Grants talk:Project/Magioladitis/Why women don’t edit Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

April 12 Proposal Deadline: Reminder to change status to 'proposed'[edit]

The deadline for Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) submissions this round is April 12th, 2016. To submit your proposal, you must (1) complete the proposal entirely, filling in all empty fields, and (2) change the status from "draft" to "proposed." As soon as you’re ready, you should begin to invite any communities affected by your project to provide feedback on your proposal talkpage. If you have any questions about finishing up or would like to brainstorm with us about your proposal, we're hosting a few IEG proposal help sessions this month in Google Hangouts:

I'm also happy to set up an individual session.

Warm regards,
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2016[edit]

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 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 1 2016 begins on 24 August 2016, and grants will be announced in October. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments[edit]

The idea behind the project is interesting but I have some comments/questions:

  1. You write in the first section 'The first step is to try to reverse the question: "why men are eager to contribute to Wikipedia?"'. Also one of your solutions is "to explore how the labor needed in order to contribute to Wikipedia is experienced by men and women in Greece." However you do not plan any interviews with males participants as I understand. How do you intend to answer the questions mentioned above?
  2. In the activities section there is a phrase: "publish a paper at ... (or a Greek scientific journal)". Please, clarify what you mean by it.
  3. Among your measures of success you mention 200 "filled in questionnaires". However in the activities section you mention 300 questionnaires. In addition it is not clear where and when such questionnaires will be filled in.
  4. The duration of the project is not specified.
  5. In your measures of success you mention "Number of articles written by workshop participants after 3 months: 60". In what journals they will be published? In the activities section your again only mention one paper in a peer reviewed journal, not 60.
  6. In activities section two videos are mentioned by they are not mentioned in measures of success. Is this an oversight?
  7. A side note: "fenomena" should be spelled "phenomena" as all Greek words in English.

Ruslik (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik thanks for the comments. Here are the answers is all but one question. I will answer it later, because it is the most interesting and I need to get some advice from the groups before.

  1. (placeholder) You seem to have a point that men should be interviewed too.
  2. Fixed. I hope it's clear now?
  3. Fixed and Fixed. This number is approximatelly the numbers of subscribers to the feminist magazine Telesilla we expect that to receive the questionnaire via the subscribers' network and fill it out.
  4. It is 3 months. I am not giving specific dates yet pending other scheduled projects by the User Group. I'll try to give specifics asap.
  5. Fixed. I refer to the number of articles created during the workshops based on my experience after the 2nd Wikipedia Edit-a-thon organised by SheSharp in Thessaloniki. Is it clear now?
  6. Added. Unless some weird technical failure occurs, this is certain. SheSharp and Telesilla both had their own recording systems.
  7. Fixed. you seems to know better Greek than me :)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still it is important to have at least an approximate timeline of the events. In addition, since the sum that you are requesting only marginally exceeds $2000, have you considered Grants:Rapid grants? Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik Plan made. We can't start earlier due to other projects scheduled by the user group. (Wiki Loves Monuments, etc.) -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik On question 1: I plan to get the answers for the women that live with men at the same house. Still to create the correct questionnaire I'll consult the Telesilla editorial board because in the past they have surveys on gender issues. I do not exclude the case that I ask some male editors to fill out questionnaires. I 'll wait for the 2 round table meetings to see who we can proceed in this direction.

I have considered the rapid grant but the people I discussed in person already critised me on the other direction: That I plan to organise too many things with few money, including two workshops and 3 talks without providing any soft drinks, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more note, The budget should be in USA dollars. Ruslik (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik Added. Thanks!!! -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik sections rewritten. Please check. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and questions re: scope[edit]

First of all, I think this is an interesting and important project! I've done some work re: the "gender gap" on the EN Wiki and am happy to chat if you'd like.

Second, I'm a bit confused about the scope. You mention considering a "profile of Greek male contributors might give us a basis for comparing male and female experience of the interaction with Wikipedia," but then it looks as though your research methods (10 semi-structured interviews) tie to your second idea: "It would also be interesting to trace the opinions on the matter of women scholars and professional writers in Greece." I would highly recommend focussing on only one of these as time and money go quickly and a tighter scope means you're more likely to (1) meet your goals (2) have less frustration (3) produce something that provides insight.

(Speaking from experience here as my IEG scope was WAY too broad!)

--Mssemantics (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mssemantics you are right. In fact the final plan will be agreed in cooperation with the female groups. I do not consider myself an expert on the matter. I am open to suggestions and ideas. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mssemantics all sections rewritten following your advice. Please check. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up, but I'm troubled by the Comment on the grants page. I'm also curious as to whether any women are involved in this project. --Mssemantics (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mssemantics the activities will be supported by three feminist groups / female oriented:

  • SheSharp
  • Telesilla
  • MOV

The events in Athens will be hosted by Telesilla which is strictly all-female feminist group. The vents in Thessaloniki will be co-organised by SheSharp.

Moreover, volunteers desantonop and Amaliavr are both female. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mssemantics the case mentioned in the comment has already been sent to Trust & Safety of WMF for investigation. I already had a Hangout with the Grants committee on the matter. The outcome of the Trust & Safety won't actually affect the project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the section in question. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and some suggestions[edit]

@Magioladitis: I think this is a worthwhile project and I look forward to seeing the results. I have a few suggestions/considerations, which I have listed below. Good luck!

  • You state that you plan to submit a paper based on your research to an academic conference. I think this is a good idea. However, be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation Open Access Policy may require this paper (or at least a draft of it) to be published free/libre. Different academic conferences and journals have different policies around copyright and open access licensing, and many require you to pay an extra fee if you want your manuscript to be published open access. If your proposal is accepted by the Grants committee, I suggest you set up some time to speak with Mjohnson (WMF) about how to plan and/or budget for this.
  • I disagree with your statement that "the question of the gender gap in Wikipedia remains basically unanswered". In fact, there has been quite a bit of good research on why women don't participate in Wikipedia—including the Greek Wikipedia! But you don't cite any of this research in your proposal, and as a result your current argument comes across as a bit of a "straw man" argument. I think your project will be more successful and your results will be more valuable if you focus on gaps in what we know about the Wikipedia gender gap, rather than assuming that everything that we think we know now is wrong. I strongly encourage you to read the following papers before beginning your own research:
  • You list "number of Wikipedia articles written by workshop participants after 3 months: 60" as one of your measures of success. How do you plan to encourage workshop attendees to write articles? Perhaps you can clarify this by describing what you will do in your workshops, and who you will invite, in more detail within your proposal.

Like I said, this looks promising. We can always use more data on the gender gap. Let me know if you have any questions for me, or would like me to clarify anything I've said above. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jmorgan (WMF) yes, you are right that we have more data now to answer the gender gap question. I have prepared this Draft a long time ago before I organise a talk in Athens and a workshop in Thessaloniki last year. I now know more of how Wikipedians around the world worked on the matter than I knew last year. I should have revised the text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jmorgan (WMF) Added. You have right. I talked with my female supporters and men should be interviewed too. This was crucial part of the initial idea anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project idea rewritten and project refocused[edit]

Following discussion with grants committee, the project plan, goals and idea were rewritten to present a more concrete and feasible set of activities. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marti (WMF) proposal was updated and focused to outreach. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Why women don’t edit Wikipedia[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?
 6.9
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
 7.0
(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?
 7.6
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
 7.2
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • The project is aimed at an important Wikimedia problem - deficit of female participants among Wikipedia contributors - and as such it fits the Wikimedia's strategic priorities. It certainly has a potential for online impact and can be sustained after the grant completion.
  • Even though several researches have looked into gender gap as a research problem, the existing findings cannot be applied to all cultural settings. Therefore, it is important that the perspectives from a variety of communities is heard, and I think Greek Wikimedia is a good sample to pursue this research.
  • To make sense of the reasons and consequences of the gender gap in Wikipedia is of uttermost importance. I think the agenda that is set in the application relates directly to important principles of the Wikimedia projects.
  • Given the proposal, I would have expected a woman to lead such an initiative. Though the applicants refer to two feminist communities they have worked with, there is little evidence of support from the community. I would like to know more about how the project lead will be able to engage female editors.
  • A literature review and a survey of other initiatives could be a way to connect this effort to other groups who are willing to tackle the gender gap on the projects.
  • It has a potential for finding better approaches to bridging the gender gap in Greek Wikipedia. Solutions may be adapted in other wikis.
  • I do not see a clear impact on wiki or a way the information can be scaled. There is a lot of research on the gender gap, but we have seen little impact on wiki.
  • The project includes a realistic plan, clear goals and realistic measures of success. It positioned for a long-term impact (proportional to the modest funds requested). What is important for a research project is that the grantee intends to have an academic publication.
  • It appears as if the criteria for measures of success are not quite related to the methodology of the project. The success measures appear to be those of a workshop, not of the research per se. Additionally, the filled up questionnaire would need to be treated as confidential data, depending upon what kind of information you are seeking. Overall, I anticipate that this project will bring fresh perspectives regarding participation of women on medium sized Wiki projects.
  • Need more details on why 2 workshops are recommended per city and why the two cities listed were chosen. It is difficult to measure the quality of the research that is expected to be produced.
  • Researching men to understand the limitations of women is an impressive twist. But, I feel it is an obvious fact. The research might just quantify the facts through a small sample size.
  • The project seems too ambitious to fit into a 4-month plan. In addition to the research, the applicant plans to conduct workshops and presentations. They also expect to track the workshop participants 3 months after the workshop. I'd suggest to reduce the scope of the project and focus only on the research. The workshop, presentation, etc. could be made into a separate proposal during another round of the project grants.
  • The project is feasible; it is not clear how helpful it will be for the community, though.
  • Potential grantees are already working in this field and goals are attainable, with good measures of success provided.
  • It is evident that the project has good support from the community. The potential for engagement of the target community is very high.
  • Good community engagement, with both Greek women organisations and people working on gender gap abroad involved. Grantee is eager to learn and adapt the approach.
  • Community engagement looks sufficient as far as partner organizations and target audience are concerned. But, considering this is a project from a user group, more interest and inputs from the editing community would have been good.
  • Community involvement was less than I would expect for a project like this. I was concerned by the remark that one of the applicants might have been involved in a harassment situation himself. I have read the background document that was sent out by the editor who commented on this hypothetical situation. Especially given the topic at hand, I would have expected a reply to this comment.
  • I think this project is useful for our movement. It will provide more data on gender gap and inform us on what will be an enabling environment for women on Wikipedia.
  • I support this project provided that the goals be scaled down to fit into the 4 month timeline. The applicant may stick with the semi structured interviews, paper writing and publishing of the paper during 4 months. It will be very nice to engage volunteers to do the questionnaires, workshops etc, if it is possible to do so - but I don't see that as necessary. The paper itself will engage the grantee for 4 months that they might not find adequate time to manage the rest of the activities.

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 Thursday, May 27, 2021.
Questions? Contact us at projectgrants (_AT_) wikimedia  · org.


Magioladitis, our interview with you was part of the due diligence process (I'm getting these comments posted late). You are still welcome to record any response you have to committee comments on your talkpage to make your feedback publicly accessible, but I think we gathered the information we needed for the committee during our talk with you. Best regards, Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses[edit]

Dear Marti thanks for the feedback, the support and the communication. I'll start posting some responses here.

  • On the period of the project: I already extended the period of the activities in a span of 6 months. The paper and some other stuff will be ready after the 6 month period. I can re-adjust the time period.
  • On the choice of Athens and Thessaloniki: I left more details on this choice.
  • On researching men: The idea was already postponed at the moment after the Google Hangout feedback.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments, Magioladitis! Just confirming again, for clarity, that these committee comments preceded our interview with you, so they may come across as outdated (because they are!). We have communicated to the committee the responses we got from you during the interview, so their current thinking has shifted from what is represented in the aggregated comments from the scoring period. Primarily, you can think of the comments posted above as an opportunity to clarify any points that have not been already represented in your proposal and talkpage. Kind regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Marti, I have not been involved in a harassment situation. A user claimed that. The Support & Safety team is dealing with the issue, they have my response, the Grants team can be informed from there. It is not needed to change the subject of discussion from the project, to an individual's claims not directly related to the project. -Geraki TL 12:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geraki TL, I want to make sure it's clear that these comments are not my own. These are aggregated comments written by the Project Grants Committee during their review in the scoring period. That said, it sounds like we disagree about the relevance of the committee's concerns about the harassment claim. I do believe the claim is relevant to their review of this proposal. When a community member posts a link to a harassment claim about a project team member, we must take this seriously. We consider grant funding to be, among other things, an implicit endorsement of the project team as role models in the global community. Consequently, to the extent we feasibly can, we try to make sure that their conduct abides by friendly space expectations. In this case, it is a female member who has made a harassment claim and posted a link to it on a proposal specifically seeking to lead an initiative to encourage more women to edit Wikipedia. We know that some women indicate fear of harassment is a deterrent to editing on Wikipedia. This makes the claim even more directly relevant, since part of our job in reviewing requests for funding is to determine whether the project team has the necessary skills to succeed in the specific work they propose to do. I hope you can understand why the claim would generate concerns about your ability to succeed in this project. That said, Geraki TL, I can assure you that the committee is not acting from an assumption that the claim is true. They have been explicitly clear that they are not in a position to judge the outcome of the investigation being conducted by the Support & Safety team. Rather, they are only clear that while a harassment claim remains open about one of its leaders, they are unlikely to approve this project for funding. I would be happy to discuss this with you further. --Marti (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Marti and commitee. I find here a hole in the procedure. Not approving the project while some individual's claim remains open, is the same outcome as if the claim was judged true (guilty). The presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right. The fact is that this would create a precedent, where if someone wants to block some grant request, they can accuse one of the leaders for something (whatever) and filibuster the procedure. Please understand that I am not someone new and unknown to the Wikimedia community. I am a contributor since 2003 and do outreach projects since 2009. I have spoken to hundrends of people about wikipedia, I have met dozens of wikipedians in person. I have a clear reputation, I have never been accused of anything. The claim came months after the "incident", but in perfect timing to hit this grant proposal. It must be clear that the forum and timing of discussion is not my choice, nor it is the fact that there is no public outcome yet. It is not in my hands. Even when the final outcome of that procedure prove that there was no harassement, the false claim will have succeeded one of its purposes if the grant request is not approved. -Geraki TL 17:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-Geraki TL, I hear your concern about the standing of your reputation in the community and your wish to be treated with fairness in response to the harassment claim. I believe I can speak for the committee as well as myself when I say we share that wish for fairness, for you, for the claimant and for this project team as a whole. However, it is not the committee's role to make a decision about your guilt or lack thereof. The presumption of innocence is the appropriate starting place in the context of a trial, and I certainly expect it will apply in the determination of the Support and Safety team. But this is not a trial. It's only the Committee's role to make a recommendation about whether to fund this project at this time. Since the claim exists, and has been linked to the proposal, the Committee has to decide--not whether the claim is true or false--but how this situation may impact our volunteer community. In particular, because of the focus of this specific proposal, they have to decide how it will affect women in our volunteer community. There are repercussions regardless of your guilt or innocence. There is potential for harm if the committee is perceived to be choosing to disregard a claim of harassment from a female community member who, like you, is a longstanding Wikimedian in good standing. This project proposes to address the perception that "Wikipedia is sexist." Disbelief as a default response when women assert that they have been harassed is an often-cited example of sexism. Consequently, I believe there is potential for harm if this project is funded while this claim is open, since it suggests that the default response to the claim is disbelief. It constellates problematic behavioral patterns associated with sexism. For this reason, I think the project's goals are served by taking a respectful stance toward the claim. It is an opportunity to demonstrate sensitivity to the larger cultural context in which women are met with disbelief when reporting harassment and other forms of abuse.
I will notify the committee of your comments to give them further opportunity to respond. Best regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to note that even that claim did not include any gender based aspects. I was never accused of 'sexism' of 'gender based harassment'. I underline: the gender card was played only here, to create impressions to the committee. Wikipedia will not be less sexist if it gives more credit to an individual's claims just because it is a female and the other is male. Our value is equal. Any any way, what will be the conclusion if we abandon the project all together, or I just withdraw from it, and a little later we have an official outcome that there was no harassment issue? Can we just say "no problem, nothing happened"? -Geraki TL 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the project manager / advisor: Following discussions with the Grants Committee, it's best for the project to have a female project manager / advisor. Stamatina (Mata) Kaloudaki, Consultant Director of Research Centre of Women's Affairs (RCWA) accepted to take on this role. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 2016 decision[edit]

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, $4,034 USD

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support your work to understand the challenges for women in Greece to participate in the Wikimedia projects. We are excited about the partnerships you have developed and believe they will provide critical expertise and context in a sensitive area. We appreciate your efforts to support more women contributors in your community.

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!

Upcoming changes to Wikimedia Foundation Grants

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.


Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:Project/Magioladitis/Why_women_don’t_edit_Wikipedia&oldid=16027917"