Grants talk:PEG/WM UY/WikiConference Uruguay 2015

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

GAC members who support this request[edit]

  1. MADe (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Good program, organisation secured external financial supportReply[reply]
  2. No big remarks. --Ilario (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Polimerek (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. --DerekvG (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC) you might want to update the program as it gets filled inReply[reply]
  5. support with my remarks below - the measures should be updated in the grant proposal for later review of the report for grant rubin16 (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAC members who oppose this request[edit]

GAC members who abstain from voting/comment[edit]

GAC comments[edit]

unmeasurable measures[edit]

Hi, guys! I really like your grant proposal and I support it but in order to make it even better I would like to propose some more measurable targets:

  • women attendance of the conference - how much? In absolute terms or percentage? Will the only woman in visitors be considered as a success or not?
  • geographic presentation - what countries/regions do you want do see at the conference?
  • new/developed articles - how many articles? how many new/retained editors?

Best regards rubin16 (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, rubin16. I answer:
  • Actually our WM has 50-50 male-woman, and woman in educative system in Uruguay is over 90%. Something similar happend with several association invited to the event. Given 13% is the rate of woman editing Wikipedia in general, I think near 70% of feminin atendants could be a good target.
  • That point is already explained: we wait representation from Argentina and Uruguay. Brasil is near and perhaps someone wants to assist, but it's quite difficult because of the limitation of the language (but will be wellcome, of course :) ).
  • It is hard to evaluate the number of articles created in a couple hours, because we also will improve some, but all the 31 attendance with schoolarships of the government have created their accounts last year, so the idea is to give them a chance to continue editing, in this case with very experimented users (some of WMUY members attendant have got more than 10,000 edits) and we're sure of both, evacuate all their doubts, and be part of an event as we never made yet. However, we're developing a list of articles of interest, and some users will edit from their house like the best edit-a-thon style. If you spect I say "We will create 250 articles" well, I can´t, since is not a 48h continue editing, and is not the main goal of the event. However, we're open to comments and ideas.
DerekvG: Yes, we'll do ASAP. However, is vacation time in Uruguay and all Education's bildings are close till february. When recess finish we will adjust and define program, and adjust and refine donations. Thanks all. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community comments[edit]

I'm wondering why GAC members are lining up to support this as currently framed.

  • Measures of success. Good questions by Rubin above; the answers don't seem to be convincing in terms of solid plans. Could we see the application page edited to include solid, numerical goals (even if you don't meet them in the end, we'd like to know your benchmarks, please). This alone counts this out as an approved funding, and I can't image why five GAC members have lined up to support this. Have they not read the application? For example, "Geographic representation"—what is that actual goal? "Reports from scholarship recipients post-conference"—what form, and why is this presented as a measurable goal? What do mere reports do in terms of having an impact on the real world (i.e., readers of es. sites)?
  • Activities—Focus on women's issues is excellent, but I don't see much that's worked out properly, especially in terms of IMPACT. This requires a lot of work, communication with participants, BEFORE the conference, so that it's not just unfocused brainstorming. A pity it's so vague, and only six weeks away. Can you point to a proper schedule?

    "Editor Retention - recent research and solutions"—convince me this will get carry-through to the sites after the conference. Are there plans for online collaborations, teams, wikiprojects? What do we get for our money?

    "Copyright"—what is the actual problem at the moment that this will address?

    Which brings me to the matter of lack of data to underpin progress at the conference. Are you armed with data about the gender-gap on es. WMF sites, both in terms of male-dominated article-themes and female editorial activity (turn-off factors, etc). If not, this needs to be gathered before the conference so you know what to discuss. Same for editor retention: at the very least, we're excited about seeing even a few options or proposals your people will have up for discussion at the conference sessions. Otherwise, it's likely to be a loose chat-a-thon.

  • Target readership: happy for you to focus on Spanish-language WMF sites as a primary goal. You mention Brazil, but again, diffuse language goals seem to make your goals harder to achieve at this event. They have their own user-group.
  • Fit with strategy: Good intentions, but for every statement my question is how? Verification through a little bit of detail would be more convincing. This is all too vague.
  • Banners and t-shirts—really? Does this actually help to address editor retention and the gender-gap? Why not spend $1000 on social-media advertisements attracting women to ... a campaign to write articles on women's biographical articles on es.WP? Or something more creative. If you can't "recognise volunteer contributions" through social esteem onwiki, all is lost and we may as well go home. Aside from this, the budget looks well apportioned and careful.

Sorry to be a bit negative, but this needs focusing, tightening up, in terms of online impact and community engagement (beyond participants). It is not yet fundable. I'd appreciate your feedback on this apparently relevant learning pattern. Another lead is to talk with Alex, or Siko if Alex is overwhelmed with work—they are the professionals who can give you tips on framing your gender-gap and editor-retention themes better, and on getting some online/skype-phone discussion happening with selected people in your language-community before the conference, with a view to giving all participants a better chance of preparing themselves to take these matters forward into strategies.

Thanks and looking forward to rather urgent conceptual and programmatic preparation on this application. Tony (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Tony. As I suppose you've read, this is our first experience of this kind. Also, it's formally our first experience in grant applications, so these kind of problems were expected. As we've got no previous experience, we followed this PEG. If you look carefully, goals and measures are quite similar. I'm sorry if if I though it was clear enough. Again, as I already says, we're on vacation period and just today Education start to work. I understand program is "diffuse", but I can´t promise you a full agenda 2 month before the conference, specially if we don´t know if we're get the money. However, we're working on this and I'm sure we can offer at least a draft in the next days. Roll-up banners we're thinking to pay once, and reuse till destroy them ;) However if tshirts and banners are a problem for WMF, is not problem for us. Even could be very useful, is not the end of the world and we can live with out them. Still, it's a pity not to count with them, and we don't pretend this issue become an obstacle to get a grant. Thanks for your advice, I'll talk to Alex then. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Tony and Ganímedes for your engagement on this request. I have asked Ganímedes for a call this week to clarify our expectations, especially around the measures of success and programming. Submitting your first grant request can be challenging, and I hope we can clarify some of these questions. Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a good move forward. Interested to support improvements that evolve out of applicant–staff discussion. I know eight weeks tseems like a while, but moving towards solid programmatic plans before funding decisions would probably be supported by the overwhelming majority of donors. Tony (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some members of WMUY Board will joint us today, and will have another meeting on monday, to advance in this matter. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Comment We modified the budget to reach consensus with all users in this TP. We added numerical meassures of success, post-conference online survey and withdrawed merchandising issues. Working on program. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WMF comments[edit]

Hi Ganímedes . Thank you for the updates to the proposal and the work of the organizing team to continue developing the proposal. We have a couple of remaining questions before moving forward with this grant:

  1. Are the participants split by experienced Wikimedians and the 31 teachers? Are the workshops for new users targeted at the teachers or do you expect other inexperienced editors to join the conference? Either way, do you have follow-up plans to ensure these newer volunteers continue to engage with the projects after the conference?
  2. We would like to see some additional measures of success around the longer-term impact of the conference. For example, what do you hope the teachers will gain from participating in this conference? We want to be sure there are tangible outcomes that have a positive impact both on the online and offline communities. Here are some proposals:
    • The number of teachers implementing education programs in their classes
    • The number (or percentage) of new users at the conference who continue to edit 2 months post-conference
    • An organizing team and plan outlined for any of the GLAM projects listed (WLM, WLE, and Wiki Loves Libraries)
    • A project outlined for addressing the gender gap
    • A writing contest outlined for increasing quality articles

Please let us know if you have questions about the above. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Workshops and panels are for everyone, including guests if they want to. We don't pretend to split, but joint: our country has approx 1350 wikipedians with account, many of them with no more than a user page; others are unactive or blocked. Aroung 800 of these are teachers who had been trained last two years in small worshops, but have finded problems editing, specially of notability or copyright, so we think it's very important for them to receive help for others users. WMUY count with admins, users with thousands of editions, thousands of articles and thousands of pictures uploaded, joint with the knowledge we (all) can get from Creative Commons Uruguay (CC-UY) about free licences. Conference is for everyone who wants to come, but we need to set a base to work with. The idea is that in worshop works together less and more experimented users, side by side, to share doubts and knowledge. But also, to give them the chance to meet and get involved in the movement. As far as I know, many of these are never involved with comunity, so we see this as an excellent chance. If we get one single new member, or one of these users take part in community decision's process, I'll be more than happy :) More, we pretend this conference become an annual-event, not a single time. The idea is to set an online consultancy postconference, and perhaps one workshop in person. WLE is already working; the team leader is Roxyuru. WLM's leader is me, but we still don't have a team. However idea is to inform attendance about existence of these projects, to get enthusiastics and involved in them. During conference we will sign agreements with CC-UY and National Library Association, exactly to work together in development of new projects and keeping in mind one ore more WLL-edit-a-thon in the future. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alex, Thanks for your interest in our proposal. The program already envisions undertaking activities for the teachers that are already wikipedians, and have already participated in a project that has gone on for two years within the sphere of the CFE, here you can find some information about it, and also for wikipedians in general, close to Wikimedia Uruguay, or looking to become a part of it. The invitation for the activities is open, so we are foreseeing an attendance of double the amount of participating teachers. Besides the teachers, we are expecting to have the participation of new and inexperienced wikipedians, as well as long time contributors, both in Wikipedia and in other projects of the Foundation. Our idea is having the teachers that worked in the Wikipedia in Education Project be welcomed into the wikipedian community, and for those that wish so, into Wikimedia Uruguay. We arranged on having experienced wikipedians discourse at the gathering, with even a librarian coming from Argentina. In regard to the following up, we believe it’s a given considering how integrated the community is, since the teachers have been working close together for over two years. Knitting this bond among wikipedians is one the most powerful tools we consider to have for doing following up on the activities and projects. Also, we have planned activities within the Wikipedia in Education Project, backed by Wikimedia Uruguay, so the following up is assured twofold. We have also been considering doing following up on the activities undertaken by the participant wikipedians with Wikimetrics, as was previously done with the Wikipedia in Education participants, as you can see in the article mentioned earlier. I believe the proposal to be clear concerning the remaining points and how they were laid out. But it’s already the 22nd of february, and we are in need of an answer as soon as possible, since we need to know if we can count with the Grant to publicize the event. It’s important to note that more than half the money of the project’s budget has already been funded, locally, thanks to the support of Rocha’s City Council and the uruguayan educational system. What we are appealing for is a first Grant, meant to be used in consolidating a new chapter, as well as increasing its ranks by assembling wikipedians from different spheres in a single event. We are here in case you have any questions. Thanks in advance, and hoping to hear from you soon, Fernando --Fedaro (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Fedaro. Thank you for the additional comments. Please note the grant was approved earlier today : )