Grants talk:PEG/WM ZA/joburgpedia-2014

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Evaluation by the GAC[edit]

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

  1. .

GAC Members who approve this grant request[edit]

  1. I don't see any reason to object - it all seems reasonable and thought about. Good luck and g_dspeed! NLIGuy (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAC Members who oppose this grant request[edit]

  1. .

GAC Members who abstain from voting/comment[edit]

  1. Thuvack (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)-- Applicant.[reply]
  2. .

Initial questions[edit]

  1. You have a large budget item for a Wikipedian in Residence, but this item isn’t mentioned anywhere else in your grant plan. Can you elaborate? What institution will they be placed with? What shall they do be doing? etc.
  2. What does budget item 1.6 cover? Does this grant include funding for a paid part time employee? If so, what are their duties, and how shall they be selected?
  3. You have a lot of item costs that are identical. For instance, for your writing contest, advertising, the winning prize, catering, and the judging process all apparently independently cost exactly the same amount of money. What's up with that?

Best, `Kevin (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your observations. I have done the following alterations:
  • Added a section on Wikipedian in Residence under Activities section.
  • Item 1.6 does not include for a paid employee. It allows for volunteer project leads and support volunteers who may need to take time off work to attend to joburgpedia. From the pilot project it worked out to 2.5 days at a rate of R1000 per day. The project leads will be Dumisani & Douglas (Both board members of WMZA), we anticipate two other volunteers will be required, these will either be WMZA board members or wikimedia community members based in JHB. We anticipate about 5 days this time around and have allowed an extra R6000 to cater for a case where our full time employee may have to fly to johannesburg and spend a few days.
  • I have reduced the catering item 7.5 down to R3500. The other items are reasonably priced.
I trust that the above is acceptable.--Thuvack (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it just plain rounding that so many of the numbers are identical? I don't really have a problem if so, as long as you're certain that the rounding is close enough that you're not likely to run out of money for any given line item. Kevin (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All five events have been budgeted identically. This is because we did not budget for venue which we are confident one of our Glam partners will provide. We are currently discussing this with them. So this is the reason for most identical figures.--Thuvack (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the not terribly high cost of the Wikipedian in Residence position I don't necessarily have a problem with the level of detail that has been provided, but it would be nice to know more anyway. Have the institutions in question confirmed that they would like to host a WiR directly, or are they just institutions that have previously indicated interest in somehow cooperating with WMZA? Kevin (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We had already had a dicussion with Museum Africa and they are keen on a WiR, we are now discussing in kind donation from them such as a work station and computer with connectivity for our WiR. The Johannesburg Heritage Foundation is keen but we still need to discuss details.--Thuvack (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is item 1.6 intended to cover per diem costs (i.e., room and board,) or is it intended to also supplement for any income the volunteers lose by taking time off of work? (Again, I don't necessarily have a problem either way, I just enjoy specificity.) Kevin (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this item is intended to cover loss of earnings for volunteers and project leads should they be required to take some time off.--Thuvack (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing worth thinking about with regard to editathons is that it has been shown fairly well that once-off editathons do not do a very good job at attracting lasting editors in most circumstances, and that series of editathons where participants attend multiple editathons over a period of time produce higher retention rates. If this is something that is feasible, I would highly encourage it (even if it requires an increased budget.) Kevin (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. One of the improvements this year is keeping a detailed attendance register and inviting the volunteers who come through to the first event for the subsequent ones too. I am confident that we wont have to increase the budget to achieve this.--Thuvack (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, as far as I can see, you have a $300 contingency fund built in to a nearly $14,000 budget. Unless you are quite confident in your estimates for the costs of each item, I would encourage you to up this number, at least a little bit - 2% leeway isn't very much. I'm not positive offhand what the standard allowance for contingency type purposes is, but I know that I at least would feel comfortable with more than 2% (and in fact encourage more than 2%, since having a bit too much money that you may have to return to WMF later is better than having too little money and either having the quality of your events suffer or volunteers have to spend money out of pocket.) Kevin (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken this advise and have increased this item to about 6.5% of total project cost.--Thuvack (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite happy to see the letters of endorsement from the City and the Heritage Foundation, and I look forward to approving this grant. Please understand that I'm asking questions to ensure that everything has been thought through and that the project is as successful as it can be, and not out of doubt. This seems like quite a worthwhile set of projects, and I look forward to seeing them succeed. Thanks for your answers so far; hopefully this new set of questions won't suck up too much of your time. Kevin (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration stations and digitization[edit]

Hey, thanks for the interesting grant. The activities look promising! I have two things I want to ask, and one to recommend:

  1. With regard to demonstration stations - what exactly is that? Is that a computer? or a printed poster / roll-up? If it's something that can be done off-line (e.g. printed poster with pamphlets, etc) I'd rather see the costs for the first event, and then no more. If it's an on-line station, I think we need more explaining. This seems to me to be expensive just for demonstration purposes.
  2. Re digitization - is there no way the institution(s) digitizing will provide in-kind donation of equipment and scans?

And now, for my recommendation - we (in WMIL) find it valuable to track edit-a-thon participants, and follow up with them after a while (two weeks~). We've just started doing that, in order to encourage more people to remain active editors. While we don't have results yet to back me up, I think it's a worthwhile effort - - I encourage you to do that and even allocate specific budget for personnel doing just that (of course, if you can do it with volunteers it's even better).

NLIGuy (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NILGuy. Thank you for your comments. My responses below:
Demonstration stations
These are actual laptops that we rent out for the purposes of allowing people who attend the event to test out editing wikipedia. It has become difficult to use only our own laptops in view of the number of people that attend the events without bringing laptops with. The demonstration station includes wifi and data connectivity for internet access.
Digitization
We are in discussion with Wits University in this regard to get them to offer their current scanners for this purpose. If they come through then this item will not be spent, but we would like to budget for it nonetheless.
Edit-a-thon user tracking
This was our one failing with the pilot project. We now have our fulltime employee who will conduct follow up communication with attendees. We also mean to try out the wikimetrics tool to achieve this too. Do share your experiences in this regards when you are able to.--Thuvack (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some aditional questions[edit]

Hi, I read the prior questions and answers, and I haven't got it clear yet. My questions are closely realated to Kevin ones.

  • For example, in the report of your project of last year you had an item for project managment (line 1.5) for less than half than what is requested for this one (1.6 Project Management), having the same amount of activities, is there a reason for this?
Yes, last year we only managed to do half the events we planned for and yet spent 50% on this item. With the addition of our full-time staff, we decided to cushion any possible travels by her into this item. I can separate this if necessary.--Thuvack (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand (I apologize for that), maybe you could separate it in a mini table here, to see what you are talking about, if is not too much to ask.--3BRBS (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wanted to know, if it's possible, what does the money for item 1.7 Wikipedian in Residence covers. A minor question: Qty stands for months/events/people? That is USD 466 per month/event/person?
Correct, there is only one position for this so yes that's the total per month. This money is to allow some compensation for the volunteer who is selected for this activity.--Thuvack (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So this would be a compensation for going every (working) day to the institution? If the answer is yes, this would be fine for me :)--3BRBS (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an advice, I would move the point 1.5 Incidental costs & contingencies to the end of the budget, and make it a 10% of the total of the project, unless you are certain of the overall costs. I believe is a good project, already partially executed last year, I hope this one is even better!

--3BRBS (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the contingencies to about 6.5% of the total project. I am quite confident that this will surf ice.--Thuvack (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good! The future has unexpected roads :]--3BRBS (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts[edit]

Thanks for the submission. I don't see any reason why not to support this request, but first I'd like to ask some questions on things that lack details to me:

1. Could you please give us more details about the item on trophies and memorabilia? What type of trophies you intend to spend the amount for?
The trophies will be metallic type in form of overall winner, runner up and third place. This will be accompanied with a writing contest certificate that is framed.--Thuvack (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. What is the scope of the writing contest and how do you plan to set the eligibility criteria for participation? Do you plan to organise a community-oriented writing contest with the main aim of improving the quality of the current content or a contest as part of your outreach activities which mostly focuses on increasing the number of articles? If the writing contest is open so that anyone can participate, how do you plan to manage the risk that non-experienced users will create low-quality articles that may harm the overall quality of the Wikimedia project in question?
The writing contest will run for two months and will have two categories. New heritage related articles in English/Local language. The second will be a translation rally for local languages. Each category will be designed to assist communities interact with wikipedia and their surroundings. The contest will only be open to Gauteng only residents. The contest will run for two months, with ample opportunities for us to link it to our planned outreach events and thus being able to offer help to participants.--Thuvack (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. What does the cost for judging process include? I suppose this is intended to be distributed as compensation for the judges. How many judges will be engaged for the contest? What is the selection process that will be followed in order to appoint them?
I have explained the envisioned judges we have in mind on the grant page. Because of the age of the judges and the limited exposure to Wikipedia, we are reluctant to make this a completely online process. They are going to have to acquaint themselves to Wikipedia writing standard including NPOV etc. As a result we decided to allow a budget for judging orientation and necessary Q&Q sessions should these be necessary in person with the judges.--Thuvack (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Could you please give us more numerical information on the measures of success for this year's project? I strongly advise you to use the results from the last year's project as a stepping point towards setting them properly.
I have added numerical targets to our measures of success. I trust that the above is acceptable.--Thuvack (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from WMF[edit]

Hi Thuvack. Thank you for your proposal and engagement on the grant request so far.

1. What is the scope of the writing contest? (see Kiril's questions above)
See response to Kiril above.--Thuvack (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. How does the judging process work? Historically, writing contests are judged online and incur no costs. (see Kiril's questions above)
See response to Kiril above.--Thuvack (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Can you quantify your measures of success using last year's project as a baseline? (see Kiril's questions above)
See response to Kiril above.--Thuvack (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. How will you address the main challenges you described in last year's report regarding participants and venues? Are the locations you specified for edit-a-thons proposed venues or do you have a commitment from the venue to provide a free space? Can you be flexible with the dates to ensure an appropriate venue?
We have discussed with CoJ and as well as sites with QR plaques to act as venues for our events. They have confirmed that they will not charge us for venue. We have left event date out in order to allow us flexibility should changes arise.--Thuvack (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. How did you calculate the need for 150 T-shirts? It seems like a lot.
Point taken, we have reduced down to 50 T-shirts which would work out to 10 T-shirts per event.--Thuvack (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. You most likely will not need 150 pamphlets for each edit-a-thon. 250 for 5 edit-a-thons should be sufficient.
Point taken, we have reduced down to 250 Pamphlets which would work out to 50 Pamphlets per event.--Thuvack (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. If you will need to repeatedly need to rent laptops for the demonstration stations, and considering you are an established chapter, it makes sense (depending on the cost per laptop) for you to purchase 3 laptops.
Point taken, we have allowed for the purchase of two laptops to belong to the chapter.--Thuvack (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your responses. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex. I have completed implementing the above comments onto the budget. Please have a look and comment.--Thuvack (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses and edits, Thuvack. A couple more questions/comments:
  1. Please clarify what you mean when you say that "the writing contest will only be open to Guateng residents". Since it's an on-wiki competition, I assume anyone can participate, but do only Guateng residents qualify for prizes? Do you encourage people from other provinces to participate? Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It would make sense for at least on veteran English Wikipedian (maybe David?) to serve as a judge for the writing contest. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Measures of Success: Does 20 "quality" articles mean "B Class" articles as opposed to the other 1,000 articles? Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alex, herewith my response to your comments.
writing contest
Ofcause, anyone can contribute, however prices will only be available to Gauteng Residents.
Judges
This is a good suggestion, we will put up an invite on ZA portal as well as on our Facebook page.
Article Quality
Yes, that is correct for the Englsh articles. The small language wikis do not have quality standards so this won't be imposed there.
I trust that the above is acceptable.--Thuvack (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved[edit]

Thank you for your engagement with the GAC and WMF on this request. This grant request has been approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a change to the completion date and start date for our grant[edit]

We are requesting an extension of the project completion date for Wikimedia Chapter's "JoburgpediA-2014".

  1. The new proposed completion date will be 30 September 2014, and the corrected start date will be 01 May 2014.
  2. We require an extension because we have had delay in obtaining final GLAM organizations commitment Wikipedian in Residence programme as well agree on copy right issues and implications of CC-by-SA license. The staff of Johannesburg Heritage Foundation is quite aged and not as tech savvy, thus will require full support and attention of WiR. As a result it would be difficult to have full impact from the project if the months of the WiR are reduced to only three months. We request that WMF also adjust the reporting schedule for our grant so that we have enough time to finish our final report.
  3. We still expect to achieve our stated project goals, and possibly even increase participation and volume of historical archives to be contributed to Wikipedia and Commons.

Please also see our formal request for a change to the project budget below. Sincerely, Thuvack (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)- Wikimedia Volunteer. JoburgpediA Project Lead.[reply]

We approve the change to the completion date. The start date should remain as it is, since some of the work is already underway. Thanks! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:PEG/WM_ZA/joburgpedia-2014&oldid=8333129"