Eligibility confirmed, Round 1 2020[edit]

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for Round 1 2020 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through March 16, 2020.

The Project Grant committee's formal review for Round 1 2020 will occur March 17 - April 8, 2020. We ask that you refrain from making changes to your proposal during the committee review period, so we can be sure that all committee members are seeing the same version of the proposal.

Grantees will be announced Friday, May 15, 2020.

Any changes to the review calendar will be posted on the Round 1 2020 schedule.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia · org.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography/recruiting aquatic editors[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?	6.0
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	6.3
(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?	6.0
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	5.5
Additional comments from the Committee: It seems aligned with Wikimedia mission, but it's so specific area of interest to be adapted elsewhere. While this is a fairly strong proposal, it is difficult to see how it fits with the strategic priorities of knowledge as service and knowledge equity. While content relating to aquatic science certainly could be improved, the field of aquatic science is not as I understand an area of knowledge that is underrepresented on projects because of inequities; additionally, the proposal only focuses on English Wikipedia. The project is focused on a problem which is clearly defined and understandable. In general, the idea is good and I believe it would have a great impact on contents quality but I am wondering if the grantee has other plans to recruit the proposed 30 new PhD-level aquatic scientists as editors and classroom ambassadors aside the video viewership. In addition, I don't see a clear plan on how the coordinators would follow up with new editors at the end of the project. Despite the scope is too narrow to oceanic sciences, it could be a good starting point to other sciences areas, if the project is successful I like the pilot approach and proposal to have dedicated support for classrooms participating in the program. This seems more valuable than the video campaign and instructional materials. The biggest problem I see is the idea that there is a correlation between producing videos and acquiring new users. I am skeptical about this approach. So I understand and I agree about the problem, I disagree about the solution. The budget for the videos seems quite high to me - but maybe I would feel differently if the exact number of videos/scope of content was further outlined. It’s nice that this is a fairly large team and that at least one of them has experience using Wikipedia in the classroom. The project has not got a clear endorsement from community, and its focus is in English Wikipedia. Great that there are already a number of instructors interested and on board. The proposal mentions recruitment of a diverse group of participating instructors (e.g. from HBCUs, etc.) but the diversity does not seem to be reflected yet among those who have committed. There are a handful of support but I think it should be announced on on the relevant WikiProject or noticeboard It could be more easy to fund if there is a pilot video to see the quality and how is developed the idea. This kind of project could be a success in their specific area of interest, but I don't see how this could be replicated in other places, countries or languages. More in support of pilot program than video so potentially would support partial or reduced funding I don't see a big impact in this project. A different solution would have been appreciated. I'd recommend funding if the budget is reduced. 160 hrs to create instructional video is a lot and I think this could be done with lesser time

Opportunity to respond to committee comments in the next week

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal. Based on their initial review, a majority of committee reviewers have not recommended your proposal for funding. You can read more about their reasons for this decision in their comments above. Before the committee finalizes this decision, they would like to provide you with an opportunity to respond to their comments.

Next steps:

Aggregated committee comments from the committee are posted above. Note that these comments may vary, or even contradict each other, since they reflect the conclusions of multiple individual committee members who independently reviewed this proposal. We recommend that you review all the feedback carefully and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page by 5pm UTC on Tuesday, May 11, 2021. If you make any revisions to your proposal based on committee feedback, we recommend that you also summarize the changes on your talkpage.
The committee will review any additional feedback you post on your talkpage before making a final funding decision. A decision will be announced Thursday, May 27, 2021.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia · org.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, wrong page.

Response to Reviews[edit]

It seems aligned with Wikimedia mission, but it's so specific area of interest to be adapted elsewhere.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer’s comment that our project could not be adapted elsewhere. First, as our mission is specifically geared towards improving water-related pages, the pages that are related to the Wikiproject are actually quite broad. Limnology and Oceanography spans inland waters to marine environments, and includes the study of lakes, ponds, reservoirs, streams, rivers, wetlands, groundwater, estuaries, and oceans. Therefore, pages that could be tagged to WP L&O inherently include a wide range of available pages on Wikipedia, from very general (e.g., the water cycle, limnology, etc) to highly technical and specific (e.g., hyporheic zones, primary production). The WikiProject L&O has already tagged 752 articles with pages related to editor expertise; however, our intent is to expand to improve as many topical pages as possible.

Second, Wikipedia has played an increasingly significant role in scientific communication by providing a universally accessible compilation of topical information. We hope to inspire the creation or implementation of other science-related WikiProjects for other scientific fields with our efforts. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a fairly strong proposal, it is difficult to see how it fits with the strategic priorities of knowledge as service and knowledge equity. While content relating to aquatic science certainly could be improved, the field of aquatic science is not as I understand an area of knowledge that is underrepresented on projects because of inequities; additionally, the proposal only focuses on English Wikipedia.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Our project addresses Wikimedia’s strategic priorities of knowledge as service and knowledge equity because it promotes increasing open knowledge about vitally important, but threatened aquatic ecosystems across the scientific institution-public interface. Despite some progress, the distribution of scientific knowledge remains incredibly unequal. Specifically, dissemination of scientific knowledge occurs primarily through scientific journals, which often have costly subscription fees that prohibit poorer institutions and individuals from accessing this knowledge (example 1, 2). As such, this method primarily serves those with privilege or power. Despite the advent of internet-based platforms such as Wikipedia, institutionalized reward systems (e.g., citation statistics) prevent many scientists from spending time and resources to disseminate their knowledge beyond scientific journals. Our project strives to transform this culture by recruiting and training scientists to add content to and improve Wikipedia articles related to the aquatic sciences, as well as interact with students adding content to aquatic Wikipedia pages. Once again, we hope to inspire the creation or implementation of other science-related WikiProjects for other scientific fields with our efforts and have added text related to expanding to other disciplines. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The project is focused on a problem which is clearly defined and understandable.

We appreciate the reviewer’s supportive comment.Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the idea is good and I believe it would have a great impact on contents quality but I am wondering if the grantee has other plans to recruit the proposed 30 new PhD-level aquatic scientists as editors and classroom ambassadors aside the video viewership. In addition, I don't see a clear plan on how the coordinators would follow up with new editors at the end of the project.

This is an excellent point, which we address in several parts:

We plan to use our professional networks and societies to recruit scientists and educators to this effort. For example, we have already contacted members of the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network and the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON) via email listservs and social media campaigns. We also plan to recruit members from the Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science Inc. (CUAHSI), Ecological Society of America (ESA), Society for Freshwater Science (SFS), and Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO). Members of the listed professional organizations represent the preeminent researchers and educators in the topics related to Limnology & Oceanography, and we expect that across all these professional societies that we can efficiently recruit 30+ PhD level contributors.
We plan to survey project participants to assess project outcomes. Our group already has experience implementing survey methods for participants of this Wikiproject. During past “editathons,” we surveyed participants to obtain data to assess our instructional materials, participants’ experience editing pages, and interest in future Wikipedia contributions post-editathon. We already have established Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for performing participant surveys. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the scope is too narrow to oceanic sciences, it could be a good starting point to other sciences areas, if the project is successful

As we noted in our response above, we do not believe that the project is overly narrow in scope: Limnology & Oceanography encompasses a broad range of topics related to “water”. However, we appreciate the reviewer acknowledging that the project could be applicable to other scientific fields. We have added text to the proposal indicating how this could be applied to other scientific fields. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the pilot approach and proposal to have dedicated support for classrooms participating in the program. This seems more valuable than the video campaign and instructional materials.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. In response to this suggestion and the recommendations by other reviewers, we have reduced the budget for the video by 50%. In addition, we also have listed plans to reach out to academics in higher education who would be willing to use Wikipedia in their classrooms. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I see is the idea that there is a correlation between producing videos and acquiring new users. I am skeptical about this approach. So I understand and I agree about the problem, I disagree about the solution.

We understand the reviewer’s concerns that producing a video will not equate to acquiring new Wikipedia users. Adding new editors will require active recruitment, training, and incorporation of editing into classrooms. The instructional videos will serve as an invaluable educational tool that can be used as a resource in classrooms or for editing workshops at conferences, etc., rather than explicitly encouraging new members to join the project. However, we agree that the largest focus of our project should not be on video production, and in response to this review and others, we have reduced the video budget by 50%. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The budget for the videos seems quite high to me - but maybe I would feel differently if the exact number of videos/scope of content was further outlined. It’s nice that this is a fairly large team and that at least one of them has experience using Wikipedia in the classroom.

We have budgeted $6,400 dollars for video production, which was based on a quote for professional video production. While we have now adjusted the budget to be $3,200, below we have outlined the plans for video production and the instructional videos will be largely animations specific to aquatic-related Wikipedia articles.


Description	Quantity	Units	Unit Price	Total price (USD)
Storyboarding and writing	34	hours	$40	$1,360
Animation	40	hours	$40	$1,600
Hard Drive & Storage	2	drives	$75	$150
Licensing (music/sound effects)	1	video	$100	$100
			subtotal	$3,200

Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The project has not got a clear endorsement from community, and its focus is in English Wikipedia.

In response to this comment, we have listed plans to reach out to academics in higher education who would be willing to use Wikipedia in their classrooms. We also have team members who will work to edit Wikipedia in other languages (e.g., Spanish). Since receiving reviews, we have garnered support from the community with 2 new educators, 3 new reviewers, and 3 additional mentions of support in one week. Through outreach efforts with scientific society listserves and social media, the grant proposal has received >240 views in the last week. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great that there are already a number of instructors interested and on board. The proposal mentions recruitment of a diverse group of participating instructors (e.g. from HBCUs, etc.) but the diversity does not seem to be reflected yet among those who have committed.

If funded, we plan to target instructors from a diverse range of institutions including HBCUs, tribal institutions, and Hispanic-serving institutions. Currently we have 10 educators committed ranging from Tribally-controlled, minority serving institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions, and large state universities. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of support but I think it should be announced on on the relevant WikiProject or noticeboard

This is an excellent suggestion! The announcement was already on the WikiProject page, and we have since advertised widely on social media (here, here). We have already reached out to several professional networks of preeminent aquatic scholars (e.g., GLEON, LTER). Additionally, we have plans to coordinate with other pertinent organizations (e.g., CUAHSI, SFS, ESA, ASLO). Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be more easy to fund if there is a pilot video to see the quality and how is developed the idea. This kind of project could be a success in their specific area of interest, but I don't see how this could be replicated in other places, countries or languages.

We have added details for how the project could be replicated in other disciplines (e.g. geology, social sciences), countries, and languages. We have added details of the video that would be produced if the project were funded. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More in support of pilot program than video so potentially would support partial or reduced funding

Based on this review and others, we have reduced the budget of the instructional videos by 50%. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a big impact in this project. A different solution would have been appreciated.

While we understand the reviewers’ concern that the project is overly narrow in scope, we respectfully disagree that the project has low potential impact. To date, the grassroots WikiProject has substantially improved the availability of aquatic pages by adding >50,000 words, 100’s of citations, and creating several topical pages (see here). Expanding the project to aquatic scientists and educators in a more coordinated manner presents an opportunity to greatly improve the accessibility, reliability, and accuracy of information available on Wikipedia, and therefore is an exciting avenue to create more equitable and inclusive sharing of aquatic science.

Additionally, we have added details to the proposal for how the project could be used as a road map for other disciplines (e.g. geology, social sciences), developed in other countries, and coordinated across languages. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend funding if the budget is reduced. 160 hrs to create instructional video is a lot and I think this could be done with lesser time

Based on this review and others, we have reduced the budget of the instructional videos by 50%. Jayzlimno (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 2020 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, US$9,200

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support the existing community of editors who participate in WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography (WP L&O) through training and volunteer coordination to improve community capacity to improve the quality of topically relevant article. We especially appreciate that the project will result in training videos that will be available for ongoing applications after the project ends.

Next steps:

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