Thank you for your application. We have completed the initial review of your application. Here are the combined comments from the team (ESEAP Regional Funds Committee; Wikimedia Indonesia; ESEAP PO).
Thank you.
Regards, Jacqueline on behalf of ESEAP Regional Funds Committee
--
Review questions
Collated responses
Is the proposal clear in terms of the change it wants to make? Does the proposal indicate value/impact potential? Is the proposal viable?
NO
Explanation
The proposal has a noble intent but thin in execution detail. It has value as a cultural and ecological documentation project, especially if the outputs are properly uploaded and contextualized on Wikimedia platforms. However, its impact potential is modest unless the team strengthens its Wikimedia integration plan, sets clearer content targets, and ensures sustainability beyond the initial documentation. In terms of viability, the project may be doable on the ground, but its Wikimedia outcomes are uncertain without stronger planning and community linkage. Viability concerns arise from the lack of detail in the budget (since the sheet could not be reviewed) and the absence of a clear plan for measuring outcomes. The applicant admits uncertainty about evaluation tools, which could hinder accountability. The project also relies heavily on a very small team, with limited Wikimedia editing experience indicated. This raises questions about whether the outputs will actually make it onto Wikimedia platforms in a usable form.
The applicant did briefly describe the background of the proposed project, but it was not sufficient and did not provide sufficient information on how they would implement the proposed project.
Does the applicant have the experience (technical / organizing) capacity to implement this project? Does the applicant or team have experience on target Wikimedia projects?
NO
Explanation
The applicant and team do have the practical field capacity to carry out the documentation in Lasem, and their local knowledge is a genuine strength. However, their experience with Wikimedia projects appears minimal, and their organizing capacity is not well demonstrated in the proposal. This creates a gap between the ability to collect data and the ability to translate that data into meaningful Wikimedia contributions. The project is therefore viable in terms of fieldwork, but its Wikimedia impact will depend heavily on whether the team can either (a) build their own technical skills quickly, or (b) partner with more experienced Wikimedia contributors who can ensure proper integration of the outputs.
The lead applicant has only 144 edits on Wikimedia projects since registering in 2021, and their application does not provide a detailed explanation of their ability to carry out the proposed project. Furthermore, we were unable to locate Wikimedia accounts for any other team members besides the lead applicant based on the information provided by the applicant. This leaves us with insufficient evidence to determine whether the applicant has sufficient experience to carry out the proposed project.
Does this proposal have support from Wikimedia community members? Has there been sufficient engagement of community members through the endorsement and feedback process?
NO
Explanation
The proposal must be open for community support and as a place in the right venue for feedback, which is a positive step. However, actual engagement from Wikimedia community members appears absent so far, and the applicant has not demonstrated broader consultation beyond their small team. For a stronger case, the applicant would need to actively seek endorsements from experienced Wikimedians, invite feedback on the talk page, and show evidence of dialogue with relevant communities (e.g., Commons biodiversity contributors, Indonesian Wikimedia affiliates, or Wiki Loves Earth organizers). At present, there is no visible evidence of endorsements or feedback from Wikimedia community members on the proposal page itself. The section on community discussion is minimal, with the applicant only stating “ya tim kami mengetahui tentang proposal ini” (“yes, our team knows about this proposal”), which suggests that engagement has been limited to the applicant’s immediate circle rather than the broader Wikimedia community. The linked discussion page is still a redlink (not created), which indicates that no endorsements or feedback have been posted yet. This means there has not been sufficient engagement through the endorsement and feedback process, at least as of now.
The applicant's statement only mentioned that the local Wikimedia community was "aware" of the proposed project, but did not explain how it was discussed and supported within the community.
Does the proposed budget adequately reflect the investment needed to achieve the proposed goals?
NO
Explanation
The budget request is plausible for the fieldwork itself—covering equipment, logistics, and local expertise—but weakly justified in terms of Wikimedia return on investment. The financial ask is not excessive for a Rapid Fund, but the absence of a transparent, detailed budget breakdown and the lack of strong Wikimedia content targets make it hard to conclude that the investment is well-calibrated to the movement’s goals. In short: the budget is adequate for the fieldwork, but its value-for-impact ratio on Wikimedia projects remains uncertain until clearer deliverables and cost justifications are provided. The proposal does not provide a transparent, itemized budget breakdown on the Meta page, and the linked budget file is not publicly accessible without sign-in. This lack of visibility makes it difficult to assess whether the allocations are justified or whether there are inefficiencies. The project’s Wikimedia outputs are modest (5 participants, 2 editors, 1 organizer, with no clear content targets for Commons, Wikidata, or Wikipedia), which raises the question of whether a USD 3,000 investment is proportionate to the expected Wikimedia impact. Without clearer alignment between costs and deliverables, the budget risks appearing inflated relative to the scale of Wikimedia outcomes.
There is a serious lack of transparency in the budget. Applicants only provide the total amount of funding they are requesting, without providing any detailed information.
The applicants did not provide a detailed breakdown of how the 50 million IDR budget would be used.
Does the applicant show clarity in what they hope to learn from their work given the change they are hoping to achieve?
NO
Explanation
The applicant may show some intent—they want to raise awareness of spice plants in Lasem and preserve knowledge of them. However, their articulation of learning is narrow and underdeveloped, framed more as a hoped-for public outcome than as a concrete learning process for themselves or the movement. To strengthen this, the proposal would benefit from clearer statements such as: - what the team hopes to learn about documenting biodiversity in Wikimedia projects, - what they hope to learn about engaging local communities in knowledge-sharing, and - how they will capture and share those lessons with others in the Wikimedia movement. In short: there is clarity of aspiration, but limited clarity of structured learning goals. The statement of what they hope to learn is very general and somewhat vague. Saying “I hope people can recognize these plants” is more of an outcome or aspiration than a learning objective. It does not specify what the applicant themselves hopes to gain in terms of skills, knowledge, or insights—whether about Wikimedia workflows, community engagement, or biodiversity documentation methods. There is no mention of structured reflection, evaluation, or how lessons learned will be shared back with the Wikimedia community. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to assess whether the project will generate transferable learning beyond the immediate activity.
The content is unclear. We strongly encourage applicants to critically assess what they will learn from their work.
The applicants did not clearly outline the metrics.
Questions or feedback to the applicant based on your review
General feedback
This proposal is noble in terms of fieldwork and has potential cultural and ecological value, but it is weak in Wikimedia integration, community support, and accountability structures. The budget is not excessive, but its justification is unclear without a transparent breakdown. The proposal is thin on Wikimedia integration and community engagement. The applicant provides no concrete targets for Commons, Wikidata, or Wikipedia contributions, and admits uncertainty about evaluation tools. The metrics are minimal (5 participants, 2 editors, 1 organizer), with no clear plan for how the documentation will be structured, categorized, or reused on Wikimedia projects. There is also no visible community endorsement or feedback on the Meta page, which suggests limited consultation with the broader Wikimedia community. The budget details are not transparent (since the file is locked), making it difficult to assess whether the allocations are justified. Without stronger Wikimedia-facing capacity or partnerships, the project risks becoming a one-off local documentation exercise with limited long-term impact.
Thank you for your rapid fund application. Your grant application has not been approved at this time. We were looking for a stronger and more sustainable Wikimedia community engagement. This did not come through in your application.
We hope you will continue to contribute to the Wikimedia movement and look forward to connecting again if you wish to explore other ideas for projects. Should you be interested in putting in another application, we would encourage you to review the comments from this review process in detail so that you may gain insights from the process.
saya tunduk terhadap keputusan Anda untuk tidak mendanai proposal saya,
tetapi saya tidak tau caranya membuat proposal yang sempurna, saya kira caranya pertama mengusulkan ide setelah itu jika ide tersebut di terima lalu diminta memberikan rincian kegiatan dan yang lainnya.
dan saya tidak faham/sulit dicermati tentang proposal yang ada di aplikasi WMF tersebut.
