Grants talk:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/General Support Fund/Wiki Seed of Taiwan Knowledge 2.0

Follow-up questions on your grant application

Hello Wikimedia Taiwan,

Thank you for your application.

We have consolidated feedback and questions from the deliberation round for your responses.

We look forward to hearing from you by 30 October.

Please let us know if you require more time, we can adapt.

See you at the upcoming conversation with the ESEAP Regional Funds Committee on 2 November 2025.

Regards, Jacqueline on behalf of the ESEAP Regional Funds Committee

--

General feedback A significant share of the budget is allocated to personnel, which, while justified for coordination and continuity, may limit the proportion of resources directly reaching programmatic activities. Some line items, such as miscellaneous expenses and reserve fund contributions, could benefit from clearer justification to avoid perceptions of over‑allocation. Finally, while the proposal includes inflation and exchange rate adjustments, actual fluctuations could exceed projections, creating potential budgetary pressure. In general, the proposal demonstrates strong strategic clarity, improved governance, and financial responsibility, while the main risks lie in funding dependence, high operational costs, and the need for continued diversification and justification of certain expenditures. The proposal clearly explains its strategies and implementation, but it has not yet connected the lessons learned from previous projects FY 2024-2025, whether successful or not, to be applied as learnings for the current project. Needs attention - Initial review and additional questions by Public Advocacy Team a) Digital Intermediary Services Act: The proposed law received backlash in 2022 and hasn't been resurfaced by regulators. Have you heard of a potential reintroduction of this law? If so, what do you plan to do about it? Do you plan to push back on all aspects of DISA, or demand an exception for the Wikimedia project? If this is not going to be reopened as a discussion then we do not believe it is a relevant priority b) Copyright law: Are there currently any bills or official proposals related to copyright reform in Taiwan? If yes, which ones, and what stage are they at? How do you plan to participate in existing opportunities such as government consultations, committee hearings, or public comment processes? If no such bills are currently on the government’s agenda, how do you intend to elevate copyright reform as a priority issue for legislators? What steps will you take to bring it onto the agenda? Who will you work with to do so (please be as specific as possible when listing organizations and contacts)? c) Tactics to become stakeholders: You state that you “will strive to become stakeholders in legislative or consultation meetings.” Can you clarify what concrete steps you will take to achieve this, beyond working through the congressional staff union or COSCUP conference? For example, will you collaborate with other digital groups or startups, beyond the open-source community? If so, which ones? How will you approach them? d) Feedback on budget (related to public advocacy): The proposed budget is only 5k for 2 years, which is very small. Are you confident that these resources suffice to change two policies? How might you adjust your goals to be more realistic with these levels of resources? e) Feedback on research plans: Conducting or compiling theoretical research does not qualify as public policy advocacy on its own. To meet the criteria, your activities must aim to directly influence legislation, regulation, or government processes, rather than producing materials for community discussion. As currently described, the research component falls outside scope unless it is clearly tied to policy-facing outputs such as consultation submissions, policy briefs, or legislative recommendations. Food for thought There are some opportunities and recommendations that could strengthen both the impact and sustainability of the initiative. One opportunity lies in deepening regional collaboration. The proposal already includes cross‑border activities within ESEAP, but there is scope to systematize this into ongoing knowledge exchanges, joint campaigns, or shared training programs. This would not only amplify impact but also spread the workload and create stronger solidarity across affiliates. The affiliate could also consider expanding digital innovation. Their mention of AI and knowledge justice is forward‑looking, but there is room to pilot concrete projects—such as developing open datasets for AI training, or experimenting with tools that make Wikimedia projects more accessible to indigenous and minority language speakers. This would position Wikimedia Taiwan as a thought leader in the movement on emerging issues. There is an opportunity to strengthen monitoring and evaluation. While the budget includes allocations for learning and evaluation, the proposal could benefit from clearer indicators of success—both quantitative (e.g., number of new editors retained after six months) and qualitative (e.g., community satisfaction, partnerships sustained). This would make it easier to demonstrate impact to funders and partners, and to adjust strategies mid‑course. In summary, the proposal is solid, but Wikimedia Taiwan could further enhance it by diversifying funding, systematizing regional collaborations, piloting innovative digital approaches, and sharpening its evaluation framework. These steps would not only strengthen the current project but also build long‑term sustainability and leadership within the Wikimedia movement.
Referencing questions in the application	Categories from Proposal Review Framework	Questions for Applicant(s) - these will be consolidated and posted on grant talkpage for applicants to respond.	Applicant(s) responses
Overall 5 - 8/ 10	(A) General Clarity (e.g. vision, change, strategy, past learnings)	1) While the Wiki Seed of Taiwan Knowledge Project seems to have achieved it’s objective and the current proposal is to revitalise a 2.0 version after 10 years, I  wonder what are the other approaches that they tried in the last 10 years? Are you able to provide a high level summary so we can connect the dots better?
9 /11/ 12/ 13	(B) Impact potential and strategic alignment (e.g. strategy, activities alignment with knowledge equity, movement strategy, welcoming underrepresented communities, community support, innovation)	2) Could you specify the target outputs for each of the three proposed strategies, whether or not they directly relate to the metrics mentioned in Q14 and Q15?
11/ 16 - 21	(C) Organisational capacity and budget (e.g. equity in budgeting, strategies for engagement etc)	3) Could you share more details on the job descriptions for each of the new(?) five FTEs? 4) How do you plan to balance staff‑led coordination with volunteer‑driven leadership to avoid over‑professionalization?
14 - 15	(D) Learning and evaluation (e.g. learnings, metrics)	5) Are there any metrics on social media reach and impact? We need this to know whether 1 FTE for social media is justified. 6) Could social media promotion results be set as targets or reported annually under “other metrics”? 7) Could you explain the Wikimedia metrics and other metrics targets by year? 8) With this being a multiyear project (three years), is it possible to increase Wikimedia contributor metrics or other related metrics? If so, please specify under which strategy and for which Wikimedia project(s). If not, please also explain the reason.
	(E) Others (i.e. not captured above)	9) They mention AI and knowledge justice — what concrete pilots or experiments do you plan to run, and how will you share learnings with the wider movement? 10) Related to “Hold a Generative AI Workshop (Link Strategy: 2) - Work with partners in Work Item 1 to hold a Generative AI training data development workshop and a conference to share training results.” Would it be possible to share more details on the tentative idea or plan on this?

JChen (WMF) (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Response to follow-up questions from Global Advocacy Team (part 1)

Documentation from working document.

Needs attention - Initial review and additional questions by Global Advocacy Team

a) Digital Intermediary Services Act: The proposed law received backlash in 2022 and hasn't been resurfaced by regulators. Have you heard of a potential reintroduction of this law? If so, what do you plan to do about it? Do you plan to push back on all aspects of DISA, or demand an exception for the Wikimedia project? If this is not going to be reopened as a discussion then we do not believe it is a relevant priority

• • 目前我們未掌握主管部門重新提案的進度，但是有一些跡象顯示在未來還是可能重新提案，無論是以同樣法案修正後提出，或是以另一部法律的名目提出。會這樣判斷是因為法案要處理的需求確實存在，執政黨的支持群眾有強烈民意要求再次提出，也有中央政府官員在國會答詢時表示需要立法，以及長期上希望能對齊歐盟DSA法案的目標。基於台灣的國會是在野黨多數，未來兩年內確實不會馬上有立法成功的機會，但是重新進行立法前置作業卻不無可能。我們還知道一些友好的開源社群對原版本的法案就表達支持，並且對法案直接遭到放棄表達惋惜。也就是對於政府或民間，我們評估是都還有需要關切的可能。
    而戰略上追求的確實重點是Wikimedia免責，但同時也希望讓完整法案更容易成功得到支持。就維基媒體本身的工作來說，原版法案最大的威脅確實是對平臺的問責方式並不適宜維基這樣去中心化的平臺，所以確保維基志工免責是重要的。而另一方面，我們在工作進行時同樣需要使用其他的平臺，缺乏法律管理同樣會造成一些威脅，例如粉絲專頁被惡意檢舉而被關閉，或是因為觸動關鍵字遭到不合理的觸及率懲罰。協助完善法案內容可以減少我們工作上可能碰到的威脅。

b) Copyright law: Are there currently any bills or official proposals related to copyright reform in Taiwan? If yes, which ones, and what stage are they at? How do you plan to participate in existing opportunities such as government consultations, committee hearings, or public comment processes? If no such bills are currently on the government’s agenda, how do you intend to elevate copyright reform as a priority issue for legislators? What steps will you take to bring it onto the agenda? Who will you work with to do so (please be as specific as possible when listing organizations and contacts)?

• • 目前沒有看到官方版本的著作權法修正。

• • 我們在先前已經先向國會議員陳情，並在協助下與智慧權主管部門進行協調。該次協調結果雖然完全沒有提高修法的可能，但是獲得幾個資訊。一是主管部門拒絕放寬全景自由時顧慮的情景為何，以及擔任其法案顧問的著作權律師反對修法的理論為何。針對前者我們需要蒐集利害關係人的意見以進行反駁；針對後者則需要一些學術文獻來反駁。所以修法公聽會、其他地區法令的比較研究，以及歐盟及美國相關立法的討論文獻翻譯是具體需要做的事情。
    由於這個法案修正的幅度並不大，也不是台灣目前政治的焦點議題，尋求其成為優先法案的可能性並不高，我們不會做這樣的規畫。但是因為國會議員需要一些簡單且無爭議的提案，在任期之中成為量化數據成績。因此我們思考的策略是提供友好委員累積成績的方式，尋求在積壓法案清倉的情況下通過。

c) Tactics to become stakeholders: You state that you “will strive to become stakeholders in legislative or consultation meetings.” Can you clarify what concrete steps you will take to achieve this, beyond working through the congressional staff union or COSCUP conference? For example, will you collaborate with other digital groups or startups, beyond the open-source community? If so, which ones? How will you approach them?

• • 實際上台灣維基分會是個有註冊的法人，再加上維基本身的在台灣的知名度是夠高的，我們要成為利害關係人不太需要透過數位社群或新創公司。在先前，台灣分會還是會偶爾被邀請參與政策諮詢。主要是我們需要多經營公務員，使他們在開列邀請專家名單時將台灣維基分會列入。這除了國會助理工會之外，積極先從可主動報名的公聽會參與開始是一條路；在與一些政府部門的合作機會中尋求牽線也是一個。

d) Feedback on budget: The proposed budget is only 5k for 2 years, which is very small. Are you confident that these resources suffice to change two policies? How might you adjust your goals to be more realistic with these levels of resources?

• • 這些工作主要還是依賴人力去出席會議，也就是含在薪資中；文獻翻譯以發動志工的方式進行。有些工作需要透過國會議員來召開，我們並不方便在這樣的事項上支付費用。

e) Feedback on research plans: Conducting or compiling theoretical research does not qualify as public policy advocacy on its own. To meet the criteria, your activities must aim to directly influence legislation, regulation, or government processes, rather than producing materials for community discussion. As currently described, the research component falls outside scope unless it is clearly tied to policy-facing outputs such as consultation submissions, policy briefs, or legislative recommendations.

• • 敬請參考b子題的回答，其中有提及何以我們需要理論研究的彙整。但這裡也可以更明確說明，我們先前初步與政府的討論中，他們從諮詢專家獲得的意見不支持我們的說法，這使得行政部門具有拒絕請求的正當性。具有同等權威性的反面說法是我們推動上需要具備的支援。 JChen (WMF) (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Response to follow-up questions from the Regional Funds Committee

Documentation from working document.

Referencing questions in the application	Categories from Proposal Review Framework	Questions for Applicant(s) - these will be consolidated and posted on grant talkpage for applicants to respond.	Applicant(s) responses
Overall 5 - 8/ 10	(A) General Clarity (e.g. vision, change, strategy, past learnings)	1) While the Wiki Seed of Taiwan Knowledge Project seems to have achieved it’s objective and the current proposal is to revitalise a 2.0 version after 10 years, I  wonder what are the other approaches that they tried in the last 10 years? Are you able to provide a high level summary so we can connect the dots better?	這個問題相當困難，因為時間有十年的差距，而且中間還有Covid 19這樣的特殊時刻，有些嘗試全然是在針對防疫需求而不是社群發展。不過整體說來有以下幾個大的改變： 分會功能的轉型：在1.0的時候幾乎所有的專案都由分會規畫及執行，逐漸轉變成資源分配與合作伙伴媒合的角色。我們做的嘗試是邀請活躍專案中的組織者成為理監事成員，以及在中間區分分會及社群中的角色。 合作伙伴：在直接由網路召募的新社群成員數量停滯後，我們有嘗試透過合作伙伴來培養可能的新成員。包括遊說學校老師、館聯組織或一些倡議團體。這些都可能帶來一些寫作成果，不過整體說來沒有成功永續經營。學校的合作是最長期的，但是會隨著個別授課教師的情況而停止；館聯及倡議團體則多半只對特定內容感興趣，參與者也沒有長期投入的跡象。 寫作標的：基於寫作難度，我們的推廣活動有往commons、Wikidata轉移。同時為了讓新手貢獻維基變得容易，為Wikipedia的寫作建立一些範本，以確保編輯活動參與者能夠產出。但這樣也使他們難以在活動後自行編寫出不會被提刪的條目。
9 /11/ 12/ 13	(B) Impact potential and strategic alignment (e.g. strategy, activities alignment with knowledge equity, movement strategy, welcoming underrepresented communities, community support, innovation)	2) Could you specify the target outputs for each of the three proposed strategies, whether or not they directly relate to the metrics mentioned in Q14 and Q15?	2) 在 Culture, heritage or GLAM 目標比較具體的成果還是將博物館資料能轉移至維基媒體，在commons / wikidata / wikisource 的內容主要由這個項目貢獻。 Community support and engagement 除了會有參數者數量的產出，主要是累積非維基編輯技能如何在社群中產生貢獻的方法。我們這次特別著重在招募到的志工要能夠儘速與社群產生連結並且貢獻所長。 Public policy advocacy 具體的產出會是政策相關研究、討論紀錄、遊說圖文資源。如果能確實有累積參與政府部分所舉行的法案、政策會議次數，也是希望能出現的產出。
11/ 16 - 21	(C) Organisational capacity and budget (e.g. equity in budgeting, strategies for engagement etc)	3) Could you share more details on the job descriptions for each of the new(?) five FTEs? 4) How do you plan to balance staff‑led coordination with volunteer‑driven leadership to avoid over‑professionalization?	3) 這個五職位都是延續性的，我們沒有額外開出新的職務。 這裡可參照職務分工：https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Taiwan/Job_Description 4) 我們有長期這樣的協調經驗，例如 Art & Femelism Editathon 除了最初的兩年由協會規畫，之後每年都是社群主導；Wikidataa社群也是相當獨立運作。我們的分工方式是: 我們會在協調會議時明確了解社群的能力及需求，並告知社群分會能提供的資源，雙方可以在規畫期間就知道彼此可能的分工。 分會的立場上希望社群能夠做到議題的規畫，以及活動的主持。這兩部分若社群能力不足，分會會以執行中訓練的方式賦能；若社群可達成，其餘行政、紀錄等事務由分會協助或社群自行完成都可以。 除此之外，因為我們理事會組成在這十年來有不斷引入社群代表。目前女性社群、Wikidata社群以及台灣原住民族語相關人員在理事會中，這有助於社群內部就了解分會運作的情況並直接提出合宜的分工方式。
14 - 15	(D) Learning and evaluation (e.g. learnings, metrics)	5) Are there any metrics on social media reach and impact? We need this to know whether 1 FTE for social media is justified. 6) Could social media promotion results be set as targets or reported annually under “other metrics”? 7) Could you explain the Wikimedia metrics and other metrics targets by year? 8) With this being a multiyear project (three years), is it possible to increase Wikimedia contributor metrics or other related metrics? If so, please specify under which strategy and for which Wikimedia project(s). If not, please also explain the reason.	5) 我們先前透過AB Test功能測試過不同文案風格對受眾的影響，以及KOL合作宣傳的嘗試。其中KOL的影響報告有在中文維基學院呈現：連結在此。AB Test的報告屬內部報告，可另外展示雲端文件。 Social media 佔有1FTE，其總產出是： 主粉專(WSOTK)貼文每日一篇 分會粉專每週一篇 維基愛古蹟活動粉專賽事期約15篇 分會Blog每月一篇 編輯會員Newletter每月一份 編輯會務報告每年一份(2024開始) 而因為所聘工作人員過去有自媒體經營經驗，在提出測試題目、尋找KOL合作等提案上都帶給我們額外的優勢。 6) 考量到過往經驗，這些平臺數據受到營運商干擾太大，我們可以參照先前做法同樣承諾以提出研究的方式，將metric設定為內部知識。我們需要一些時間設定可能的研究方向。 7) 這個提出的是第一年的目標。參與人數的設定上在原始的提案中有拆分估計；而編輯目標是依照過往數據後，依參與人次數量做比例調整。如果需要修正為三年的總數，可以進行修正。 8) 此問題原意有些無法理解。是要增加其他的追蹤指標，或是增加指標的數值？如果要增加指標數值的話，我必須說明第二年及第三年應該是以目前數字成長3%來做估計；著重的貢獻會是Commons Wikidata Wikipedia三者最多，可能觸及文庫。這樣預計的原因是Commons及Wikidata的貢獻目前對新手最為友善，而Wikipedia則持續有高關注度。 增加指標類型的話可能需要一些時間評估，或者由委員直接提出期待的項目。以主要策略希望招募新人並留在社群來說，新參與使用者及再次參與率都是過去可能採用的指標。但是因為缺乏好的數位工具能紀錄，除非社群活動每場都有職員參與，否則統計變得十分困難也容易失真。
	(E) Others (i.e. not captured above)	9) They mention AI and knowledge justice — what concrete pilots or experiments do you plan to run, and how will you share learnings with the wider movement? 10) Related to “Hold a Generative AI Workshop (Link Strategy: 2) - Work with partners in Work Item 1 to hold a Generative AI training data development workshop and a conference to share training results.” Would it be possible to share more details on the tentative idea or plan on this?	9) 我們在考慮的是小語言的訓練，第一年具體是台語；第二年與第三年會不會延伸到客家話或原住民語言，還是台語的延伸則暫時保留。 目前的狀況是台灣的資訊管理人協會先前發表了訓練台語LLM的想法，而且希望透過共筆的 Wiki 平臺(非Wikimedia專案)生產更多可供訓練的語料。然而，他們直接以機器翻譯大量將中文維基百科條目內容轉為台語，錯誤甚多難以使用。 我們與該協會在2025年已取得聯繫也見過面，如果有資源會首先遊說他們正確使用維基素材……例如先機器轉換min-wp拼音至漢字等。以及多加應用Wikidata的詞位(L)資料等等。 10) 這跟前一題的回答有關聯。由於AI如何使用Wikimedia的內容在台灣還沒有開放性的研究，我們每個步驟的處理過程都可以是發表的研究成果。例如詞位資料如何用來訓練LLM、導入維基資料後訓練的成果如何，有什麼參數可以調整之類。 另外，當台語累積了一定的經驗後，我就會遊說合作方推廣到客語及原住民族語言。這就需要工作坊來將已知的工具跟工作方法傳遞給其他語言社群。 屬於實作經驗的發表形式應該會是在合適的會議、研討會上投稿議程，包括台灣的AI、語言學術會議，也可能是Wikimania、COSCUP等。擴大語言的訓練就會視情況直接舉辦並邀請現有語言社群參與。

JChen (WMF) (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Your application has been funded

Hello Wikimedia Taiwan,

Thank you for your responses to the follow-ups questions and for joining the call with the ESEAP Regional Funds Committee.

Congratulations! Your grant application has been approved in the amount of TWD 12,292,097 (breakdown as follows - Year 1: TWD 4,097,365.56; Year 2: TWD 4,097,365.56 Year 3: TWD 4,097,365.56) with a grant term starting 1 January 2026 and ending 31 December 2028. The same base funding has been applied for three years, with the possibility of inflation adjustments in year 2 and year 3. More details here.

Note: While holders of multi-year grants do not need to submit new applications annually during their grant period, there is a short Year 2 and Year 3 Plan submission requirement for the multi-year base funding grantees.

Comments from the review process Splitting up the different FTEs into separate line items within the budget would provide greater clarity into the planned expenses, especially as this is a multi-year funding application. It is excellent to see their strong collaborations with diverse partners, from GLAM institutions to local communities, to advance the Wikimedia movement. Furthermore, their crucial work in the public policy sphere—advocating for free knowledge and navigating legal challenges—is highly commendable and vital for the movement in their territory. Regarding the multi-year funding request, the desire for stability to continue this work is understandable. However, they might consider testing this new 'Wiki Seed 2.0' model for a single year first. This approach would allow them to gather concrete data, refine their strategies, and more accurately estimate the resources and support required, which would then build an even stronger case for a multi-year grant in the future.

Disbursement of Funds

To facilitate the funds disbursement process, we seek your prompt response on Fluxx and via emails with the WMF Grants Administrator team (grantsadmin@wikimedia.org). We highly encourage you to submit all supporting documents and endorse the grant agreements within the stipulated time frame. When in doubt, proactively reach out to the WMF Grants Administration team and copy your programme officer.

Change in implementation plan

We know even the best thought through plans may change.

In the event that there are changes to your implementation schedule, you can reach out to request for a grant extension (i.e. extend end date). Similarly, if there is a surplus budget or changes to your planned budget, you can reach out to me about reallocation (via email and on this talkpage). There is also the option to have the unspent funds deducted against a future grant. More details here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Return_unused_funds_to_WMF

Additional resources which may be useful

• The reporting requirements for multi-year grants are available here and templates here. All reports are to be completed and submitted via Fluxx.
• Timelines for reporting can be found in your grant agreement or on Fluxx.
• Instructions for post award: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Processing/Grantee_Portal/Post_award
• Documenting project expenses: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Documenting_project_expenses

We thank you for your participation in the grant application process and hope to continue to journey with you as you embark on this project. Good luck!

Regards,

Jacqueline on behalf of the ESEAP Regional Funds Committee JChen (WMF) (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)