Grants talk:PEG/WM PH/Cultural Heritage Mapping project 2014

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

Evaluation by the GAC[edit]

GAC Members who read the grant request without comments[edit]

  1. --Mayur (talkEmail) 12:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

GAC Members who approve this grant request[edit]

GAC Members who oppose this grant request[edit]

GAC Members who abstain from voting/comment[edit]

  1. I am recusing from participating in this deliberation except to defend the proposal. -- Roel (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Great submission, huge project! So you actually have two Grant requests goin on right now, the one concerning your annual plan and this one for the Cultural Heritage Mapping project 2014. I just hope you have made sure in advance you will be able to execute and implement both plans as I think both are quite elaborate and work-intensive.

About the idea: I love it, it is a great thing to do. Given the work that will be done and the duration of the project period I can only estimate that the amount of money makes sense. --Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 09:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Manuel! We are actually going to be submitting maybe a couple more (smaller) Grant requests for 2014. The annual plan is generally right up our alley with respect to the activities we've been handling these past few years and I am confident that we can handle it. As for this cultural mapping project, this will generally be handled by people who are new to Wikimedia Philippines but are experts in the field of heritage documentation. I'm confident that they can handle this kind of project with the support of the other members of the organization. Thank you for the concern. :-) —seav (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, Manuel. We knew from the very start that this is going to be a very work-intensive project. But we see this partnership of us project managers, subject matter experts and the WMPH members as a formidable collaboration to get the work successfully done. It is our hope that through this project, the locals and the government units see Wikipedia delivering great value for their work in heritage preservation. — Joelaldor (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have some difficulties to understand the project, because it's basically a Wiki Loves Monuments, the difference is that it costs 10 times more. The 60% of cost is connected with the conference and the workshop. Personally I think that this conference should be justified better in order to define the aim of the wiki-expedition of the third day (for instance): does it make sense to have a wiki-expedition with 70 attendees, 10 can do basically the same job of 70. I learned the philosophy of Wiki-expeditions from the chapters of East Europe and they do them with really low budget and with few people focusing more on the production of content and in well motivated people. Honestly I have always seen that people pay to have touristic tours, not the opposite and, sorry, the wiki-expedition of the third day seems to me more a touristic tour that a real workshop. Probably limiting the third day to local people will cut the costs having the same result. --Ilario (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight Ilario. I'd like to dispel any notion this is just or simply Wiki Loves Monuments. Wiki Loves Monuments is practically taking a photo of a heritage site and upload it, hoping one day that it will land on a Wikipedia article, which results into a lot of unused media. I believe WLM statistics already provide information about that.
Here, volunteers would be assigned to specific localities based on the proximity where they live, they identify these sites/structures, the conference will be there to train and immerse them into identifying culturally important properties that should be documented as Philippine Heritage Law defines anything 50 years old and above as "potentially" a cultural heritage structure/site, unless explicitly declared on the contrary, but of course there are complexities in doing that. In this project, those who will be tasked to take photo documentation will be also required to learn and know more about these structures, and if they are notable enough create /update their respective Wikipedia articles, otherwise include them in a list. So practically the work doesn't end once you upload a photo. It may be embarrassing admit that the registry of cultural properties in the Philippines isn't substantial enough to cover all heritage sites that are deemed cultural properties under the heritage law. This was highlighted during the M7.2 Bohol earthquake and onslaught of Typhoon Haiyan, when cultural agencies scrambled to gather photos and other documentation of these sites. This project is also a way of making the chapter's work known by coming up with a reputable database of heritage sites that can be used too by the Philippines' cultural agency.
Please consider these Wikiexpeditions with a twist, and if you think this is a tour, we are not franchising the entire concept of Wikiexpedition in this project. We conceive this to be an "internship activity" for them to distinguish the heritage sites based on what they have learned during the workshop/conference. To sum it up, cultural mapping here takes place when a volunteer is (1) trained to identify heritage sites, (2) photo document, and (3) create/update its Wikipedia article (they have to obtain the materials about the sites/obtain coordinates, etc. -- Roel (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ilario. I hope you were able to read the outline of the 3-day workshop that we have carefully planned with the WMPH team and the cultural heritage experts (you're talking to one right now). The 1st and 2nd day of the 3-day workshop will be an intensive training on heritage documentation techniques to be facilitated by Archt. Manolo Noche, Fung Yu, Christian Aguilar and yours truly...as well as creating the output of the heritage documentation on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. The 3rd day will be the practical application of the learning of the volunteers from the first 2 days, through a guided mapping activity of identified cities/districts with significant concentration of heritage sites. This is definitely not a touristic activity. After the 3-day workshop, volunteers will then have a whole year to document all identifiable cultural properties on their respective areas across the country, and we have put plans in place for their deployment.
It may seem that the cost of this project is higher than your similar activities/projects there in Eastern Europe. And rightfully so: we are an archipelagic and insular country. We have to fly in volunteers from far places to be able to participate in the workshop. Please note as well that we have mechanisms and measures in place to select worthy volunteers from all over the country, who have the real motivation and intention to help safeguard our built heritage sites through heritage documentation. — Joelaldor (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head Ilario. --Filipinayzd (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from WMF[edit]

Thank you for your proposal. This is a very interesting initiative that could be a model for similar work elsewhere and we are impressed with the relationships you have established with heritage and photography professionals. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering the project's success relies heavily on volunteer ability write quality articles on Wikipedia, we want to ensure that they are adequately trained and committed. Knowing the difficulty of contributing to English Wikipedia, we would like to see some type of post-workshop phase (~one month) where the volunteers demonstrate they are willing to put in the time and effort to learn the ways of contributing to Wikipedia. After the trial phase, project leaders could review each volunteers contributions (to any type of article) to assess for quality and if they have internalized wiki skills (citiations, NPOV, etc.). Only those that meet a certain criteria should be sent out into the field. We realize that some volunteers may have the enthusiasm and photography skills to participate, but to make this a success, they really need to be proficient at contributing to Wikipedia. If only a small percentage meet the criteria, you can consider holding a second training in order to cover all the proposed geographies or reduce the number of geographies. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Alex. We are very much aware of keeping the volunteers engaged for the whole project year. We also understand that these volunteers will have to become active contributors in English and Tagalog Wikipedia.
Our goal is to fully equip the volunteers with the right training and committment to be able to produce quality output for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. While we are putting some post-workshop activities such as quarterly meetings, follow-throughs and even mini-Wikiexpeditions to boost volunteer activity, we would like to take in your recommendation of a trial phase to test the skills of the volunteers and the quality of their output. I will talk this over with Eugene and Roel, and if deemed necessary, will revise parts of the proposal to include detailed post-workshop activities for your further perusal. In addition, we plan to tap into our current and active local editors to assist these volunteers as well, during and after the workshop.— Joelaldor (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Joel. Great to hear you are already thinking about this. Please let me know the result of your discussion with Eugene and Roel and I'll watch for any changes to the proposal.

Please note board members cannot be paid project coordinators. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WMPH officers are there to support the project, but no one from the Board will receive any compensation for managing/coordinating with this project.--Joelaldor (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking forward to your response and please let me know if you have any questions. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Changes were already made on the grant proposal to include a post-workshop trial period and certification. The proposed budget has not been changed as this should not incur additional expenses. Let us know if this is already good.-- Joelaldor (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Alex. We see the value of your recommendation and it will be good to deploy only those who have reached a certain level of proficiency in Wikipedia editing. Though it may mean we should provide for a sufficient allocation for "second training" if it's necessary? -- Roel (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Roel. I do think you should allocate for a second training, if necessary. I think it could be completed as a short training targeted at the main challenges volunteers faced during the trial period. Do you think this could be done virtually? Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that's feasible. Though I don't know if virtual training would work we haven't tried that, but I think it won't cost much and I can easily tap the experienced Wikipedia contributors. -- Roel (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Great. If you do think you need to make changes to the budget, please do. Note that you also have 10% contingency in your budget to work with. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I just hit the edit link on that, but looking at the Contingency, since the 2nd training is also a contingency measure I think I should make good use of that and just source it there. -- Roel (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Screening of Candidates[edit]

It would be great if you could do a first round of candidate screening so we have a better sense of how many promising project volunteers there are. The proposed budget covers 70 volunteers and 16 regions. You have estimated 54 volunteers will be certified, but there are currently 67 submissions and they have not yet been screened. We obviously won't know the final numbers of either qualified volunteers or regions until after the training, but I think conducting a screening now will give you a more realistic sense of the numbers and a more accurate proposed budget.

The priority is to make sure we have quality candidates who can do quality work. It would also work to first do a smaller scale project with the most promising volunteers, followed by another grant with more people/regions. Please let us know what you think. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. -- Roel (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Alex. Since the 1st week of January, we have disseminated the application form to interested volunteers. We have garnered 74 submissions since, and we already did preliminary screening based on the applicant responses. Out of the 74 applications, we were able to identify 55 applicants who qualify for the program, based on the following criteria:
  1. Amount of time they can devote for the project per week/per month
  2. Amount of motivation and commitment to do such volunteer work
  3. Literary style and content
  4. Willingness to write/edit content for Wikipedia, and upload content on Wikimedia Commons
We plan to publish the names of the qualified volunteers once this project gets approved for funding. We're just waiting for WMF approval, of course. :) However we could already supply you with the list via e-mail, if you wish. -- Joelaldor (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Approved[edit]

Thank you for sharing the application form. It is helpful in understanding the qualities you have already been screening for. I would encourage additional screening before inviting volunteers to the workshop. Thank you also for engaging with us and the GAC on this request. The grant request is approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and your input that will certainly serve us well. -- Roel (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Alex for approving our grant proposal. This is truly great! -- Joelaldor (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Interim report past due[edit]

The interim report for this grant is now past due. Please provide us with an update on the status of the report and let us know if you have any questions about submitting it. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alex, would it be OK to ask for an extension of the report by June 17? It seems we have overlooked the timing of the certification period vis-a-vis the interim report. The certification period of the volunteers ended on June 3 and this was the deadline for the volunteers to submit their Wikipedia articles and Wikimedia Commons photos. If the interim report is to include the evaluation of the work of the volunteers, then we would need a bit more time to review their articles and complete the accounting of their submitted expenses. Thank you very much. —seav (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi seav. Thank you for the update. Yes, we definitely want the interim report to include an assessment of the volunteer's training period. We are on a tight schedule due to the closing of our fiscal year so please send the report by June 17th at the latest. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reallocation request for WikiExpeditions and further project management[edit]

Wikimedia Philippines would like to request the reallocation of the Grant budget. As a summary, we would like to realign some of the budget alloted for deployment for 2 new line items: (1) WikiExpeditions, and (2) Project Management. Note that the total budget for the project is still the same. The details of the reallocation is as follows (changes highlighted in yellow):

Number Item description Approved Grant budget Proposed reallocated budget
1 Volunteer allowances/stipend ₱384,100 ₱267,100
1.01 Region I (Ilocos) ₱20,000 ₱18,500
1.02 Region II (Cagayan Valley) ₱13,500 ₱7,000
1.03 Region III (Central Luzon) ₱18,000 ₱18,000
1.04 Region IV-A (CALABARZON) ₱28,500 ₱22,500
1.05 Region IV-B (MIMAROPA) ₱27,500 ₱22,500
1.06 Region V (Bicol) ₱27,600 ₱20,100
1.07 Region VI (Western Visayas) ₱16,000 ₱15,000
1.08 Region VII (Central Visayas) ₱18,000 ₱18,000
1.09 Region VIII (Eastern Visayas) ₱34,000 ₱8,500
1.10 Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula) ₱27,000 ₱9,000
1.11 Region X (Northern Mindanao) ₱27,000 ₱27,000
1.12 Region XI (Davao) ₱14,000 ₱0
1.13 Region XII (SOCCSKSARGEN) ₱26,000 ₱26,000
1.14 Region XIII (Caraga) ₱13,000 ₱13,000
1.15 Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao ₱32,000 ₱0
1.16 Cordillera Autonomous Region ₱19,000 ₱19,000
1.17 National Capital Region (Metro Manila) ₱23,000 ₱23,000
2 Conference & workshop ₱840,500 ₱840,500
3 WikiExpedition ₱54,000
4 Project Management ₱63,000
5 Miscellaneous ₱62,500 ₱62,500
6 Contingency (10%) ₱128,710 ₱128,710
TOTAL ₱1,415,810 ₱1,415,810

The rationale for the WikiExpeditions can be found on the WMPH Wiki. The project management item is mainly for honorarium for the new project coordinator.

We are hoping for your kind consideration. —seav (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional information. The Project Management part of the reallocation amounting to ₱63,000 is primarily for the honorarium for the new project coordinator, which is Zach Pagkalinawan. Our treasurer Roel was the original project coordinator but in order to free up Roel's time with his important role as treasurer, we are contracting the services of Zach Pagkalinawan as the new project coordinator. The allotted budget is that Zach is expected to perform admin work for the project for a maximum of 40 hours per month for 7 months (October 2014 to April 2015). This comes to around a total of P52,500 as per the organization's approved rates. The remaining amount is for other miscellaneous management-related expenses; we realized that project management expenses does not end with the conference and workshop last May and we did not allot any item for such in the original Grant. —seav (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi seav. Thank you for the detailed explanation. The reallocation request is approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to extend the project period to April 30[edit]

I would like to request for an extension of the grant project period from the current end date of March 22, 2015 to April 30, 2015. I would like to provide the volunteers with more time to complete their tasks and also to especially allow the students to take further advantage of the summer break (mid-March to May). —seav (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi seav. This extension request is approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Alex. Thank you for the quick approval. —seav (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to extend the report deadline to July 12[edit]

Hello, PEG team. We would like to request for the extension of the deadline for the grant report to July 12. As you may notice on the report's page history, we are currently in the process of writing the report. Also, the documentation of expenses has been delayed for a bit because our Treasurer has been preoccupied with finalizing WMPH's updated 2014 Financial Statement with our external auditor. (The FS is one of the important items that WMPH needs to submit to the Foundation.) —seav (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi seav. Thanks for the update. I have made a note of the new report due date. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)