Grants talk:Project/sek2016/Feature improvements to Wikimedia Programs & Events Dashboard

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

September 26 Proposal Deadline: Reminder to change status to 'proposed'[edit]

As posted on the Project Grants startpage, the deadline for submissions this round is September 26, 2017. To submit your proposal, you must (1) complete the proposal entirely, filling in all empty fields, and (2) change the status from "draft" to "proposed." As soon as you’re ready, you should begin to invite any communities affected by your project to provide feedback on your proposal talkpage.

Warm regards,
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Request/Clarification[edit]

Hello sek2016. Thanks a lot for your project proposal and for working so hard on the P&E Dashboard.

I am a heavy user of the P&E Dashboard, and I am especially interested in seeing this amazing resource be developed. I have a couple of questions, a mix of requests and clarification-needed points:

  1. You have listed 5 features on the proposal. Could you please refer to the pertaining GitHub issue?
  2. Could you please develop the rationale for each feature you are proposing to develop? More specifically, could you please explain how the Dashboard works now for each feature and what we would gain with what we are proposing? (For instance, as I use the Dashboard a lot, I understand clearly what we get from features 1, 3 and 4, but I am not sure about the other feature.)
  3. There are many things we'd like to see developed on the Dashboard --I have myself contributed a bit with some requests for enhancements on the GitHub and directly to Sage. Why did you choose these features and not others that could be developed? I am trying to get a sense of how you have come up with priorities.
  4. I was not sure how features you have listed connect to the answer you gave about the problem you are trying to solve (first question), that emphasizes edit-a-thons. Could you please develop how features you intend to develop are related to "rough edges and needed improvements" for running edit-a-thons?
  5. You have said the 5 features you have listed are "some" of the work you'd be doing. What are the other features you intend to work on? Are they on the GitHub?
  6. I am a bit concerned by the lack of a wider, deeper strategy for community engagement. The Dashboard is a new tool for non-EN communities, and it is not so well-known. It requires, furthermore, a lot of voluntary work for translation. I was involved with the launching of automatic resources from the Dashboard on Wikipedia in Portuguese. I don't believe any other community at this time has decided to adopt these automatic resources yet. What can be done better to engage users with the Dashboard?

I look forward to hearing from you! --Joalpe (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I also want to see an explanation how those five features were chosen and generally I want to see some kind of plan of activities with a timeline as well as better measures of success. Ruslik (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Joalpe and Ruslik. Sorry for the late reply, lately I have been busy with exams.

  • Referring to the doubts #1 and #2, I have referenced the GitHub issues with the respective Features and their rationale under the same. For the 5th feature, additional information will be added to the fields not easily understood by the user.(discovered while user testing)
  • Referring to doubt #3, I have chosen these features depending on the user requirements discovered during my previous user testing sessions.
  • Referring to doubt #4, I'll start by working on the feature which will make it possible to create a lot of new Wikipedia accounts during the events like edit-a-thons from a single IP address. The Design improvements made by some of the features listed will make it easy for edit-a-thons organizers to use the Dashboard. I am planning to work on the Issue- Instructor should be able to add multiple Available Articles at the same time. This will quicken the process of adding available articles. One of the users Heather Hart said that We don't add currently if the number of articles is huge, So we just mention them on our Wikipedia Page.
  • Referring to doubt #5, I will fix other major issues that are identified in user testing sessions, I don't know what all of these will be yet.
  • Referring to concern #6, For engaging with the users, I have been connecting with users from various communities and would keep on increasing the awareness about the new features and the benefits of using the Dashboard.
  • Referring to Ruslik's doubt, for identifying measures of success I will ask Edit-a-thon organizers who have used the Dashboard before to provide feedback on the improvements. -- sek2016(talk) 20:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI: I moved the page[edit]

Just a quick heads-up that I noticed that there was an extra space before the page title of Grants:Project/_Feature_improvements_to_Wikimedia_Programs_&_Events_Dashboard, so I took the liberty of redirecting it (and this talk page) to the current, corrected, page title. I left a redirect behind, so the page move shouldn't disrupt anything or confuse anyone. Jtmorgan (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Feature improvements to Wikimedia Programs & Events Dashboard[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?
7.4
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
5.8
(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?
7.0
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
5.4
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • The project isn't focused in the content but it has a lot of synergy with our affiliates activities and how they must obtain the metrics. There are a lot of chances to make a great impact into the movement (affiliates) to make more measurable our activities.
  • The dashboard seems to solve an old problem and to help the community.
  • This small project probably falls within Wikimedia's strategic priorities and has a potential for online impact by improving the organization of editing events. I think the improvements to the dashboard can be sustained after the end of the project.
  • This project has a direct use for daily volunteers who need this type of platforms. Although sustainability cannot be assured this project could very well scale into an effective solution for wikimedians all around the world. It is in the Wikimedia movement interests to support editathon's and similar events organizers.
  • Dashboard is a great tool with great potential for development and practical use
  • I see good ideas to be implemented and a well planned program of bugs to be solved. There are some risks about the time to take to do the improvements in the tool and how is reporting the success of the project. I see a lack of interest to ask to community about the new features and bugs to be solved, but it isn't too important because she published the code as open source in github, so anyone could file a new bug to be fixed.
  • This project is of iterative nature. The risks appear to be low. However the applicant should provide specific measures of success, which are currently absent.
  • The possibility of a meaningful project is high given the risks. Measures of analysis the outcome are poor, this project should aim for a bigger audience and a bigger test field.
  • success is not measurable. there are no clear measure of success
  • Absolutely, she has all capacity to improve the tool and the budget seems fair.
  • The project can be accomplished in the 12 requested weeks. The budget seems to be realistic. The participant appears to have necessary skills.
  • Budget seems efficient.
  • the proposer has the necessary skills and history of work, budget is realistic. The question is whether there is a technical part of the community that is interested to develop it for free.
  • I see a lack of notification and engagement of new users to support or testing new features and bug testing. I'm really happy with volunteering of a WMF staff member.
  • The community engagement and support seems to be relatively weak.
  • Community engagement is nearly in total absence. Worldwide communities should be called upon to help develop and bring this forward.
  • Community support is very weak. The wider community has no information on the use and significance of the project Dashboard. The proposer intends to inform the community later, and I believe that information at an early stage is necessary for creating the course of development and realization of the project.
  • (I'll stay neutral if there is no changes in the proposal) I want to see more clear metrics before fully support the proposal, because the success could be measured in anyway.
  • The participant should provide more specific measures of success and substantiate the list of improvements that he wants to make.
  • This proposal has a very interesting idea but lacks preparation and this may affect decisively in the outcome.
  • it's unclear what will be done ( grantee wrote: ....Some of the features I will work on..... We need an accurate description of the work and the measure of success

Response to the feedback[edit]

Regarding the Community Engagement
The usage statistics of the Dashboard can be viewed on the Usage Stats Page. More than 7000 editors have logged in to and used P&E Dashboard. Sage mentioned that dashboard is already getting substantial suggestions from the community via the 'Report a problem' link. Considering the scale of use already happening and the high volume of actionable feedback, Dashboard has more things which are to be improved that we already know the community needs. That's why I have not emphasized much on additional community engagement.

Regarding the Overall Measure of Success
I have mentioned that I plan on resolving at least 4 issues per week depending on the complexities involved and have 6 or more user testing sessions for verifying the problems solved. Also, once i solve the listed issues, I will fix other major issues that are identified in user testing sessions, I don't know what all of these will be yet and their complexities. So, I cannot provide definite numbers.

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 March 1st, 2019.

Questions? Contact us.



Round 2 2017 decision[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

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

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, 7200 USD



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.



Request for extension[edit]

Request for a change to the completion date and start date for my grant[edit]

  1. The new proposed completion date will be 31 August 2018, and the corrected start date will be 6 June 2018.
  2. I require an extention because I had my karate black belt exam in April and training was tougher than I expected. I submitted few code patches in March and after that was not able to produce quality work. I request WMF to adjust the reporting schedule of my project So that I have enough time to finish my final report.

Sincerely, -sek2016