Grants talk:Project/Rapid/Editathon Fortezza delle Verrucole

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

Approval of rapid grant[edit]

Hello User:Kaspo, thank you for switching your proposal to rapid grants. I am approving your grant request. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Important: Change your proposal status from "draft" to "proposed" to submit by deadline[edit]


Please note that you must change your proposal status from "draft" to "proposed" to submit by your proposal for review in the current round. You have until end of day today to make the deadline.

Warm regards,

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2018[edit]

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

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2018 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through March 12, 2018.

The committee's formal review for round 1 2018 will occur March 13-March 26, 2018. New grants will be announced April 27, 2018. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mjohnson (WMF): Is this grant within the scope of the project grants but not Conference & Event Grants? Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Editathon Fortezza delle Verrucole[edit]

Scoring rubric Score
(A) Impact potential
  • Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both?
  • Does it have the potential for online impact?
  • Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
(C) Ability to execute
  • Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe?
  • Is the budget realistic/efficient ?
  • Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • This sounds like an exciting project, however I do not think it is aligned enough with the movement’s strategic directions (knowledge equity & knowledge as a service). The applicants have identified content gaps but not made a case for why/how these particular areas have been overlooked by structures of power and privilege. Also, there is not a specific focus on increasing participation among groups that are underrepresented
  • The proposed activity fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities and can be sustained, in my opinion, as the results of the editathon will endure.
  • Wiki Loves concept has brought many projects and impressive results. and ideas and projects are just coming! however, I consider that the day-to-day editorial marathon in this particular case is less productive than, for example, regular Editathon marathons or contests in article writing. if the sources of information are offline, is not it better to make more workshops in the GLAM institutions (by which the cost of accommodation will be excluded) than a "conference model" with more expensive costs?
  • In my opinion, the major impact will be coming from a good example of WLM promotion in Italy. I know that due to legal challenges building good relations with monuments is very important for Wikimedia Italia, and thus might be a good example of a project that can later be replicated elsewhere. On-wiki this will result in an improvement limited in quantity but of a high quality.
  • The success can be measured but there are risks as with any editathon.
  • clear criteria and concrete success measures are lacking.
  • This is an innovative replication of various known GLAM approaches. This will not solve any key Wikimedia problem but this is still an interesting project that can serve as a model, and it has realistic measures of success.
  • The participants are able to execute the event and the budget seems to be realistic.
  • as I have already mentioned, the cost of accommodation is not justified. it is unclear why this concept is better than the other.
  • Not all participants have the necessary experience: organisers are experienced but I would question experience of some participants (e.g. there is an Italian Wikipedian with less than 100 edits). The budget does not seem efficient: the project is rather costly compared to the impact. I would suggest reducing the budget: reducing number of participants (no need to be 20 for school presentation, some may arrive later, or reduce to 10-15 people with priority to users with specific experience), shared instead of single accommodation etc.
  • It’s not clear how participants have been/will be selected to participate. It appears that many listed are already experienced Wikimedians and I question that value of this in terms of how lessons and outcomes can be shared across the Wikimedia movement - is there no way for this group of Wikimedians to collaborate and start this project without grant funding? Can there be a larger focus on bringing in new editors from underrepresented groups?
  • The community engagement is sufficient for this kind of projects.
  • there is a noticeable community support
  • There is some interest from local community to this topic. My vision is that it will mainly support the community by giving a good story to share with Italian monuments for next WLM editions. Other than that no specific community engagement planned.
  • I am slightly in favour. The format is the same of GLAM on tour, the problem is that I personally don't see an impact here. The organization of this event is more like a community building or a creation of a content while the GLAm on tour is more an event to have outreach. The organization of the event gives a poor indocation about the final goal.
  • While the project looks good it appears outside the scope of the project grants. The participants should apply for the Conference & Event Grants program support as it appears to be a "thematic event".
  • This grant proposal has to proposed on Conference Grants, I suppose
  • cut the Accommodation costs; think about to hold several Editathons in GLAMS. also cooperation with the GLAMs can develop additional partnerships and projects Food and transportation costs are not a problem :) not even a fee for organizers (which are not currently required, but can be in some other concept)
  • I think funding this would be a good idea in order to have a model project that can be replicated with other monuments or heritage institutions in Italy. However I would suggest reducing the budget to make it more realistic: reducing number of participants (no need to be 20 for school presentation, some may arrive later, or reduce to 10-15 people with priority to users with specific experience), shared instead of single accommodation etc.
  • Yes, it is a project so well detailed and structured, but I agree the participants should apply for the Conference & Event Grants program support. By the way, Yes, it is a project so well detailed and structured, but I agree the participants should apply for the Conference & Event Grants program support. by the way, I don't think they need to of the travel tickets or refund travel expenses for the participant, and I think the t-shirt, pin, block notes on the budget are too expensive. In general, my suggestion is to reduce the budget to 4,000 €.
IEG IdeaLab review.png

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 (_AT_) wikimedia  · org.

I can cut the costs reducing the participants, inviting only people near the place and reducing days in hotel for some participant. My budget can be just 2,000 $, sso we can shift to rapid-grant.
I just came back from Wikimedia conference in Berlin. I hope i can estimate exactly the costs in few days. For me the final answer on 14 May is too late, i should to reschedulate the event for the next year. Can you give me the answer soon?--Kaspo (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Kaspo, Woubzena Jifar, the Rapid Grants Program Officer, has said she can fund this through Rapid Grants if you can reduce the budget to fit that program (under $2,000). Please communicate with her directly about this because Rapid Grants will close in three days, and we need to process the request quickly. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Marti (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@WJifar (WMF):@Mjohnson (WMF): I just reduced my budget to $2000 and I moved to rapid grant. The event starts on 31th May, so I need an answer within few days or I have to cancel the event. --Kaspo (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)