Grants talk:Project/Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton/Instituto Biológico
Add topicEligibility concerns
[edit]Dear R.T.Argenton,
Thank you for submitting this proposal. In reviewing your plan, it seems as though the project is almost exclusively focused on digitization and content upload to be completed through paid time funded through the requested grant. Our guidelines do not allow us to pay individuals to digitize materials as the primary focus of the project. Digitization of materials must be part of a program, at the request of the community, with a plan for how digitized content will be integrated into Wikimedia projects included as part of the project proposal. It does not appear that your proposal meets these eligibility requirements.
Can you help us understand if we are misunderstanding your proposal in some way?
If your proposal is indeed ineligible, we ask that you withdraw it from the round by changing your proposal status from Status=Proposed to Status=Withdrawn.
If we do not hear back from you by February 28, 2020, we will need to mark your proposal withdrawn.
Thank you in advance,
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment from Wikimedia Foundation GLAM & Culture team
[edit]Dear Rodrigo,
We would really like your proposal to be reviewed by the committee but we need to better understand your plans. If you're still interested in pursuing this proposal, could you please update it as soon as possible, and no later than the end of this week?
You have a strong Wikimedia contribution record and a credible partnership. In what ways will the Institute support your work? Will they keep a copy of the 3D files that are created? Wikimedia Commons is not a platform for digital preservation because files can be deleted or removed by the community. Institutional repositories or the Internet Archive are more durable platforms for the preservation of these materials.
Can you tell us more about the content of the Institute’s magazine and how it meets community needs? How will you engage communities like Portuguese Wikisource with your project?
Can you tell us more about the protocol you will follow for the digitization?
If descriptive, structured data is captured alongside the digitization work, the material will be more discoverable and accessible for reuse on Wikimedia projects.
All my best,
FRomeo (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- FRomeo (WMF),
- Hi, for some reason the Meta did not notify me, so I am latter than what you requested. Hoping that still on time.
- In what ways will the Institute support your work?
- They will be responsible by the scanner, a computer to have a local backup and 2 staffs, one responsible by scanning and other to organize and provide metada.
- They will also use their contacts to have punctual volunteers to marathons.
- Will they keep a copy of the 3D files that are created?
- The material will be 2D files, as they are pages of magazines with articles. But, yes, they will have a local and online storage for that.
- "Institutional repositories or the Internet Archive are more durable platforms for the preservation of these materials."
- Yes, I agree with you and the IB will include the digitalized material also at Scielo and other platforms. But I will not be responsible for that, and will be made after our job here.
- Can you tell us more about the content of the Institute’s magazine and how it meets community needs? How will you engage communities like Portuguese Wikisource with your project?
- The institute have all around agriculture science. Include, but not only, biology, bibliography, zoology, botanical... and other areas. Especially in Brazil, you can see that some of then have English versions:
- i.e.
- They have a area that we, as Wikimedia, do not have much information.
- How will you engage communities like Portuguese Wikisource with your project
- I have a strong training about it, but I will also align with the local community to have a project like that.
- I will first give workshops about WikiSource to the IB staff, and after I will invite the local community to presentations about the IB and explain this whole project, trying to have a greater engage that I have right now.
- After this two approaches, we will select the most important articles and would have marathons with specialists of the area to improve the Wikisource entry, as giving more actualized footnotes, links between articles and references inside Wikimedia world, as interlinks to Wikipedia articles...
- And maybe other activities, that will be created in conjunction with the IB during the project.
- Can you tell us more about the protocol you will follow for the digitization?
- We will have two fronts of work and tree major steps:
- metadata
- digital files
- 1. Metadata
- a) They will separate all the keywords, authors, references... about each and every article inside the issue.
- In a first step we will start from 2011-2020 that already are digitalised. So the main work here is to separate the metadata, transform it to wiki word, and import it to Wikidata.
- The translation to Wiki, will be my responsibility, all the rest will be a IB job. They will upload the text under sheets and make available to me.
- I will transform the table, and use tools, as quickstatement to upload to Wikidata.
- In the example that I gave, you can see that all the articles will be depicted with the keynotes, the all references will be created inside Wikidata,
- b) Finished the first step they will make a more capitation of the metadata, now under on paper titles.
- They will also provide the textual metadata, and I will translate it.
- But, in this phase I will also try to make they use some tools to not rely on me to transform in wiki text, and upload it.
- As in this moment workshops would be already given.
- c)This metadata will be available at Commons and Wikidata, but also will be incorporated at WikiSource as interlinks, and footnotes.
- We will use Scholia and other tools also to create a better view of the metadata imported.
- 2. digital files
- a) They already have digital files from 2011-2020, the first phase they will provide me this material, and we will categorized, see possibles interwikis, and attach the metadata raised by the other team.
- Creating a structured data in conjunction with each and every article, at Commons and at Wikidata.
- b) They will start to digitalise, and provide the files online via GDrive (the way that they choose) to me, and I will edit, clean, and upload with the metadata (inside files and at wiki).
- They also be empower to they be able to upload the structured files without my intervention by the end of the project.
- c)The material digitalised will be dismember as images, graphics and other could that could be useful to others educational purposes. They also will have a metadata associated.
- The text will be driven to WikiSource and enhanced.
- Other types of activities, as wikibooks about some important subject will be discussed and evaluated with the IB during the process.
- Thank you for your time, hoping that you see this in time. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Rodrigo,
- Thank you for your detailed response to my questions. It is great to hear that Instituto Biológico has already started digitizing the materials and committed staff to the project. That makes me very positive about the likely success of your collaboration. It is also clear that you have considered the metadata requirements in-depth and have a plan for engaging staff and your local community with Wikisource. If you need any support for the Wikisource training, feel free to contact my team.
- All my best, FRomeo (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
-
- FRomeo (WMF) thank you!
- If this project be approved, I would love to work with your team.
- Even if not, maybe in other projects would be awesome to have more training, knowledge is always welcome. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Eligibility confirmed, Round 1 2021 - Community Organizing proposal
[edit]
We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for review in Round 1 2021 for Community Organizing projects. This decision is contingent upon compliance with our COVID-19 guidelines. Proposals that include travel and/or offline events must ensure that all of the following are true:
- You must review and can comply with the guidelines linked above.
- If necessary because of COVID-19 safety risks, you must be able to complete the core components of your proposed work plan _without_ offline events or travel.
- You must be able to postpone any planned offline events or travel until the Wikimedia Foundation’s guidelines allow for them, without significant harm to the goals of your project.
- You must include a COVID-19 planning section in your activities plan. In this section, you should provide a brief summary of how your project plan will meet COVID-19 guidelines, and how it would impact your project if travel and offline events prove unfeasible throughout the entire life of your project. If you have not already included this in your proposal, please plan to do so.
- If you are applying for funds in a region where there is a Wikimedia Affiliate working, we encourage you to let them know about your project, too.
- If you _are_ a Wikimedia Affiliate applying for a Project Grant: A special reminder that our guidelines and criteria require you to announce your Project Grant requests on your official user group page on Meta and a local language forum that is recognized by your group, to allow adequate space for objections and support to be voiced).
The Project Grant committee's formal review for round 1 2020 will occur through March 21, 2021. We ask that you refrain from making any further changes to your proposal until after period, so we can be sure that all committee members are scoring the same version of the proposal.
Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue after the scoring period ends. If you have not already done so, you can make use of our project planning resources to improve your proposal further, too.
Grantees will be announced Friday, April 22, 2021. Sometimes we have to make some changes to the round schedule. If that happens, it will be reflected on the round schedule on the Project Grants start page.
We look forward to engaging with you in this Round!
Questions? Contact us at projectgrants
wikimedia · org. --Marti (WMF) (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Marti (WMF) hooray! Thank you Marti, cheering for the next phase be also successful. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Aggregated feedback from the committee for Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton/Instituto Biológico
[edit]| Scoring rubric | Score | |
(A) Impact potential
|
5.0 | |
(B) Community engagement
|
5.2 | |
(C) Ability to execute
|
6.0 | |
(D) Measures of success
|
3.8 | |
Additional comments from the Committee:
| ||
This proposal has been recommended for due diligence review.
The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal and recommended it for due diligence review. This means that a majority of the committee reviewers favorably assessed this proposal and have requested further investigation by Wikimedia Foundation staff.
Next steps:
- 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 and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page.
- Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on Friday, April 22, 2021.
Mercedes Caso (platícame) 23:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- "Digitization of a scientific magazine. There is to check the relevance and if the Wikimedia project is the right place to store it."
- I agree that is not a place to store, however we are a place to develop knowledge, that is the main reason to bring the material, to have a resourceful place to not only increase the educational potential, but also share in different languages, different public...
- "Some concerns about the licenses. Is there a feasibility study? Who owns the licenses? "
- When a person agree to publish their articles in the magazine, they agree to give the patrimonials rights of the article to the magazine (it is usual for scientific magazine), in this case, the magazine publish all their material under a cc by license. So no problem here.
- "The proposal says that this is a "pilot project", but does it make sense to have a pilot of one year? The project supposes that there should be the main project (next year?). As a pilot the proposal is a little bit unclear and there are some risks to check connected with the relevance of the content, with the problem of the licenses and with the engagement of the institution."
- It does, pilot projects are more a avaliative stage, as you see there are spaces to evaluate what paths we need to take, how things will work and how, because after this pilot we have a 200k more articles to digitalise, which hopefully will be without the need of WMF support. To have a so bold and wide project, is necessary a time to evaluate and change process. This can consume time, and we also have to have time to digitalise the selected material.
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Re:1 by 1
[edit]
- The archives of the Instituto Biológico seem like an interesting and rich collection of materials and information, however there is little justification/explanation around how the project meets community needs or addresses a knowledge gap.
- Digitization of a scientific magazine. There is to check the relevance and if the Wikimedia project is the right place to store it.
- The project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities. Its sustainability and scalability depends on continuing activities of the project lead.
- Content goals (around uploads, Wikidata entries, etc.) are impressive but there is not a clear evaluation plan for impact. The project is mostly iterative and presents few opportunities for new learning for the movement.
- The project uses a tried solution - implanting a WiR into a cultural institution. The potential impact as well as the risks are modest I think. There are clear measures of success.
- Applicant is experienced with Wikimedia projects/activities and has also previously been involved with digitization work. Instituto Biológico also seems engaged and committed to the project.
- Some concerns about the licenses. Is there a feasibility study? Who owns the licenses?
- The project can be accomplished in 12 months. The budget is realistic, and the project lead probably has necessary skills to execute the grant.
- There is very little evidence of community engagement or opportunity for other Wikimedians to be involved in this project.
- There is some community involvement.
- Would be more inclined to fund if applicant is able to expand on justification for this work (how it meets community needs and/or addresses identified content/knowledge gaps). Some thinking/planning around evaluation and sustainability is also needed.
- The proposal says that this is a "pilot project", but does it make sense to have a pilot of one year? The project supposes that there should be the main project (next year?). As a pilot the proposal is a little bit unclear and there are some risks to check connected with the relevance of the content, with the problem of the licenses and with the engagement of the institution.
- I am inclined to support the project as it can enrich the Wikidata and Wikisource with a number of rare publications and help establish a relationship with Instituto Biológico.
- This seems to be a good institutional partnership to start with, however, the plan doesn't include how the existing community would be involved. Even though it might not affect the plan, including more community members will help to strengthen the partnership, and make it sustainable for the future.
1. The project is very oriented to create structured data, both in Wikidata, and also at Wikimedia Commons, one of the knowledge gaps. Also, The content is around Latin America science, another presented gap. The project is headed by two women, and the IB umbrella have more woman researches under it. They will be invited to all the activities of massive contributions, so, the project also mind the gender gap, not only in participation, but also in administration. The project is to bring content in Portuguese, also a gap. Will also bring all the images, graphics, ... of the articles, and make their available at WCommons, supplying part of the multimedia gap. A reminder this is a door to a bolder and wider activities that involve tons of photos, videos, and more, as the other collections of the IB allow it, and with this door foto.wiki.br can enter and make this happen, as other collections are in their scope. This is a scientific magazine, of relevant importance in Brazil, so verifiability and notability are also accomplished, and educational.
2. I agree, Wikimedia is not a place to store, Wikimedia is a place to develop, that is the idea, bring the content to develop it, translate, improve, create more material, create books, courses, videos... that is the main reason to have it under our ecosystem. Create derivative work from it, and also make their easily assessable to the public, as we can create ways to facilitate the accessibility, and we have the power of dissemination.
3. I agree, and we need to create more leaders, that is why I will empower not only the IB staff, but other volunteers to have more teams working with IB in the next projects.
4. The idea is to build together with IB and volunteer of Wikimedia during the project of the finals contents, as the volunteers will have access of material and IB will understand the potentialities of the Wikimedia communities. There is a blank space, but is not neglected, the idea is always to implement a collaborative work.
5. Thank you :)
6. They are! And thank you.
7. As I said in the text, they have the patrimonial rights over the articles, is a common practice between scientific magazines. Fortunately, this in particular release their content under cc-by, as I said in the text.
8. Thank you :)
9. Sorry, I disagree, we will have workshops, lectures, and other activities to build with the online communities. The idea is to involve the maximum as possible of volunteers, to have a stronger result.
10. Same as above.
11. I hope that the after additions fix this concerns [1] and also the answer presented to the first comment.
12. The main project for the next year will be divided into two. One headed by IB team digitalising their documents, and the other by foto.wiki.br team, photographing other IB collections ( hundreds of holotypes of insects, plants..). There 200 k papers under their collections to be digitalised, this is just the tip of the iceberg. And one year is the necessary time, as I evaluated to have a great structure to the next projects.
13. Thank you.
14. As I said before, the existent community will be involved in this punctual activities, and also in the second phase, giving feedback participating in discussions... The next chapters will have an even greater participation, this is fixing the house to receive more guests to the party project.
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Round 1 2021 decision
[edit]This project has not been selected for a Project Grant at this time.
We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding. This was a very competitive round with many good ideas, not all of which could be funded in spite of many merits. We appreciate your participation, and we hope you'll continue to stay engaged in the Wikimedia context.
Comments regarding this decision:
We will not be funding your project this round. The committee found value in your plan to develop a sustainable partnership with the Instituto Biológico. However, in light of the competitive nature of this review process and the priority focus on proposals the committee believed would most benefit the Wikimedia movement’s Strategic Direction, they ultimately voted to decline the proposal. Below are the issues that various members of the committee raised during the discussion of the proposed project:
- Based on their own previous experiences, the committee agreed with your comment that Wikisource is not the best place to store science magazines. Articles of sciences magazines tend to be more complex for existing volunteers to integrate into articles. They emphasized, as you pointed out in your proposal, that the digitization process of these particular materials is complex and work-intensive. Because of the exceptional level of investment required, the committee wanted more clarity about the value this content would have and how it would be used by the volunteer community.
- One committee member shared that in running a very similar project, engaging the scientific community with Wikipedia proved especially complex, since most were not Wikipedians, and so were motivated to improve articles closely related to their specific topics of research, but not to contribute beyond them, limiting the breadth of project impact. The committee was concerned about how scientific contributors would be sufficiently motivated to make sure that the digitized content is curated into forms that make it useful for educational purposes.
- The committee expressed concern about the potential risks of uploading a large amount of outdated qualitative information. Considering that some of the materials described in the proposal were published decades ago, some articles would need to be evaluated by qualified scientists to define what is still relevant, what is outdated, and what should be excluded.
- While the committee acknowledges the problem of content gaps with respect to local scientific topics, they raised the point that this is a universal problem for all science magazines, rather than an issue of marginalization or exclusion. Consequently, they were not convinced it implies an issue of knowledge equity. This was important because, during this competitive review process, the committee focused on prioritizing projects that demonstrated strong ties to knowledge equity.
Next steps: Applicants whose proposals are declined are welcome to consider resubmitting your application again in the future. You are welcome to request a consultation with staff to review any concerns with your proposal that contributed to a decline decision, and help you determine whether resubmission makes sense for your proposal.
Over the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has been undergoing a community consultation process to launch a new grants strategy. Our proposed programs are posted on Meta here: Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021. If you have suggestions about how we can improve our programs in the future, you can find information about how to give feedback here: Get involved. We are also currently seeking candidates to serve on regional grants committees and we'd appreciate it if you could help us spread the word to strong candidates--you can find out more here. We will launch our new programs in July 2021. If you are interested in submitting future proposals for funding, stay tuned to learn more about our future programs.