Grants talk:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Conference Fund/Open Knowledge:Wikimedia & Research

Feedback on your proposal

Dear friends at Wikimedia Polska and Wikimedia Ukraina,

Thank you for submitting the proposal for Open Knowledge: Wikimedia & Research. It is encouraging to see two experienced affiliates collaborating on a conference that aims to bridge researchers and the Wikimedia movement. After reviewing the proposal and budget and considering colleagues’ input, I would like to share the following observations and suggestions.

Objectives, focus, and audience

The proposal presents an ambitious set of objectives: strengthening research–Wikimedia collaboration, enriching Wikimedia content through contributions from researchers and librarians, and building AI literacy in the community. Each goal is valuable, but the breadth may dilute depth. Narrowing to a smaller number of clearly defined outcomes would support stronger program design and more measurable impact. In particular, the fifth objective (“The community better understands the opportunities and threats of AI”) is too broad to guide programming or evaluation. Consider reframing it into concrete, outcome-oriented goals.

The title "Open Knowledge" is compelling, but its connection to the specific objectives could be more explicit. It may help to articulate how the event will directly advance open-knowledge principles and to prioritize objectives that align most strongly with this theme.

Regarding community demand: despite outreach to 545 people, only 37 responses were received. This low response rate may indicate limited regional interest or the need for additional engagement to ensure the conference addresses community needs. Any insights you can share about the low response rate would be helpful.

Program design and evaluation

The proposed hybrid format can broaden participation but often brings technical and logistical challenges. As discussed, partnering with the University of Silesia should help manage these effectively. If successful, this model could serve as a useful reference for other Wikimedia event organizers.

Colleagues also suggested reframing the objectives toward fostering connections and collaborations rather than expecting measurable research outputs from a single event. For example, dedicated matchmaking sessions or structured networking between researchers and Wikimedia communities could seed concrete follow-up collaborations.

Budget and logistics

The overall budget is significant, with about 15 percent allocated to staff costs, which are typically better supported through annual plan funding. You might consider reducing this portion to improve budget feasibility.

You note that interpretation will be provided. Could you clarify which languages are covered and whether the budgeted amount is based on a confirmed quote?

Thank you for detailing Wikimedia Polska’s in-kind contributions; that context is very helpful for understanding the full budget picture.

Overall assessment

Wikimedia Poland and Wikimedia Ukraine bring strong organizational capacity, experienced staff, and excellent academic partners, which inspires confidence in delivering an event of this scale. The proposed emphasis on research and AI is timely and relevant. At the same time, the scope and objectives would benefit from further refinement to ensure clear value for both Wikimedia and research communities. Because this is an experimental format and current policy does not allow thematic conferences to be held annually, it would be helpful to design outcomes that stand on their own and continue delivering value beyond the event itself.

Please update the proposal in Fluxx by September 29 to address these points. After September 29, the proposal will be reviewed by the volunteer Conference Fund Committee, with a final decision expected in mid to late October. I am happy to discuss any questions or ideas for refining the scope. Just email me to arrange a call.

Best regards, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 18:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Response to feedback

Dear Cornelius and colleagues, Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough feedback, we appreciate your time and sharing your perspectives. We have tried to address your comments below.

Objectives, focus, and audience

Your suggestion to narrow the set of objectives is a fair point, and having given it some more thought, we can see how some of the objectives can sound a bit vague and not be easily measured. In response to your feedback, we have limited the number of objectives and changed them to more concrete, measurable goals: 1. The research and Wikimedia community in the CEE region is stronger and more active. More connections between academics and Wikimedians are formed; engagement is sustained, there is an online community, supported by affiliates, that practices peer learning and knowledge sharing, which eventually leads to new projects. 2. Clear paths are defined for next steps in developing Wikimedia-research collaborations in the CEE region, such as plans for resource development or a training offer, supported by affiliates, to enable more contributions from researchers and librarians, including on underrepresented topics. 3. Wikidata use cases in the region are documented to help increase Wikidata use in research projects.

We have removed two objectives: the research objective as on reflection it is too far-fetched, and the vague AI objective. We will still consider AI as a topic when crafting the program, as it came up quite prominently in the community engagement survey. The AI field is changing and developing so rapidly that this will allow us to remain flexible in terms of planning a year in advance.

As for the title, we have trialled this name with both Wiki and the academic community. We would be happy to include the regional aspect in the name, so “Open Knowledge:Wikimedia & Research in the CEE Region”.

Regarding community demand and survey responses, the survey was sent to 3 big and generic mailing lists (Polish Wikimedians - 171 members, Ukrainian contacts - 200 members, CEE Region mailing list - 144 members), plus about 30 people were approached individually. Since we count people that are subscribed to our general (not researchers-only) mailing lists, it's only natural that the majority of them wouldn't respond to the survey. We do not expect the entire community to be interested. We were pleased to see that many respondents are engaged, experienced and interested in the subject of the event. The responses included thoughtful feedback as well as positive reactions to the conference idea, they can be read in the Community engagement survey - response analysis.

As for additional engagement going forward, both WMPL and WMUA are in an intensive period of outreach, broadening and deepening their contacts in the research community. The conference is embedded in broader strategy beyond the event itself. This was signalled in the grant but not expanded because of space limits, we are happy to describe it more here.

Wikimedia Polska: We regularly organise and take part in smaller events engaging the research community, both outreach in academic settings and inviting researchers to Wikimedia events. Outreach includes delivering guest lectures and workshops (so far in 2025: at University of Łódź, University of Warsaw, Open Science Data Steward Summer School by University of Silesia). In October 2025, we will present at Open Data in Art Research seminar organised by Polish Academy of Sciences in Vienna and give a Wikidata workshop at the Library Future Forums, open science-themed conference for academics and academic librarians. We see growing interest in the Wikimedia world in the academic community, which is reflected in the increased number of invitations to academic projects and conferences.

As for building connections and familiarity with research in the Wikimedia community, in late 2025 we are planning a webinar about the use of Wikidata in research, which will open a quarterly series of research-themed webinars. Some of these webinars will be in English and Polish, to expand the offer to CEE affiliates. In spring 2026, for our annual conference Wzlot, which brings together about 100 participants, we will also prepare a research-themed path. This already happened this year during Wzlot 2025 and was received positively. Responding to signals from editors and librarians, we are also planning a monthly online “Wikidata club” with mutual learning opportunities for librarians. Developing further in the field of research and education is a crucial part of our strategic planning for the coming years.

Wikimedia Ukraine: Wikimedia Ukraine is ramping up its Ukraine-level program “Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in the focus of scientific research”, which includes monthly online events (attended by 10-20 people each) and a large conference in November (50-70 people are expected to attend in-person in Kyiv and online). While we did have an initial pool of interested researchers back in August and did reach out to them promoting the survey, the bulk of our promotion of the conference started in September. That means that in the coming couple of months we’ll have a much wider pool of professionals interested in the topic of Wikimedia research (and the November conference in Ukraine will cement their interest), and as a result we’ll be able to communicate with them about the 2026 conference in Poland. You can read more about Wikimedia Ukraine’s current work on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_research_conference_in_Ukraine_2025

Program design and evaluation

As for reframing the objectives toward fostering connections and collaborations, our objective is exactly this, fostering connections and ground for collaborations, not only for this conference but as part of the broader strategy. We are planning various activities and interactive sessions during the event, including matchmaking and thematic opportunities for collaboration. We have made this point more explicit in reframing the event objectives and we have added structured networking in answer to Question 14 in the proposal. You can also see that one of our main metrics is collaborations / connections made.

Budget and logistics

Regarding the budget, we take this point on board, we have lowered the staff cost, or rather transferred some of the hours to in-kind contributions, so they are covered through regular annual funding. The new proportion of staff costs is just over 10% of the overall budget. We have added an “Updated” tab in the budget file and corrected the amount requested in Fluxx accordingly.

When it comes to interpretation costs, here is what we already explained over email:

We have considered in-person interpretation, and again this is something we spoke about with the University of Silesia, who confirmed that they are used to providing this service during events in the venue in question. Based on an estimate of 1600 PLN per interpreter per day (based on research of online offers, and initially confirmed with University of Silesia rates), and the need to have 2 interpreters per day for both Polish and Ukrainian, the costs amount to: 1,600 per translator per day, 2 Polish/English translators = 3,200; 1,600 per translator per day, 2 Ukrainian/English/Polish translators = 3,200; Totalling 6,400 PLN per day and 12,800 PLN for two days.

This way, presentations in Polish can be translated to English & Ukrainian, presentations in English can be translated to Polish & Ukrainian. Presentations in Ukrainian can be translated to Polish & English. We will also consider language barriers during the interactive session, for example by creating language specific breakout groups or by relying on community support. It might also be that, by the time we hold the conference, AI interpretation services will be advanced enough that we will have less need for professional interpretation. That can be one of the ways to cut costs if the interpretation costs end up higher than we calculated.

Thanks to the University of Silesia infrastructure, interpretation will be available both in person and during streaming.

Overall assessment

Following an internal conversation and a helpful call with Cornelius, we have refined our objectives to make them more specific, actionable and measurable. We believe they now better ensure clear value for both Wikimedia and the research community.

As for our outcomes, we believe they stand on their own and provide continued value beyond the event - from new connections and collaborations, to clear paths for next steps such as a roadmap with plans for further resources and training, and creating a platform for continued engagement in the form of a mailing list and/or Telegram group. We do not plan or assume that another event like this will happen soon - rather, we want to use the conference as a spark to help gather momentum and mutual inspiration, then use this inspiration to continue the work. We completely understand that a lot of work will happen on a smaller scale in day to day setting and through asynchronous working together. We see this work and the conference as approaches that complement and reinforce each other, the conference being part of an ongoing, broader strategy for Wimedia and research communities in the CEE region to work better together.

Thanks again! We look forward to hearing from you and if you need any further information, please let us know.

Warm regards, on behalf of the organising team, Katarzyna Makowska (WMPL) (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)