Grants talk:Project/Camelia.boban/WikiDonne roadmap

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2017[edit]

IEG review.png
This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2017 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through 17 October 2017.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2017 begins on 18 October 2017, and grants will be announced 1 December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Questions from Superzerocool[edit]

Ciao Camelia.boban (yes, I still remember Esino Lario ;)). I've read your proposal and I have the following questions and thoughts:

  1. Improve the explanation about the problem to be solved with the project. You could try to explain what is the problem -yes, I understand that is about gender gap, but anyone must understand this :)). I'm not seeking for a full explanation, only for a few words about the problem of underrepresentation of women in many knowledge areas and activities such as sports, arts, etc.
  2. Write about the metrics (we don't like them, but it's necessary). I understand that the great output is an ebook, but in the previous section you write about participation (250 new female biographies), these number should fit in the section about Do you have any goals around participation or content?.
  3. Be more detailed about the activities. The current activities described are too general to be used as reference for funding. You could write about how you will engage more people into the project (volunteers) or how to organize the organization for all activities (these are just examples or free-ideas, please be creative :))
  4. I didn't see a clear strategy to build a website for wikidonne, can you explain this?. Why Gmail suite?.
  5. Almost the 20% of the budget is for Social Media Manager, do you have a communicational strategy to use by the staff member?, How do you select it or is it someone from the participant list?

Camelia, thanks for your proposal, I'm exciting about this proposal :). Kindly Superzerocool (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Superzerocool (talk). I started to answer to your question. For now is completed number 1, 2 and part of 3. Hope this way to be more clear about what and how we want to do this work. --Camelia (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Ciao Superzerocool, I think I answered to all the questions you ask to me. A larger explanation about the problem we want to solve, about metrics (we actually use or others we didn't use but which are interesting to learn), I developed the activities further (user's and institution's target, the experience we gain from the last events, how to do in practice), explained about the site and the social media manager figure and strategy. I also added the social channels where we spreaded the word, so I hope to have clarified further aspects. --Camelia (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Camelia.boban, thanks for expanding the ideas in your proposal, I haven't more questions to do, just a minor comment -not to be changed in the proposal-: 1 FA or GA is a nice objective, but I don't recommend put it as goal because it depends of local Wikipedia community. In es.wikipedia it could take over 3 months to be evaluated(!). Regards Superzerocool (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You are right, is a goal that requires a long commitment. --Camelia (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Questions from Ilario[edit]

Ciao Camelia.boban I remember a recent problem with the Italian community about an edit-a-thon (in my opinion caused more by the inexperience) and the problem was caused exactly by the use of Wikidata as main source to create articles in Wikipedia (a Wikidata's item doesn't pretend to be encyclopedic as a Wikipedia article). How you will manage a similar scenario within a potential grant? Here I would not ask about the possibility to reach the goals of the projects and not to describe in detail the conflict. In general a project must consider also a risk assessment and a risk management. In my opinion this is a potential risk not well managed and this is the reason why I am asking about your risk management. --Ilario (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ciao Ilario. I think you are refering to Art + Feminism in Milan. An event, as you know (because I've been able to explain it several times) not managed by WikiDonne, but entrusted by the local organizers, almost exclusively, to a person with no minimum of wiki experience. And without a depth control by expert wikipedians of the notability of artists in a very scarce areas like video games. More than 30 events has taught us that Wikidata lists are not enough, but the biographies contained in these lists must necessarily be checked one by one. For this reason we provide wikidata lists only to experienced wikipedians. We have a dedicated person which is Beatrice, that every event extracts about 50-60 names available for new users to be created ex novo, translated or improved. In fact the proposed article are divided in three sections, as can be seen here. So the potential risk could be managed with the strict control, by our members, that we have been doing for a long time. Another way is engaging experienced wikipedians in the giuries of our contests, people which is out of our User Group. This does't mean that the risk is null but will be an eventual error of evaluation of any wikipedian with > 10 years of experience. --Camelia (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ciao Camelia.boban, thank you for your comment. I think that the critical point was exactly the selection of the biographies from Wikidata, I think that the position of the Italian community was that all Wikidata items are not necessarly encyclopedic. Do you think that it may be suitable to submit to the community a list of biographies you suppose to transfer in Italian Wikipedia before any event? So the community may already filter them. Kind regards --Ilario (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear @Ilario:, our members, many of them with more than 10 years of experience, are also part of the comunity, doesn't exists different comunities, we or them, we are all us. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so I think is not necessary to send to anyone Wikidata lists to be filtered because we have public lists of articles to be written (choosen from Wikidata lists and checked manually) and a dedicated person to filter this list (Beatrice). So anyone could express concerns, ask about, propose alternatives, reccomend to letting go weak articles before an event starts. In addition we have outside supervision of other administrators/experienced wikipedians ;-). Thank you and ciao, --Camelia (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Ciao Camelia.boban, I don't know if there are people with more than 10 years of experience in this project. I have 10 years of experience and in the Italian community I could say that only few old members are still active. My question is to know if this process will be the same also for this grant because there is no mention, anyways I have personally seen that there is a lack of communication with the sysops and sometimes an action of protection can generate frustration which is harmful also for volunteers. I suggest to have some additional sysops in this project as link with the other sysops to operate quickly and efficiently and to protect your community of volunteers. --Ilario (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Ciao Ilario, yes, the project has members with more than 10 years of experience: Giaccai, Rhockher, Tinette, Xinstalker, Emmepici, M&A, Beatrice, Ettorre, Kaspo, Backcat. The last four are also volunteers for this grant. Yes, maybe have more sysops involved could be an idea to solve some problems on place, thank you. --Camelia (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I invited 7 sysops: 5 of them responded by saying that offer their help in single cases (in case of block), but they prefer not get involved in an continous way. You are the 6th and from you and the 7th I didn't have answers yet. --Camelia (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Sysops Marcok and Lepido (part time) gived their personal support to editathons and other live events in the Veneto and Emilia Romagna regions. --Camelia (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Question from Civvì[edit]

(The use of outside supervision doesn't exactly fit in with the declaration "we are all us", does it...?)

One (I have more of them) of my concerns about the whole project is the deplorable misuse of social media, generally used to write angry and sarcastic comments (twitter and fb) every time some difficulties occur, instead of searching solutions and help inside the community. Such an episode happened just yesterday, whereas you should recall your (in)"famous" tweet of November 2016 that raised serious concerns in the community (it:Discussioni_progetto:WikiDonne/Archivio1#Tweet). After that episode, a lot of users refused to have anything to do with Wikidonne project anymore.

Community, sysops and patrollers have had a lot of patience with your initial inexperience but now reiterating this uncivil behaviour is very close to abusing patience and good faith. And by every means quite far from a "friendly spaces" definition.

Besides, I'd like to point out that at least two of the volunteers listed in this grant request have been blocked on for quite long periods for various reasons concerning personal attacks, trolling and unsuitable behaviour. Others were banned for other guidelines violation. The grantee herself also has been briefly blocked in March 2017 for "repeated personal attacks". I do have a strong faith in personal improvement. However such serious past episodes frighten me and arise some doubts about a constructive future work within the and Wikimedia community. How do you intend to guarantee that Friendly space expectations are respected? --Civvì (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I am an old user and a woman. I started dealing with the "gender gap" question way before it became a trendy topic (2005). I fully agree with the overall goals of this project but so far I don't agree at all with the ways those goals are pursued by this project and its users. And just to prevent any suspect or allegation of "maschilism" inside the community, in my 14 years of contribution I have never, NEVER had to endure any sort of joke or remotely offensive comment. I really don't want to read the word "discrimination", because it means nothing in this context. I wouldn't have become bureaucrat if there were any; I wouldn't also have wanted to become one under such circumstances. (Btw: out of six bureaucrats on three are women.)

To contestualize, the two incidents is talking about here were comments on exeptional happenings: a tweet based on an article for which I apologized publicly with the other wikipedian and saturday Facebook post for the IP block of an entire event organized for months at Salaborsa in Bologna, for which all necessary communications had been made and the flag of user creators was assigned. Block that, for a simple registry error of a new user (gived an infinite block because it was considered a vandal), prevented the participation of 8 new users. I don't think is any offense to anybody to say that such accidents do not happen in other wikis (maybe something in itwiki didn't work properly, so we can ask for help to the tech team), which is the sense of this post on Facebook (so much so that you answered me). You said that a lot of users refused to have anything to do with Wikidonne project anymore, maybe is the reason that often seems like a kind of process to this project accused of activism/feminism. Yes, I think italian comunity has so fear of anarchism/presure from outside that closes completely outwards. You are talking about my 2 hours block (was for this deletion procedure on Art+Feminism) and that longer of ours 2 volunteers. One of them is a Commons sysop, the other is one of international organizers of Wiki Science Competition. They have a common recognition/appreciation from the whole international comunity, I just consider it a loss for the Italian community, for me is a honor to have them on the team. I think that Friendly space expectations must be bidirectional, I asure you is not quiet a serene and healthful atmosphere to working on and we talked/still talking a lot about how our movement and our projects must be inclusive. For our own, we organize events oriented to diversity and we adopted the WMF + MediaWiki Tech Code of Conduct. We are so friendly that I invite you to be part of this team grant ;-). --Camelia (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually your 2 hours block comes from your repeated nasty comments written here, explicitly indicated and explained to you and made after you has been already warned about your unfriendly language that came out of the ordinary civil respect. Nothing to share with wikidonne or other projects, but about respect of the wikipedians and of the wikipedian rules. --Bramfab (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
"such accidents do not happen in other wikis"
"Yes, I think italian comunity has so fear of anarchism/presure from outside that closes completely outwards."
These are both really unpleasant and nasty accusations against the whole community.
The very same community who is again and again patiently asking you and the members of your project to work, act and behave according to and within community rules, guidelines, procedures and codes of conduct.
Reading that, apparently, an international acknowledgement is more important to you and your project than trying to work with the community makes me really sad, but if this is what you think/wish and what you consider functional to the general goal of this project so be it. Besides, many thanks for your invitation Camelia but, like everybody else contributing to, I'm already member of a team where luckily no "outside and inside" exist ;-) Anyway I wish you all the best for your activities. --Civvì (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I gave a lot of thought about this, and I decided to endorse the questions from Civvì. Despite being a white heterosexual European male, thus "a perceived enemy of feminism", I do recognise that addressing the gender gap should and must be one of the priorities of our movement. I do consider myself a feminist, with all due approximation: I try to use gender-neutral expressions as much as I can, and I pride myself of trying to consider all due aspects in every decision I make on WMF projects. Nonetheless, too many times problems arose during the organisation and the execution of events, always followed by accuses from Camelia of all sorts of wrongdoings and lack of interest and/or understanding of the goals of this project (or of gender gap itself and its existence), if not accuses of "open hostility" towards this project.
It is probably the case of stating that there is no such thing as "open hostility" towards this project, or any kind of misunderstanding of how deep and serious the gender gap problem is. What all these people, both female and male, raised time after time relate mostly to:
  1. lack of communication towards and coordination with the Italian Wikipedia community and/or Wikimedia Italia - whose volunteers always tried their best to make a success out of all events;
  2. lack of notability and/or poor quality of the articles produced during the events.
Since I do share the commitment to solve, for good, the gender gap problem in all its expressions, I do raise my concerns here, since I think that article quality and communication with the community are non-debatable pillars of a successful project. --Sannita - not just another sysop 15:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a communication, this is another one, and another one, and other, other again, and again and again. Other if you need: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on. So I really don't understand what are talking about when you say lack of communication. Regarding the quality of our articles, I suggest you to read all of them carefully, because other people think different. As the project is follow by the international community too, we will also provide a general survey on Qualtrics (in italian, english and spanish) where you are invited to express your opinion. --Camelia (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Most of what is being produced is uploaded to the Italian version of Wikipedia, so I'd expect that it complies with the criteria that's Community stated, rather than (fully respectable but) uninvolved opinions. Matter of fact, there have actually been a few problems with that, and I happened to be there when they occurred, so since me too I adore metrics, I would avoid counting how many incidents we already were able to gather; I would instead start speaking wiki, once in a blue moon, and my very humble opinion is that it could be thoroughly more useful to stop asap these rants, on wikis and on FB/TW/..., we are all here to build a free and neutral encyclopedia, that's all we are here for. I do deeply hope we sincerely agree about this point, bc this is a truly necessary condition for further steps in any other development. Do we? --g (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, no doubt, we are really all here to build a free and neutral encyclopedia. --Camelia (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Question(s) from Phyrexian[edit]

You wrote: «such accidents do not happen in other wikis» and «Yes, I think italian comunity has so fear of anarchism/presure from outside that closes completely outwards», that in my humble opinion show a very strong personal bias agains that local community, implying that all the problems (and there were many of them, not few) with the past events WikiWomen organized in the Italian Wikipedia were responsability of the community, not of who organized these events, portraying the community itself, or a part of it (like its sysops) as male chauvinist and hostile to women. And this, in my opinion, is blatantly false. Conversely, we reached the point that people feel so uncomfortable to criticize WikiWomen related activities that they declare their sex and ethnicity before speaking, to avoid such accusations.
So you ask a grant of 16.400 € to organize exactly the same kind of events that happen to be problematic in many ways, from the organization to the kind of content created to the aftermath with Twitter and Facebook complaints and accusations (the last problems just a few days ago), including a 3.000 € for a Social Media Manager (your social media statements about those events have spread a lot of criticism within the community), assembling a team of 5 users in which 4 of them (including you) have been blocked in that community, sometimes more than once, sometimes for a quite long period, presenting you as a > 10 years Wikipedia editor when you "really" started editing the Project some of one and a half year ago. So the questions.

  • Do you think the Italian Wikipedia community (or a part of it) is gender biased? I'm talking about the wikipedians and their behaviour, not about the encyclopaedia content.
  • Do you think the Italian Wikipedia community (or a part of it) is hostile to you personally, to WikiWomen in particular, or to women in general?
  • If at least one of the previous questions has an affermative answer, do you think the project you requested the grant for is somenthing that would help to end this bias or hostility? Why?
  • Regardless of whether a bias in the local community exists or not, do you think this kind of events, whith this amount of financing to realize it, would help significantly to solve the gender gap in the contents of Italian Wikipedia? How?

Thank you. --Phyrexian ɸ 00:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Phyrexian:, there are the answers:
  • No, I don’t think that Italian Wikipedia community is gender bias. I think only that for security / vandalism / claims of blocked users and past experience is wary of any group / project may look something organized
  • Omitting some single opinion, I don’t think the Italian Wikipedia community is hostile to me personally, to WikiWomen or to women in general. The answer first is also valid.
  • My response are no to the previous questions, but I answer any way. The grant could only help - together with the voluntary work of the team - to cover concrete expenses for organizing events. But organizing events could help to move on (create contents and engage people).
  • I am realistic, so I think the gender gap could not be solved so early, we only can do significant steps. Not in Italian Wikipedia neither in others Wikipedia. Because the past is past (lack of resources, we can find only little numbers of biographies not yet written), we only can do more on present and future. But this also means the help of anyone could give a hand.
I also want to ask something to you and part of the Italian Wikipedia community to whose name you seem to have asked the questions:
  • Do you think that gender gap (content and participation) is not a problem in Wikipedia or is only a problem of who cares? If you think is a problem, how do you think could be decreased?
  • Do you think that a project that writes only about women doesn’t have sense or it is discriminatory?
  • Do you think that this kind of projects are trying to force the community/content, introducing non notable biographies? Or could create serious problems to the comunity, creating more problems than benefits?
  • Do you think in this case that organize less events could be a solution?
  • Do you think that feminism is a ideology and people who declare to be feminist may alter the neutral point of view?
  • Do you think that being a member of an active association/a member of a press office of a company and so on means being activist and this may be a risk for the neutrality of the articles? Do you think that commitment is to be considered as activism?
  • Seeing that a lot of users refused to have anything to do with Wikidonne project anymore, how much this part of the comunity is dispose to collaborate/help and in what conditions?
Thank you too, I would be happy if you will answer. --Camelia (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Phyrexian: I put here the answer to your doubt about 10 years of experience. We are allways talking that editcounter is not our contribution in wiki projects, but you love tools & metrics, I also do, so let's do some comparison (using the usernames of people who discussed here):
* Camelia.boban, first edit 2007-03-18 20:37, itwiki: 91 page created in the main space, 2 page deleted (2.2%). Global wiki: 24338 edits found in 21 projects.
* Phyrexian, first edit 2008-04-06 13:27, itwiki: 153 page created in the main space, 2 page deleted (1.3%). Global wiki: 22747 edits found in 116 projects.
* Gianfranco, first edit 2007-02-23 18:02, itwiki: 76 page created in the main space, 4 page deleted (2.2%). Global wiki: 39502 edits found in 37 projects.
* Bramfab, first edit 2006-08-08 14:51, itwiki: 73 page created in the main space, 1 page deleted (1.4%). Global wiki: 81586 edits found in 34 projects.
Do you think that contribution in Wikimedia projects must be a race and you are still thinking that I am so far in wiki editing experience from others who discussed here? Thank you in advance for your answer, --Camelia (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
This data is actually not even entirely exact, for what it's worth. --Elwood (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not think that it is a contest on the edit count. (Even considering that Gianfranco is one of the first Italian editors, registered in 2003, who "built" the project almost from scratch). Arguing with questionnaires is not a way to solve the issues with the local community, so let's hope that the communications person will help having a more productive discussion. -- Ruthven (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC) first edit on 2004-03-26 15:55: 246 pages created, 53,119 edits (55,8% in the Main namespace); Global wiki: 166555 edits found in 118 projects.

I do not like chickens, but according to the statistics I eat a few chickens per year, and that is one of the reasons why I always cherished the arguments made acritically on the basis of statistics. In this case the problems are at least three:

1) I'm not with the numbers above, I'm writing this by basing myself on: Camelia boban Phyrexian Gianfranco Bramfab

2) Experience in an activity also means years past over something, and here the observation of histograms in the Year counts section of the above-mentioned statistics pages is significant.

3) In a project that significantly intends to increase the number of main pages, it is interesting to note in the Namespace Totals section the different percentages with which the four users compared are used to write and edit in the main page. In addition, this is perhaps the most relevant statistical parameter to evaluate the experience in wikipedia, whose volunteer community is meant to write an encyclopedia, which is accomplished with editing on the main page.--Bramfab (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that talking numbers is the point here but if we have to do it let's do it. Camelia's first edit is in 2007, but looking at her yearly contribution she really started to edit on Wikipedia significantly in August 2016. In 2016 only 10.4% (454) and in 2017 only 23.7% (1947) of her edits were in ns0. 3,119 total edits in ns0 in almost ten years, that's really not impressive, an active user does the same number in less then a year, sometimes a couple of months. Namespace totals and percentages show the profile of a user with a quite low involvement in community discussions, decisions and communications.
I don't think that this is enough to learn and know thoroughly guidelines and how to act and interact in Wikipedia.
By the way, every older user on knows that the nickname "Gianfranco" was only recovered in 2007 and that the same user had another nickname between 2004 and 2007. I also really hope that a communicator can help in this time and energy consuming issue. --Civvì (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)first edit on 2004-09-23 09:26: 2224 pages created, 70,876 edits (64.1% in the Main namespace).
Tank you Camelia for your answer, but I have to say I found it very disappointing. I my perception you put yourself in a strife position against who asked you to answer some question, I don't see a glimpse of collaboration will in it. It seems to me this way of working in conflict is regularly carried by you in all your activities on Wikipedia. It seems to me you assume a lot of things when you talk with someone here, and that is the reason I asked you if you think there is a bias in the community, because to me you act as if there is one. Please do not assume I speak in the name of someone other than me; or that I «love tools & metrics». I don't. All what I wrote was with the purpose to understand your point of view in order to avoid other problems, which this project I think whould probably bring. I understand that nobody like to be criticized, but if there are several and repeated problems the only way to get through it is to talk about it.
To speak totally straight, and sorry for this, I don't see you have yet the expertize to work as organizer of such a project. That's why I commented about your presentation of yourself as a 10 years experience editor. It's not I like tools, metrics or I want to do an edit count race. It's that I regularly find in your contribution issues due to inexperience, and I was surprised to read that you have such a long time experience editing, without never seeing your contributions before WikiWomen started, some of one year and a half ago. That's why I checked with the tool, and what I found is that your statement is "not exactly true". Of course is not a problem to have issues due to inexperience, but it could be (and it have been) if you aim to train new editors the proper way to contribute. I checked the link you provided, with the list of articles you wrote. I red the first 10 and in all of them I found minor issues of any kind. I repeat, these are minor issues that could be quickly fixed, and this is not a problem for an editor, I thank you for writing these articles. But I see how have been possible to hav this amount of problems within the event WikiWomen organized for it.wikipedia. And yes, this managemente of WikiWomen it could create more problems than benefits, for the gender gap solution (that I indeed consider an issue) and for the encyclopaedia in general.
Therefore I would kindly suggest to do some self-criticism, because the very nature of Wikipedia is collaboration, which is different from expecting other volunteers to be ready to fix the problems a conflictual way of contribution creates. When the collaboration with some users keep being problematic it will eventually be ended. From my point of view the community still assume good faith about your work, but to show such a bias as you do (in my very humble opinion) it will eventually end this assumption. Good luck with the project, and I hope my comments have been helpful, for to help was my only intent. --Phyrexian ɸ 03:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Social media[edit]

3000 € on social media is a non-negligible expense. The proposal doesn't mention a lack of content quality or quantity on your social media channels, so I suppose the goal is "only" to expand audience. Have you considered whether alternative methods may have a better return on investment? The @WikiDonne tweets with most engagements in the last year are [1] [2] [3] [4]. One experiment I made with less than 3 € yielded 70 interactions and over 1200 impressions: if you multiplied by 1000 or even just 500 times it would be quite a bit, and may allow to reach beyond the "usual suspects" who already follow the various Wikimedia things. --Nemo 10:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ciao Nemo_bis. About the price, I put a note, the price was calculated on that sources. As I wrote the idea was to have a dedicated person to do this work in a better way I could do by myself. The goal is not only to expand audience, but also to create opportunities to organize events, to have more collaborations with entities, to have more participation (so new users). And that means design a strategy, write quality articles on the site and good posts on social. We don't have only Twitter, but also a Facebook page, a Facebook group (665 members), Pinterest, Telegram and Instagram. Arriving to this result, has involved a great commitment for 1 year, which cannot continue to be done if events need to be organized. So is a lot of do that I think can't be solved with one campaign (that can be done only on one social, and doing it on all of them become a little bit of money). I use this opportunity to invite you to our volunteer team, you could give us a hand ;-). --Camelia (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
My point is: it's possible that the social media manager can achieve more with less sweat, e.g. work half the time but spend 1500 € on post promotion on whichever platform is more convenient. So I hope this will considered. It doesn't need to be a big change, e.g. if you "hire" the person as partita IVA rather than cococo, and provide relevant goals, she could choose to spend the money on investment rather than work time. Nemo 07:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think is a good idea to do a part as work and a part as campaign (and here, depending on the target, our group must choose which social, couldn't be done on all platforms). The person we identified will be for sure as partita IVA and not cococo. --Camelia (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for WikiDonne roadmap[edit]

Scoring rubric Score
(A) Impact potential
  • Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both?
  • Does it have the potential for online impact?
  • Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
(C) Ability to execute
  • Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe?
  • Is the budget realistic/efficient ?
  • Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • The project is a spin-off of others and improved to make more things.
  • It's aligned with our strategic priorities and it take responsability about a gap in our contents.
  • Due to the nature of this type of project, there are few ways to scale the project after the grant ends, making it dependant of this type of funding to scale and be sustained.
  • Diversity in terms of content is one of the strategic priorities of Wikimedia, and this project aims to achieve exactly this. Similar projects have been done worldwide, mostly with success. WikiDonne should consider incorporating the learnings from past projects of similar kind. Historically, edit-a-thon projects have had good sustainability.
  • Very good potential for impact. The group is in a good position to generate new content on Italian Wikipedia and make a sustainable community.
  • The metrics and how to get them seems clear and easy to do.
  • I can see from the proposal page that WikiDonne has already incorporated learnings from past outreach projects. The plan is clear and budget breakdown is detailed. I am unsure about the long-term retention of the participants because retention rate from edit-a-thons have been low, but the resources created for project management and co-ordination will be useful in future. The fate of the social media page after 6 months, when the project ends, is unclear.
  • Iterative projects with reasonably good track record. Measures of success are generally good, but adding one on number of participants would be a plus. The budget is realistic.
  • The project seems realistic in time, budget and resources to be accomplished. The grantee seems with a large experience in the Wikimedia projects.
  • The budget doesn't have overhead for any contingence/urgency about the project.
  • The project is reasonable enough to be accomplished in 6 months. However, volunteer participation is crucial to make it a success. The grantee is a very active Wikimedian with several contacts, so the success of the project is greatly dependent if she can convince several volunteers to participate in the project. The budget appears to be realistic.
  • The project is probably feasible. I really hope they will efficiently distribute responsibilities between members to avoid burnout.
  • The project has significant support from the community.This project supports diversity in targeting women.
  • Good community support, although there seems to be some troubles with some members of the Italian community. I really hope that having a professional communications person would help with it.
  • The 100-wikidays plan for 125 EUR doesn't appear so clear to me. The reason for needing funding for this part is not clear.
  • 100wikidays is personal challenge, therefore has to be with 0 budget; the impact from printed book can not be monitored, I recommend to be removed from the budget; and the Social Media Manager salary looks out of necessity
  • Full funding, but would ask WMF to look at the communications person profile before hiring (this should not be a person involved in previous troubles with communications the group had).
IEG IdeaLab review.png

This proposal has been recommended for due diligence review.

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal and recommended it for due diligence review. This means that a majority of the committee reviewers favorably assessed this proposal and have requested further investigation by Wikimedia Foundation staff.

Next steps:

  1. Aggregated committee comments from the committee are posted above. Note that these comments may vary, or even contradict each other, since they reflect the conclusions of multiple individual committee members who independently reviewed this proposal. We recommend that you review all the feedback and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page.
  2. Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on December 15. Please note that this date is two weeks later than originally published in the round schedule, due to delays in scoring and proposal review.

Questions? Contact us.


According to the suggestion received, I'm posting here my question: If my question is unjust or incorrect for any reason, please drop it out and forget, otherwise can you kindly explain the arguments in support of the following phrase "Good community support, although there seems to be some troubles with some members of the Italian community" you wrote here? It seems to me that there is confusion between breaking rules and personal issues, Best regards. --Bramfab (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The committee member who made that comment probably didn't feel like it's their job to determine what the rules for a certain wiki are and whether they are broken. The phrase "some troubles with some" might be considered euphemistic but I wouldn't read too much into it. --Nemo 21:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
You know, as me, that I'm not talking about specific and exotic "it-wiki" rules, but about the application of the en:Wikipedia:Five_pillars (it:Wikipedia:Cinque_pilastri), and I don't ask to determine, I ask for argument supporting a statement made. An argument should exist, I guess.--Bramfab (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I share the same concerns expressed here above, and I have to add that I would like to understand which is the methodology used to measure the "qualitative value" of the contributions, considering that a part of articles produced in the context of WikiDonne were afterwards deleted, following the ordinary consensus procedures for deletion, because they were found either not notable (using gender-neutral evaluation parameters), in some cases with questionable use of the documental sources and in some extreme cases even in copyright infringement. It's not a matter of "some troubles with some members": this is more than euphemistics, because on we had "systematic troubles" involving practically a large parte of the community. And despite our effort to "educate" the contributors about the correct ways of editing, choosing arguments and biographies, using sources, everytime we are facing always the same issues, as if our indications were regularly ignored. And despite our efforts to help the project to reach at least a minimum of acceptable quality of work and to improve their results, and the high patience and tolerance against repeated mistakes, misuses and sometimes breaking of the basic rules (tolerance that on was never granted to any other project), we also faced attacks outside and even inside the project, hinting at a (not-existing) will of hamper the activity of the project linked to "chovinism". I kindly remind here that Camelia was blocked on for a short period due to her personal attacks against some members of the community. Reading this page and the conclusions above, my personal feeling is that there is not the correct perceiving of the real status of the situation. We understand the importance of addressing the gender gap, but the actual perceiving in large parte (not just "some members") of the project is that so far the approach used by the WikiDonne project was not adequate and not enough "professional". --L736Etell me 13:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with this opinion. --Euphydryas (msg) 14:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC) (9 years Wikipedian editor, sysop, bureaucrat, global-renamer and... woman!!)
Me too I have to say I agree with L736E and Bramfab. --Phyrexian ɸ 03:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Round 2 2017 decision[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for a Project Grant.

WMF has approved partial funding for this project, in accordance with the committee's recommendation. This project is funded with 13775 EUR

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to fund this project in support of ongoing outreach to improve gender diversity on Italian Wikipedia.

Next steps:

  1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
  2. Review the information for grantees.
  3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
  4. Start work on your project!

Questions? Contact us.