Grants talk:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/General Support Fund/Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia’s 2026 General Support

Follow-up questions on your grant application

Hello Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia,

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 7 November.

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 9 November 2025.

Regards, Jacqueline on behalf of the ESEAP Regional Funds Committee

--

General feedback Clarification is needed: The proposal does not explain the linkage between activities, target categories, and expected outputs/outcomes, making it difficult to assess the scale and significance of the proposed contributions. For example: Wikidata shows the highest contribution in the Wikimedia metrics, but there is no explanation of which activities will generate this contribution. Meanwhile, Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons are mentioned, but the contribution targets and strategies to achieve them remain unclear. A clearer connection between activities and contribution targets would help demonstrate the project’s realism and consistency Clarification is needed: The strategies outlined in the timeline are not reflected or clearly explained in the program description (Question no. 8). Several activities — such as Activity 3.4: Host a national conference to gather volunteers around the country for the future of the affiliate, Activity 4.1: Hosting editathons with foreign embassies in Malaysia, Activity 4.3: Setting up a booth in big events to promote the movement, and Activity 4.4: Online photography and project editing competitions — are not described in sufficient detail in the proposal. In addition, the targets and expected outcomes of these activities are unclear. As a result, it is difficult to determine whether the proposed timeline and implementation plan are realistic. Providing clearer activity descriptions along with measurable targets and expected outcomes would strengthen the assessment of feasibility and realism of the project Clarification is needed regarding the team’s roles and responsibilities. The proposal lists only titles and Wikimedia usernames without describing each member’s function or link to specific activities. An organizational structure and portfolios of key members would help demonstrate the team’s capacity (commitment to transparency and to avoid any potential conflict of interest, we would like to better understand the role of the RFC Malaysia members in USGMYS. We would also appreciate it if you could kindly share information on the current person in charge (i.e. main contact person, or chair of USGMYS for coordination with WMF.) The staff hiring budget also appears inconsistent — the salary gap between the Project Manager/Lead and the Graphic Designer is relatively small, while Interns and Fellows (Wikimedia-in-Residence) are assigned the same salary as the Project Lead. Providing clearer justification and ensuring better alignment of salary scales with roles and responsibilities would strengthen the coherence and credibility of the proposed budget Clarification is needed :  Most aspects of the proposal remain unclear, including activity details, outputs, outcomes, goals, and team job descriptions, making it difficult to assess whether the proposed budget is reasonable. For instance, Activity 3.4: Host a national conference to gather volunteers around the country for the future of the affiliate is budgeted at a substantial amount (USD 124,766.82), yet the proposal does not provide sufficient details about its scope, objectives, or expected outcomes. These elements should be clarified before a full budget evaluation. The purpose and scope of the requested legal advice are unclear, as its relevance to the project is not specified. Similarly, the Wikimedia-in-Residence component at Universiti Brunei Darussalam lacks explanation of its planned activities and expected output/outcomes. The role of volunteers and the Project Manager’s experience in handling grants of similar scale are also not addressed. Overall, clearer information about roles, external expertise, and implementation strategies would improve the proposal’s feasibility and provide stronger assurance of the team’s ability to deliver results." Needs attention - requires response 1) Activity #1: Clarification is needed:  The programme aligns well with Wikimedia’s knowledge equity goals and shows strong potential. However, some details remain unclear, particularly regarding the continuation or expansion to other indigenous languages, target participants, and project scope. 2) Activity #2: Change in the proposal: For the activity “Mentoring Emerging Wikimedia Communities in Singapore, Taiwan, Timor-Leste, the Philippines, and Cambodia,please ensure that the mentoring objectives and activities are aligned with the proposal’s statement “how to collaborate with other institutions based on our years of experience.” While the proposal emphasizes institutional collaboration, some listed activities, such as photowalks, appear to focus more on content contribution. If collaboration with stakeholders is intended, please clarify whether it refers to partnership building or other forms of engagement. Considering that each country has different bureaucratic and cultural (including language) contexts compared to Malaysia, it would be advisable to start with Singapore as a pilot project before expanding to other countries, and to base future expansion decisions on data and needs assessments. Each activity could also be published on the USG Malaysia website, Diff, or social media to inspire others. 3) Activity #3: Clarification is needed: The WikiClubs programme in educational institutions has great potential to engage students and support Wikimedia skills. The description of the WikiClub collaborations could be clearer. It is mentioned that “some of the WikiClubs are IPGM Kent Campus and IIUM,” but it is unclear whether these are the only clubs involved or just examples among others. Sharing the total number of active WikiClubs or clarifying their status (active, planned, or past) would improve transparency. It is encouraging that needs assessments are planned to tailor activities. However, it is still unclear which Wikimedia projects the programme will contribute to, whether the targets are new or existing contributors, and what kind of support will be provided (through training, resources, grants, or other support like learning materials, technical guidance, or access to Wikimedia platforms) and to what extent. Clarifying these points would strengthen the proposal and help ensure the programme meets participants’ needs while contributing meaningfully to Wikimedia projects. 4) Activity #4: Clarification is needed: The Bilateral Wikipedia Editathons programme builds on activities that have been carried out in previous years and benefits from strong partnerships with foreign embassies. While this continuation is valuable, it is unclear whether new approaches or innovations are planned to better address the ongoing challenge of attracting participants. Although collaborating with embassies helps promote the events, additional strategies could be considered to further increase participation. Clarifying the target participants, including their number and categories/criteria (e.g., students, educators, youth, or other relevant groups), would help identify which stakeholders or institutions are most effective to collaborate with. It would also be helpful to clarify whether only the Embassy of Sweden and the Embassy of Ukraine are involved, or if there are other embassy partners. 5) Activity #5: Change In the proposal: It is recommended to run the programme fully online first as a pilot, allowing clearer planning for participants, target groups, activities, and potential partnerships before any in-person implementation. While the programme is appreciated for fostering friendship with other Wikimedia communities, its specific objectives, outputs, and outcomes remain unclear. Target participants, including the number of participants from each activity, the composition between hosts and Malaysian user groups, and the specific Wikimedia projects involved, are not clearly defined. Activities from 2025 are not detailed, and support from Wikimedia France is not mentioned. Food for thought There appears to be a lack of alignment between the program description in Question No. 8, the Wikimedia metrics, the timeline, and the budget. Several activities and strategies are listed in the timeline and budget but are not reflected or explained in the program description, creating inconsistencies in understanding the project’s overall structure. In addition, the job descriptions of the core team members are not clearly defined, making it difficult to assess the workload distribution and justify the proposed remuneration. Ensuring consistency across all sections and clarifying the scope of responsibilities would improve the proposal’s coherence and credibility. The RFC feedback from the 2025 proposal indicated a plan to develop a strategic plan in 2025. However, the 2026 proposal shows no substantial progress or improvement in the development or quality of this plan. It is recommended that the core team conduct internal capacity-building sessions or training on proposal development (particularly on Theory of Change and Monitoring and Evaluation planning ) to ensure that future proposals clearly demonstrate the logical linkages between goals, outcomes, outputs, and activities. In addition, attention should be given to the Wikimedia Malaysia User Group website (https://wikimedia.org.my/index.html) to enhance its visibility and ensure it provides up-to-date documentation of the group’s activities and achievements.
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)	6) Already captured above under general feedback and needs attention.
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)	7) Tutoring emerging communities  - interesting with the countries of choice (e.g. Taiwan has a strong indigenous language project - would be interesting to see what Malaysia User Group offers to Taiwanese communities). How do you assess these emerging communities as a targeted partner?
11/ 16 - 21	(C) Organisational capacity and budget (e.g. equity in budgeting, strategies for engagement etc)	8) How do you select people for supporting travel to international meetups, what do you require of them following attendance ? What is your previous experience of outcomes from funding people to international meetups ? 9) What’s the regional distribution for staff? There’s a lot of travel here involved for staff; are they all located far from program locations?
14 - 15	(D) Learning and evaluation (e.g. learnings, metrics)	10) Based on my observations, the metrics on Wikimedia content are quite high, compared with other affiliates in the same cycle. Maybe if these numbers are possible, can they share strategies and past success to achieve these numbers with other affiliates?
	(E) Others (i.e. not captured above)	11) Related to question 7, I wonder why Malaysia is not listed, since most activities are on there? Could it be a typo? It was also the case for last year’s grant. 12 I wonder if their website is updated? Based on my initial read, there are some parts (e.g. the board) where there is no data. Aside from their grant proposal’s team list, could they make their organizational team (board, staff, etc.) more transparent?

JChen (WMF) (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Response to follow-up questions

These are Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia's responses captured in our 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)	6) Already captured above under general feedback and needs attention.	Specific to items 1,3,4 and 5 at needs attention, our responses are as follows: Further details of activities have been updated and explained in the budget sheet and project timeline for better clarification. [MYS 2026] Project timeline [MYS 2026] Revised Budget Template for Wikimedia Funds Applicants.xlsx. Specific to item (2) at needs attention, our responses are as follows: Some of the countries mentioned such as Singapore and Philippines have previously had our presence through workshops and discussions in the country. Support from both countries’ local authorities have been established, but further engagement is needed to attract more participation and retention. Events in both countries have been published on our social media throughout previous years. Example: In Zamboanga, Philippines (https://www.instagram.com/p/DEZ36_hSTK7), in Singapore (https://www.instagram.com/p/DA19LhTTf-k)
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)	7) Tutoring emerging communities  - interesting with the countries of choice (e.g. Taiwan has a strong indigenous language project - would be interesting to see what Malaysia User Group offers to Taiwanese communities). How do you assess these emerging communities as a targeted partner?	Based on our experiences, several factors can be considered when identifying potential indigenous communities to be involved in the Wikimedia movement: Prior experience with Wikimedia activities; Enthusiasm of the community for protecting their language and culture regardless of age; Availability of reference and documented material for their languages; Government recognition of their languages; Availability of their own language versions of Wikimedia projects (WIkipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, etc) These factors can affect the approach to conducting activities with community members as well as the activeness and retention of the community members once they have been taught the basics of the Wikimedia projects platform. Some communities such as Cambodia and Philippines have also requested that we mentor them physically on best practices as well as brainstorming ideas on how to cater the workshops based on their communities.
11/ 16 - 21	(C) Organisational capacity and budget (e.g. equity in budgeting, strategies for engagement etc)	8) How do you select people for supporting travel to international meetups, what do you require of them following attendance ? What is your previous experience of outcomes from funding people to international meetups ? 9) What’s the regional distribution for staff? There’s a lot of travel here involved for staff; are they all located far from program locations?	8) We assess the people based on their activeness on-wiki as well as off-wiki. Previous receivers of support to international meetups have continued to be active either on-wiki through regular article creations and maintenance, or off-wiki through booth promotions, conducting workshops and editathons, and providing fresh ideas on how to make improvements on-wiki and off-wiki. 9) The current staff (3 staff total) mostly reside in the capital city (2 staff) where the organization’s office is located (1 staff in Indonesia, working remotely), while many events/workshops are generally distributed across West and East Malaysia, in semi-rural areas where public transport is scarce and long travels by land or air are needed.
14 - 15	(D) Learning and evaluation (e.g. learnings, metrics)	10) Based on my observations, the metrics on Wikimedia content are quite high, compared with other affiliates in the same cycle. Maybe if these numbers are possible, can they share strategies and past success to achieve these numbers with other affiliates?	The strategies to achieve high numbers of content have regularly been shared during conferences such as Wikimania, ESEAP Conference/Strategy Summit, and monthly local and regional Community Calls. Whether other affiliates apply those strategies depends on their current needs, capabilities, bureaucracy, and views on our methods.
	(E) Others (i.e. not captured above)	11) Related to question 7, I wonder why Malaysia is not listed, since most activities are on there? Could it be a typo? It was also the case for last year’s grant. 12) I wonder if their website is updated? Based on my initial read, there are some parts (e.g. the board) where there is no data. Aside from their grant proposal’s team list, could they make their organizational team (board, staff, etc.) more transparent?	11) Malaysia was not listed due to a typo when referring to the previous year’s budget, which also was a typo, possibly on the assumption that Malaysia is the default location to conduct activities in, while the listed countries are additional countries aside from Malaysia. 12) There was difficulty accessing the website due to the current webhost’s technical issues. Most updates are currently more update on the organisation’s Meta-Wiki page while we work on achieving proper access to the website and receiving technical aid to update the website to a more reliable webhost. The current board is undergoing restructuring to better suit the present activeness of the organisation.

JChen (WMF) (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Your application has been approved

Hello Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia,

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 MYR 511,780 with a grant term starting 1 January 2026 and ending 31 December 2026.

Comments from the final deliberation round FTEs and travel make up the bulk of the budget request here. Travel is also incredibly prevalent on their budget. Instead of requiring staff and volunteers to travel from far away places to facilitate programs and events, they should try to focus on leadership or capacity building in those areas to reduce the need for travel. The funds for the national conference should instead go through the Conference Fund instead of the GSF, seeing as it is well above the minimum required for the Conference fund. Given the scope of the proposed activities, it is worth considering whether there is a way to decentralise the organisation and its activities. Dividing different parts of the strategy between different groups may allow for building better local networks, and reduce potential burnout. There is a total budget cap in the ESEAP and we can't satisfy every group's needs. We have to decrease the potential travel budget, and expect more online meetings unless absolutely necessary for in-person connection. Looking forward to hearing about their collaborations with communities in the region (if it goes through), and want to see more concrete plans in future mid point conversation with the Programme Officer. The travel needs more detailed explanation; While we understand that Wikimedia Malaysia members are in the west, and outreach activities in the east, there needs to be more substantial supporting evidence. For example: estimate trips times/person needs In the proposal, the initial budget requested was USD 502,579.36. Based on the latest budget review in the working document, the total requested budget increased to USD 546,988 (I couldn’t find the reason for this change or the key points explaining the increase). Later, we received information that Strategic #3 in Section 3.4 — the National Conference (USD 124,766.82) — will be applied to another funding source. Therefore, my assumption is that the requested budget for USGMY under GSF is USD 422,221.18. If this assumption is correct, I think these budget changes (change requests) should be properly documented on Meta for transparency. Regarding questions Q11, 19.1, and 19.2 in the proposal, if modifications are allowed or feasible, USGMY should update the proposal accordingly so that everyone can clearly see who the team members are (paid or volunteer) — similar to Wikimedia Taiwan’s example here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Taiwan/Job_Description. I would really like to see the qualifications of each paid team member as well. Then, I’m just wondering whether the answers or information from the talk page, particularly from the section before the table (General Section, Need Attention), have been updated or incorporated into the proposal, similar to what Wikimedia Taiwan did. They have already responded to those points, but only with project timeline and budget details. For clarification, what is your plan if your funding request is only partially approved? What would be the significant changes or adjustments to your proposal in that case? Please also provide more detailed information about your project activities and manpower (personnel costs), particularly in relation to the budget, project scope, and expected achievements. It is great to see the User Group's record of successful events and strong networking with numerous partners. My appreciation goes to their leadership in creative international collaborations like the 'Pitabangan' project, as well as their vital work in encouraging indigenous language communities to participate in the Wikimedia Movement. Their efforts in helping other communities establish their own affiliate are also commendable. Furthermore, the clear timeline in this proposal is a model of good practice that other applicants could learn from. To strengthen this proposal, providing more context for the proposed metrics is recommended. The targets are ambitious, and to help the committee assess their feasibility, it would be beneficial to support them with concrete baseline data from their previous activities. This is connected to a broader point: ensuring your public-facing data and reports are up-to-date. This transparency is crucial for reviewers to be on the same page, fully appreciate their past successes, and confidently support their future plans. Would recommend limiting the number of overseas collaborations and prioritising underrepresented peers (such as Singapore, Timor Leste, and Cambodia) to allow the User Group to focus more on strengthening local communities in Malaysia. Please submit the endorsement from communities involved in mentoring projects as soon as possible before January 2026. The allocation of 33K USD for merchandise is significantly overestimated and would suggest to be reviewed again. Would suggest limiting travel scholarships and encouraging volunteers to apply through the event scholarship committees instead. Once the granted amounts are announced, please plan accordingly to revise the scope and proposal and ensure you have the sufficient resources until end of the year.

Recommendations Revise budget, timeline and targets based on funding outcomes, while taking into account the comments from the review team and discussions with your programme officer. We understand the funding outcomes may not be in line with your expectations (i.e. requested budget). Yet we know that the year on year increase of 20% is a signal of the Regional Funds Committee and Programme Officer’s commitment to your growth potential, while also being very cognisant of the resourcing needs and budget in the region. When putting together the revised budget, timeline and targets, review also the sections on general feedback + food for thought. Where possible, please provide a response and/ or acknowledgement of how the feedback has been incorporated into your revised plans. Given the size of the proposed conference budget, we would recommend that the team applies for a separate conference programme grant; Specific to collaborations with other communities, we hope to see a more developed work plan that is co-created by both Wikimedians of Malaysia User Group and the emerging community that you look to support. Please share the draft versions when ready. Note: We’ll be making the adjustments on Fluxx for Farouk (User:Ultron90) Salaried Programme Manager to be the lead applicant for the grant application as per our discussions.

For the review of your next grant application, we will take into account your new application AND progress that you have made in the areas of the recommendations captured on this talkpage. Hence we would encourage you to be proactive in sharing key updates with your Programme Officer on a regular basis. If there are recommendations that you have considered and have assessed that it is not the right fit for now, please also provide an update to share your learnings/thought process as well.

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 and templates for the grant can be found 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) 08:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)