Grants talk:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation of educational video and website series/Archive 1

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

This page is an archive. Please do not edit it unless you are archiving information, or moving archived sections back to the current talk page for further discussion.

Just brainstorming here[edit]

From what I know about my international friends, many folks learn English online. So if someone does produces these videos limit the verbiage and keep it simple. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara (WVS): thanks for the reminder about this. I plan to ask for community review of the scripts before moving them into production, and I would welcome your comments about the use of language during the script review. --Pine 19:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Funded[edit]

Hello Pine thank you for your patience as we reviewed this grant request. We know that it has been a lengthy process and I sincerely apologize for the time it has taken to get a response to you. After discussing with colleagues and understanding your project fully we have decided we will not be funding your request as it has been proposed here.

I would like to commend you on the work you have done on the previous IEG project. I understand that you were able to produce good scripts from that project that can be turned into videos. Also through that project you were able to identify that the project needed several small steps in order to accomplish the bigger project. As you indicated in your final report, you were unable to complete the video modules as you had proposed and instead delivered scripts.

At first, when you approached the Rapid Grants program with the learnings of the IEG project it was welcomed because it sounded like a discreet stand alone project to develop videos based on the scripts you have already produced but a deeper dive into your proposal reveals that you would not only need this proposal to be approved but that it would be possibly the first of many.

In your proposal, you wrote that this first grant would be insufficient to complete the goals related to LearnWiki regarding video production, feedback, and interaction with the videos. Unfortunately, Rapid Grants are not designed to support larger projects that require multiple, consecutive sets of funding. Therefore, we’re unable to support your request as you have proposed it here.

Thank you for your work with the movement and your contributions. I look forward to working with you in future projects that are a better fit with the rapid grants program. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Woubzena and Marti, I have several questions here. I will start with one. Marti directed me to the Rapid Grants program to get funding for this project with the idea that 1. I could work on it in increments, and 2. perhaps eventually the project's tasks would become predictable enough that I would feel comfortable with increasing the scale of the increments to the point where I would transition this project back to the Project Grants program. What Woubzena says above is contrary to the directions that I received from Marti, and/or perhaps I need to redesign this proposal a bit for a project increment to fit within the Rapid Grants program. In any case, I think that you two should have a conversation to address the conflicting directions that you are giving me. I am willing to go back to the Project Grants program, and in some ways I think that being under Project Grants would be good because Marti knows this project in more depth than anyone else in WMF, but I need WMF to resolve its internal conflict regarding this project so that I am not being bounced between two grants programs and much time is passing without work being done on this project. Please resolve the internal WMF differences and ping me once you have done so. In the meantime, I will set up a Project Grants proposal. Thanks, --Pine 06:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Woubzena, I had a conversation with I JethroBT (WMF) regarding the uncertainty about which grants program WMF would like to use for this project. My understanding from that conversation with I JethroBT is that WMF has had further internal discussions and once again considering funding this project through the Rapid Grants program. I have developed some ideas for how to fund this project under Project Grants, but if WMF has changed its mind about funding this project under Rapid Grants please let me know so that I don't add a proposal for a Project Grant in this round. If WMF would prefer to fund this project under Rapid Grants then I will need to have some certainty about the timeliness of grant report reviews and requests for grant renewals so that I am not waiting for weeks or months to get funding approvals. Thanks, --Pine 21:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to proposed[edit]

Hello Pine, you are correct in that we've reconsidered funding your project in rapid grants. I worked with I JethroBT (WMF) to identify scripts from your previous grant that can be piloted through rapid grants. Would you be able to edit your proposal around the following suggestions?
Does this sound amenable to you? Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Woubzena, yes, I should be able to develop a proposal for funding a single script through final production. I am in agreement with Marti that completing a few scripts through production in Rapid Grants would make sense until I have a good understanding of what is involved in developing a script from start through production and can produce more reliable budget estimates for grant requests that fund multiple scripts through a single grant request. I'm fairly confident that $2000 should be sufficient to fund one script through final production. I will think about this further in the next few days and get back to you with a proposal regarding one of the scripts that you mentioned. --Pine 22:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pine for the quick response. I will keep a look out for your edited proposal and act on it quickly. Please ping me once you have made the changes. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi WJifar (WMF), as I have been thinking about producing a single script as a pilot, an issue that crossed my mind is that while doing this would be very good in the sense of piloting the process and getting a completed video published for people to review before I move forward with the next video, there is a question in my mind about whether a single completed video from the options that you mentioned above would be a minimum viable product in regards to benefitting the community of contributors. I am thinking that, if I was someone who knew nothing about this project and (1) was a newbie who wanted to learn a subject that a video covers, or (2) if I was helping a newbie in a place like #wikipedia-en-help or the English Wikipedia Teahouse and was looking for video resources, I think that I would find a single video of the ones that you mentioned to be less interesing and useful than a single video or set of videos that addresses a common or high priority use case such as creating references with Visual Editor. What I am concerned about is producing an initial video that, as a standalone video and especially as a pilot, is not as impactful as some other options. I think that Marti suggested to me that teaching people the mechanics of how to use Visual Editor would be a good first use case, and I agree with that. So I am wondering if you would be okay with me instead aiming at that use case for the first video. I would be sad if I develop an initial video but there is so little interest in it as a standalone video that WMF decides not to produce further videos simply because the first one did not get sufficient community interest. So I think that it would be best to aim for a high priority or common use case for the first video, and probably for a few more after that, before I start to address other subjects which I consider important for the series but which I think are as not well suited to serve as a single video for a pilot. What do you think? --Pine 22:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archived information from previous draft of this grant[edit]

I am requesting $2000 which I will allocate for time in the following order of priority.

  1. Where applicable, revise existing scripts to move them away from focusing on the previous WikiText editor to instead focus on the 2017 WikiText Editor and/or VisualEditor. Some scripts are largely okay as they are, while others will need significant additional work.
  2. Request feedback from the community about the revised scripts. Because the scripts are intended to be adaptable into multiple languages, I will request feedback in multiple languages.
  3. Develop and publish materials that are applicable to the completed videos on an "Additional Materials" website.
  4. Produce the scripts in video form in English.
  5. Upload the completed videos to Commons.
  6. Announce the availability of the videos to a variety of mailing lists and to Wikipedias in multiple languages.

Please note:

  • $2000 may be insufficient to complete all of these goals, and it is difficult to predict how far I will get with $2000 of funding. I may request supplemental funding if necessary through Rapid Grants if needed.
  • When all of these goals are completed, I plan to apply for funding for funding for the development of additional scripts, the production of the related "additional materials", and the production of the videos from those scripts. I plan for this to be an incremental process that will be refined as I gain experience.

Response to 'How to use Visual Editor' video production[edit]

Hello Pine, thank you for sharing with me your thought process on this. I did have a conversation with Marti when your project moved over to rapid grants and she did mention that the 'how to use visual editor' video would be a useful one to the community. While I agree with you that this would be a great first video to get started with my concern and follow up question would be, is it something you can accomplish with one rapid grants request, given that it was not one of the scripts that was ready for production? Could you let me know what steps you would need to produce that video? Please let me know. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WJifar (WMF), maybe a way to approach this would be to request a rapid grant solely for one script related to VE and the production of that one script. I think that referencing with VE would be a good first subject. While I think that one finished video will get much less attention than an entire collection of videos about how to use VE, I think that this would be a good test case. One advantage of this approach is that in addition to getting useful data about the cost of producing a combination of script and finished video, there would be a product at the end (a video) that would be useful. I think that $2000 would be reasonable for this package of script and video. My guess is that the cost will come out to modestly less than $2000 total if I'm billing on an hourly basis. My guess is that the final amount will be approximately $1500, but I'd request a $2000 budget ceiling to allow for surprises like unexpectedly extensive community input that needs to be taken into consideration, or interface changes that happen in the middle of video production. This would only be one script and one finished video, so it's a very small portion of the bigger vision for the project, but I think that it would be a good pilot. What do you think? If this sounds reasonable to you then I'll draft a more detailed proposal. --Pine 22:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pine, this does sound reasonable to me. Can you edit this proposal accordingly instead of starting a different draft? Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WJifar (WMF), Mjohnson (WMF), I JethroBT (WMF), Bluerasberry, Kudpung, Barbara (WVS), and Alaa:: Hi everyone, per my discussion with Woubzena, I have revised the proposal for this mini-project so that it involves the production of a single module from start to finish, specifically the module that teaches people how to create references. The long-term vision for the entire program remains the same. As I was revising this proposal I added some information that I think will be useful. I am not anticipating any objections from you, but I would be appreciative if you would read the revised proposal. I welcome your questions and comments. --Pine 22:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: Continues to have my full support. Kudpung (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steps between now and starting grant-funded work[edit]

Hi @WJifar (WMF): this section I think is probably mostly relevant to you and people in WMF Legal but not to other people that I pinged above. The timeline that I have in mind for this grant being finalized goes like this:

  • Finish informal grant agreement
  • Discussion between WMF and I about the sponsorship arrangement for this grant. My objective here is to have a liability shield by being an employee of a nonprofit org, such as WMNYC or a new org, in case of a copyright lawsuit or similar problem. This is likely to require some effort to work out. In case a new org needs to be formed, I may need to recruit three independent board members. However, none of these steps involve getting 501(c)(3) registration, and my hope is to avoid a new 501(c)(3) registration because that is a relatively complicated and expensive operation.
  • If necessary, formalization of new nonprofit org and/or new sponsorship agreement.
  • Discussion between WMF Trademarks and nonprofit org to outline trademark agreements for the nonprofit org and for the use of Wikimedia trademarks in the video and other material. If an existing org can serve as fiscal sponsor then this will be simpler than creating agreements with a new org, but in both cases I think that there should be little friction here.
  • Formalization of grant agreement and trademark agreements including signing of documents.
  • Disbursement of $2000 from WMF to nonprofit org.
  • Start of grant work.

Does all of that look OK to you? You might want to have someone in WMF Legal check this also. I think that none of these steps will be difficult aside from the sponsorship agreement, for which there may need to be some research and discussion to get that worked out. I think that there will be agreement on what everyone wants to do, but there may need to be some effort to determine how to appease the IRS. Once the sponsorship arrangement is finalized, I hope that it won't be necessary to do that again for future grants for this project. Thanks, --Pine 00:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi WJifar (WMF), I have an update regarding the legal situation. My understanding from WMNYC is that they are not willing to employ me at this time, although I think that they are working on some internal improvements that will increase the likelihood that they would be willing hire employees in the future. Unfortunately, neither Cascadia Wikimedians User Group nor Wikimedia District of Columbia has a strong enough track record in recent years for me to feel comfortable with channeling this grant through those organizations. So, I have reached out to Wikimedia UK and Wikimedia DE to ask about their willingness to be involved in this project. If they are not then there are a few other options that we could consider:
  • WMF could indemnify me for third party lawsuits that are related to this project. The liability would be similar to what WMF would have if I was a direct WMF employee. This is a relatively simple option from my perspective, and would involve the least amount of work for me.
  • I could, as stated above, form a new nonprofit organization. I may need to get three people to serve as board members. There would be some costs associated with setting up a new organization, but if I can avoid a new 501(c)(3) registration then the financial costs should be modest. What concerns me more is that the board members need to be people who are consistently responsive to communications. Especially when dealing with volunteers I find that predicting people's availability and reliability are somewhat difficult.
I would be interested in reading any comments that you may have. --Pine 05:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize this was not your intent and this was merely one of your regular musings on movement politics but it is inappropriate for you to use this forum to cast aspersions on other chapters. Wikimedia District of Columbia has successfully been the fiscal sponsor on a number of Foundation and external grants far larger than this proposed project, including the grants for WikiConference North America. Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Gamaliel, I am aware that WMDC has in the past collaborated with other organizations. I am most aware of WMDC's successful collaborations on Wikimedia North America conferences. However, I was told some information consistent with my comment above, and I believe that it is entirely appropriate for me to communicate my reasons to WMF that I am choosing not to approach WMDC regarding this project at the present time. There may be a change of circumstances in the future, and I do not know enough about WMDC to have a more general opinion about the functioning of WMDC, but at the moment I am focused on steps that will occur regarding this specific project in the next few months. I do not wish to intervene in the direct relationship between WMDC and WMF, and I would prefer to be on good terms with both organizations. My opinion expressed above is limited to my proposed work for this project at this time. Circumstances may change in the future. --Pine 00:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So somebody told you something negative about WMDC and you thought it appropriate to vaguely allude to it in a public forum? This is not the best way to stay on good terms with an organization. Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamaliel I do not owe you an explanation for my decisions in this matter (specifically, my choice not to approach WMDC). This grant is between me and WMF. You are welcome to comment on it -- in fact, I encourage that -- and I welcome questions. But demands like the one you are making are not well received. If you want to have a discussion about a subject like that, a civilly worded question such as "May I ask you for more information about why you made that decision?" would be likely to elicit more cooperation. The demanding nature of your comment has the effect of making me less likely to work with WMDC in the future. --Pine
  • You misunderstand. We have no interest in your decision and we respect your right to make that decision in whatever manner you choose, we merely want you to refrain from disparaging us in public. That does not seem too unreasonable, burdensome, or demanding a request for someone interested in civility. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pine and Gamaliel: I think enough has been said on this matter. Pine, it is sufficient to say you would prefer not to work with WMDC at this time. An explanation is not required. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: Thank you for preparing this proposal to continue your work. I wanted to respond to some of your requests and comments on the timeline you've proposed:
  • Some good news: WMF's trademark policy states You may use the marks consistent with our mission to educate people about the Wikimedia sites and to recruit new contributors, as long as you make it clear that you do not work for the Wikimedia Foundation. You can create educational material or banners to decorate a public fair stand or to publicize an edit-a-thon. and further clarifies that Educational materials help people to understand the Wikimedia sites. They can be leaflets, videos, cheat sheets, and other guides. On this basis, no discussions with Legal nor any permissions from them are needed to proceed here.
  • I am requesting that you proceed in this project as an individual as you did with your Individual Engagement Grant, rather than seek a fiscal sponsor. Our team is unable to provide support on your requests for additional discussions about a sponsorship agreement, indemnification, or setting up a 501(c)3 specific to this grant, largely because we lack the capacity to provide this support generally. I am also concerned seeking a fiscal sponsor will delay and cause needless complexity and difficulty in your ability to move forward with this proposal.
I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I JethroBT (WMF), thanks for the update.
Regarding the trademark agreement: when I in my volunteer capacity with Cascadia Wikimedians User Group created this video, Manprit Brar in WMF Legal required a trademark agreement for the use of the puzzle globe logo. I am very willing to proceed with this grant without a specific trademark agreement, but I want to ensure that WMF Legal is not going to have concerns about the use of trademarks. I am not an expert in trademark law or WMF's trademark policies, and I would encourage you to verify with them that they will not require a trademark agreement for this grant to proceed, including for the use of the puzzle globe logo.
Regarding your second point, I agree that setting up a new 501(c)(3) is undesirable, and I am trying to avoid that. I think that running this grant through an existing chapter (which I believe is what we both mean by "fiscal sponsorship") should be somewhat straightforward if the chapter agrees to do so. WMF has used this same arrangement on other projects, and Woubzena specifically suggested this arrangement to me in an email on August 13. I suggest that we wait a week for replies from WMUK and WMDE. Ideally one of them would agree to support this arrangement. If they do not support this arrangement then we can think about other options. I consider going forward without a liability shield to be undesirable, but I would potentially agree to do that if I took particular care to avoid relying on Commons contributors to have been correct in their copyright attributions. That will limit my choice of images for the series, and while it would be regrettable, the project could proceed and I think that the vast majority of the value of the project would be maintained. I might also be more limited in the legal information that I would offer in the series because I would not want to be sued if I said something that turned out to be wrong, and there might be a few topics that I would not cover because I think that they are too legally risky for me to produce without a shield from personal liability; that is not a problem with this specific grant regarding referencing, but it might put a few noteworthy limitations on the scope of future modules. So, if I did this project without a fiscal sponsor, there would be somewhat greater simplicity in setting up the project, but there would be a few additional limitations in how I execute it. Does that make sense? I think that there are no fatal problems here; one way or another, this project should work out in the end. --Pine 00:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I JethroBT (WMF), I was thinking more about the above and I got an idea. In my opinion, a liability shield is probably not necessary for elements of the specific scope of work that would be funded with this Rapid Grant. I am most concerned with having a liability shield for work that would involve the reuse of images from Commons that have origins that I can't easily verify but would be beneficial to the project, and for work that involves providing information on subjects that have a high level of legal risk such as some copyright topics. Neither the reuse of images on Commons nor high risk legal topics are the subject of this proposed Rapid Grant, so I would be willing to separate the topic of sponsorship from this specific Rapid Grant. The more that I think about this, the more that I think that I can accept the legal risk if I make careful choices about the use of images from Commons and if I am careful about how and whether to cover certain topics in future modules, so I could move forward with this Rapid Grant and other similarly low risk work while discussions about sponsorship continue on the side. How does that sound to you? --Pine 04:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: Thanks for this additional context, I have a better understanding of why you are taking some precautions by seeking a fiscal sponsor. If you would like to wait a week for responses from WMDE and WMUK, you may, but I agree with you that some topics you plan to cover are less sensitive, and that you should be able to move forward with the current grant as an individual. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT (WMF): that sounds good. I will contact you by the end of this week to communicate whether I have heard from WMDE and WMUK. In the meantime, if you have no further questions for me, my only remaining question for you is in regards to the trademark policy. When I am ready to publish the video, I would like to avoid being surprised by WMF Legal imposing requirements for use of trademarks such as the Wikipedia globe logo, so I would be appreciative if you would double check with the Trademarks attorney/attorneys to make sure that I won't need a license for this use case. Thanks very much. --Pine 03:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: I would recommend reaching out to trademarks(_AT_)wikimedia.org yourself in this case, because you are in a better position to describe more specifically what trademarks you plan to use and how, whereas I can only provide a general idea. Alternatively, you could simply fill out the Special:Contact/requestlicense and see whether Legal determines if a license is necessary or not. If you do plan to e-mail them, you can cc me on the query (cschilling(_AT_)wikimedia.org). I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @I JethroBT (WMF): I think that the questions about WMF trademarks are resolved, per my discussion Chuck below. I have not heard back from the people that I emailed at WMDE and WMUK. At this time I think that we can proceed with this as an individual grant. What are the next steps? Thanks, --Pine 03:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for the project record: I had a last minute idea about how to get non-WMF funding for this project, but unfortunately I think that there are problems with the idea, so I am proceeding with this grant request. --Pine 14:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: Thanks. I'll now be approving this proposal for funding. Next, some information related to preparing a grant agreement and sending you the grant funds will be sent to you by our grant admin team. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start date in January 2019[edit]

Noting for the archives that the project start date is moving to January 2019 to accomodate WMF's processes and because I won't start work on this project until I reveive the grant disbursement. --Pine 20:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]