Grants talk:Project/Cleveland Museum of Art/Open Access

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

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2018[edit]

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

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2018 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through January 2, 2019.

The Project Grant committee's formal review for round 2 2018 will occur January 3-January 28, 2019. Grantees will be announced March 1, 2018. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Some questions to clarify your proposal[edit]

This is an interesting proposal, and I have a couple questions about what you are proposing HeatherSaunders and Fuzheado:

  • It seems your project goals are internally focused on the Wikimedia communities and Cleveland Museum of art staff as identified in the Problem to Solve, and not on the aspect of the solution, which involves "utilize The Cleveland Museum of Art’s Open Access images and data beyond the institution itself." Can you clarify the connection between this proposed position and the museum's mission which you stated at the beginning of the proposal, as "bringing CMA’s mission “For the Benefit of All the People Forever.”" Is this proposal intended only for museum internally or will the proposed editathons also figure into the success metrics?
  • The connections between the project goals and project impact are unclear. Can you clarify how they connect together?
  • Additionally, the initial impact measurement tools measure, though it is unclear if you want to measure in general or if there are any targets you are seeking to measure against.
  • Concerning your budget, can you clarify how much work you expect this 6-month position to do, and if the requested amount will be enough for it?
  • You do not have any funds listed for travel or resources related to editathons. How will those be accounted for?
  • It is unclear what the list of participants are. Are these people who have committed or are involved in some way?
  • None of the participants listed have endorsed this proposal, and there are not any endorsements at all. What levels of Wikimedia community support does this proposal have?

I look forward to reading your replies on this proposal. --- FULBERT (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This is just a message to notify HeatherSaundersCMA to the above questions. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Cleveland Museum of Art/Open Access[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?
7.0
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
4.6
(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?
4.0
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
3.4
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • Fits with the strategic direction of knowledge as a service. There is some potential for impact with regards to the acquisition of images and data however I’m concerned there’s not a clear vision of how the content can be used or an articulated demand for it. That is not to say the content isn’t valuable but I’d feel more comfortable if there were groups/communities expressing interest in
  • The Cleveland Museum of Art has set open access on all their material, the further understanding of the current artwork will deepen as it can be enriched from other data available in Wikimedia. For further impact in the long term, a lot of work should be focused on training museum staff on Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata.
  • This proposal would further the knowledge available about engaging with museums, their content and the community. I am excited for this.
  • Yes, this proposal supports the strategy of knowledge equity, as the previously-closed resources will now become open.
  • Biggest risk I see is a failure to engage communities to use donated content (e.g, in creation of articles). As currently presented, project may also involve paid editing. Proposal lacks clear measures of success.
  • Grantee has set two interesting goals, a full case study and a blog post. Although concerned for other goals, relating attendance for example, not a single approximate figure is given, taken in account that only one full ediathon is planned.
  • This proposal is very well structured in opportunities for measurement. The proposer plans to follow current practices in regards to GLAM resources in order to assess their success.
  • There need to have more solutions to measure results.
  • I believe this allows for iterative project success, but too many questions that were asked on the Discussion page were left unanswered, so it is unclear to what extent this is the situation.
  • Great to see interest and enthusiasm from the Cleveland Museum of Art, however I typically want to see more experience with Wikimedia projects before organizations apply for a grant of this scope. I don’t understand why a third of the total budget (and half of the requested budget) is for conference travel
  • Not really sure about the grantee abilities or skills in order to provide the necessary training to other staff. Also concerned about other participants' collaboration. Budget doesn't take in account regular expenses of editathons and other planned events.
  • The timeline and activities seem feasible for the grant period.
  • The staff may need to check if the WMF agree with being a part of there.
  • There is little to support that this project is doable, given the questions asked on the Discussion page, along with emails from the Project Grant team were unanswered.
  • No specific target communities have been identified. Would need to see some endorsements in order to support this
  • This project lacks explicit support and has not provide answers to key elements and concerns. So not very sure on the future community development is going to work out, specially towards existing Wikimedia communities in Wikidata and Commons.
  • I would love to see more direct local community interaction. This could be also developing a community in order to be sustainable for the future of this initiative.
  • I can't see any endorsements on the page in Meta.
  • While there was a list of names under Participants, it was only a list without clear indication if these people knew they were listed there. There were no qndorsements, and thus is it unclear how much interaction with the wider community would occur.
  • It's an interesting amount of artwork but many concerns have been raised.
  • I love this, but want the proposer to think of some ways to develop a community around this initiative in order to make the project sustainable after the grant period expires.
  • Based on the above reasons, I don't support funding the proposal. And I also worry that they haven't replied to any questions on the talk page. It makes the reviewer uncertain around an exact decision.
  • The grant itself held promise, but as the questions asked appeared reasonable and were unanswered, and given there were no endorsements, it is unclear if the applicants understand the process and expectations of requesting this type of grant.
IEG IdeaLab review.png

Opportunity to respond to committee comments in the next 7 days

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal. Based on their initial review, a majority of committee reviewers have not recommended your proposal for funding. However, before the committee makes an official decision, they would like to provide you with an opportunity to respond to their comments.

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 carefully and post any responses or clarifications or questions on this talk page. If you make any revisions to your proposal based on committee feedback, we recommend that you also summarize the changes on your talkpage.
  2. The committee will review any additional feedback you post on your talkpage before making a final funding decision. A decision will be announced no later than March 1st, 2019.


Questions? Contact us.


@HeatherSaundersCMA: Please see note above about the opportunity to respond to committee comments before they finalize a decision on your proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Round 2 2018 decision[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

This project has not been selected for a Project Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!


Next steps:

  1. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
  2. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
  3. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.


I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)