Grants talk:Project/DPLA/The DPLA network's Wikimedia program for GLAM-Wiki in the United States
Eligibility confirmed, Round 1 2021 - Community Organizing proposal[edit]
We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for review in Round 1 2021 for Community Organizing projects. This decision is contingent upon compliance with our COVID-19 guidelines. If your proposal includes travel and/or offline events, you must ensure that all of the following are true:
- You have reviewed and can comply with the guidelines linked above.
- If necessary because of COVID-19 safety risks, you can complete the core components of your proposed work plan _without_ offline events or travel.
- You are able to postpone any planned offline events or travel until the Wikimedia Foundation’s guidelines allow for them, without significant harm to the goals of your project.
- You include a COVID-19 planning section in your activities plan. In this section, you should provide a brief summary of how your project plan will meet COVID-19 guidelines, and how it would impact your project if travel and offline events prove unfeasible throughout the entire life of your project. If you have not already included this in your proposal, you have until February 28 to add it.
The Community review period is now underway, from February 20-March 4. We encourage you to make sure that stakeholders, volunteers, and/or communities impacted by your proposed project are aware of your proposal and invite them to give feedback on your talkpage. This is a great way to make sure that you are meeting the needs of the people you plan to work with and it can help you improve your project.
- If you are applying for funds in a region where there is a Wikimedia Affiliate working, we encourage you to let them know about your project, too.
- If you _are_ a Wikimedia Affiliate applying for a Project Grant: A special reminder that our guidelines and criteria require you to announce your Project Grant requests on your official user group page on Meta and a local language forum that is recognized by your group, to allow adequate space for objections and support to be voiced).
Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community review period. By March 4, make sure that your proposal has incorporated any revisions you want to make and complies with all of our guidelines. If you have not already done so, you can make use of our project planning resources to improve your proposal further, too.
The Project Grant committee's formal review for round 1 2020 will occur March 5 through March 20, 2021. We ask that you refrain from making any further changes to your proposal during the committee review period, so we can be sure that all committee members are scoring the same version of the proposal.
Grantees will be announced Friday, April 22, 2021. Sometimes we have to make some changes to the round schedule. If that happens, it will be reflected on the round schedule on the Project Grants start page.
We look forward to engaging with you in this Round!
Questions? Contact us at projectgrants
wikimedia · org. --Marti (WMF) (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment from Wikimedia Foundation GLAM & Culture team[edit]
Hello! We agree that this proposal has the potential to address a substantial gap in practical support for US-based GLAMs. The targets are ambitious but definitely achievable given DPLA’s track record over the last year.
One of the risks when content is brought to Wikimedia projects via an aggregator is that the metadata is degraded through that process, making it harder to find and reuse the images. How will DPLA ensure it contributes high-quality metadata alongside high-quality media? Thanks, -- GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the question! We completely agree with concern you are expressing. As an organization engaged in aggregating millions of records, DPLA has dealt with this challenge since its first days. On the one hand, it's important to acknowledge that this kind of data loss is inherent in the work of aggregation. DPLA has a single data model which must accommodate all its contributing institutions, which represent a broad spectrum of institutions. We know there is certain data, such as field-specific terminology, entity identifiers, and transcriptions, which we therefore lose when harvesting from our contributors—which they would have access to if they were to upload to Wikimedia Commons on their own. On the other hand, the benefits of aggregation outweigh concerns like this, because it allows us to provide centralized services, such as Wikimedia upload, across a whole network of institutions—most of which would not otherwise have undertaken that work individually.
- Currently, our pipeline, while it serves its purpose and has been operating well at scale, could be improved in certain ways that might mitigate the concern around data quality. Primarily, we envision two related improvements: implementation of structured data and data synchronization. By implementing structured data, we would increase the usefulness of the data we do have to contribute, making it more discoverable and linking to entities on Wikidata. Introducing data synchronization—meaning our bot workflow would include making updates to past uploads whenever the data sources change, means that they will always stay current and accurate. In addition, this allows us to iterate on our data model, since we would use this synchronization system to also make updates across the entire set of DPLA uploads if there were ever a need for changes—including when we have mappings for SDC statements. We are currently preparing a project grant proposal for the software development cycle that would support this work, and I'll link to that when ready. Dominic (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Dominic! Thank you so much for taking the time to answer our comments in such a detailed way. This is truly impressive and the explanation was very enlightening.
- It is good to know that DPLA is aware of the data loss that is inherent in the work of aggregation, but is also conscious of its benefits. The fact that you are strongly considering Structured Data and Data Synchronization in the pipeline to act upon this problem is also an important and strong aspect of this proposal.
- Yes, it would be good to have the proposal for the software development cycle linked as well.
- Again, thank you so much for your feedback. Best, GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- @GFontenelle (WMF): As promised, here is the link to our second proposal: Grants:Project/DPLA/Extending the DPLA digital asset pipeline to improve quality and discoverability. We believe this would go a long way towards improving the quality of uploads to Commons, and help ensure the software we have developed for the digital asset pipeline keeps up with the evolving technology of Wikimedia Commons. Dominic (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Aggregated feedback from the committee for DPLA/The DPLA network's Wikimedia program for GLAM-Wiki in the United States[edit]
| Scoring rubric | Score | |
(A) Impact potential
|
6.2 | |
(B) Community engagement
|
7.2 | |
(C) Ability to execute
|
7.0 | |
(D) Measures of success
|
6.2 | |
Additional comments from the Committee:
| ||
Opportunity to respond to committee comments in the next week[edit]
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. You can read more about their reasons for this decision in their comments above. Before the committee finalizes this decision, they would like to provide you with an opportunity to respond to their comments.
Next steps:
- 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, clarifications or questions on this talk page by 5pm UTC on Monday, March 29, 2021. If you make any revisions to your proposal based on committee feedback, we recommend that you also summarize the changes on your talkpage.
- 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 Friday, April 22, 2021.
Mercedes Caso (platícame) 13:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much to the committee for your careful review and many comments! We understand there are certainly some concerns we need to address at this point, and appreciate the opportunity to do so. I'm just leaving this comment here to be sure to communicate that we have read the comments are preparing a thorough reply! I do want to make sure all of the involved parties at DPLA are able to sign off on any changes or responses before we post them. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Responses from DPLA[edit]
Thank you to all committee members for reviewing this proposal! There were some common elements in the feedback, so in an effort to streamline our responses, we have arranged them into the table below. The table includes only comments where we saw a question or critique. We have then highlighted, with different colors for each theme, and the link after each highlight leads to the corresponding response below. Dominic (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Annotated feedback[edit]
| Fits with the strategic direction of knowledge as a service. The proposal states that funding the project will enable DPLA’s Wikimedia program to be self-sustaining but it is not entirely clear to me how that will be achieved. [#sustainability] |
| The request for funding is massive, and this becomes a major concern for its capacity of becoming sustainable, scalable, and adaptable after the grant ends,[#sustainability] and difficulty such a project could receive continuing funding at the level that is being requested. Given the network that is built around DPLA, a strategy to diversify funding[#diversify] may be envisioned to make this a stronger proposal for the movement. |
| I am unclear what the participants will do for this project and how they will spend their time.[#activities] The proposed outcomes are wonderful, though it is unclear what, how, or when they will engage in activities to accomplish them. |
| While there are some considerations around equity (e.g. facilitation of contributions from smaller institutions), diversity is not a focus of this work[#equity] and the project will primarily serve English Wikipedia[#English] as well as institutions that already have significant digitized cultural heritage collections. |
| This proposal is very strong and I think it will be impactful. However, it primarily serves English Wikipedia and specifically US institutions.[#English] While I appreciate that DPLA has previously sourced other funding for this work and would be making in-kind contributions to the project, they also seem well-positioned to access other funding which is not the case for many grantees applying to Project Grants. If funded, I would like to see planning for the program beyond the grant [#sustainability] (i.e. what is their plan for offboarding participating institutions when they no longer have the capacity to provide more dedicated support?). Other thoughts/questions: could this pipeline/process be used by GLAMs outside the US? How can US institutions participate/become DPLA partners (do they have to pay for membership)? Are there opportunities to reuse existing training resources like those developed for the public library community through OCLC? [#DPLA] I know DPLA is also planning on submitting another (tech-focused) project so if the budget can be reduced or the work partially funded that would make this more appealing. |
| For big projects like that it's required more details.[#activities] The programme manager and the project manager have differences. When I have read "programme manager" I suppose that this is not a project but a programme. Another point is that the programme manager seems to be already identified and he is already fully employed by an institution that has strict relationships with the GLAM. Do we consider a COI in this specific case? [#employment] Specifically, I have some governance doubts. |
| I need to see more clarity around what exactly will be done to justify this cost. [#activities] If it can be accomplished, with more detail and explanations, then I would vote yes on this. Right now, it is still somewhat bold without explanations. |
| This is an ambitious project that would likely contribute to Wikimedia. Yet, the global grant requested is too high, and especially given the institution that is involved and the country it comes from --where alternate sources of funding are available--, this project should provide a strategy to diversify funding sources. [#diversify] I would be comfortable allocating around 15,000 US dollars to this project if a plan for securing alternate sources of funding is presented. |
DPLA's replies[edit]
- Sustainability
- DPLA is a mostly grant-funded organization, which means we cannot say at this point that we have funding lined up for 2022 or beyond when we have not yet determined the 2021 funding that we are requesting in this proposal itself. But we understand the concern about not funding start-up costs for a program that could immediately go dark as soon as the funding you have provided ends. When it comes to the sustainability of the program, there are a few different points we'd like to raise in terms of how the approach we have designed sets us up for future impact beyond this funding:
- First, the program has already been designed with long-term sustainability as a core feature. Most other bulk uploads to Wikimedia Commons are one-off projects from single institutions. We could have used our pilot funding for that approach, building a case study with a small set of institutions. Instead, we involved DPLA's in-house software developers, built the upload system into DPLA's regular aggregation workflows, so that it is performed by permanent—and not grant-funded—staff, and defined a set of data requirements whereby any institution could participate. The purpose was not just to produce a proof of concept to understand what a scaled-up Wikimedia Commons upload project for the entire DPLA network could look like, but to actually operationalize a network-wide pipeline early on, which is now primarily maintained as part of the regular duties of the Tech Team staff—so that its funding and continued operation is not contingent on future grants but can be covered by our membership dues.
- Second, we are focusing on building a program that meets a need and becomes increasingly integral to DPLA and the US GLAM sector. One of the central problems with GLAM-Wiki currently is the high cost of getting started, since most institutions do not already have either the technical skills or competencies to get involved, so it can take a significant investment of resources, often by institutions which are under-resourced to begin with. This program seeks to solve the technical hurdles of bulk upload a single time for the whole field, lowering the cost to participate. It also provides a central support network where DPLA, especially with the program manager, leads a network-wide effort that means each institution is not responsible for designing its own Wikimedia strategy individually. Therefore, while we do not have a specific funding source identified that would, for example, pay for the project manager position in 2022 and beyond, we do know that the work undertaken with this grant funding will increase the value proposition of future Wikimedia engagement (by decreasing the costs associated with leveraging Wikimedia to generate impact) and become a core service DPLA members increasingly rely on, and this will have effects such as raising its priority in the DPLA budget and making it more attractive to future funders.
- Finally, it is worth pointing out that this proposal is not just an outreach program that would disappear if it went dormant, but is actively contributing new content to Commons over the next year that would persist and continue to provide value even if the program ceased to exist. We mention this not to suggest that the program would cease, but simply to note how this approach affects the risk calculation. Based on the track record that demonstrates DPLA can and will upload millions of new high-quality image from dozens of institutions during the grant period, we suggest there is little downside to the project, since even a "worst-case scenario" in terms of long-term sustainability would still leave a legacy of producing more content for Wikimedia Commons than any other entity has ever contributed.
- English-only
- We do not want to give the impression that this project would only support the English Wikipedia, as that is not case. According to the most recently available BaGLAMa statistics for February 2021, the uploads we performed so far have been used on 450 pages on the English Wikipedia so far. Outside English Wikipedia, though, they have also been used on 548 pages, across 72 projects. While we are not specifically training English-speaking American librarians in editing Wikipedias in other languages—which, frankly, we would not have the competency to do, though they could still apply the skills we are providing to other projects on their own if they have those language skills—the impact of this project is not just in the training of and edits by GLAM professionals, but also in institutions contributing digitized media to Wikimedia Commons. The notability of topics is not language-specific, so clearly there has been, and will continue to be, usage of this material from the non-English projects as well, and a benefit to all languages and projects. Altogether, these non-English Wikipedia pages received over 432,000 page views in the most recent month alone, which is certainly a value for the readers of those projects.
- Equity
- Digital Public Library of America brings together resources and collections from institutions across the United States, all on one easily accessible platform. Because of this, DPLA has the ability to inform people about little-known collections and resources as well help coordinate and model best practices in the library/archives field with regard to our DEI values, descriptive standards, and ethical issues pertaining to rights and intellectual property. We explicitly use our platform to consistently promote equity as a core part of our mission. In 2019, DPLA adopted an IDEAS statement, ( Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access, and Social Justice), which commits the organization to "dismantling the legacy of white supremacy in cultural heritage institutions which have pushed the histories of underrepresented groups further into the margins creating an unbalanced view of the past". Further, the DPLA Board of Directors has made a commitment in a June 2020 statement "not only to free access to knowledge, but to continually strive to be anti-racist in all that we do". In late 2020, DPLA also published a Statement on Potentially Harmful Content, which addressed the legacy of systemic bias in its own collections and metadata, and the outdated or offensive language users may encounter. At the center of this work is the development of user-centric practice and investment in internal and external training, as well as infrastructure tools that will enable a more robust and diverse national programming landscape and ensure that under-represented communities are included, particularly as it relates to creating solutions for digital access. All of this thinking is very much intertwined with our Wikimedia work, because this mindset informs our outlook on the Wikimedia program and how we articulate the work to our partners—we see Wikimedia work as an important new form of storytelling that offers particular impact for diverse collections.
- In our initial grant draft, we should have better highlighted the equity component of both this proposed Wikimedia program and the work that DPLA does as an organization. In fact, the initial pilot project that was funded by Sloan was framed around the content of one of DPLA's other major initiatives in 2020, the Black Women's Suffrage project. For a variety of reasons (rights clearance, buy-in, timing, etc.), that content area ended up not being the overall focus of the 2020 pilot, which we instead opened up to all qualifying institutions. A key learning from 2020 was that partnerships are self-selecting. We work with the partners that are receptive to Wikimedia, but we can't force the partners whose content most aligns with our priorities to participate. Therefore, we do not frame the digital asset pipeline as thematically driven, but a tool that is open to any content. The approach still promotes equity, though, because it lowers the barrier to entry for lesser-funded institutions that might not have been able to do Wikimedia work otherwise. It also provides an impactful tool for the many institutions that are currently focused on underrepresented communities to increase public access to those collections. This has a particular impact on libraries in small towns and rural communities, especially in the regions of the United States not served by a chapter or active user group. As an example, in 2020, we uploaded materials from Clarkesville, Georgia, Bayfield, Colorado, and Comanche, Texas|Comanche—all small towns under 5,000 from different areas of the country, and these are the types of geographically diverse institutions that lack an entry point currently outside of our program.
- Finally, though, an important reason we see DPLA's role as housing a Wikimedia program, of which the digital asset pipeline is only one component, is because we will undertake other work outside uploading assets, especially as it relates to broader organizational goals like equity. DPLA itself is focused on telling diverse stories, and carries this mindset into its Wikimedia work—both in the programmatic work we do, and in the outreach and training we do to institutions. As an example, in 2020, DPLA also engaged in a partnership with the Charlotte Mecklenburg Library and WFAE (Charlotte, North Carolina local public media station), in which Dominic mentored a Black woman journalist, Dante Miller, who produced oral histories, media reports, and wrote Wikipedia articles about local Black civic activism in the city of Charlotte. In this project, the Wikipedia expertise housed at DPLA directly resulted in the ability to form equity-focused partnership that addressed race and gender content gaps on Wikipedia—and would not have been possible otherwise. In an October 2020 webinar, results of this project "From Black Women’s Suffrage to Black Lives Matter: A Living Legacy", Dominic educated over 200 participants about Wikipedia content gaps, and how their institutions can help DPLA address the problem. In our March 2021 webinar, "DPLA + Wikimedia: One Year In", we gave a significant portion of the speaking time to Effie Kapsalis, of the Smithsonian Institution's American Women's History Initiative, to discuss their work in addressing Wikipedia's gender gap. This type of outreach is specifically why we need the program manager this grant would fund, because it affords us the ability to educate our institutions about Wikimedia's gaps—from someone who can credibly speak about how Wikipedia works and connect it to the DPLA network's own commitment to equity—and continue to support the DPLA network in undertaking new Wikimedia projects, whether utilizing or not the digital asset pipeline.
- Diversify funding
- Several committee members expressed a concern that the program we are proposing should have more diverse sources of funding. We actually think this is one of the strongest aspects of the proposal, so we appreciate the opportunity to address the concern. Specifically, it has been mentioned that DPLA has other opportunities for funding due to its network of contributing institutions and the fact that it has relationships with other funders. In fact, that is exactly how this program has been designed, and the Wikimedia grant we are currently requesting would only constitute a minority of the program's overall funding:
- This program has already received over $250,000 in grant funding from the Sloan Foundation. This funding has been put towards costs such as initial software development, program manager's 2020 salary, and (pre-pandemic) travel and conference registration.
- The program incorporates significant staff time—beyond the program manager and intern positions for which are requesting funding–from DPLA's salaried employees. This includes the ongoing work from software developers to perform the continual uploads to Wikimedia Commons and maintain the related software; outreach work by several of DPLA's staff, who frequently meet with member institutions or for large audiences, especially director of community engagement; and communications work, such as blogs, newsletters, social media, webinar support, and event promotion, by DPLA's communications staff. These staff resources are funded through non-Wikimedia sources, including member dues and other grants.
- This is a pan-institutional program that will be headquartered at DPLA while encompassing the contributions, and staff resources, from diverse institutions across the country. In one example, a single librarian in a local public library system we partnered with in 2020 has spent over 100 hours of staff time on the project so far editing Wikipedia. In another example, a large public library system recently organized an internal editathon in which 11 staff members attended the 2-hour meeting, which translates to dozens of hours of staff time. Also, many of our partner institutions have expended significant resources meeting the data requirements to participate in the project, working through changes to institutional copyright policy or conducting rights assessments. In addition, DPLA has marshaled the resources of its working groups, such as the Rights Statements Working Group, to help promote the program and provide resources for those participating; these working groups are composed of staff from DPLA's network. The non-DPLA staff are an essential component of the program, since those institutions are the actual source of all the media and metadata DPLA is able to contribute to Wikimedia Commons, and in all these cases, the cost of the staff time involved is fully borne by these other institutions without any contributions from this grant.
- What we see as one of the unique values of funding this project is that impact of the funding will be amplified by the network effect of all the additional resources—not directly funded by Wikimedia—DPLA will bring to bear as a result of the Wikimedia funding. We see the role of the Wikimedia funding as allowing us to provide the central strategy and outreach to activate this diverse set of partners and funding and put them to use for Wikimedia projects, when they mostly hadn't been before we started.
- More specificity on activities
- Several comments questioned what specific activities will be undertaken to meet the goals. For DPLA's part, this is addressed in large part in Grants:Project/DPLA/The_DPLA_network's_Wikimedia_program_for_GLAM-Wiki_in_the_United_States#DPLA, but we interpret these questions to be mostly about what the specific role of the program manager is. The program manager role is essential to ensure continued expansion and strategic oversight over the Wikimedia program at DPLA. They are also the organization's subject matter expert on all Wikimedia matters, with the deep history and credibility with the Wikimedia community that allows DPLA to engage with the Wikimedia community and properly navigate DPLA's partners through the community. This person is responsible for such duties as:
- Outreach and communications
- The program manager is the main point of contact for all prospective or participating institutions. This work involves the ability to represent DPLA in conducting meetings with a variety of cultural institutions and represent DPLA, with a strong understanding of the GLAM field, navigating how the DPLA network operates and how its metadata and aggregation function, as well as all topics related to the DPLA pipeline to Wikimedia Commons itself, and editing and engaging with the Wikimedia community.
- In outreach with partners, this person is responsible for:
- Conducting initial exploratory meetings to demonstrate the project and generate buy-in
- Auditing a partner's to identify issues with rights or advise on any other metadata problems that need to be addressed to meet metadata requirements for participation
- Training GLAM professionals at participating institutions in editing Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, including advising on COI
- In addition to directed outreach to specific partners, the program manager also develops network-wide or external communications that seek to engage new participants or report on outcomes. This includes the DPLA newsletter, blogs, and social media, organizing webinars, participating in
- Oversight of the Wikimedia program
- In consultation with DPLA leadership, the program manager sets the overall strategy for the program, including its goals, tactics, and messaging. This also includes the decision-making and possible implementation for any new project ideas that would fall under the program (see the WFAE project mentioned in #equity for an example).
- In particular, as it relates to the pipeline or other technical projects, responsible for design and requirements.
- Representing the program as needed in external meetings and partnerships. Examples include regular checkin meetings with WMF GLAM staff, serving on the DPLA Rights Statements Working Group (to use the Wikimedia program as a platform for promoting greater open access and better copyright marking), or advising/assisting peer organizations.
- The program manager is responsible for supervising the intern, who will work to translate our uploads into further impact by focusing more directly on content (e.g. engaging communities of interest on Wikimedia projects for content generation).
- Wikimedia community engagement
- Navigating Wikimedia discussions or processes as needed on behalf of DPLA or its institutions. This includes bot requests, deletion discussions, etc. Any time a single entity is uploading millions of items, we need to expect community interaction to arise and have the capacity to be responsive.
- Maintaining connections with the Wikimedia community via constant presence. The program manager is not just an inward-facing GLAM professional. Their job is to be fully part of the Wikimedia community (and, by extension, make DPLA be as well). This is done not just on-wiki, but activities such as by participating in GLAM-Wiki/Wikimedia-related Facebook groups, being active in Wikimedia Telegram channels, attending WREN meetings, and so on.
- In technical matters, while DPLA has in-house software developers, the program manager uses Wikimedia subject matter expertise to advise them on technical issues specifically related to Wikimedia (e.g., Pywikibot, Wikidata/SDC, Wikimedia tools like BaGLAMa,etc.)
- The program manager is also the on-wiki support system for participating institutions' staff just getting started with Wikimedia work. Aside from the formal training described above, the program manager also helps ensure the success of the program by assisting the new editors on an ongoing basis with everything from technical editing questions to intervening in any relevant discussions as needed.
- Outreach and communications
- Clarification on employment
- We believe this comment is a misunderstanding based on User:Dominic's outdated Meta-Wiki user page, which still stated I was an employee of the US National Archives. It has now been updated to reflect the text on projects where I am active, like Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Dominic was previously employed by the US National Archives as a Wikipedian in Residence until 2019, when I was hired full-time by DPLA for the Sloan Foundation grant project. That grant funding ended at the end of 2020, and in months since, Dominic is still working with DPLA on very limited hours while we have been seeking a new source of funding. Please see this edit.
- Other questions about DPLA
-
- Could this pipeline/process be used by GLAMs outside the US?
- Only in very narrow circumstances would this pipeline be available to non-US institutions (rarely, some of our US-based hubs may have international partners; one example is the Biodiversity Heritage Library). However, we do see value in this project outside the United States. DPLA is a global thought in the library space, and occasionally partners or consults with its international peer organizations. In particular, we believe the model we have developed can be replicated by other large aggregators, and we know that this could help the WMF with an examples use when doing outreach to Global South partners just beginning their journey with aggregation and Wikimedia contribution. For example, we have recently heard about the Foundation's discussions with Qatar National Library, who developing the Digital Library of the Middle East, and are eager to support that program in any way we can.
- How can US institutions participate/become DPLA partners (do they have to pay for membership)?
- Most US institutions already have access to participate in DPLA, though the process may vary by location or size of the institution. DPLA's aggregates directly from service hubs, which are regional entities set up to harvest from local institutions in a given area (typically a state). The hub may be maintained by a larger institution (or a few) in the state, such as the state library or a university, with the resources to handle technical needs and DPLA's membership (generally $10,000), and then the hubs each can serve dozens or hundreds of individual institutions. An institution interested in joining, then, would need to contact their local service to begin having their metadata harvested. A very large institution (which would contribute over 150,000 records) would be expected to join as a content hub on its own. Some states do not yet have a service hub, but institutions in these states still have a path to contribute to DPLA via one of these content hubs, such as ARTstor, Internet Archive, or HathiTrust. You can learn more about how the DPLA hub network works here. Any institution, once it is contributing to DPLA, may participate in the Wikimedia pipeline at no additional cost, as long as they meet the metadata requirements.
- Are there opportunities to reuse existing training resources like those developed for the public library community through OCLC?
- Could this pipeline/process be used by GLAMs outside the US?
Round 1 2021 decision[edit]
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. This was a very competitive round with many good ideas, not all of which could be funded in spite of many merits. We appreciate your participation, and we hope you'll continue to stay engaged in the Wikimedia context.
Next steps: Applicants whose proposals are declined are welcome to consider resubmitting your application again in the future. You are welcome to request a consultation with staff to review any concerns with your proposal that contributed to a decline decision, and help you determine whether resubmission makes sense for your proposal.
Over the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has been undergoing a community consultation process to launch a new grants strategy. Our proposed programs are posted on Meta here: Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021. If you have suggestions about how we can improve our programs in the future, you can find information about how to give feedback here: Get involved. We are also currently seeking candidates to serve on regional grants committees and we'd appreciate it if you could help us spread the word to strong candidates--you can find out more here. We will launch our new programs in July 2021. If you are interested in submitting future proposals for funding, stay tuned to learn more about our future programs.Marti (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)