Grants talk:Project/Rapid

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

We welcome your feedback and questions below!

A few things[edit]

Hi, thanks for providing this resource! A few things I'd like to see clarified:

  1. Should a volunteer in a country where a chapter or other affiliate exists bypass this entity to ask money to WMF directly, just because it's easier and quicker to do so? I wouldn't want this to pose a "threat" to entities.
  2. In the criteria, you say "Funds are for direct expenses only, and cannot be used to pay for people’s time", but then you make exceptions later, notably WiR and coders.
  3. "participation that is tied to paid work is not eligible for funding" may need to be clarified. I read that initially as "we can't reimburse expenses to volunteers in projects managed by paid people".
  4. You won't fund someone to create directly content, but producing "materials that are published and released as free and open-source" is OK. Also worth clarifying IMHO. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Elitre (WMF): Hi Erica, thanks for your comments-- I agree there is some clarification needed on these points. Pinging AWang (WMF) and KHarold (WMF) to respond to these. Also, I've moved your comments here from Grants talk:Project/Rapid/Learn in an effort to consolidate feedback about the program details generally. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi! As the manager of Wikimedia France's micro-grants program, I'm also very interested in the answers to these questions. --EdouardHue (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Elitre (WMF): and @EdouardHue: Thanks for your comments and for taking the time to review the program.
  1. Yes, this is an issue we need to clarify. We plan to create a page on Meta and ask affiliates with grantmaking programs to provide links to their programs. We will then ask potential grantees to first check that list to see if their local affiliate offers grants and if yes, encourage them to explore that option, especially since receiving funds locally is often much easier than internationally. We do not want to infringe on affiliates' grants programs, but do want to make sure there are options for people to receive support for their projects.
  2. We have updated the eligibility criteria to clarify this.
  3. We have been using this language for a couple of years on other grants programs and have not yet seen it to be a problem. We will definitely track if others are seeing confusion. Alternatively, if you could suggest better wording we are happy to consider changing it.
  4. The message we are trying to get across is that we do not pay for people to directly edit Wikimedia projects. For example, paying for someone to create an article on Wikipedia or paying for someone's time to go and take photos and upload them to Commons. We do fund research projects or tools development that will improve Wikimedia projects. That research and software needs to be published open-access and be in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Open access policy. If you have suggestions on how to clarify this, please let us know!
Thanks again, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks AWang (WMF) for the clarification, it all makes sense. We will also mention the rapid grants in our micro-grants page as an alternative to consider in case of refusal. --EdouardHue (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I have changed the bulleted list to a numbered one for clarity. Best, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi EdouardHue. Please see the page on affiliate funding I've created here. I have also put a note encourage applicants to check that page in the Rapid Grant "apply" section. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I remembered an existing page with some (all?) grant programs and I found Grants. Your new page is more beautiful, but the old page is more complete and more linked. It would worth taking the better of both pages, if someone is interested. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 17:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @AWang (WMF): and sorry for the late answer. It feels like the note you mention was removed with your last edit. Did I miss it somewhere else? --EdouardHue (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi EdouardHue and Seb35. The Meta page about movement grants programs and affiliate funding is here. Someone created a redirect from the page I created since there was duplicate information. I have now added a note on the Start page for Rapid Grants as well as under the Funding Guidelines letting people know about the affiliate funding programs. Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Rapid Grant already operating[edit]

Dear All. Rapid Grant already operating? When can I apply? Thank you. --Рөстәм Нурыев (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Рөстәм Нурыев . Yes! Rapid Grants are open for applications. You can apply here. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hooray! --Рөстәм Нурыев (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

+

not community[edit]

Grants:PEG/Affiliates_list not our community Wikimedians of Bashkortostan User Group --Рөстәм Нурыев (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Рөстәм Нурыев . That page is outdated. Please use this list. Your group's abbreviation is UG BAK. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@AWang (WMF): Grants:PEG/Affiliates list should be replaced with a redirect then? It was still present in grant application page a few days ago. --Papuass (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Papuass):. Can you please post a link of where you see the outdated page? I fixed the link on the apply page, but maybe you are referring to a different page. Thanks! Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

card position "strategic priority/please add a strategic priority"?[edit]

Где редактировать позицию карточки "strategic priority/please add a strategic priority"? Не нахожу в окне редактирования такую позицию. Where to edit card position "strategic priority/please add a strategic priority"? I do not find in the editing window that position. --Рөстәм Нурыев (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Рөстәм Нурыев, I looked at your draft application and indeed, it seems that the prompt for 'strategic priority' is missing from the template. Thank you for calling attention to that problem. I JethroBT (WMF), can you take a look at the template to see what is going wrong? Thanks, --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@KHarold (WMF) and Рөстәм Нурыев: All set. We've decided to remove this parameter from the infobox for Rapid Grant proposals, so you don't need to worry about filling it out there. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@KHarold (WMF) and I JethroBT (WMF):, Thanks! Спасибо. For information: Wikimedians of Bashkortostan User Group developed Strategic Plan. --Рөстәм Нурыев (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Contact email[edit]

Hi all, I tried to send an email with a question to rapidgrants@wikimedia.org, but I get an error message saying "We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (rapidgrants) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group." Are there permissions that could be adjusted? Thanks! --Lange.lea (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lange.lea, I'll check into this problem - thank you for letting us know. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

grant next[edit]

Dear all! Thank you for a grant. Can I ask for a grant next? Or should we wait for the completion of the first? --Рөстәм Нурыев (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Рөстәм Нурыев. Apologies for the delayed response. Since you've already applied for and received two Rapid Grants, you have the answer to your question : ). Typically, we like to review the report from one project before funding another one. However, it really depends on the circumstances so it's always a good idea to contact us. You can email us at rapidgrants"at"wikimedia.org. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Press release[edit]

Hello! Need a press release about the launch of Rapid Grants program. Is it possible to write a new program message to the Russian Wikinews? --Рөстәм Нурыев (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Рөстәм Нурыев. Apologies for the delayed response. Do you still need some information about the launch of the Rapid Grants program? There is good information about the grants restructure on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. You can also find more details on the Reimagining Grants implementation page. Please let me know if these pages are helpful or if you need something else. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Third-party sites[edit]

I note that at Grants:Project/Rapid/Learn the eligibility criteria appear to restrict applications to projects that improve a Wikimedia project, rather than a third-party site. That seems to run counter to the declaration at Grants:Project and identically worded at Grants:Project/Rapid that "Proposals should support the achievement of Wikimedia’s mission." It seems that the relevant part of the Mission statement is The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. Why is that being interpreted in the narrow sense that this is only possible through a Wikimedia project? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rogol Domedonfors. Thanks for your question. Wikimedia's mission is ambitious and far-reaching. Unfortunately, we do not have the resources to support all projects and sites that share our mission. With our limited resources and capacity, we focus on funding those projects that have a direct impact on the Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia communities around the world. Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I did not suggest that the WMF should attempt to support all projects sites that share the mission, and of course I am not surprised that you do not do so. My question was about projects and sites that support the mission, which is a rather different thing, and which is explicitly in scope. I am sorry that six weeks deliberation on my question did not give you time to address that distinction. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rogol Domedonfors. Apologies, but I am not clear on what you are asking. Can you give us a few examples of projects/sites you think should be in scope? Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Certainly. Consider, for example, a site along the lines of arxiv.org that collects scientific texts and makes them freely available. This surely shares the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation to disseminate educational content effectively and globally. But I am not surprised that you do not wish to fund what is after all a competitor for donations, even though it happens that I think you should, because after all the mission is what's important here.. Now consider a site that collects, say, specialist fonts and makes them freely available. This supports the mission because those fonts could potentially be used to enhance WMF websites, but does not share it, because it is not about disseminating educational content. It seems that you would not wish to consider it, which I find regrettable.
However, all that is somewhat of a diversion. It seems that the answer to my question is that in practice you have made it a rule that proposals must support the achievement of the mission by directly enhancing a Foundation website. This is a major restriction and it should have been made explicit, and the explanation given, up front. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Late proposals[edit]

Hello,

I've only just found out about Wikimedia grants, and was hoping to submit one relevant to an even on the 23rd of August (event page, draft proposal). I realise that this is terribly late notic, and I'm really sorry for that. Is it possible to still submit, or is the 6-week notice period a strict criterion?

Thank you,
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo). Thanks for checking in! We can certainly consider your request. We typically review new Rapid Grant requests on Mondays and can normally approve within one week. It typically takes another 2 weeks to process the grant agreement and send funds depending on your responsiveness. If you open the draft today I can take a look asap. Please ping me when it's ready for review. Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Its been close to two weeks since I posted the Rio Paralympics grant proposal after it was recommended over at TPS, I'm a little concerned that it is getting rather close to the games which is roughly two weeks away. I've emailed the rapid grants and @AWang (WMF): but have had no response. Bidgee (Talk) 21:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

hi, I want to ask about paid ads (facebook Ads - Twitter ads .. etc), I have an project to encourage volunteers outside Wikimedia projects (it is helpful for outreach also), but I need to make ads campaigns to reach more people (normal methods is weak) and these ads cost less than 800$, is that grant is acceptable ? --Ibrahim.ID 07:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you checked whether your posts can be shared via the Wikipedia social media accounts, which have millions of followers? Jeff could help you further. --Nikola (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Move proposal from draft to ...[edit]

I created a new grant proposal at Grants:Project/Rapid/Gikü/Photo expedition before WLE 2017 in Moldova and I observe no activity there (except endorsements). The proposal is automatically listed under Grants:Project/Rapid/Browse applications#Draft proposals, but if I'm right 'draft' should mean I'm still preparing it as an organizer. I'm not preparing it anymore, it's been ready from day 1; how to submit it?? --Gikü (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gikü. If you proposal is ready for review, you can change the status= parameter in the Probox template from draft to proposed. Thanks for letting us know. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you I JethroBT. It was not obvious though. I believe it would help having the submit procedure being described somewhere on the Apply page. Thanks again! --Gikü (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly[edit]

On this page there is a mention of "quarterly Project Grants". I suppose that is an incorrect reference? Would it be possible to link such terminology, for easy browsing? Effeietsanders (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

They are now biannual. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
If that is the current status (I understood the same), the description may have to be fixed :) Effeietsanders (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Excluded[edit]

Is there somewhere a list of all organizations excluded from Rapid grants? There's a general exclusion of 'annual plan grantees', but it is unclear if this also includes simple annual plan grants, for example, and I can't find an exhaustive list anywhere. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong places :) Effeietsanders (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders: Folks who are receiving funds from an APG -- both simple APG and APG -- are excluded from consideration for Rapid Grants. In fact the only grant that APG recipients can apply for are Conference Grants. I'll add some language to the Guidelines and Criteria page to reflect this exclusion, thanks for bringing it to our attention. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: Thanks. Maybe a little background is helpful here. At the time, I was trying to understand if I could advise people to use the rapid grants, or not. As a third party, I don't know per se whether they applied for anything - but there are also some border cases that may be relevant. For example:
  • are you eligible to apply for Rapid while you also applied for APG, but before the APG kicks in?
  • are you eligible to apply for Rapid while you are inside an APG year, which will not be repeated/extended, for a project that only starts after the end of the APG-year?
  • as a group (i.e. non-incorporated non-recognized committee/group) within a larger group with APG (i.e. a chapter), could you apply for Rapid if the chapter does not have that as part of their activities?
  • as a third party, how do I know whether a group has an APG? (I found it impossible to know this for sure - but maybe I don't know how to navigate the maze?)
The easiest way to resolve most of these, is by linking to an exhaustive list with start- and end dates for all groups that are excluded. Two lists, if needed. Does that exist somewhere? How do *you* check whether the group has APG? Thanks! Effeietsanders (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

This is stable and may be marked for transdlation? --Kaganer (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: This question is also for all subpages. --Kaganer (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Grant page layout suggestion[edit]

The reports page for grants has a table with the headings "Target outcomes", "Achieved outcomes", and "Explanation". It'd actually be a good idea to include an explicit "Target outcomes" section in the grant application to directly match. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

About a grant - Providing a Computer to School[edit]

Sir, I am an active Wikipedian. Mostly I edit Wikipedia in English and Telugu. My mother is a teacher in Govt school, near Eluru, India. Students in the school have potential to create at least 10-20 articles per month. But they are lack of Computer and Internet connection. I am sure that I can educate them editing and creating articles in Wikipedia. But will Wikimedia grant money for purchasing computer for them? Can someone please help me with this question asap.—IM3847 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi IM3847. Thank you for your question and contributions to the Wikimedia projects. Unfortunately, we cannot provide computers for schools as we do not have sufficient resources to scale this kind of program. If you can find a place nearby where the students can access a computer lab, we would be happy to consider a project where you train and mentor the students over a period of time. Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Sir, I do even have another idea, I knew a school which have computer lab and we can conduct a edit-a-thon in that school. But whom should we contact about this? And to mention providing school I mentioned above with computers costs less than $1100, which is an acceptable amount, please consider this as they’ll edit Telugu Wikipedia, which has only a limited number of articles. —IM3847 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi IM3847. No need to call me Sir :) Partnering with a school that has a computer lab for an editathon or more regular editing activities is a great idea. I would ask them if this is something they would consider. If you need funds for internet access during the events, food, or other items, we can consider that in a grant request. You can read more about Rapid Grants funding for editathons here. Unfortunately, we still cannot purchase computers for your group. Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I can make contact with a school with computer lab and will confirm about their interest in participating Edit-A-Thon with in a week.-IM3847 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Grant for hosting properitary tools[edit]

I was told I should apply for a rapid grant ($200-500/yr) to cover AWS hosting costs of a music identification tool for copyvio identification. This software is proprietary software and cannot be run on ToolForge or Cloud VPS. How likely is this to be approved. --Dispenser (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dispenser, that's a good question. Relating to software, proposals have generally been associated with software that is open source. On the other hand, this tool is useful for detecting copyright violations, and we have funded website hosting costs in the past on some proposals. Three questions I have up front:
  1. Is there documentation available for this tool?
  2. Who will use this tool?
  3. How will contributors become aware of this tool so it gets used?
Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Information is at T132650 with services overview.
  2. The commercial APIs are use limited. So either posting results to wiki or IRC or a subset of user would be able to directly run the tool.
  3. Undecided, but it on this year's wishlist.
What about the open source AcoustID? I implemented it into an IRC bot (now dead) and as a web tool. Its limited, only picking out <~5% of Wikipedia Zero copyvios. The database just isn't large enough at 8 million compared with Gracenote's gold standard of 200 million. --Dispenser (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): Any thoughts or updates? --Dispenser (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dispenser: I think an application along these lines could be accepted as a trial run for a year. The tool seems effective, and I understand that AcoustID's ability to detect copyvios is limited by its database. A couple of things that are be important to specify in this application are:
  • providing a list of contributors who would be able to run it,
  • posting an example of the results (or describing what they look after the tool is run)
  • specifying where the results would be posted and,
  • what actions would be typically taken based on the results
After running for a year, I think if the tool was effective at detecting copyvios and saw some use in Commons or other projects, you could make a good case for making another grant proposal to renew. Those are my thoughts-- the one place I'm unfamiliar with is whether we should be getting into the habit of funding grants that use proprietary software (even when existing open source alternatives are not viable), so I'm trying to get some answers about that specific question still. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation should not be funding the development of proprietary tools. If no open source solution is available, we should work on developing one. Legoktm (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Legoktm: You're in luck as Echo Nest release their fingerprinting software as open source before being bought by Spotify. So what's needed is several dedicated servers and 5-10 TB of hot storage. ...And a legal team with tact that obtaining and transforming 100 million copyrighted tracks without paying licensing fees from an industry that is notoriously litigious for the smallest of infringements. I'm sure $1-2 million dollars can solve that. Anyway, if WMF is to rebuild proprietary software they should start with their beloved Google Hangouts. --Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm clearly not comfortable with the idea any commercial service linked to such industry could state "We help Wikipédia [sic] to find copyright violations". Especially when it's a workaround for issues caused by a net neutrality violation. The ethics of the grant couldn't be favorable. A certain dose of pragmatism is certainly welcome (e.g. the use of Hangout is such pragmatism, Hangout being the only convenient HTML 5 solution for video communication), but that's not an excuse to accept anything only because it's useful. --Dereckson (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dispenser: I'm inclined to agree with Dereckson and Legoktm's assessments here, and have struck my earlier comments as they were premature. While I believe that the tool being proposed here would be effective at detecting copyvios, a larger conversation around copyvio detection for uploaded music and the tools the community is open to using to accomplish that goal needs to happen first, outside of this specific idea. For now, use of software that is open-source is certainly eligible for funding both through Rapid and Project Grants, as would efforts to improve that software so it is more effective, but I do not think we could fund a proposal supporting reliance on this proprietary software at this time. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Legoktm. We shouldn't support proprietary software. One of our guiding principles is that "we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.". There is an effective open source tool, AcoustID. We can help make it even better (including by submitting new fingerprints), but it's already effective. Mattflaschen - Talk 10:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Mattflaschen, you are misleading with your zealous open source cheerleading. Extrapolating from "8.3 million tracks in first five years" means AcoustID will par track-wise with ACRCloud in the 2030s. At that point we'll be discussing adding H.265 to Commons. Even then, AcoustID is easily foolable by adding sounds to the end of a track. So full album uploads would never be identified. --Dispenser (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Quite simply, the main reason to not invest in proprietary software is a practical one - at the end of the day if everything goes south we're left with nothing. With free software we'd still have a right to fork and build something out of the code that was left. And given the subject area here, I'm sceptical of proprietary software given past history. Legoktm (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Long evaluation, no clear resolution[edit]

I assisted some individuals in applying for grants. In each of three cases the evaluation period lasted for months end ended ambiguously. I made a post at Grants_talk:Start#How_does_the_WMF_grants_team_feel_about_saying_"no"? advocating for clear outcomes to grant applications.

I wanted to share here because these were rapid grants. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki expansion[edit]

Facebook,the most used application,especially in undeveloped and developing countries can be the tool to expand wiki.many people in such countries especially unemployed use wiki just for passing time By colaborating with facebook we can expand it. A new feature like find in wiki should be added in facebook👉 Shiva Gurung (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Shiva Gurung: This question is more appropriate for Wikimedia Forum than Rapid Grants. Anyway, Facebook tried integrating Wikipedia into the walled garden once and (I think) its since disappeared. --Dispenser (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"unethical financial behaviors".[edit]

This was mentioned in the Guidelines and Criteria section. What are "unethical financial behaviors" as described or seen in the past by WMF? I'll not just appreciate WMF answering this but making it a page or adding it to the Learn section thereafter just like Friendly space expectations. Thank you.

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Danidamiobi (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge to Grants_talk:Start[edit]

There are many grant discussion pages. None of them get much conversation alone. The collective effect is that the current system splits similar conversations which ought to be together. Sometime soon, I will merge all talk pages for grants into Grants_talk:Start. Even with many pages merged together I do not anticipate that this one page will get much traffic in the near future.

Sometime soon I will merge this page! If you have comments, please post at Grants_talk:Start#Proposal_to_merge_talk_pages_for_grants. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bluerasberry. Thanks for the notice. While I understand the rationale for wanting to merge the different grant program talk pages, there are specific Program Officers responsible for each program and they are the ones watching the individual pages. It makes extra work as well as increases the potential for miscommunication or lost messages if we merge them all together. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@AWang (WMF): Can you say something about how you balance the cost of staff time versus the cost of community time? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bluerasberry. It will take longer to get a response from the most knowledgable person if the pages are combined. If the question is not a general grants question, we need to identify who the best person is and route that question to the relevant Program Officer. Alternatively, Program Officers watch their program's talk pages and are more likely to respond quickly and accurately if questions are posted there. Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)