Grants talk:Project/PKW/OpenGLAM Accelerator.IL

Project Grant proposal submissions due 30 November!

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 cschillingwikimedia.org or contact me on my talk page. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Eligibility

@Leohasadna88: Hi Leohasdna, this is Chris Schilling, the program officer for Project Grants. Thanks for your proposal. There are two matters concerning grant eligibility that need to be addressed in this proposal before it can be considered for further review this round:

• First, Project Grant proposals should be completed within a 12-month period. We are not able to fund projects over a two year period. You will need to revise the proposal and scale the work based on what can be completed with 12 months.
• Second, it is not clear what parts of your current budget would be funded through this proposal. This will need to specified in the budget section.

Please make these revisions before the December 11th deadline for eligibility decisions. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. the amendments have been made - one program, lasting no more than 12 months, and budget revisions. @Leohasadna88:

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2018

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) 15:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Asking for some clarifications

Hi Leohasadna88! I'm Sandra Fauconnier, Program Officer for GLAM and Structured Data at the Wikimedia Foundation, and reading through your application to check if everything is clear to me.

I was at the GLAM-Wiki conference in Tel Aviv, and am very happy to see OpenGLAM take off in Israel :-) As you are applying for Wikimedia-sourced funding in this proposal, I have a few clarification questions relating specifically to the Wikimedia focus of this project.

1. You mention in the application with most emphasis that you intend to let the participating GLAMs contribute to Wikidata, but it looks as if you also intend to include contributions of media files to Wikimedia Commons. Is this correct? Is the distinction between both projects clear to you? If you plan to contribute both data and media files to Wikimedia Commons, I would encourage you to acquaint yourself and the project participants with Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons, which combines both and offers many opportunities for innovation (and potentially tool building and technical development).
2. I would like to hear some more detailed plans or ideas about developers' input, and the MVPs you want to develop through this project. The Wikimedia movement has a lively developer community itself, including many people who already build tools for and with GLAMs. If you intend to train developers in this area, I think it's very helpful to introduce them to this existing community, and to look at existing examples. I'm also curious if you can give more concrete examples of ideas you have around what the MVPs will be. Will it be a requirement that they all will work with Wikimedia projects?
3. In your application I haven't seen references to active involvement from either Wikimedia Israel or Israel-based Wikimedia volunteers. If you want to provide a successful educational trajectory that leads to deep understanding of Wikimedia projects, I think their involvement is crucial. If they are already working with you on this, I'd definitely highlight their role in the proposal. Do you have concrete plans in how to engage your local Wikimedia contacts and community?
4. Relatedly, I think it would be good if you would notify relevant Wikimedia communities of your grant proposal. Typically this is done on Village pumps of Wikipedias in the relevant language (in your case Hebrew), and in your case I think it's also good to notify the Wikidata project chat. I would also encourage you to notify the broader GLAM-Wiki and OpenGLAM communities. You can subscribe to Wikimedia's GLAM mailing list. If you use Facebook, you can join the GLAMwiki Global group there.

Thank you for your input; wishing you a lot of good energy and inspiration for your OpenGLAM work! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarifications

Hi Sandra, Thanks very much for your questions and comments.

1. Re Wikimedia Commons, yes there were contributions to Wikimedia Commons in the pilot program. The course coordinator and tech leads - who would be running the program - were and are acquainted with Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons. In addition to this, a representative of Commons Israel gave a presentation at the pilot program.
2. We already have contacts with the Wikimedia movement in Israel and some wikimedians overlap with our community of volunteers (see endorsement). Since participants have not yet been chosen, we cannot at this stage give detailed plans on specific input. However in the pilot, the Israel Film Archive project see case study worked closely with Wikidata and commons. Although the pilot strongly encouraged interaction with Wikimedia Israel, this was not a requirement in selection criteria. Nevertheless, since we do require participants to be able to release collections without copyright restrictions, this could be a requirement.
3. Wikimedia Israel was actively involved in presenting to participants, and with the Israel Film Archive project there was a close collaboration. see case study. The upload of material continued beyond the end of the program.
4. Thanks for your suggestions about releasing to the community - we will be doing that.

Kind regards, and thanks a lot for your interest! -Leora

@Leohasadna88: Thanks for responding Sandra's questions, and working on this proposal. I would like followup on your responses to get a better understanding.

• Thanks for pointing to the case study with Israel Film Archive. It is still unclear that how Wikimedia Israel was involved in this and also I would like to more about the online impact achieved from this collaboration.
• Have you notified the community through channels suggested by Sandra? 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.
• What are the project's goals around online impact?

Looking forward to hearing from you. While responding, please use the start-ping-end template to notify the user, and sign your messages at the end using four tildes (~~~~). KCVelaga (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for PKW/OpenGLAM Accelerator.IL

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?	5.0
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	4.8
(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?	3.0
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	1.8
Additional comments from the Committee: I understood that this a participation to finance an entity external to WIkimedia movement. In this case it would be interesting but I don't see an impact in the movement. The project fits with the strategic direction of Wikimedia, but the potential online impact is not very impressive for this project. Since the project aims to foster partnerships with GLAM institutions, the impact is very much dependent on how well these institutions use Wikimedia projects for their activities or projects. Though this project can be a good case study for other emerging communities, I am not confident about sustainability and scalability in the context of this particular project. The openness to other entity is good, but I am unsure that this project can be replicated. The approach is innovative, but the potential risks are more. I say this because the project is more focused on individuals rather than institutions. I am not sure that training one individual will help the entire institutions to bring their collections to Wikimedia projects. The project plan doesn’t mention how will these OpenGLAM specialists who will be trained are going to educate GLAM professionals back in their institutions. The impact (20+ images/docs etc.) for a project of this scale is too less. They seem to be new editors. Surely they can train about open knowledge, lesser about Wikimedia projects. The participants of the project demonstrate leadership and I am confident of their ability to lead the project. The overall budget of the project ($100,900) is too much for a project of this scale, and relatively they have a weak online impact. Apart from that, the amount request from WMF ($25,000) funds two personnel to develop tools for institutions. This approach is not realistic. There is no plan around how these tools will be used the by larger Wikimedia community apart from these institutions. Also considering the overall project budget, around 50% goes into remuneration, and even $41,000 for meetups is a bit high. With reference to my comments for Criteria C, I firmly believe that many training costs can be cut down by including Wikimedia volunteers in the project’s activities. It is mentioned in the proposal that they’ll be working together with Wikimedia Israel, but the proposer’s comments on the talk page are not clarifying on the extent of involvement the Chapter. Because Wikimedia Israel is a well-established APG funded chapter, effectively using them, can save much of these project’s costs. Neutral position. I think that, if this project will be approved in this preliminary phase, there is a lot to discuss about the impact that it may produce. They demonstrate confusion (as seen in the proposal and in the talk page) about the difference between wikidata and wikimedia commons. They don't really have any good ties to the Wikimedia community. There's a lack of community engagement and the budget needs serious rework. The overall project budget is too much, relative to the potential online impact. The approach is new but involves a lot of risks. The plan doesn’t engage the local Wikimedia community and the Chapter well. It is a fact that Israel has a good Wikimedia community, but only one endorsement for the proposal, makes me feel that it doesn’t have the support of the community.

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.

@Marusya32 and Leohasadna88: Please see note above about the opportunity to respond to committee comments before they finalize a decision on your proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. With thanks, --I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Round 2 2018 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.

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, KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)