Grants talk:Project/Maximilianklein/WHO

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

Hello from Wikidata LGBT+[edit]

I am just browsing submissions for now. I expect to endorse this. We could use your team's input eventually in designing

Thanks Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, Round 1 2020[edit]

IEG review.png

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 (_AT_) wikimedia  · org.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Generally constructive, could use input from WMF Research and others[edit]

This sounds like a great project, and I think would be a real benefit to the Gender organizing community in the movement. We really don't have a granular enough framework for understanding our progress on biography coverage in the movement-- and these tools have become defacto monitoring for that change. This project would probably benefit form consultation with @LZia (WMF) and Isaac (WMF): who are leading WMF investigations into identifying and tracking knoweldge gaps more generally. Other folks that may provide good feedback or direct the right people to look at this include @MusikAnimal, Marcmiquel, and Rosiestep:.

Additionally, we are going to be working on the Gender Campaign tool as part of a more extensive campaign infrastructure project in the next year -- so surfacing the API from the datasets being developed for this tool, may make it significantly easier to deploy something gende-biography-specific activities within that broader campaign infrastructure (and might demonstrate an alternative model to using such a list building environment). We don't have a roadmap for that yet, so its not clear exactly how that would work. If this gets funded, I would like to make sure we have a close collaboration strategy. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, Astinson (WMF). I've been in contact with both of the grant proposers, including discussions during Wikimania 2019. I'm very supportive of the work they're suggesting, as it will be helpful to the various communities that focus on gender, including Women in Red. The data that will come of this work will be useful for those of us who speak about Wikipedia's content gender gap. I have agreed to be an advisor. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping as well. Always happy to discuss! --Isaac (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
We would of course be glad to work in close collaboration the researchers of knowledge gaps, that's very important to us, and can be part of our early participatory design phase built into the grant. In addition, as @Astinson (WMF): suggests, the API to augment list-making activities is really exciting too. Maximilianklein (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

A few questions/suggestions from Ruslik0[edit]

I have a number of questions/suggestions for the participants of this project:

  1. The first sentence says: "Wikimedia projects hold several million bibliographies". I have re-read it several times and finally realized that it is "biographies" not "bibliographies"!
  2. The project does not explain why merging two existing tools is better than creating an entirely new tool? Are the codebases of these tools so similar that merging them will be so simple?
  3. The project calls for hiring "an data engineer with a passion for feminist technology" or someone who is "a better ideological fit to work on a diversity project then two people who benefit from white- and male- privilege". Why is this so important? This engineer is supposed only to help write the program code. The engineer should be qualified, of course, but what this has to do with ideology?
  4. What types of gaps (in addition to the gender gap ) will this tool help to analyse?
  5. The role of the paid adviser is not clear to me. What kind of advise are they supposed to provide? The adviser as I understand is not going to be someone with a technological expertise?
Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ruslik! A partial answer:
1) This one is my fault, I fixed it. Thank you!
2) In fact, we are merging two projects, that will result in a new tool. Some code from the old tools may be reused (for instance some parts in the parsing of Wikidata dumps with the Wikidata Toolkit).
4) You can have an insight with the mock-ups. At the moment, the idea is to have 7 dimensions (Wikimedia project, country of citizenship, occupation, year of birth, Wikidata property, gender, and date) that you will be able to combine to create specific sets that you want to work on. For instance, you will be able to compare the number and the percentage of biographies for people with a specific country of citizenship across all Wikipedias. You will also be able to examine data quality, like the percentage of Wikidata items with an image and compare this across sets.
Cheers, Envlh (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
These mockups indicate excellent appreciation of the types of analysis needed for future progress.--Ipigott (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there something that couldn't be done with existing tools? It doesn't make much sense to spend foundation resources on building tools ontop of Wikidata Query Service while that service does need additional funding to keep running and already provides the suggested stats. Jura1 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Lack of community notification(s)[edit]

Is there a reason why there is a "TODO" in the proposal? I don't recall this being brought up on Wikidata Project Chat. Jura1 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems the grantee isn't even actively involved in Wikidata. This might lead to the proposed duplication of existing tools. Jura1 (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicates Wikidata Query Service?[edit]

It seems to me that some of these things are already done with Query Service. Jura1 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Jura1, could you please elaborate on which features you are referring that are now available with WDQS? I built this tool because WDQS could not process some of the larger questions (in terms of query-complexity), but things may have changed since then and I would love to know so that we could save even more effort. Maximilianklein (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of World Heath Organization's abbreviation[edit]

In most places the "WHO" is reserved for use by the UN organization. It seems odd to call that grant "WHO". Jura1 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)