Jump to content

Grants talk:Project/Rapid

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

We welcome your feedback and questions below!



Hi there, I'm a first-time applicant. I would be grateful if anyone could kindly clarify the following: I changed the status of my application from 'draft' to 'proposed' however it's still appearing under the 'draft proposals' list. How do I move it to the 'open proposals' list? Thanks in advance! EditingDentist (talk)

@EditingDentist: Hi there. I noticed this issue as well. Your proposal is in the correct category for open proposals, so it will be reviewed. Sometimes the list of proposals doesn't update immediately, because of the mechanics of how categories are updated. If you do what's called a null edit, (e.g. edit the page but change nothing about the contents), this will force a refresh of the contents, as opposed to displaying what has been there recently. I've gone ahead and just done this, and I now see your proposal under the correct heading. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@I JethroBT (WMF): Thanks so much for your help! EditingDentist

Hi! Now is who use. Wine Max (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

A few things


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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
Thanks. I have changed the bulleted list to a numbered one for clarity. Best, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Rapid Grant already operating


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

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


not community


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

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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply

card position "strategic priority/please add a strategic priority"?


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)Reply

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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply

Contact email


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)Reply

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

grant next


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)Reply

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)Reply

Press release


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)Reply

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)Reply

Third-party sites


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Late proposals



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)Reply

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)Reply



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)Reply


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)Reply

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)Reply

Move proposal from draft to ...


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply



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)Reply

They are now biannual. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply



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)Reply

@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)Reply
@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)Reply



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

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

Grant page layout suggestion


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)Reply

About a grant - Providing a Computer to School


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Hi IM3847, are you a part of the Wikimedia & Education community? Just hosting an edit-a-thon in a school might not be the best way to engage teachers and students. I would suggest you engage with our community, join the Wikimedia Education Greenhouse online course, or the Wikimedia & Education Open UG meetings to learn more about how to organize impactful activities. Learn more at the Education portal on Outreach Wiki

NSaad (WMF) (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@NSaad (WMF):Hi, thanks for suggestions. I've had this discussion with our community. We're planning to work with Telugu Wikisource community to upload audio files for Telugu Poems.--IM3847 (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Grant for hosting properitary tools


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)Reply

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)Reply
  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)Reply
@I JethroBT (WMF): Any thoughts or updates? --Dispenser (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Long evaluation, no clear resolution


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)Reply

Wiki expansion


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)Reply

@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)Reply

"unethical financial behaviors".


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)Reply

Merge to Grants_talk:Start


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)Reply

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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply

Proposal showing as "Draft", not "Open proposals"


Hi I started Grants:Project/Rapid/Swwiki workshop astronomia. In the list Grants:Project/Rapid/Browse_applications it is shown under "Draft proposals", not "Open proposals". What do I have to do to get it under consideration?? Kipala (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kipala, I see you've already changed your grant to proposed. I will review and respond shortly. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

No response to Grant Proposal


I applied for a rapid grant on the 15th of August and it's already September but I'm yet to get a reply from the WMF. Just wanted to know what's happening. Here's the link to the grant Launching of Wikimedia Fan Club, EKSU. SuperSwift (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

No response to Grant proposal from Wlodzimierz Lewoniewski


@WJifar (WMF) and AWang (WMF): No any response to Grant proposal during last month - Grants:Project/Rapid/Presenting the results of researches on Wikipedia quality at Wiki-Сonference 2018 in Saint Petersburg. Emails also without responses. This is very sadly. This speaker was supposed to come to the conference on September 22-23. Is it possible to solve something FASTLY? --Kaganer (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Examples - maybe update?


Since the lower limit for application has been set to $500, I don't think that examples like 'Reimbursement of bus tickets for a photo walk' and 'Food for your monthly community meet-up' are relevant anymore... I suggest a quick review. Thanks. Gikü (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Response to Grant Approval and Grant release for Wiki Women for Women Wellbeing proposal


Hi Alex Wang (WMF), I understand there are numerous grant requests and the team is busy, but in spite of a number of reminder emails to rapid grants team, I haven't heard anything regarding release of grant till date when the grant request was approved on 25th September. This is a humble submission that please update me about the current status of the same. This is the last week of the month and the funds haven't been dispersed till date, also depending upon the event progress, we are extending the event till 24th November. So, you are hereby requested to share the status of the grant. Thank You. - Manavpreet Kaur (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Manavpreet Kaur, I'm responding on behalf of Alex Wang (WMF), thank you for your patience as we worked through the proposal and glad we've moved forward with this now. WJifar (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

No proposal review this end of year?


I have submitted my proposals since november 2018. Today in december my proposals still can't be reviewed. Are they still going to be reviewed this year or next one? What's exactely the problem?--BamLifa (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello BamLifa, I apologize for the delay in review. We have been experiencing high volume of requests. Could you please clarify which request you're referring to? The only one I can find with your name on it was in draft. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hello BamLifa, you can ignore my earlier message. I found two grants from you and commented on them. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion about the new grant system


Please do not book consecutive months for any special type of events. As in, if "Wiki loves monuments" is the only grant for august, please do not put any restrictions on September.

That way, grants have to wait a maximum of 30 days before they can be made. Like shift a August plan to september.

Right now, if I wanted to plan something in August, the earliest I can do them is October. Similarly, January plans wait till March.

It's not good thinking. I overall disagree with the limitation in the first place, but that's a different discussion that is probably visited and revisited. I do however think that communities will suffer if there are such large spans of time when rapid grants are unavailable.

Soni (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Soni, thank you for your input on this. Unfortunately, this year's schedule is set but we will take this into consideration for the next year. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Awareness Grants


Hi all,

What that means? Could you create a page to explain it and give some examples?

Thank you. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

WJifar (WMF) any light here? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@R.T.Argenton: Hi Rodrigo, Awareness Grants are basically any project aimed at introducing and teaching about Wikimedia projects to communities who are not aware of them, or may not be aware of how to use them. Some generic examples are listed under the General promotion campaign and video campaign in the Plan your project page. Some specific examples include funded projects that came out of the New Readers Inspire Campaign. Do these resources help answer your question? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I JethroBT (WMF) I did not received the notification, and this account is not connected to the others, sorry for not answering.
This helps, I wish I could see this earlier, but okay.
Thank you.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

No response to Proposal


I applied for a rapid grant on the 3rd September draft to proposed and notification through email as well. I didn't receive any review and reply about proposal my proposal Grants:Project/Rapid/WEP-Digital_literacy_for_Student_Teacher from WMF Nawaraj Ghimire (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rapid grants only available for seven months of the year


Hi everyone. I am trying to organize a training session/edit-a-thon to improve Wikipedia's coverage of climate change. I understand the desire to prioritize contests and campaigns, but the current restrictions are having the effect that for things that don't pertain to one of the existing contests and campaigns, there are only seven months in the year when organizers can apply for funding. So I'm just pointing out that 1) the prioritization of certain contests and campaigns is having the effect of making it more difficult to organize any other kind of event that might be equally worthy, and 2) There is fundamentally a tension between the idea of a "rapid" grant system and having to wait several months for the next window in which the thing you want a grant for is not excluded. Clayoquot (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Clayoquot, thank you for leaving your comments here. We're continuously working on improving the rapid grant program to respond to the needs of the community. We've received a lot of feedback regarding the constraints and we'll be exploring different solutions in the next fiscal year. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. This issue was a depressing reminder for me about the ability of the world's institutions to pivot in response to the climate crisis. Does the WMF have any funding bucket dedicated to improving content around climate change? Clayoquot (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Small grants available for Wikimedia GLAM projects in the Global South


Hi all

Wikimedia Sverige has a small grants application open for people in the Global South who are interested in events and other projects with GLAMs. Please do pass this on to people you think would be interested or suitable for a grant. The projects need to be completed by February 29, 2020.


FindingGLAMs can fund events that improve the quality and quantity of data related to galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAMs) and other cultural institutions on Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects. This could include, for example, events to train librarians to add information to Wikidata, research events with historical societies to find lists of cultural institutions in your country, transcription projects for Wikisource etc. The focus of the project is making more material available on the Wikimedia platforms rather than creating new material (such as by purchasing scanning equipment and digitizing books).

Funds can not be used to cover the event participants’ time or lost income from other work. Applications to cover trainers’ or organisers' time or lost income from other work have to be filed with and transferred through a local Wikimedia affiliate.


John Cummings (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello John Cummings, thank you for sharing this information with us. I will pass it on as necessary. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much @WJifar (WMF):, please do pass it on to people you think would be interested, happy to write a blurb for you or whatever, just let me know what you need. John Cummings (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Email account for user group members


Dear everyone, We are a new recognised user group (UGHK) and would like to provide emails for members. Could we apply a rapid grant for it? Or there are easier ways to meet this target?

Hi Temp3600, and congratulations on Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong's new recognition! Thanks for your question about e-mailing services. Rapid Grants are typically used to fund one-time expenses for specific projects, not ongoing operational expenses such as e-mailing services. You can create a new mailing list (@lists.wikimedia.org) for the usergroup for free-- please review these instructions to create a new mailing list. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Financial rules


Could you link me to the page of Wikimedia's financial rules? I dont know how is it exactly called, but I have seen it during the execution of my project. Juandev (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Juandev: Sorry, I missed this request. I'm not certain, but one resource that might be helpful is the Funding guidelines for Rapid Grants as well as Documenting grant-related expenses. If you are referring to some other kind of financial rules, please let me know. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Results of that evaluation


> We're currently working on evaluating the program and results of that evaluation will be available on September 30, 2019.
Is there a link to this results? :) Iniquity (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Iniquity: Unfortunately, no. This work was partially completed, but due to staff departures in the over the past year, we have not yet had capacity to develop this work in a public-facing report. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the answer! :) Iniquity (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply



Hi, are the equivalent of WikiCite/e-scholarship grants possible through this process, please? Having gone through one via WikiCite, they are quite useful for bringing together teams that would have otherwise met and collaborated at a hackathon, but can't do so at the moment due to COVID. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mike Peel: Hi Mike, sorry to have missed this question after returning from the holidays. Currently, Rapid Grants is not resourced to be able to support these sorts of proposals as the WikiCite program does. However, we have had a chance to review practices and outcomes from that program so far, and there are a number of aspects of the program that I think could be adopted by Rapid Grants in the future, including arrangement like the one you describe. These and other changes to our grant programs are ones we are considering the in the Grants Strategy Relaunch process we are currently engaged in. IF there are specific kinds of funding criteria or needs that were supportive in the WikiCite program, this feedback would certainly be welcome there. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@I JethroBT (WMF): Thanks for the reply, I hope you do consider adding it in the future. I was mostly asking as I would have applied for one in if they were available here. Hopefully @Wittylama: can follow up in the relaunch discussions from a strategic perspective, all I can say is that they were very useful as a grantee to bring a group together to work on a topic. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

When will grants be decided?


There is inconsistent information. Grants:Project/Rapid/Learn#Application_timeline says the 15th of the next month, whereas Grants:Project/Rapid/Apply says it's the end of the month of application. Which one is correct? Femkemilene (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Femkemilene: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've edited these pages to reflect better our current practices. We try to get decisions to applicants by the end of each month. However, this may not be possible for several factors including the current load of Rapid Grant proposals for review, responsiveness from the applicant, and the need to resolve certain requirements to prepare a grant agreement or meet eligibility. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Numbering Items


Would anyone mind if I numbered the items in the tables? I occasionally need to quote the items in conversations and it would be much easier if they were numbered. I JethroBT (WMF). Do you have something against it? Oscar . (WMF) recommended that I talk to you, because we are in doubt about how to do the code.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

From Grants:Project/Rapid/Learn --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Felipe da Fonseca: Hi Felipe. Yes, numbering and referring to items by their item number is perfectly fine, and has been done by other grantees in the past. Is this in relation to a table for a budget or some other kind of table? It it also OK to make a spreadsheet using Google Sheets instead of making an on-wiki table if that is preferred. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
I JethroBT (WMF)Actually I would like to standardize and fix the numbering, so this creates a common language, so it needs to be onwiki. It's not just for a single activity: a) it's about offfwiki discussions of criteria; b) but also about eventual onwiki discussions: since I'm striving to improve communication between the en.wiki and the meta and WMF, for example: when I finish the translation, I'll make an announcement talking about the grants and I want to mention some items. Do you have any idea what codfication to use?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
I JethroBT (WMF) I don't want to have to number it manually, because then it would have to be changed every time. Do you know what wikicode would number automatically or do you know of someone who can do it?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
I JethroBT (WMF) Ping.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Felipe da Fonseca: Sorry, I have not had sufficient time to look into good practices for numbering criteria using the table. The usual practice of using the # markup doesn't work well for tables, and I know that using the <ol> markup is I think is discouraged because HTML markup is generally discouraged for formatting in that manner. Speaking more generally, while I like the idea of a general reference system using something like numbers for clarity, I do not think it's a good idea to invest a lot of time into developing this system at this stage though, because I don't know exactly how the funding guidelines or their presentation and formatting will change with respect to regional committees. If we start numbering them, and then a number of changes need to be made to the funding guidelines, it may be confusing for applicants. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
(Translation markup is another complication here, as it often is.) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I JethroBT (WMF) thank you for your answer. Okay, let's wait to number this, but did you see in my post at "Wikimedia Forum" how this kind of numbering is important? It makes it much easier to know what we are talking about. My topic at Wikimedia Forum was closed, but could you please comment what is expected to be done with these norms after the implementation of the regional committees? --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Digitization project


Hi! My team is planning for a digitization project (a kind of GLAM, but rebranded to something else) and are planning to ask for Rapid grants. As for this project, we will need camera and scanner for the project. Can this be bought as the material for the project? This is because the section in Facilities, equipment and materials stated "any equipment for purchase such as laptops, book scanners, cameras, and projectors" is not eligible for funding. What if the equipment to be share amongst Wikimedia community? Is it possible? Thank you. WAqil (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@I JethroBT (WMF):, @WJifar (WMF): I'm sorry to ping you guys but I kind of need attention for this. Looking forward for yall comments. Thank you! WAqil (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@WAqil: Hello Wafiq, thanks for this question about equipment purchases. We are currently in transition with our funding programs, and the Rapid Grants program is in the middle of transitioning to the Rapid Fund program. It will operate in a similar way as Rapid Grants, but one important change is that our funding guidelines will not be the same. Our funding guidelines are now intentionally more open and flexible to focus on the general needs for different kinds activities and projects, and less focused on eligible or non-eligible expenses. This change means that yes, some equipment purchases may be proposed and considered. However, this does not mean that all equipment purchase requests will be funded. For example, equipment intended for personal usage or very limited use for movement-related activities is unlikely to be supported. Regional Committees and Program Officers reviewing proposals will also want to see a clear explanation of how the equipment will be used to support the stated goals of the proposal and why it is important. The expected impact of the project may also be a consideration. As you've noted, I think it is a good practice to develop a concrete plan and system to share equipment with other volunteers as well (such as using a system like this one), and to think about how the equipment will used beyond the grant period. (Also, on a separate note WJifar (WMF) is no longer working at the Wikimedia Foundation.) I hope this provides some guidance on your question. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Confusing categories


Hi I JethroBT (WMF) or anyone else from the WMF – I'm a bit confused about these two categories.

What are the differences here, as I cannot seem to make sense of this. - Fuzheado (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fuzheado: Yes, I can understand why this would be confusing. Category:Funded Rapid Funds in FY 2021-22 is the one that will be used moving forward, and Category:Rapid Grant funded in FY 2021-22 is no longer necessary to use as far as I know. Because Rapid Funds and our new general funding structure did not launch exactly at the beginning of the fiscal year (i.e. from 1 July 2021), we were still processing proposals using the Rapid Grants program for part of the year before we officially launched, so there are some recent grants that fall under that older category. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm still confused. Does this mean that Category:Rapid Grants is deprecated and is for archival purposes only? If so, shouldn't that page state that so we don't go looking there for Rapid Grant funded content in 2021? Should we be looking at Category:Wikimedia Community Fund - Rapid Fund instead as the master category? - Fuzheado (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fuzheado: That's correct. And yes, I agree we should indicate these changes more clearly on the relevant category pages. I'll see if I can complete this work using a relevant template or notice on those category pages by early next week. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks much! Looking forward to more clarification on those pages. - Fuzheado (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fuzheado: Just following up here, but I've made this template and have started to incorporate on relevant category pages for clarity. I'll be adding it elsewhere later this week, but Feel free to add it wherever you think it might be helpful, and let me know if there's any other clarity that might be helpful to add to the notice. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fluxx.io not working properly


I drafted and put forward two grant applications (/WUG WMSK/WikiGap 2022, /Pride on Wiki 2022). I noticed grant applications should be uploaded through Fluxx.io "after 15 April 2022". I was not sure if it means effective 15 April or 16 April but I tried to upload it through Fluxx.io anyways, however, I was not able to login into the portal (after receiving login details and setting up a password).--Lišiak (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lišiak, sorry I just noticed your comment. Is it working now or should we follow up with you and fix the issue? --DSaroyan (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Old items in timeline


Maybe it's time to remove or archive old items in the timeline section? I mistook the first item saying "April – May" from last year as 2023 instead of 2022 at first, and was confused why things seem to happen earlier than the schedule. If those dates need to be kept on wiki, I would suggest archiving them in somewhere less prominent (like a subpage of this page). (@DSaroyan (WMF):) whym (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Whym, thanks for your question. We are planning to archive the old timeline and add the new timeline for 2023 in early May. --DSaroyan (WMF) (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bank account holders


@DSaroyan (WMF): Who does it refer to? Perhaps this would need to be explained with the help of a footnote. ─ Aafi @ DCW (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @TheAafi (DCW): thanks for suggestion. I will clarify it now. --DSaroyan (WMF) (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion of correction


Hello! I suggest to correct the topic "Cycle 3 - November 1, 2023 - January 9, 2023". Probably "Cycle 3 - November 1, 2023 - January 9, 2024" SSoster (WMB) (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SSoster (WMB), I have been bold and fixed it. I have also marked the changes for translation. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks SSoster (WMB) (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Assessing grant proposers as Wikidata trainers

This is a continuation of a discussion that started at Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Rapid_Fund/Wikimedia_Awareness_in_Nafada_(ID:_22280836)#Problems_caused_on_Wikidata

I'm an administrator on Wikidata, and a large part that job is in dealing with the flood of new items that don't meet our notability criteria, most of which end up having to be deleted. We want to welcome new editors to the community, we want to see better coverage of traditionally under-documented regions, and we want to help editors to grow and improve. We don't want to just throw away items that people have obviously worked hard on but, if they're not done correctly when first create, and the the editor doesn't return to fix it when they receive feedback, then we have no choice but to delete. This is an enormous waste, not only of our time, but also of theirs.

A particularly frustrating aspect of this is that we often see patterns in the creation of non-notable items by new users, typically associated with a specific geographical region. We usually suspect that this is the result of some misconceived educational program or community outreach where the instructors themselves fail to understand how to use Wikidata and are therefore unable to train participants effectively. In effect, the program magnifies the errors of the trainer by reproducing them in the participants. I have to imagine that this does not leave community members with a good impression of Wikidata and the foundation if they are encouraged to contribute, and then everything is deleted.

Any effective Wikidata training program must cover the basics of establishing notability and responding to feedback. Editors who neither appreciate our notability criteria nor the need for communication should not, in my view, play any role in training others to contribute to Wikidata. This is not meant to say that such editors are ill-intentioned, but we should have a higher threshold for those entrusted to train. I believe that the foundation has a key role to play here, in ensuring that we do not encourage people to train others unless we have some reason to believe they will do so correctly. In the context of the rapid grants, this is at least partly enshrined in the criteria, which include "Within the last year, applicants have not been repeatedly blocked or flagged for the same issue and/or have not been banned on the Wikimedia Projects."

I have reviewed a number of grants proposals that mentioned Wikidata, some granted and others under review, specifically evaluating editors as suitable Wikidata trainers. I found many editors that were not suitable, some of whom had already been flagged, and some of whom had not. (I would be glad to give more information about how I did this evaluation and what factors I considered.)

The specific issues I would like to see resolved are:

  • What does the WMF do to ensure that grants are not simply funding disruption and making extra work for volunteers?
  • How did we come to approve grants that did not meet the criteria?
  • How can we improve the grant review process going forward?
  • How are people accredited as "Wikidata trainers"?

Bovlb (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Lgruwell-WMF, @MeganHernandez (WMF): Can you help me out here? I don't think these are unreasonable questions. Why have I been asking them for a month now with no substantive response from WMF staff? Bovlb (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Bovlb,
Yael here, VP of Community Growth. I responded to your comment on the other thread (and noted that Megan does not have oversight over grantmaking - you're always welcome to tag me if you need to escalate.
Here is where I responded to a similar comment on the same grant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)/Archive_6#Grants_to_organizations_intending_to_be_active_on_the_English_Wikipedia_(Community_Response)
I'd be happy to set up a call to discuss this further, if you'd like, or happy to continue the conversation here. - Yael RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Some projects have a user group for trainers and people running editathons (e.g. ENWP's eventcoordinator). Would it make sense to require that if a grant involves such events, a team member should seek this permission on relevant projects? (Wikidata does not currently have such a user group, but it could be created.) Bovlb (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply