We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2017 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through 4 April 2017.
The committee's formal review for round 1 2017 begins on 5 April 2017, and grants will be announced 19 May. See the schedule for more details.
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.
Round 1 2017 Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wikipedian in residence at Gaborone[edit]
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?
6.6
(B) Community engagement
Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
Does it have community support?
5.7
(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?
6.0
(D) Measures of success
Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
Are they realistic?
Can they be measured?
5.1
Additional comments from the Committee:
The project has a clear impact in the African heritage. It can't be replicated in other countries outside Africa, but it could be adapted to other countries near Botswana.
First project in Botswana (maybe).
It fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities and has potential for online impact. Sustainability is unclear as there is nothing in the proposal about it.
The idea of the project is great but I don't see a plan on how the grantee expects to achieve these metrics.
The community supported has an important strategic priority. Impact is somewhat limited.
WiR are always a good fit with strategic priorities. My main concern here is sustainability as there is no evidence the National Archives of Botswana staff will continue contributing to Wikimedia projects after the end of the project.
There are a few risks not evaluated: lack of interest to participate in a editathon, quality of contributions to Wikipedia/Commons.
The project is iterative - just a standard WiR though mainly it is focused on content uploading by the WiR himself. The applicant has only a limited on-wiki and off-wiki experience and the risks may be high. The participants section in the application is empty.
It’s highly measurable but will not the grantee be both the WiR and writer of the articles.
The outcome is measurable but quite poor considering the investment and with very little invested in sustaining the project after the grant.
Iterative project as there were many successful WiR initiatives worldwide. My main concern is that it is not clear whether the applicant has learned from any of these initiatives, getting in touch with former WiR in similar institutions elsewhere would make this a stronger project.
The budget seems fine. I don't see a large experience with Wikipedia/Commons.
Yes it can be accomplished in 6 months, at least in principle, and the budget is likely realistic but the skills/experience is probably lacking.
I am not convinced the grantee has enough experience to be a WiR for this project and will be glad to find out more about his abilities because his contributions don't show this, as most of his edits are just on meta.
User lacks experience to support the staff of an archive.
My general opinion is that WiR should not become something that will be financed 100% from WMF funds. But, in low developed countries or countries in transition, we should do a first step and support it.
It is rather likely the applicant will succeed in this. He has rather moderate Wikimedia experience but he can probably learn from other experienced Wikimedians. Budget is reasonable.
Lack of interest, no community notification.
The community engagement is quite limited.
I don't see enough community engagement with this project and don't know of any other active contributor to support the work, because the WiR can not be the same person writing the Wikipedia articles.
Project does not include any relevant community engagement.
This project is strongly oriented towards diversity. I am not sure there is any active target community. As Botswana is yet to develop an active Wikimedia community, perhaps this will be a first step towards it.
This is an important project to reduce a gap in Wikipedia: Africa is a new continent to be developed by many projects, and this is the right type of project. I have remained neutral due to the budget and because there is not a plan to use the resources or experience in other Wikimedia projects after the grant ends.
It's great to see increasing interest and efforts from editors from Botswana and individuals involved with Wikimedia Botswana. However, I think this proposal is a bit underdeveloped at this time. Specifically I would like to see more community support and planning around community engagement, as well as more details around project activities and how momentum will be sustained beyond the WiR (e.g. how will staff at the archives be engaged; what kind of materials will be targeted for upload; are materials out of copyright; etc.). Would also be nice to see evidence that the applicant has the right set of skills to lead this project and the outcomes of the recently funded (through Rapid Grants) project "Wikipedia-meet-up and workshop." I would encourage the applicant to re-submit in the next round.
I am not sure that it should be funded due to applicant's very limited on-wiki and off-wiki experience. I am not sure that the applicant has an ability to execute the project.
Would need the grantee to prove his ability to run this project and gather enough community to support, or other hands to ensure success on the project.
I support WiR activities in general. This proposal seems to be realistic, except the part: *I will train all the national archives staff*. "All" staff have never been trained till now. :)
This project can be done as a volunteer slowly but steadily.
I am super happy to see wiki progress in Botswana! I like the project but however, I think it is too expensive for uploading 1500 files and improving 100 articles. I have this concern: grantee wrote he will "be responsible for uploading media files to wikimedia commons". I would like to see he is not paid for uploading but for teaching others how.
Cautious support: the proposal is rather good, but the applicant definitely needs to learn from more experienced WiR on how to organise this in order to achieve long-term impact (i.e. to make sure the National Archives of Botswana will continue to be involved with Wikimedia projects after the end of this grant).
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.
A wikimedian in residence is generally embedded in a context where either content or skills are readily available for inclusion in Wikimedia projects. Yet here I read phrases such as "creating a repository", which suggests this work might go towards building an external institutional archive or library or other which doesn't exist yet. It's not clear what "our partnership with Botswana Libraries authority" consists of. --Nemo11:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox says "Setswana Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and other". I see w:tn: only has 640 articles, I would be interested in ideas on how a WIR can operate in such smaller wikis, and what tn speakers are available. It's also good to take out the English Wikipedia if you don't have enough resources in terms of fluent English speakers, for instance. Nemo11:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Round 2 2017 Aggregated feedback from the committee for GLAM/Wikipedian in residence at Gaborone[edit]
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?
7.8
(B) Community engagement
Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
Does it have community support?
7.0
(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?
5.4
(D) Measures of success
Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
Are they realistic?
Can they be measured?
6.4
Additional comments from the Committee:
The project has a clear alignment with strategy about free content, but it lacks to build community around the content. It has a great opportunities to make a great impact online projects. I didn't see -as usual with this type of projects-, how it could be scaled in the future.
The sustainability has become more clear. The uploaded material will probably find its place in Wikipedia articles, Wikivoyage guides and in other projects.
This project is within Wikimedia movement strategic vision. It involves local community and local knowledge centers who lack a digital projection. Impact is especially relevant given the absence of digital material related to Botswana.
I am very pleased to see wiki activities in the Botswana, especially with the GLAMs. Congratulations! Is there a list of institutions with which you will cooperate?
There are clear -but some unrealistic- metrics to be measured. I haven't see a new way to conserve the files uploaded in Wikimedia Commons, and how it will its usage in the Wikimedia projects.
The participant has got significant Wikimedia experience by unloading files to Commons and by contributing to English Wikipedia. So now I can estimate that risks are modest and the potential payoff is high.
Risks are low, grantee should effectively run this project based on other experiences and the investment is relatively low.
good idea but proposal is underdeveloped. there is no clear information about whether negotiations have begun with some institutions already. which material will be scanned? What is the copyright status of the material you are planning to scan?
The budget seems reasonable and it could be accomplished in 12 months if the local organization supports the initiative. I see a lack of process or method to do the workshop with the museums staff.
The applicant has demonstrated that he can achieve at least some of the goals just by uploading files to Commons. So, some skills are present - an improvement since the previous round. Concerns about the budget: $400 each for a table or a chair seems very high.
Grantee should have enough time to complete all the objectives. Furniture & Internet should be provided by institution.
there is no information in which institutions the project will be implemented and where the scan will be done. It is not clear what the chair and table are needed for, and why these things are important for the realization of the project. if the scan is going to be realized in the GLAM institution (and it is very likely that it will) maybe the institution can provide a table, a chair and the internet.
I see a community support, but lack of community notifications and feedback from other users in Wikimedia projects. This could improve the project if the grantee can be seek for more users to be volunteer or help him to integrate the workshops and effective usage/edit in the projects.
The community engagement has improved though is still quite limited. The project will support diversity.
This project should keep looking for more community notifications and supports.
there is community support and i hope it will be from GLAM side, too
I support funding only the staff salary + travels + internet, because the other elements must be supplied by the institution. The furniture has no a clear future after the grant ends.
I am inclined to support this time primarily because the author of the proposal has done a lot in terms of uploading files to Commons and contributing to Wikipedia. Although the proposal itself is not well developed. The due diligence review should show if the participant in fact can execute the project.
Despite increase Botswana content on Wikipedia is necessary, I found that "1000+ improved and/or new articles after 6 months, made by GLam employees" is a very high metrics. WiR will not have desk and chair in GLAM institution, but is asking to buy them, tells that WiR will not be stationed between the GLAM employees to work with them
The budget and the listed items are unrealistic. the project can be realized with less money. max $5000 is enough.
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:
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.
Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on Thursday, May 27, 2021.
Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia · org.
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.
We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2018 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through March 12, 2018.
The committee's formal review for round 1 2018 will occur March 13-March 26, 2018. New grants will be announced April 27, 2018. See the schedule for more details.
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?
6.6
(B) Community engagement
Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
Does it have community support?
6.4
(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?
5.8
(D) Measures of success
Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
Are they realistic?
Can they be measured?
5.3
Additional comments from the Committee:
Usual WiR
I am not sure of the impact of this project as its not clear what the grantee wants to achieve.
There is a high impact potential as currently we have almost nothing. As many other developing African countries, Botswana is poorly covered on Wikimedia projects, thus GLAM initiatives are likely to result in a significant impact on coverage of topics related to the country. Training the GLAM staff will make the project more sustainable.
I am excited for this proposal. I like that the focus is about getting content online and protected from future potential loss. This impact in preserving historical knowledge is huge, especially for emerging Wikipedia communities.
the previous proposal consisted of uploading 1500 files and improving 100 articles. now this number is significantly increased. It remains unclear how it came to such a large increase in expected outcomes. whether the problem was in a bad preliminary assessment or is now a cosmetic number. in any case, if the project will be funded, from the report we will be able to see the ability of team to predict and justify the expected measures of success
Iterative project as there were many successful WiR initiatives worldwide. My main concern is that it is not clear whether the applicant has learned from any of these initiatives, as I am not confident this scheme will work well in African context.
This project has established goals, and specific outcomes. I would like to see connection between some of the other project groups, who would like to work with GLAMs, but have found barriers. I think this person would be a great resource to them, serve as a model for other WIR positions in the region, and make the outcomes of this grant further impactful.
I am indifferent about the ability and capacity of the community to execute this project.
Wikipedian in residence compensation is almost twice as high as the average salary in the country. However, this is understandable, because managers (and WiR is a kind of manager) usually have more than average. the choice and price of accommodation is reasonable
I am very sceptical regarding feasibility following pilot / feasibility testing: basically all pictures are fair use, as they are copyrighted scans without any evidence of permission (for example, this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1980,_Founding_President_of_Botswana().jpg is clearly copyrighted by Daily News and a permission from them is needed). I really don't want to pay for generating content without appropriate permissions, and it would not be an efficient use of funds. This still can be solved if participants undergo some sort of training online or offline but this should be planned somehow...
I am encouraged by the goals of this person in their project. The budget is well thought out and explained. They did a test, but I am not sure how long this testing period took. I would like to know how many organizations they are already connected with or aim to connect with during the project phase to be sure their goals are possible. They are great goals, but if they cannot get access to content because the organizations are resistant, they might not be able to reach their goals.
given that the budget has been reduced and the items have changed and given that the expected number of photos and articles has increased, I support the proposal
This project is strongly oriented towards diversity. There is some community in Botswana, and overall there is some support from Wikimedians.
There is not community engagement planned, which I would hope to see. This could be simply placing notifications of progress throughout the year on different projects or social media. This will help keep the awareness alive, as well as get the historical information to the public. Maybe share a favorite piece of information or picture uploaded each day? Also writing blog posts for the different projects interested in knowledge from emerging communities would be incredible. Those blog posts could be used as a resource by others looking to get involved with GLAMs. The GLAMs want to see proof of what other organizations have done. Change is scary and some worry about the use of their archives and collections. Seeing the success and benefit other GLAMs have received would further benefit the community as a whole. I see a lot of potential for great community engagement, and think you could add some to your project to make it continue beyond this grant period.
Besides 1 or 2 very small edits, the proposal has not changed much from the last round of review. I think this is a bit worrying and is perhaps evidence that the applicant does not appreciate how much work is involved in a WiR position. In previous rounds, WMF staff and committee members have also noted the applicant’s lack of experience. I would encourage the grantee to continue pursuing smaller projects (e.g. through Rapid Grants) to build experience and competency.
No specific comment except some open point about the importance of this material. Surely it is important fo Botswana.
The project is practically a copy of that from the previous round (only funding for a chair and a table were removed from the budget). So, I copied all my scores from the previous round where the project failed during the due diligence review because the applicant apparently lacked necessary skills and experience. I do not know if he has them now. This should be revealed during the due diligence review.
I will be glad if the grantee can be clear on what exactly the project is (whether a photo hunt or digitisation project), if its both he should clearly state that. I will gladly support if its a photo hunt but I won't support a digitisation project at this time as the participant has not proven with enough knowledge or facts on how he/she will run such a project
What worries me about this project is the low degree of change compared to earlier proposals that had concrete suggestions. It remains unclear whether the team understood the suggestion and importance of criticism. given that the budget has been reduced and the items have changed and given that the expected number of photos and articles has increased, I support the proposal
I would stay neutral here. One hand, the idea and the proposal are rather good, and improving Botswana content is clearly worth supporting. On the other hand, the applicant seems to lack understanding how licensing works and we may well pay for generating fair use files without permissions (still better than nothing but not a good investment). Can switch to support if there will be BOTH more commitment from the institution or other institutions owning copyright towards free licenses AND the applicant will be trained / supported by some people with WiR experience, ideally from the region, less ideally by any person with prior WiR experience.
I think this project grant request is very feasible and has a high impact for the dollar amount. The changes I would like to see would be more community engagement. This is important for two main reasons: first, to get the information to the world. Wikimedia is huge. Sharing an image or a document each day would increase awareness of the project and the great history they are preserving. Second, this project can establish a great template for future projects. By engaging with the community, others can model after this project, and additionally, GLAM organizations may be more comfortable collaborating after seeing the result of such a project.
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:
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.
Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on Thursday, May 27, 2021.
Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia · org.
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.
Comments regarding this decision: Many reviewers are interested in supporting GLAM projects in Botswana. However, a majority of did not believe that this project was sufficiently developed for a project grant at this time. In addition, the committee would like to see further signs of mastery of the grant process in Rapid Grants before awarding a Project Grant.
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.
wikimedia · org..jpg){kind=link}