Grants talk:Project/Groundings: Black British Archival Workshops

Reminder: Change Status to Proposed today to Submit

Dear Natalieisonline,

Today is the deadline for the 2020 Project Grants Round. If you would like your proposal to be considered for funding, the status= field of the Probox template will need to be changed from draft to proposed, per the instructions at the top of the application page. We have a strict deadline, so make sure to make this change by end of day today (February 20, 2020).

Warm regards,

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Proprietary software

I see that the budget includes financing for proprietary software. That's not an appropriate usage of Wikimedia donors' money. None of the proprietary software you list is necessary: you can for instance use

• phpList.com (mailing list)
• Nextcloud (email, file hosting and syncing, other communication)
• Matrix (chat)
• Redmine, Phabricator or other (project management)

I hope the website will also be free software; if so it's a bit unclear to me how it can cost 360 $. Please see FLOSS-Exchange for more suggestions. Nemo 14:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Scope

If I understand correctly, the proposers don't have any experience with Wikimedia projects or with Wikimedia training. It's extremely dangerous to plan for edits to controversial topics on the English Wikipedia with such premises. You may want to focus on a different Wikimedia project where it's easier to make a positive impact (like Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource), and/or to make sure that you hire a Wikimedian in residence of sorts who will provide proven Wikimedia projects experience and be supervised by an adequate structure for topical skills. Nemo 14:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the new title, it's more informative. The question stands. Regards, Nemo 07:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, Round 1 2020

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for Round 1 2020 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through March 16, 2020.

The Project Grant committee's formal review for Round 1 2020 will occur March 17 - April 8, 2020. We ask that you refrain from making changes to your proposal during the committee review period, so we can be sure that all committee members are seeing the same version of the proposal.

Grantees will be announced Friday, May 15, 2020.

Any changes to the review calendar will be posted on the Round 1 2020 schedule.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia  · org.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Ambitious, scope seems broad, and I am a bit worried about the design -- especially with organizers with limited wikimedia experience.

So in general, I think the ambitions of this project are in line with the broader needs of the Wikimedia community around knowledge equity. However, there are a number of concerns that give me reservation about this proposal:

• First this is a very big endeavour, without endorsement from Movement capacity in the UK: including @MassiveEartha: who has worked in this space for a number of years in the UK, the team of WMUK @Stuart Prior (WMUK) and Daria Cybulska (WMUK): or others. This suggests to me that the team has not engaged with the existing community yet. We had a similar proposal a couple rounds ago from Australia about Women philosophers, and that rapidly got rescoped and then not accepted as the local Wikimedia organization began consulting with the proposers-- I suggest reviewing the concerns with that proposal. I suspect this may be implemented more consistently with WMUK support for a Wikimedian in Residence, than through a massive multi-stakeholder, network engagement as described here -- even if this proposal doesn't succeed, there are probably other ways to pilot such an effort with the extant Wikimedia community.
• I agree with Nemo above -- this may be better started as a data project, with a focus on getting the data into Wikidata, and then piloting light engagement with scholars and others in editathon settings. The amount of work required to even work with one of the mentioned GLAMs in this proposal to integrate there data and identify gaps on Wikidata or Wikipedia is way higher than I think the organizers are anticipating at this point. Projects like Black Lunch Table have demonstrated this level of long term, complex investment requires building the data form the ground up and a lot of complex navigation of community norms. It would be interesting to hear from @Fishantena and Heathart: on the scaling/design concerns here.
• If you are planning to treat this like a campaign, I recommend reviewing previous projects like Art and Feminism, Grants:Project/Smallison/Music_in_Canada_@_150:_A_Wikipedia_and_Wikidata_Project, and the documentation at the Campaigns portal -- running serial editathons/train the trainer activities is a big lift and the design of the project might need to be rescoped. If this is more of a community capacity building initiative, I would recommend looking at models like AfroCROWD User Group and Black Lunch Table

I hope these comments are useful, and I hope you continue to engage the movement on this topic: it seems highly relevant, and could lead to activation of a really important network of actors. However, I don't think the current design of the project is set up at succeed as a first attempt at a Wikimedia engagement. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF):I agree. I think its important to not create a monolith of projects about Blackness on Wikipedia, of course, but interested in seeing what the organizers would do for a year organizing on Wiki before such an ambitious project. What partners do they have that are familiar with Wiki challenges and available tools? Curious as to what @Raggachampiongirl and Fishantena: think too-Heathart (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Amazing project

Fantastic and necessary proposal. In all honesty, knowledge on how Wikipedia operates is easily attained especially as the community is so supportive. The crux of the project would be in providing and researching the data input. Knowing previous projects both proposers have initiated and been involved in I’m confident this would make a valuable contribution to the global commons. Huddak (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Response from Project Leads:

Thank you, everyone, for your generous feedback and we hope you are all as well as you can be during this time. These comments and questions have indeed been very helpful to us and we have mediated on this deeply. We hope to address all of your concerns and comments below:

To reiterate, we are primarily concerned with the accessibility of free, well-researched and reliable sources for the general public that covers a substantial breadth of Black lives in Britain over the last century, as there is for African and African-American histories. We have highlighted the existing pages for Black Britain but they are disjointed, with large gaps in time and without continuity due to the lack of updates. The focus of this project will be on contemporary Black British culture in the UK. The specificity here is important to deal with decades of benign neglect of the histories of minority groups in Britain.

What this kind of open knowledge movement offers is an opportunity to bring the existing praxis of sharing knowledge demonstrated in Black community and radical archives in the UK into the digital age. With the support of Wikimedia, diligent planning and personal investment, any effort to correct this is worthwhile. Due to the current public health crisis, we have radically redesigned and rescoped our goals, creating a new plan of action. There are several ways we plan to address this challenge:

• Establish remote partnerships with a subset of existing Black GLAM organisations in the UK. National Archives at Kew, Black Cultural Archives and the British Library are all digitally accessible for this project.
• Recruit and retain at least 15 editors over a course of 12 months. With them, we will conduct online training, editathons, and workshops (partnering with GLAM/ community and radical archives where we can).
• Establish new pages on English Wikipedia for three categories of interest;

1. Black British Publishing and Literature
2. Black British Film and Television
3. Healthcare and the NHS in Black Britain.

Here we wish to directly address some of the concerns Nemo, JethroBT, Astinson (WMF) and Anthere highlighted: — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalieisonline (talk)

Proprietary Software

Thank you for these suggestions. Most domains cost up to $30 per month with hosting included hence our costing for this. Although we have identified a free domain offer from MailChimp, this will remain in the budget in the instance the MailChimp domain we require is not available. This is the industry standard. Notably, in the link to @Nemo provided to FLOSS-Exchange, many non-profit organisations combine FLOSS tools with proprietary software. Some of the SAAS solutions we listed (e.g. Slack) are already used by Wikipedia organisations whilst others (e.g. Asana) have comparable proprietary alternatives (e.g. Trello) listed in the FLOSS-Exchange list. This sets a clear precedent which makes the assertion that proprietary software is “not an appropriate usage of Wikimedia donors’ money” both confusing and inconsistent.

One of the most important considerations for our project team is familiarity with existing tools and not creating unnecessary obstacles for new editors from underrepresented groups in the Wiki community. One of our core values is not further entrenching the digital divide by introducing more unfamiliar technologies. Many people, including those within the Wiki community as demonstrated in the FLOSS-Exchange list, are familiar with Slack and the other tools we have proposed. We have costed this as a way of promoting inclusive project management principles. We hope that from reading our project proposal, yourself and the other reviewers will recognise how important this is for the demographics we are in community with. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalieisonline (talk)

Some people use proprietary software with their own money, but they don't ask grants to do it: that's the difference. It's the difference between asking a grant to help kids join a rehabilitation program and asking a grant to help them increase the amount of cigarettes they can buy.

I still didn't hear a reason why you'd need that software. A wordpress.com paid domain costs less than 50 €/y and seems to include all you need. Various other very popular offers exist for internet hosting which combines a web space, email and other things, for even less than that.

Wikimedia offers various tools for free too, for instance I mentioned Phabricator. Have you considered that option? Using what the community uses will make you more effective. I'm available any time to discuss your needs and find the most effective solutions for them. Nemo 14:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Design/ Scope

Your concerns here are valid and given the circumstances we have radically descoped our proposed list of Wikipedia pages by 50%, narrowing our focus down to publishing, film and television, and healthcare. We also have reduced the number of editors we plan to recruit from 50 to 15 and have identified three GLAM partnerships which we can activate remotely for purposes of this project. We have updated our application to reflect a new plan to cover less topics, working with a smaller team and over a longer period of time. Please refer to ‘Project Plan/Activities’ for these details. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalieisonline (talk)

Experience and Expertise

• “This suggests to me that the team has not engaged with the existing community yet”
• “..this may be implemented more consistently with WMUK support for a Wikimedian in Residence, than through a massive multi-stakeholder, network engagement as described here”
• “You may want to focus on a different Wikimedia project where it's easier to make a positive impact (like Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource), and/or to make sure that you hire a Wikimedian in residence of sorts who will provide proven Wikimedia projects experience and be supervised by an adequate structure for topical skills.”
• “Focus on getting the data into Wikidata, and then piloting light engagement with scholars and others in editathon setting. Projects like Black Lunch Table have demonstrated this level of long term, complex investment requires building the data from the ground up and a lot of complex navigation of community norms.”

We have successfully garnered interest from multiple influential and prestigious scholars, artists and cultural workers who wholeheartedly support this project and have voiced the urgency of this work as evidenced in our endorsements. We have the explicit support from experts and peers in our chosen topics including but not limited to:

• Professor Patricia Daley, Professor of the Human Geography of Africa and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Oxford University
• Leila Kassir, Research Librarian of British, USA and Commonwealth Literatures at Senate House Library
• Dr Zoé Whitley, Director of Chisenhale Gallery and previously a Curator in International Art at Tate Modern
• Dr Joy White, Lecturer in Applied Social Studies including Research Methods and Media and Social Change: Race, Class and Ethnicity
• Dr Gemma Romain, from the Equiano Centre based in UCL's Geography Department specialising in Caribbean and Black British history

Short of sharing our C.Vs it is not possible to outline our full experience in granular detail, suffice to say, it is extensive and most pertinently, well-tailored to the work outlined in this proposal.

In her role as an archivist and researcher, Rianna has been responsible for assembling and cataloguing valuable collections of historical information for artists and institutions. Working with a variety of public and private sector clients to appraise and oversee collections of art, ephemera and heritage items accessible to the public. Due to a sustained long-term engagement with Black British communities and their organisations, she has procured a specialist knowledge of cross-disciplinary visual and literary cultures. Through self-initiated projects over the last 10 years, she has accumulated a worldwide network of institutions and their directors. Her proven track record, in producing original content, working directly with multi-stakeholders between the U.K, U.S and the Caribbean. Her intergenerational network engagement with a goal-oriented focus would be attested to by many referees.

Natalie is a technologist and ethics advisor who has led multiple complex technology projects across three continents; leading global digital strategy initiatives in the semiconductor industry, managing complex consumer-facing software projects and advising governments and private sector clients on artificial intelligence ethics. She has presented her research internationally, at academic conferences, for boards and guest lectures regularly. She is also often invited to review grant applications for tech philanthropy organisations and interview grantees on their behalf or as part of a panel as an artificial intelligence ethicist and expert in her field.

Through our independent practices, we have already garnered a wealth of relevant data and have engaged with our peers and other professionals in small and large settings, using the publishing initiatives that were available to us. This project would allow us to continue this work on a larger scale and further reach, which can only be of benefit for everyone.

We have used social media and personal contacts but due to the exclusivity of Wikimedia, we were not able to connect with anyone in a substantial way before this project proposal was finalised. Although we have not intentionally ignored the existing Wiki Community, we welcome and invite any support and training from experts; below we outline a neat resolution to this feedback.

As far as we are aware, there are very few Black Wikimedians-in-Residence in the UK, perhaps only one. Through our outreach work garnering feedback and support for this proposal, we have now been made aware of Kelly Foster’s wonderful work as the chapter lead for Creative Commons UK and founding organiser of AfroCROWD UK, an initiative to encourage more people of African heritage to contribute to Wikipedia and it’s sister projects. Foster has over 15 years of experience in the UK's community archives sector and is a founding member of TRANSMISSION, a collective of archivists and historians of African descent. We have updated our budget to include four training-the-trainer sessions and our hope is that we can commission Foster to deliver this training. Contingent on funding, we are keen to engage and support existing efforts to encourage more Afro-diasporic folks to contribute to Wikipedia, especially in the UK. Within the project team we have a combined experience of 50 years working with Black communities in the UK, specifically around digital literacy, arts outreach, cultural engagement, archival research and publishing.

Open knowledge frameworks are regularly incorporated into the way we distribute work, engage with audiences and outreach in communities. We hope that navigating Wikipedia community norms which @Astinson characterises as “complex” will be offset by an ethics of care and inclusive environment, as this was our hope when applying. Crucially, the literature around the Wikimedia Foundation’s attempts to address underrepresentation, diversity and inclusion indicates that initiatives such as Friendly Spaces Policies, a strategic focus on principles knowledge equity which Chris Shilling describes as, “a central tenet in the Wikimedia movement’s strategic direction focused on supporting communities that have been ignored or poorly resourced by structures of power and privilege” and the investment in tools like “the Scribe [which] will provide guidance on structure when starting a new article and will be tailored to the needs of contributors in underserved communities.” These initiatives, tools and strategic directives offer our community a great deal of hope in the compatibility of this proposed work. We were particularly grateful to receive encouragement and an endorsement from the Black Lunch Table user group via @Raggachampiongirl, “From the BLT user group, we deeply support the work of other archivists, Wikimedians, culture works which reflects the breadth of histories, lives, collections that are underrepresented on Wiki and elsewhere. Our hopes that this project moves forward.” — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalieisonline (talk)

Thank you for your extensive answer but I'm afraid this only reinforces the doubts with a number of additional red flags: tech philanthropy, artificial intelligence, social media... that's not kind of skills which typically flourish in the Wikimedia projects. What do you mean by "exclusivity of Wikimedia"? Using social media is exclusionary; have you tried sending an email, which is a more inclusive method of communication? Anthere suggested a couple possible recipients, we also have mailing lists for those who are not used to our usual discussion fora on the wikis. Nemo 13:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Themes

• “I think it's important to not create a monolith of projects about Blackness on Wikipedia, of course, but interested in seeing what the organizers would do for a year organizing on Wiki before such an ambitious project. What partners do they have that are familiar with Wiki challenges and available tools?”
• “If I understand correctly, the proposers don't have any experience with Wikimedia projects or with Wikimedia training. It's extremely dangerous to plan for edits to controversial topics on the English Wikipedia with such premises.”
• “Interesting project. But am I stating the obvious if saying that I could not identify any former wp contributions from the two project leads ? Better team with already existing teams such as AfroCrowd ? Wikimedia UK ?”

We agree that Black people and their cultures are not a monolith, and in fact, our project directly counteracts that idea through dedicated consideration of subcultures outside of the U.S.A and Africa. The specificity of our areas of interest is both intentional and urgent; it is important to address the decades of benign neglect of the histories of minority groups in Britain, who have contributed tremendously to every arena of British life with little to no reprise. These three proposed Wikimedia entries will not create a monolith of any kind, rather, they have been carefully curated to specifically outline the nuances of Black cultural life in Britain as well as foster better understanding and encourage engagement from ethnic-minority communities in their own histories, legacies and cultures within the UK.

BLT: “We mobilize the creation and improvement of a specific set of Wikimedia documents that pertain to the lives and works of Black artists.” AfroCROWD: “A main aim of AfroCROWD is to promote participation of people of African Descent in the Wikimedia community and increase content about people and events in Africa and the African Diaspora.”

Both BLT and Afrocrowd specialise in engaging Black communities and their lives (as quoted above) and so we find it quite disarming to have elements of our project declared as ‘extremely dangerous’ and ‘controversial’. We are unclear and unsettled as to what about Black British culture would cause such an intense concern? Especially considering that our proposed pages would correlate with already existing entries about Black Britain.

To frame the project in these derogatory terms, which reinforce racial stereotypes, directly contravenes all of the literature we have read around the Wikimedia Foundation’s effort to increase the representation of minoritised grounds, which Black people in the UK belong to. The insinuation that we ought to redirect our efforts “to focus on a different Wikimedia project where it's easier to make a positive impact” is also concerning. Would the contribution of open-source knowledge on Black culture in the UK on Wikipedia not be “a positive impact”?

This is a comment from a recent endorsement from a concerned researcher, who without prompt has expressed their own barriers of access and discouragement when attempting to engage with Wikipedia efforts. With this project ourselves and Wikimedia have the opportunity to make a tangible difference for the current Wiki Community and those who may feel excluded:

• “This project is well needed. I am intending to start work documenting influential Black British people and businesses. There are elements of bias by some administrators who quickly delete pages citing that they are not relevant. This is incredibly frustrating, we need a more diverse group of wiki editors who are able to contribute and educate.” (Sidesix)

We hope that the endorsement of peers and mentors in our communities who we hold in high esteem and whose work has been recognised internationally will add to the case we have made above. Crucially, this is an opportunity to address a huge gap in the digital landscape; the citation, cataloguing and sharing of knowledge on Black life in Britain. This proposal, building and learning from other pioneering projects within the Wikimedia community such as Black Lunch Table, AfroCrowd and Art+Feminism, attempts to dedicate time and resources to this important work. We hope that you, as so many of us do, see the value in this endeavour. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalieisonline (talk)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Groundings: Black British Archival Workshops

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?	5.3
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	3.8
(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?	2.5
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	3.8
Additional comments from the Committee: This project fits with the strategic direction of knowledge equity (by focusing on Black British culture) and to a lesser extent the strategic direction of knowledge as service (through partnerships with Black GLAM organizations). The project will operate in a specific area (Black British) even if it's not clear how much is underrepresented in this content. The project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities. However it is difficult to say whether the expected results can be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends. Moreover it is not clear what these results will actually look like as editing English Wikipedia without any experience may lead to problems. I am supportive of a project that promotes the inclusion of marginalized community but this particular project does not look like it could be sustained. I also do not think the goals of the project could be achieved if it target the English Wikipedia. As others suggested on the proposal talk page, Wikidata and Commons may be a good start This project seeks to address the challenge of supporting the knowledge of communities that been ignored or poorly resourced by structures of power and privilege. While I like the idea of partnering with Black GLAM organizations, I think there is a significant risk with focusing on archives. New editors already face significant barriers, and archival sources can be challenging to work with (and can potentially lead to original research). While I recognize the need for diverse forms of content creation when it comes to marginalized knowledge, I’m not sure the project team is familiar with some of these issues as relate to Wikipedia. Lacking innovation, and the area of operation is limited, in addition it already close the access to a specific group (Black Wikipedia editors in the UK). The approach seems to be innovative. However the impact is unclear and risks relatively high as the grantees neither have much experience in Wikipedia editing nor have clear understanding of what they are going to do in English Wikipedia. Unfortunately there is also not any evaluation plan and the measures of success are very sketchy at best. They are: creating 3 article during one year, recruiting 15 editors and uploading (what does this mean?) 60 contributions. This does not look very impressive for almost $90,000 requested. The risk associated with the success of this project outweigh the goals in my opinion. The project team has extensive experience in cultural engagement, archival research, and working with Black communities in the UK. However, they have seemingly very little experience with Wikimedia projects. I think the project would benefit from a reduced/more focused scope. Some of the budget items are also unclear to me. Weakest aspect is that the volunteers have never edited Wikipedia, how they will train other editors? I am not sure that the grantees are capable of executing the project due to their lack of experience. The budget seems to be excessive for the planned results. The grantee has not enough experience to execute this kind of project and I am not seeing any serious endorsement and commitment from the supporting community, the WMUK There is support from experts and folks working in GLAM organizations, however no strong support from Wikimedia UK, affiliate, or other network of experienced Wikimedians. Limitation to a specific group of editors (Black Wikipedia editors in the UK). Not strict. There is little engagement with the English Wikipedia editing community. No enough support from the relevant communities This proposal feels more like an archival research project that may not be well suited to Wikipedia content creation. I’m generally very in favour of new and diverse approaches to content creation but it seems the project team lacks experience and knowledge of Wikimedia projects and don’t have enough connections/support to navigate complexities and issues (e.g. original research) that will stand in the way of this being impactful. I’d be willing to support if the scope was more focused, the budget reduced, and the project team had experienced Wikimedians or an affiliate on board to guide and advise. The project has several risks, it's not so much impactful. Neutral but slightly inclined to No. I am not sure that this project will contribute much either generally into the English Wikipedia or into the Wikipedia's coverage of the history of black people in UK. The projects leads lack Wikimedia experience, the planned results are few and the budget is excessive for the outcomes planned. Generally, I am supportive of a project that promotes the inclusion of marginalized communities but this particular project does not look like it could be sustained. I also do not think the goals of the project could be achieved if it target the English Wikipedia. As others suggested on the proposal's talk page, Wikidata and Commons may be a good start. The grantee has no enough experience to execute this kind of project and I am not seeing any serious endorsement and commitment from the supporting community, the WMUK. In addition, I don't see how a project like this could be successful without offline activities/meetings etc. The project is ambitious. The grantee should consider working with smaller organisation for a start. Maybe apply for a rapid grant to support it.

Opportunity to respond to committee comments in the next week

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:

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, clarifications or questions on this talk page by 5pm UTC on Tuesday, May 11, 2021. 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 Thursday, May 27, 2021.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia  · org.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Round 1 2020 decision

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:
We will not be funding your project this round. The Project Grants committee strongly supports the idea of increasing representation on Wikipedia of Black British lives over the last century. However, they had significant concerns about the project design. Primarily, their concerns focused on lack of clarity about how the expected results can be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends. Some committee members also expressed concern that the applicant team, while clearly offering advanced and relevant skills, did not have sufficient experience within the Wikimedia context. We believe the proposal has promise, and if you would like to resubmit in a future round, Alex Stinson, Senior Program Strategist, Wikimedia Foundation has expressed in interest in supporting you in revising the proposal to address these concerns and increase the likelihood of future funding.

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.

-- On behalf of the Project Grants Committee, Morgan Jue (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)