiry about the strategy behind Free Knowledge Events: Please explain clearly if or how these events are aligned with the goals set forth in the Wikimedia Strategic Plan. Thanks, Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    It is align with two of Wikimedia Strategic Priorities: Increase participation and Increase reach. 06Ivonne (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. Questions about the impact of the Mediawiki manual:
    • Mediawiki is fantastic software. It can benefit a wide variety of uses, only some of them of interest to our mission; for example, Mediawiki can serve a variety of commercial uses, as well as support wikis about any topic, educational or not. What is the value of preparing this essentially technical resource in Indonesian, and of funding it with Wikimedia funds (as distinct from funding it via entities with a commercial interest such as Mediawiki integration consultants or those with an academic or government interest)? Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    There is no entity, academic body, or government body interested in Mediawiki in Indonesia while the existing experts that we know (such as Ivan Lanin, Stanley Cia, and Leo Cahyadi) are not available to allocate their time in this effort since they have other commitments. From what I see, you are trying to judge our effort using your own personal perspective (correct me if I'm wrong). Approaching an academic or government interested might work in the USA or any other country but this is Indonesia and it doesn't work that way here. We know what works and what not and what is the best practice based on our previous efforts. We are not saying that what works in Indonesia could be replicated and would work in any other country. If any other countries or organizations or entities or individuals has an identical problem to what we are facing then please do replicate this. If not, then find other ways. I am sorry that we cannot solve all the world's problem, including terrorism! (although we would if we could!). The Mediawiki manual: Yes, it has been translated to Indonesian, but we are not going to leave it to be just like that; "some parts is available." And we explicitly mentioned that we will fine-tune this manual book, meaning that we are being very cautious with every single word in the book to guarantee that non-expert programmers will understand it by the first or second look and no one will be discouraged to use Mediawiki. Regards, 06Ivonne (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    • We are concerned that the impact of creating the Mediawiki Manual in Indonesian may be limited, as it will be more difficult for other organizations and individuals within the movement to replicate its contents. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Please see the above response.06Ivonne (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    Please see the above response. 06Ivonne (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    Mediawiki is a wikimedia product. Improving its documentation is an integral part of the movement that we support. We will be improving the existing manual on mediawiki.org in Indonesian, and packaging parts of it into an outreach pack that can be given to Indonesians at conferences, and libraries. We believe that increased adoption of wikis is important to increased participation in the wikimedia content projects. Deployment of wikis in universities and government is not happening because there is not a usable manual in Indonesian. These institutions do not fund development of manuals for open source software because they feel nice, it just doesn't count as strategic. Unlike U.S. or Germany there's also no consultant available for wiki for profit.--22Kartika (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. Question about the impact of Writing competition of Banjar Wikipedia: Would you please provide any data WMID has that supports the viability of a Banjarese Wikipedia? We have been unable to find specific data such as literacy rates in Banjarese to help assess the viability of a Banjarese Wikipedia, and WMF would be hesitant to fund this project without being able to consider its viability. Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Banjarnese Wikipedia project is aligned with WMF goal of healthy diversity. As you have previously aware of, WMID has done many Indonesian ethnic languages, i.e. Javanese and Sundanese in 2011. In 2013 we consider that it's time for Banjarnese, we have met the prospective committees and we are confident that it can take off. We can provide you with the data after the project is completed. 06Ivonne (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

General comments about this grant request from WMF staff[edit]

  1. Previous grant requests: Questions from WMF staff remain unanswered on the discussion page for the grant report for Wikimedia Cipta and serious concerns still exist about the appropriate use of funds according to the approved project budget. We will not approve a new grant request before the issues with Wikimedia Cipta’s grant report are resolved. Please follow up on the discussion page of that report. Thank you, Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Pleas point out which one is remain unanswered. As long as I recall, WMID already answered all the question. Do not hesitate to use any bold or color to emphasize (or address) your unanswered questions. I think we both already tired with those very long report and it would be best to finished it soon :)
    Winifred is preparing a summary of remaining open issues, to be posted on the Cipta talk page. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    This summary has been posted here: Grants talk:WM ID/Wikimedia Cipta/Report#Resolving outstanding concerns about this report. Wolliff (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. Employees: we ask that WMID disclose whether it has any employees (whether funded through WMF grants or through other means), full- or part-time, and provide the details of these paid positions including their expected roles in the context of these planned activities. Thank you, Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    There are eight in total, including full time, part time and interns. Currently there is no employee or intern being paid using WMF grants. One employee who did being paid through WMF grant finished his duty on December 2011. I am now working part time for Cipta Media Bersama project. I will release my duty in that one, if this grant is funded. But will continue full time in that project if this grant fails. I will be the only part time affected with this grant. 06Ivonne (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. Please clarify how many full time vs. part time vs. interns are in WMID's employ, and please list their names. Am I correct in understanding you are both a board member and a paid employee of WMID at the moment? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. Office: We note that several project budgets allot an unqualified amount to fund an office. Please state the total amount WMID is requesting to fund the office, explain its functions and expected impact, and deduct this amount from each of the project budgets. It is possible we would be interested in funding some of the proposed activities but not an office, so it cannot be assumed that office funding would be part of any approved project. Thank you, Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    WMID didn't ask to fund the office, it is a general used space available for project. Each project needed to book the space and provide funding for it. If any of this project are not approved, the office space will be used for a different project. As you know we have many projects. In this grant request, some of the projects require working space while others don't. We require each projects to have a budget for the office space that they needed.
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand what do you mean by ""unqualified amount", each grant component for each project specifies how much they need. We don't require WMF to fund the entire office, we just request WMF to fund the space that the project will use. As for functions and impacts please see goal on each individual project. Thanks, 06Ivonne (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I don't quite understand, so let me try to rephrase my questions:
    1. Does WMID (regardless of the funding source), own, rent, or maintain an office? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    2. The different projects include thousands of dollars each, for the "office" item, without further details or a breakdown of what the money funds exactly (that's what I meant by 'unqualified amount'). Who is to be paid these amounts, and for what, exactly? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    3. If we are willing to approve some of the projects in this request but not others, would it change the "office" amounts in each of the approved projects? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. Regranting program: We note that the regranting portion of this request is significant, and also represents a significant portion (about 1/8th) of WMF’s total grants budget for this fiscal year. It is unlikely that WMF would choose to allocate this much money to a regranting program. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    OK. 06Ivonne (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. Compensating trainees and attendees: The budget for the Wikisource initiative seems to compensate trainees and attendees for their time. This is not in line with Wikimedia’s norms of volunteerism and participation. Work on Wikisource, like work on Wikipedia, is expected to be 100% voluntary, and no contributor to the Wikimedia projects should be compensated for work on the projects. If it is likely there would not be any volunteers interested in working on this digitization initiative without compensation, it may be the case that the project is not be a good fit for WMID at this time. If this is in fact merely a matter of wording, as indicated above, please make that explicit. Regards, Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    We're not planning to fund a trainee, as we said in the previous response there has been a misconception on putting the budget as "trainee/committee". In short, participants are not paid; trainees and attendees are not compensated. The participants work are 100% free and the winner will be awarded a travel scholarship to Jakarta. The committee, just like in the Free Knowledge Competition will be paid. At the least there will be 2 paid committees to handle approx 100+ participant and their work is very labor-intensive. The best person to be a committee in the Wikisource competition would be the winner of the previous competition. The cost for digitalizing a document is minimum, we either paid the library to digitized (scan) some of the book for us with the purpose of networking/connection or we could asks the already paid committee to do it as part of the competition plan. 06Ivonne (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    I understand, thanks. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)