Grants talk:Project/OCLC/Action Plan for Wikipedia + Libraries Training in Mexico

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

Project Grant proposal submissions due 30 November![edit]

Thanks for drafting your Project Grant proposal. As a reminder, proposals are due on November 30th by the end of the day in your local time. In order for this submission to be reviewed for eligibility, it must be formally proposed. When you have completed filling out the infobox and have fully responded to the questions on your draft, please change status=draft to status=proposed to formally submit your grant proposal. This can be found in the Probox template found on your grant proposal page. Importantly, proposals that are submitted after the deadline will not be eligible for review during this round. If you're having any difficulty or encounter any unexpected issues when changing the proposal status, please feel free to e-mail me at or contact me on my talk page. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2018[edit]

IEG review.png
This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2018 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through January 2, 2019.

The Project Grant committee's formal review for round 2 2018 will occur January 3-January 28, 2019. Grantees will be announced March 1, 2018. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Superzerocool[edit]

Hi Thinktower, thanks for your project. I have some questions:

  1. I know the action plan is created for one delimited context (this case, Mexico), but It could be replicated in other Spanish-speaking countries such as Argentina, Chile or Colombia?.
  2. Why is important, to OCLC, fill the gap in New Readers goals?.
  3. How was the retention rate of new users after 90 days in the US project?.

Kindly, Superzerocool (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Superzerocool, thanks for your great questions!

  1. I know the action plan is created for one delimited context (this case, Mexico), but It could be replicated in other Spanish-speaking countries such as Argentina, Chile or Colombia?.

A: Yes! We thought the very same thing and a similar planning approach can be replicated in other Spanish-speaking countries. There are differences in the library and library training infrastructure in each country which will impact the specific plan, so that information would need to be gathered first.

  1. Why is important, to OCLC, fill the gap in New Readers goals?.

A: OCLC builds networks among libraries across the world so that, working together, libraries can transform lives and communities. Libraries share Wikipedia’s mission around ensuring access to knowledge; we see libraries as natural partners for expanding access to Wikipedia to more people. However, we are aware that relatively few library workers are active participants in Wikipedia. A training program that communicates the value and relevance of Wikipedia to libraries and their communities, and provides library staff with the skills to confidently engage with Wikipedia will position libraries to help fill the New Reader goals as they help their users navigate and use Wikipedia.

  1. How was the retention rate of new users after 90 days in the US project?.

A: The US project was not focused converting librarians to become active editors, but instead focused on introducing librarians to Wikipedia in a way that allowed them to see natural alliances with their work; and then invited US public library staff to a create their own individual engagement plans. We introduced a range of Wikipedia activities that intersect with librarianship, including information literacy instruction, staff training, organizing programs at the library, evaluating and editing article. Our post-course metrics show that we were highly successful in helping to spark those connections for our learners.

Editor retention was not a primary goal of our first project; however, we did use the Outreach Dashboard to track the editing activity of 237 librarians who took our course. During the course they made 4598 edits, and another 1622 in the three months after the course. During the course and the three months following, the group edited 844 articles (including 10 newly created articles), adding 97300 words.

Best regards, Thinktower

Questions from KCVelaga[edit]

Hi @Thinktower: thanks for working on this proposal. To get a better understanding of the project plan, I would like to have responses to the following questions:

  1. The plan for awareness is good, but since the New Readers team is already working on similar lines, how will you ensure that there is no overlap of work done by the two teams (New Readers and yours)? Also did you have any discussion with the New Readers team about this proposal. Since they've been working on creating awareness since 2016, do you have any plans to integrate or use their expertise and network while executing this project? If yes, please explain.
  2. Question No.1 in the context of Mexican chapter
  3. Question No.1 in the context of Community Program team (GLAM and The Wikipedia Library)
  4. The "Community notification" section of the proposal doesn't contain any links to where the relevant Wikimedia communities have been informed about this proposal. Since community engagement is an essential aspect for any proposal, please direct me to notification links.
  5. How do you think that this plan (or its followup) will eventually benefit Wikimedians or improving content on Wikimedia projects?
  6. Whom do you think a potential "Regional Outreach Consultant" can be? (No specific names, but the skills/experience you'll be looking for)
  7. Please explain the division of work between the Regional Outreach Consultant and OCLC staff
  8. US$19,430 has been allocated for the compensation to OCLC staff and 4 staff members were listed. Since it takes majority (~60%) of the grant, I would like to see a more detailed breakdown alongwith the number of hours for each person.

Thanks again for working on this proposal. Looking forward to hearing from you. KCVelaga (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi KCVelaga, I'm acknowledging your questions, and will post responses this week. We've added some information under the Community Notification section; thanks for pointing that out. Thinktower
@Thinktower: Thanks for the reply, and updating the section. Also, please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign at the end of your messages, only then I'll be able to receive the ping. KCVelaga (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@KCVelaga:, Thanks for your patience as I learn the markup language. Here are responses to your questions.

  • Answer to Q1-Q3: Thanks for highlighting this concern and giving us the opportunity to give some additional background. We most definitely do not want to cause duplication of effort, and designed this proposal to complement the work of the New Readers team. We are fortunate that Marti Johnson from the WMF Community Resources team introduced us to Anne Gomez from the New Readers team. We met with Anne to explore topics of mutual interest, and we explored the Mexico field research that Anne shared with us while the proposal was still nascent. We’ve also been tracking the Mexico outreach activities of the team, such as the recently released video. Continuing and fostering that collaboration with the New Readers team is important to us as we consider undertaking this project, and we are confident we are on a good track for that. Jake Orlowitz from The Wikipedia Library (and a core member of the WMF GLAM team) was an early champion of our work, and has been a regular part of our discussions, including advising us on this project. We will continue what has been a fruitful collaboration with Jake and his GLAM colleagues. A partnership with Wikimedia Mexico is very important to us; Marti and Jake have similarly brokered exploration of mutual interest between our two organizations. We feel very fortunate to have had access to the parts of the Wikimedia Movement you have identified in your questions, and are particularly thankful to Marti for making introductions and for expert guidance.
  • Answer to Q5: We heartily believe that libraries make excellent partners for Wikimedians and hubs to stimulate awareness of and engagement with Wikipedia projects. But librarians cannot be expected to fill such a role without a clear sense that is worth their time and effort; it is important to show library staff how engaging with Wikipedians and Wikipedia projects can benefit their library, their services to users, and their own professional development. OCLC’s Wikipedia+Libraries training for US public libraries helped hundreds of librarians shift from casual Wikipedia readers to confident Wikipedia editors; many of these librarians were inspired to incorporate Wikipedians and Wikipedia projects into their public programming and student support. A free Wikipedia+Libraries training program for library staff in Mexico would similarly help guide the understanding and use of Spanish Wikipedia by both library staff and their patrons there. Wikimedians and Wikimedia projects can benefit from libraries in Mexico having staff who are confident to engage their users with editing events such as edit-a-thons, information literacy activities, or library staff-focused events such as #1lib1ref.
  • Answer to Q6: For this position we will be looking for someone with experience working in or closely with the library sector in Mexico, with existing knowledge of academic, school, and public libraries and how they are funded and administered. Ideally this would include understanding the role of relevant federal, regional, and local government agencies. We are seeking an individual with research skills to perform a comprehensive environmental scan and the interpersonal skills to cultivate relationships with potential advisors and partner organizations.
  • Answer to Q7: The Regional Outreach Consultant will gather data, conduct the environmental scan, and build relationships and networks in Mexico. OCLC staff will be responsible for project oversight and day-to-day management, analyzing the results of scan and determining the best path forward, then produce the action plan. OCLC staff will also financially administer the grant, write reports, and communicate with WMF staff.
  • Answer to Q8: Four OCLC staff will be involved in the project:
  1. Dale Musselman, Dale.m, WebJunction Learning Manager - 189 hours, $14,752. Dale will be project manager, driving and coordinating the schedule and day-to-day activities required to complete the project.
  2. Sharon Streams, Thinktower, WebJunction Director – 38 hours, $3,497. Sharon (Thinktower) will supervise overall direction and progress, including hiring, direction of consultant efforts, findings evaluation, and developing future proposal(s).
  3. Kendra Morgan, Senior Program Manager – 15 hours, $944. Kendra will provide grant administration and budget tracking, and coordinate consultation for any financial or legal facets of the action plan.
  4. Merrilee Proffitt, Merrilee, Senior Manager – 15 hours, OCLC in-kind contribution. Merrilee will offer expertise as a Wikibrarian, support the Community Notification activities, and other means of community engagement.

The project team will work collaboratively to evaluate and document findings into the action plan. Cordially, Thinktower (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thinktower: Thanks for your detailed responses. I am delighted to learn about the background work that you've already done and your perspective for the project's future. Good to know that you are learning Wiki markup. If you haven't already seen this, this page on English Wikipedia is a good resource to learn the markup language. Thanks again for working on this, all the best. KCVelaga (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for OCLC/Action Plan for Wikipedia + Libraries Training in Mexico[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?
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
(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?
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • WMF's has established this type of projects in this type of areas as very strategic, as so, this project takes much more relevance than others. Taking this in account the potential impact is considerable. Not sure on the possibilities of scaling this project into other countries. Libraries networks are not the same in the US and Mexico but neither in Bolivia (for example).
  • This project is supposed to create a foundation for an impactful project that will fit strategic priorities. In its current state the project will have a limited potential for impact, but its outcomes can be used for creation of an impactful project in Mexico and probably elsewhere in Latin America.
  • The project aims to engage with libraries and librarians in Mexico. This is a project that can educate not only librarians about Wikipedia, but ultimately their patrons.
  • The project can fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities. And I believe it can be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends.
  • The project nicely fits the strategic direction by reaching out to the unexplored grounds. Though this particular doesn’t have significant online impact, the model has an excellent scope for scaling up and make it sustainable. When the follow up of this project rolls out, I am confident that it would substantially benefit Wikimedians and will have an excellent online impact.
  • I appreciate OCLC’s idea to adopt a steady approach (detailed planning and then action) to crack the librarians and libraries network in Mexico. This project’s case study can be useful for other communities, especially the emerging ones, to collaborate with the library community.
One of the focus areas of 2030 Movement Strategy is to identify and collaborate with key partners outside the movement that align with our mission. I believe that OCLC is one such partner with great amount of experience and expertise that can be of benefit to Wikimedians and the movement at large.
  • This project plans on replicating some existing work. There are several case studies and projects carried across the Wikimedia movement where so much can be learn from too. The project plans accordingly and Wikimedia movement will benefit from the research and the materials created. Although this is not a content creation project grantees should also target and measure the number of new people involved with the initiative in order to provide some figures at the end of the grant
  • A mix of iteration (the project was already successful in the US) and innovation (completely new country with a very different context). The idea in itself is good, but there are no measurable targets or measures of success, and risks are rather high.
  • The project is aiming at mirroring the work already done by OCLC, but in an educated fashion so as to really be able to provide impact. The outcomes for this project should not be focused on measurable outcomes, but on the potential of the outcomes. I anticipate this effort will not end after this project period.
  • It is not innovative, but it has reasonable goals and solutions.
  • Though the project overlaps a bit work of the New Readers team, the proposer’s response on the talk page makes it clear that they will only complement the NR team’s efforts but not duplicate them. I appreciate their background work in this regard, and also the conversations with the GLAM team, including Jake who did significant work on similar lines in the past.
Also, it takes a new approach by targeting a specific community, which is always good. It helps to research deep and a get a sound understand the target community, rather than awareness at large. However, I would advise having institutional knowledge sharing with OCLC, to learn from their WiR project is the USA.
  • Both users who are going to be payed have a short experience in Wikimedia movement, this involves some risks but taking in account there is close work already done with WMF and the local chapter, basic guidelines can be provided.
  • I have strong concerns on ability to execute and experience of participants. I am not at all sure this project can be accomplished the way they are doing it. No one of the team has experience in Mexico. Answers are easy to find for people familiar with local context (things like competency level of librarians around web and information literacy are usually known by locals). This project seriously needs one good local expert with knowledge (from Wikimedia Mexico or their GLAM partners) who is willing to learn from the American experience and adapt it. The proposed approach sounds risky and not very cost-efficient to me.
  • I am confident in the timeline and the skills of the proposer.
  • The schedule and budget of the project are reasonable. In addition, I can see some people who have the necessary skills and experience are ready to execute it.
  • The project plan is realistic to be achieved in the proposed duration, and the since the project participants have experience leading projects and managing senior roles in organizations, I am confident of their capacity to execute this project.
During the first look, I felt the budget is a bit high, but their breakdown explanation on the talk page makes things clear. It seems reasonable.
  • So much community engagement has already been done in Mexico area, specially with this new campaign or video. Working closely with already build-up networks of collaboration or existing projects in Mexico should be a priority in order the reach proper levels of community engagement, a proven key of success when drawing an action plan for the training program.
  • No community engagement. There are names, but these seriously have to be contacted before application. These people should have been involved in the project design as they can bring answers to many questions quickly and for free. Lack of Spanish-speaking people on board and lack of any support from Mexican or Spanish-speaking community are red flags for me.
  • This project has appropriate engagement with the existing community members and chapters to provide support, guidance and context where needed.
  • They seem like get the support from the local community already.
  • The current plan does not explicitly benefit Wikimedians working on Spanish Wikipedia or even the Wikimedians from Mexico. However, the follow-up project may be of good potential in this regard. Since they are already in touch with the Mexican chapter, I would suggest using their network to involve some Wikimedians in the project’s activities. For example, an awareness session for librarians, a #1lib1ref session, etc. It would help the local Wikimedia community to understand the project and its importance. On the other side, it also helps OCLC to chip in into the local Wikimedia community for future collaborations.
  • I cannot support it in the current state. I don't see a need to find people in the US who make an investigation on work of librarians in Mexico while this can be done by working with Mexican community (luckily big enough and with some track record of GLAM experience). The project lists many good partners but work with them should have been done before the project was announced, however, there is no evidence of any community engagement. In my view, the entire plan has to be reworked: it should be centred around exchange of experience between Mexican GLAM volunteers (who probably know or can easily identify partners), potential partners who are willing to learn on one side, and US OCLC who are willing to share their experience on the other side. That would be much cheaper and much more impactful.
I might move to "Yes, with changes" if there is a real involvement of partners listed in the proposal and real exchange of experience between OCLC and Mexican chapter, volunteers and partners, and the project plan is adapted accordingly.
  • I would recommend funding this proposal primarily for two reasons. Firstly, it targets a specific community and invests a decent time on planning for action. Such models are rarely seen and can be a case study for several other emerging communities. Secondly, OCLC is a strategic partner for the movement, and I believe that such partnerships will reap many other fruitful collaborations in the future.

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.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to Aggregated feedback from the committee[edit]

Thank you for your comments to our proposal. I have made some additions to the grant proposal to clarify some of the points:

  1. Added some details about community engagement activities that have already occurred
  2. Expanded on the outcomes of the project
  3. Expanded on the dissemination of outputs and learnings from the project.

Thinktower (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Round 2 2018 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, $30,625 USD

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee supports OCLC’s efforts to design a plan for a Wikipedia+Libraries training specific to the needs of libraries and their staff in Mexico. While expressing some concerns that a specific partner for this work has not yet been identified, the committee appreciates OCLC’s past community engagement work in this area and that the applicants are prepared to execute this project at one of multiple scales depending on the particular partnerships the organization it is able to secure. The committee recommends that the applicants prioritize working in collaboration with Wikimedia Mexico and relevant government entities in Mexico to secure the partnerships needed for this work to succeed.

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.

Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)