Grants talk:Project/Susannaanas/GLAMpipe

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

Comments of Ruslik0[edit]

I actually like this proposal – it is at least well written and easy to read. However I have a number of questions/suggestions:

  • How widely is GLAMpipe used now? Is it that popular?
  • If you have specific travel plans, you should include them into the proposal. I am not sure that we can make you "eligible for travel funding".
  • You should improve the measures of success.

Ruslik (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, good points!
  1. GLAMpipe has not been widely adopted yet. The project for the creation is just ending. The key motivation for this proposal is to make sure it serves the intended community best, and that there are no technical obstacles in using it.
  2. We do not have specific travel plans, but I included Wikimedia hackathon as a proper venue. If we applied and got accepted for Wikimania, I know it would be difficult to fund travel to attend it. It falls outside the grant period, so we can not apply for that now. We will discuss including travel to Wikimania for one of us, if that can be an option.
  3. Fair enough, although I was hoping that could be done in dialogue. We would still be happy to hear the expectations!
Best, Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I think that you can extend the project by two months to fund Wikimania travel. Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I think that is an excellent idea! Best, Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts[edit]

As a non-programmer but a very data-savvy GLAM specialist and active Wikimedia contributor, I have been doing uploads to Wikimedia Commons and data imports into Wikidata with the help of various existing metadata manipulation tools. The ones I use most are OpenRefine, Google Spreadsheets with the Wikipedia Tools extension, an advanced text editor, and Excel. All of these are imperfect for that specific goal and it takes quite a learning curve to get your own workflow going with these.

The main bottlenecks and the hardest stuff I encounter:

  1. Getting data out of external data sources. I scrape websites, but am not very skilled at it, and I have a hard time working with APIs as a non-programmer.
  2. Matching the external data (e.g. lists of people and places) with the entities on our projects (e.g. getting a list of thousands of artists from a museum website, and accurately matching each artist with the correct Wikidata item).
  3. In the case of import to Wikimedia Commons: fitting the data into the very complex and (to be honest) unstructured and chaotic templates there (creator templates, institution templates, source templates, other date...).
  4. In the case of import to Wikidata: preparing the data for (currently) QuickStatements. At this moment this is very time-consuming, especially converting dates to the correct format, making sure all strings are quoted, and that the QuickStatements syntax is correct.

If the GLAMpipe tool aims to make all these steps much more straightforward, I am a fan.

However, somehow I'm also happy to be able to use external tools (generic tools created outside of the Wikimedia movement), because it means that our workflows can also be adapted by anyone who is data-savvy but for whom our projects are only one (small) part of a wider open data and outreach strategy. I hope this comment is clear ;-) - my point is that I would like a tool like GLAMpipe to be, preferably, usable outside our projects as well, which would also make it more sustainable in the long run.

I would also like to note that I'm very much looking forward to the arrival of structured metadata on Wikimedia Commons; I hope the GLAMpipe developers are watching these developments closely.

I think it's great - and telling - that the applicants already got non-Wikimedia funding. Good job! Spinster (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the very thoughtful comments, and apologies for getting back to them so late.
I would like to reflect on the bottlenecks first:
  1. Getting data from various sources is a key advantage in GLAMpipe. The users can create import nodes that read tabular files, such as csv, or get a directory listing from the local machine or access an API of a specific institution. I will find this invaluable myself, not having to use code to access an API.
  2. Matching data: This, too, is a major relief. When a lookup mechanism is built into the tool, you will not need to switch between environments to do that. In GLAMpipe, you will get a list of matches that you will manually need to choose from. Moreover, others can reuse your settings.
  3. Template matching: This tool can help to map and format data for the complex templates. Also, the switchover to use Structured data for Commons will be an easy one.
  4. The import to Wikidata will be structured in a manner bots currently do it. Datatypes will need to be formatted correctly, and the tool will help automate that.
So I would be saying that yes, GLAMpipe can do all that!
I agree that tools need to be compatible with different use case scenarios in order to be sustainable. I am pleased to say that as GLAMpipe takes advantage of APIs in both import and export, it can be used in a variety of use cases, with only imagination limiting it's use. It is also possible to combine GLAMpipe with other tools. For example, if you for some reason are not able to accomplish your transformation with GLAMpipe, you can export it to another tool, import back in and continue with the remaining phases of your work.
I hope this answers your questions!
Best, Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts, Spinster. I'm glad that you brought up the need for generic data tools (or not to limit GLAMpipe to only Wikimedia stuff). I totally agree.
I'm currently creating GLAMpipe-based tools for metadata maintenance, editing and analysing for DSpace (digital repository software) in my day job. So, the aim of GLAMpipe is to be a generic data mangling tool for GLAM-related data. The way I see this grant application is that it would make it possible to add Wikimedia related functionality to GLAMpipe. It would also make it possible to introduce the tool and its workflows to wikipedian/commonists/dataists(?).
All the best (GLAMpipe developer) Artturimatias (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2016[edit]

IEG review.png

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2016 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2016 begins on 2 November 2016, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Extension of grant period and addition of participation in Wikimania[edit]

We propose to add the cost of attendance in Wikimania 2017 at approx. 1500 euros, and extend the grant period to the end of August 2017. We can add this to the application after feedback. --Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for GLAMpipe[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:
  • The idea is interesting and potential impact on Commons is high. The tool can probably be sustained after grant ends. However the project needs additional input from competent developers.
  • Has impact as it can be used for wide variety of transfers to commons and wikidata; sustainable due to open repo and plan of labs hosting
  • This tool looks useful. Case-by-case metadata inclusion in GLAM initiatives is definitely an issue that is worth addressing. I would only recommend that besides video tutorials proponents be available for setting up pilot activities for users from the global community who would like to try this tool.
  • This project can develop in a very helpful tool for everybody working with GLAM initiatives.
  • The approach is innovative. The project has a potential for significant impact but not without risks. One problem that I see is unsatisfactory measures of success: just one survey.
  • Benefits from this tool outweigh risks. Moreover, this tool is already being used.
  • The project aims to improve possible solutions for a big problem considering GLAM projects. Risks are very low and they have set realistic measures of success.
  • The participants seem to be competent enough to execute it and have necessary experience. The budget seems to be realistic though they should clarify the travel plans.
  • Realistic, reasonable budget
  • Active users, connected to a formal Wikimedia organization. Tool already being used.
  • Budget is realistic and participants should have enough skill for developing the tool.
  • There is a community support and target community though more should be done to engage the developer community (there are other tools for imports to Commons).
  • I see endorsements and I would be happy to have such app for myself, too
  • Good level of community support.
  • They should work a bit more in community notifications and demonstrate it has community support, meaning that there is real need for this tool.
  • Quick review, but I like the comment by Spinster ( It would be good to make this tool adaptable to more than just the wiki. The initial focus should be on Wikimedia projects, but it should also be extensible.
  • The project needs better measures of success and it also should be reviewed by developers.
  • Nice idea for tool with some preliminary development already performed; reasonable budget
  • Reporting and documentation are not to be paid
  • Tool addresses a need. There should be more concern about making sure that the tool is appropriated by the community. Should also allow for translation.
IEG IdeaLab review.png

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:

  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 and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page.
  2. Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on March 1st, 2019.

Questions? Contact us.

Recommendations for outreach[edit]

Hi there, Artturimatias, Susannaanas, and Zache. In my volunteer capacity, I am often helping out folks with uploading or obtaining permission on OTRS for images or permissions and on occasion, this has been in the context of GLAM-related projects. It's great to see that you're working on building a tool to make it easier for institutions and volunteers who work with them to not just move content over, but to organize and preserve the appropriate information that goes along with it. It seems to me that interest in this tool is definitely there, but one of the hardest parts about project involving tools is getting folks to use it once the work is done. I had some suggestions regarding adoption of GLAMpipe:

  • Thinking beyond a test user group to ensure usability, I think it would be really valuable to work directly with 2-3 active GLAM institutions or projects to use GLAMpipe in their work, even for a small project. Not only would these relationships be a benefit for those institutions and the Wikimedia projects they contribute to, but they would serve as concrete examples for other volunteers or GLAM institutions who might be interested in using your tool. They would also help develop a community of GLAMpipe users who can potentially help each other and interested users for your tool. Are there some GLAM institutions you might be interested in working with, and can I help you get in touch with them?
  • I really like the custom nodes aspect of the project. Some tasks related to content imports are institution- or otherwise context-specific, and developers can write an appropriate node for GLAMpipe to support that task. Other content upload or Wikidata tasks are fairly common across institutions. I note that your videos will address different use case scenarios, and I think a good way to get broad adoption of the tool is to identify those common scenarios and make sure GLAMpipe can accommodate many of them from the time of release.
  • The instructional videos can have great value for your project down the line, as others can use them to teach about GLAMpipe to new audiences. The experiences and feedback from test users will likely help inform you what content to prioritize in your videos. For example, you might find that test users don't really have any problems using OAuth to login, but do have trouble understanding how data is prepared / represented on GLAMpipe for Wikidata, so you can allocate time to these different topics appropriately.
  • It's great to see that you invited a lot of GLAM communities to consider your proposal on Facebook and through mailing lists. I'd suggest keeping these circles updated on the progress of your tool, especially if there are prototypes.

Anyway, I'm happy to talk about these suggestions more, so if you have any questions, let me know. Also, having done some GLAM outreach work in the past, please feel free to get in touch with me if I can help you out with setting up some of these partnerships. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF): I am happy to have our ongoing GLAM initiative as a pilot for GLAMpipe. I am already in touch with proponents of this project, as when I read their proposal I thought it could be very helpful for us. They appear to be interested in having us on board, and we are ready to go. I have taken out 30 images of our greater bundle to upload to the Commons by trying GLAMpipe. --Joalpe (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the encouraging feedback, I JethroBT (WMF)! I'll reply briefly to your points:
  • Thinking beyond a test user group to ensure usability, GLAM partners - I think this is a valuable proposal. With the São Paulo Museum of Veterinary Anatomy project onboard, we could allow 2 more. One should be Finnish (we already have some unfinished ones to choose from), and the other one could be any new one, possibly one with a tricky problem, such as geospatial data or a language with a different script or indeed, a data import. Suggestions welcome!
  • Custom nodes, instructional videos - Someone might have suggestions regarding what sort of a "marketplace" to create around exchanging information, making available help files and custom nodes etc. Again, any easy models or approaches would be welcome!
  • GLAM communities - I think we are well connected, but when the time comes to engage everyone, we will need enthusiastic supporters. We have scheduled a few blog posts, and they should be published in media that reaches people well. Any suggestions are welcome!
We have also opened the discussion with Wikidata folks, so we'll be getting feedback from them as well.
Cheers, Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 2016 decision[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for a Project Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, $5,647 USD

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support your project in developing a tool to facilitate uploading and unlocking structured data. We value enabling GLAM institutions to manage complex batches of content through a simpler process, and we are glad to promote this tool’s success in the movement. We hope to support you in communicating GLAMpipe’s value to Wikimedia communities in order to improve adoption.

Next steps:

  1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
  2. Review the information for grantees.
  3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
  4. Start work on your project!

Questions? Contact us.