Grants talk:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Art & Feminism/Training volunteers and Edit-a-thon on Africa's female changemakers (ID: 22458441)

Not Funded

Hello @Siesy93 thank you for submitting your application for the rapid fund grant. After careful review, we have decided not to fund your application at this time. This is mainly because there is an existing Micro-grants program within your community which has been specifically designed to support projects such as this. We recommend that you apply to that program which will provide all the support you need to successfully implement your project. Best regards, (On behalf of the Middle East and Africa regional funds team) ~~~~ YPam (WMF) (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello YPam (WMF)

Thank you for your feedback on Siesy93 grant application.

The Micro-grants program seems designed to discourage individual projects, with a non-functional [application link] indicating questionable intentions. This deliberate effort prevents diverse engagement within the movement, favoring a single individual. A particular instance is cited in the case of User: Cdilalo47 and CHENdiba 1 who applied for individual grant to carryout project resulted in their expulsion from their team simply because they got their project funded by WMF and someone thought that was going to be to his disadvantage when the grantee rather was only trying to make his language more visible on the internet via Wikipedia as a way of contributing to the process of decolonization of the internet. Does anyone have the power to sack volunteers from their language communities for no crime committed? That's how volunteers suffer at the hands of the autocratic leadership of the Dagbani Wikimedia User Group. The universal code of conduct has frown against such act.

There are suspicions that DWUG leadership influences grant disapprovals for members within the minority communities. Allegations of fraudulent activities and a focus on colonizing the supposed supported language communities raise concerns. The term "collaboration" appears misleading, as DWUG restricts certain projects and imposes irrelevant ones on communities. This authoritarian approach drives volunteers away, hindering the autonomous functioning of communities.

The power dynamics within DWUG, with threats to timid co-leads, prompt the question, "Who watches over the watchman?" Manipulating the system disadvantages minority groups, contradicting WMF principles. Despite temporary setbacks, resilience against deception suggests falsehoods cannot endure permanently.

Best regards. Ghinafh (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)