Grants talk:Simple/Applications/Wiki Education Brazil User Group/2017/H1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Eligibility[edit]

Hello, Wiki Education Brazil colleagues!

Thank you for submitting your eligibility form on 28 October 2016. We've determined that you are eligible to apply for a Simple Annual Plan Grant (including funding for staff up to 0.5 FTE) based on your eligibility evaluation for your most recent grant application that reviews your past work, as well as the midpoint report for your current grant.

(Note that during the course of this grant, the user group changed its name to Wiki Education Brazil and Wikimedia Community Brazilian Group of Education and Research refer to the same organization.)

Some of this year's achievements at the midpoint include,

  • Organization of the successful CCBWiki conference!
  • Involving 1437 new editors in your work in the first 3 months of your grant (through Wiki Loves programs).
  • Collaboration with WMPT to spread use of the Wiki Med app in Brazil.
  • Growing group membership from 80 to 120 in just three months, establishing working groups, and adopting the use of project management software to share tasks.

While Wiki Education Brazil is a user group with no formal governance structure, we have been impressed with the level of engagement of group members in different organizational tasks. The group uses a Trello board (a type of project management software) to coordinate across different project and organizational areas, and now has 30 active members and 120 members total (which is a significant increase from 80 members 3 months ago). The group has also formed working groups in key areas like communications, legal, IT, and partnerships, in order to leverage volunteer expertise, and is working actively toward diversifying their funding sources to become more independent. For example, the successful CCBWiki conference was conducted entirely without any WMF funding support (through participation fees and local sponsorships). The group has also developed workflows for reviewing their finances and submitting regular bank statements.

In order to monitor spending, given past concerns with this group and due to its informal structure, Wiki Education Brazil has submitted bank statements and spending plans on a monthly basis, as requested by WMF. The group is currently working to establish an official bank account in Brasil in order to improve this situation and is considering options for formalizing its structure in order to be better prepared to cooperate with local partners. Wiki Education Brazil submitted a high quality midpoint report covering the first 3 months of their grant, which should give the committee some good information to review their past work, although it was submitted a few weeks late. Delays were caused due to difficulties in having different group members review and add to the report, and in translating the report into English. Processes around reporting will need to be improved during future grants.

The group is seeking to maintain their existing 0.5 FTE staff during the upcoming 6-month funding period. They may need to request a budget increase to compensate for the recent devaluation of the Brazilian real, which may increase the value of their grant in US dollars without significantly increasing their spending power.

We look forward to reviewing your grant for the first half of 2017.

Best regards, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 22:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "Collaboration with WMPT to spread use of the Wiki Med app in Brazil"? This user group has done absolutely nothing but an interview related with the app. Just saying that this is a group activity should not be enough.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above made Mr. Padula send me a "very kind" message via Facebook. Padula, please stop sending enraged and inconvenient messages on Facebook whenever I publicly report your mistakes. That is not the first time I request that to you. I don't understand why you can't argue here where everyone can see and where I bet you will be more polite. You are not transparent on your reports and I am forced to request clarification, which is just what I did here. If you can't clarify that, being offensive will not help either.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 21:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating what I sad directly to you on Facebook trying to avoid another long and unfruitful thread here: "Improve content, organize a task force, coordinate with our fellows from Portugal, have many meetings and conversations(you can ask Doc James), prepare a press release using our communications team and spread the app launch in Brazil and Portugal is not a good effort for you? Do you really think in that way or you are just kidding me?". We are not trying to get advantage based on work from someone else, or university or teacher, we are really reporting things that our user group were really involved during the last months. For sure the app release was not our biggest challenge or project, we did a lot of other things to justify our existence and request support from WMF, like Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves the Olympics(created and proposed by our user group), the first Wikipedia Science Conference with an open call for papers, the first GLAM project in Brazil and etc. But, for sure our group did a great impact in the Wikipedia Medical App release in Brazil, helping to increase the reach and the number of downloads, and as a medic you should be happy to have us helping to spread that very important project in our country Rodrigo Padula (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you provided those links, but they prove nothing. It is easy to check that you did nothing that you claim as done by this user group. Look at the history here. Where are you or any of your user group's members? Wikimedia Portugal didn't mention that what you call "partnership" anywhere. All I see is a big effort from Antero, an user from Portugal and others who are not from your group. And even the interviews on which you participated are filled with those lies about that "huge" participation your group didn't have. Show me links to that on wiki participation, Padula. Saying that you did it is not enough.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are just confirming exactly what I reported to WMF and to the Wikimedia Movement. Antero did great part of the job, creating, improving content and bringing new people to help him to launch the app as you confirmed and everybody can read in the informed links, so again, to confirm what I said and we wrote in our reports he joined our User Group in June and is helping our Wiki Health Project in cooperation with Thiago Petra and Doc James]] improving our relations and activities in partnership with WMPT, so I can say that a member of our user group created great part of the content added to the Wikipedia Med App and was responsible to improve the content and bring new people to help him, including the supervision of the effort and many communications by email with Doc James responsible by the international project. Other very important point, our user group created and shared with the local media the press release about the app(as I explained in our reports), if you read all content published by the Brazilian media you will see that the texts were basically based on the PR produced and shared by Fernanda(the leader of our communication team). Check the references that confirms what I said, again: FM Radio transmission about the app release, based in out PR and more [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],and the text published on the WMPT blog about our effort citing Antero. I really cant get your point here, as I told you before, the app release was just a very small part of everything that our group produced during the last months. I really don't know why are you trying to undermine our effort in that matter and is conducting that discussion in that way. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know that Antero is from Portugal, right? Is he a member of the "Brazilian" group? You told me he is also trying to become a regular member of Wikimedia Portugal. So, is that what you call "partnership"? Having a member in a "Brazilian" group from... Portugal, who is also from Wikimedia Portugal? As I said, the blog link you provided mentions an user but doesn't mention any Brazilian group. Did they forget to mention your group? Do you have any other user from another country who is not from Brazil, but you consider to be part of the group only for signing that list? So, the "partnership" is having a single user as a member of the group and another country's chapter at the same time? Read it all over again if you are not getting the point here.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 02:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's simple, like in all user groups, people sign a Wiki page, join a mail list, talk to each other, have meetings, develop friendship and join efforts in common projects and interests, don't matter the age, status, religion, gender, country or continent. We are a Brazilian user group working in an international movement, with brothers and sisters from many countries, improving a lusophone project, open to participation and cooperation from other countries and places around the globe.Working in that way we developed the Wiki Loves Earth, Monuments, The Olympics, Wikipedia Science Conference(with help from Mexico, Germany, USA and UK). The membership process is defined by each group and their members, not by you, you cant decide who is a member of our group and who is not based only in your POV and interests in that discussion. The same thing for chapters, one chapter can create an statute and define that people from other countries can join or not, you can see in Europe members from many countries participating in chapters from other country, cooperating and helping each others, if you dont agree with it, it dont mean that it's not allowed or acceptable. The international cooperation and participation is something very positive IMHO and in the opinion of all members of our user group, that is why we are here talking in english for an international audience in a global project. Together we can do more and more! Cooperation, that's the key! Best regards Rodrigo Padula (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comment has been hidden according to the Friendly space expectations
What a happy and inspiring answer... that completely misses the topic. So, that is a confirmation that your group added an user from another country who is also from another chapter pretty much recently. That user worked for your group and the chapter at the same time and that is what you called "partnership". I am not saying that you can't do that. I am saying that he worked by himself and working alone can't be considered a partnership. That tells a lot about what being a member of this group means. I am saying that you have hidden this fact when you use beautiful wording to describe what happened and make up a situation that didn't really exist. I would have to check all other activities of this group. What can we tell about all those numbers above? Where are all those users we never see here and it is only you?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 11:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, all his efforts to improve the content for the app was discussed in meetings, emails and discussions between Doc James(that joined our discussion to provide support and guidance), our user group members including me, Fernanda(communication) and Thiago Petra(Health Gov Department) and members from WMPT including Antero(that was doing an effort to reactivate the local chapter through this project and get some local attention from the media), that is considered by us a coordinated effort and informal partnership to promote and launch the Wikipedia Medical App in Portuguese, for me, that is not beautiful wording, for me that is the reality of the Wikimedia Movement, informal partnerships to cooperate and generate good impact. So, please, keep in mind that one of the main goals of our group is to bring new people to the movement through our user group, but counting with cooperation from advanced users from pt.wiki. We need more professionals with external contacts new new thoughts, new teachers and new people to change and improve the current situation of pt.wiki, that is why our group is working with partnerships and requesting grants to do local projects, including we started local initiative to get local funding to not depend directly of Wikimedia's money. That is not a negative thing, that is a very positive effort IMHO. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, the role of this group was "to have meetings"? I still can't see what else you did and that would be fine if that was what actually were written on activity report. Do you really believe that any reader would know what you actually did from your reading your report?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 00:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Teles, you never see other group members here exactly because of discussions like this one. We just don't have the patience to do it and prefer to engage our volunteer time in productive and fun activities. Crang115 (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain a selective absence but not a complete one. Even the coordinator of the group doesn't really coordinate too much here. Not the most important point here, but between all other arguments that was chosen by you.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 20:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Teles: I'll follow your suggestion and try to have a selective participation here in meta. And since you still don't understand why these (your aggressions and harassment) were the most important points for me here, for motivational reasons and also for my mental health's sake, my selective participation will just ignore all your comments starting now. Crang115 (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you read again, you will see that I have never given you any advice; I was just stating a fact. You seem to defend the idea that users from this group are active. Who? I can't see them and that is all I was saying on that matter. That can easily be checked by looking at contributions. Stating a fact can't be considered an insult. With regards to your accusation of harassment, it is up to you providing better information with links about that. Saying that you are being harassed is just easy but not enough and may be a false statement.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Teles: Hi Teles. Having read over the discussion above, I understand you have concerns about the proposal, and I think it's valuable to express those constructively with the intention of improving it. I encourage you to provide any additional feedback with that in mind. However, your recent comments do not reflect a genuine interest in working to improve the proposal, and you have instead chosen to be accusatory and needlessly provocative. This is not acceptable conduct, and it violates the behavioral expectations for our grant programs. I have redacted portions of your most recent comment and collapsed it, and any further comments that violate these expectations will be treated accordingly. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to be careful with my wording but that is a hard job in face of what has been done. How can I describe a report that is saying things were done that actually weren't?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 20:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Teles. It's fair to ask questions to clarify the claims being made in reports. In this discussion, it seems like one concern is around how activities are being described. Terms like "partnership" and the work around collaboration are being interpreted differently by you and Rodrigo here, and it has contributed to what I perceive to be some hostility and distrust. What I would recommend is thinking about making concrete suggestions about how these activities ought to be summarized to better capture the work that was reported. Perhaps all that is needed is a little more specificity. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from the Simple APG committee[edit]

From Anders[edit]

Thanks for your clear application. Your progress and balanced program gives me a feeling you are doing a great work! Questions:

  • You request much more money but keep the level om employees the same. Winifred has mention this is related to currency issues, but could you please elaborate on this?
  • With only 0,5 employee you manage to produce a lot of good work. How muck is the Board or volunteers involved in order to get to these results? Is there a risk of the volunteer being overstrained?

Anders Wennersten (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anders Wennersten: thanks for your questions. During the last months, our group developed many projects and improved our communication team created in 2015. During this semester, we got a lot of attention from the local media, with publications on the main Brazilian newspapers and participation in 2 TV programs. All this activities and visibility helped us to consolidate our user group and bring new people to help us. Basically, during that time and with the organization of the 1st Brazilian Wikipedia Science Conference we were able to create a scientific committee and started the creation of a directive board and a consultative board. We organized the group in Projects: GLAM, Education, Communication and etc with at least one coordinator and a senior professional helping as a consultant, so, this structure and contributors will participate and work in all proposed activities in partnership with the proposed staff and fellows.
To explain the BR Reais/Dollar oscillations during the last months, we can compare the values proposed and received during the last SAPG:
  • When Proposed
    • USD$23.500 X ~R$4,00 = 94.000
  • When Evaluated
    • USD$23.500 X ~R$3,54 = 83.190
  • When Received
    • USD$23.500 X ~R$3,17 = 74.500
New SAPG proposal
  • Proposed
    • USD$32.870 x R$3,11 = 102.000
Comparing with the first grant proposed, the real payment difference and grant growth is near R$8.000 (~USD$2500), that value include some new itens(like Wikimania participation and PR) and updates in other areas like monthly meetings, GLAM fellow and content production. The political instability in Brazil and the US elections also ended up impacting negatively in this scenario, with rising prices and exchange rate changes.In general, the proposal is almost the same but with a huge potential impact growth in all of our projects during the next year.
Initially we were thinking to increase staff, but first we will need to consolidate our consultant board and directive board with rules and a good statute. Other important issue is that we are working to get local funding, so we will work based on local demand and new projects proposed and funded locally. During this year we received local funding in many opportunities, mainly to cover airfare/hotel in events and workshops organized by our group in partnership with other institutions(something near USD$3500 in local funding). That SAPG will be crucial to stablish and formalize our group, improving our capacity to get local funding.Rodrigo Padula (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, but you missed to answer my second issue. For the first one, I have looked at the exchange rate here which verify your figures. Ususlly when a country hav financial proplem the curve goes the other way. This exchange rate in reality means the brazilians are gettign richer. For 1000 reals you get more dollars or dollars worth of goods. and if this is true you would need less funding in dollar then last yrear to be able to run the same program?Anders Wennersten (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anders Wennersten, it's the opposite, in Jan 2016 USD$1,00 was R$4,16 and now it is oscillating from R$3,12 to R$3,30, so now we have less R$ for each USD$ than before. The other problem is the political scenario in Brazil and USA and the economic crisis and high rate of inflation that we are facing, things are more expensive than before. Regarding your second question, we have many very active contributors in our team and we are working hard to bring more people to the Wikimedia Movement. Our team is growing organically and probably until the end of the year we will have more people working with us to archive our goals in 2017. Improving our directive and consultative structure we will share more responsibilities and taks Rodrigo Padula (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get it. One year ago 1 real got you 0.22 dollar, now it gets you 0.33, that is more dollars.Anders Wennersten (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anders Wennersten, you are calculating from the wrong perspective, we are not converting R$ to USD$, we are converting USD$ to R$, said that, now we need more dollars to have the same amount in R$ compared to the date we did the first grant request, as you can see in my first message with the values in dollar and the conversion rate during the process. Comparing with the first grant proposed, the real payment difference and grant growth is near R$8.000 (~USD$2500), that value include some new itens(like Wikimania participation) and updates in other areas like PR, monthly meetins and content production. In general, the proposal is almost the same but with a huge potential impact growth in all of our projects.
New example:
* In January USD$ 1000,00 (USD$1,00 = R$4,00)= R$4.000
* Now USD$1.000,00 (USD$1,00 = R$3,11) = R$3.110
So, to have the same R$4.000 that we could have in January, today we need USD$1.287,00. You need to keep in mind that we are not buying dollars using R$ we are buying R$ using dollars. So, when the R$ is getting more expensive/dollar is going down, we lose money and we need more dollars to get the same amount in R$. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Nikola[edit]

Hello from me, too :-). I have full understanding for your inflation and currency issues. 17% volatility and 8% inflation are hard to cope with.

I think that your goal for Wiki Loves Earth is a bit low. Do you think that you could use 10% of the images? I also did not understand from your budget what is a designer/content producer needed for and why you need paid PR services. Would you please elaborate on these three points? Thank you in advance, --Nikola (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Лорд Бъмбъри, thanks for your questions and comments. We started to work to improve the WLE for the next year, but since this will be our 4. edition, improve the numbers are getting more complicated, we noted that the community engagement to helps us in edit-a-thons to use the pictures is very low and the number of photos of very well documented/photographed natural monuments and parks are growing, that's why we add some low goals for WLE, but for sure we will work to get higher results mainly trying new strategies in partnership with other groups and chapters around the world. Our relation with the international teams and Wikimedia Ukraine(organizers of WLE) helped us a lot during the last years, basically the WM Ukraine supported us to develop our skills regarding the photo contests and it turned possible the WLM organization by the first time in Brazil and the creation of the Wiki Loves the Olympics during this year. For sure photo contests are bringing new challenges for us and we need to develop new strategies to improve our numbers and create more task forces regarding picture usage, organization and adoption in other wikis. Regarding the designer and PR services, that are 2 areas that we don't have a lot of contributors with good experience and senior level, with availability to cooperate in all of our projects. Since the last year we started to create a communication plan and the broad use of social networks to promote our projects, that strategy generated a great visibility for our group, team members and projects, putting Wikipedia and our initiatives in all main local newspapers, radio programs and TV channels as you can see in our clipping. So, our idea is to expand that efforts with more professional support with paid people to generate monthly content, brochures, pictures, graphs and press releases, covering not only our projects and initiatives but news from the WMF and international Wikimedia Movement as well. Right now, since we are a new user group, recognized in 2015, we are not able to expand staff, so the solution was to adopt external services to fix that gaps. Feel free to comment or add any other question. Thanks for your support and participation in that discussion aiming to improve that proposal. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rodrigo. I have no further questions. --Nikola (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from the Brazilian community[edit]

Questions by Joalpe[edit]

Greetings.

I know the APG request does not normally provide room for community inputs —differently from project grant requests, that I know well since I hold a position on the evaluation committee—; nevertheless, I hope my inputs will help you make an informed decision on this grant request. I also hope other members of the Brazilian community will use this space to raise their concerns or show appraisal for this grant request.

As an active member of the Brazilian community and an education program leader, I am writing to contribute to the assessment of this grant request by the Simple Annual Plan Grants Committee, since it is related to the community I am active in. It is undisputable that the proponent has a history of harassment in our community, but this will not be my focus here, as I understand this was raised in previous occasions in interactions with the global community. I will focus on the objective aspect, by listing clarification questions on the work that the proponent claims to have done.

  • On the so-called Wiki Brazil User Group
    • Could you please provide user names and number of edits of the 30 Brazilian group members you claim to be “very active in our discussions and projects”? I would mention that this figure is not consistent with what is presented on the group official page, and for a reference to the committee at least one member is not involved with the projects anymore, at least one member is not from Brazil and at least five members are newbies.
    • Could you please provide evidences of “presence in at least 10 very important federal universities from Brazil” (names of contact persons, for instance)? Could you please specify what you mean by “presence”?
  • GLAM project in Brazil
    • As far as I know the initiative at the Museum of Immigration was not the first GLAM initiative in Brazil. In 2014, around 1,200 files from the Italian-Brazilian Cultural Institute (ICIB) were uploaded to the projects by long-time volunteer Sturm. Unless you dispute the existence of this 2014 initiative, would you mind rectifying the reference to “the first Brazilian GLAM project” in your reports, including in the one you have submitted to this committee?
    • As someone has commented on your GLAM report, here (in case you missed it), evidences of the output that is being generated by all this supposed GLAM actions remains pretty modest, or is there more than the 40 files (‘’circa) that have been uploaded?
  • Wikimed
    • Could you please list the Brazilian member of the so called Wiki Brazil User Group who have taken part of the Wikimed initiative?
  • Wiki loves
    • Just out of curiosity, how many of the new users that registered in the context of WLE, WLM and WLO have remained active in the projects? Could you please provide evidences (i.e., a wikimetrics report)? Could you please specify your follow-up strategy after these events were done?
    • Just out of curiosity, how many pictures were considered ineligible out of the images that were uploaded in each initiative?
    • Could you please provide evidences that 1,000 articles were improved in the context of WLE? (This is definitely not the picture that comes out of the edit-a-thon results.)
    • Could you please explain why the expected edit-a-thons related to WLO and WLM did not happen in September-October, as expected? (Were these activities that never happened part of the “many edit-a-thons" you claim to have organized? I could only count three.)

On a last note, as the evaluation committee will assess your current grant request appears to be less ambitious than what you expected to accomplish this year (former grant), though funding request is extravagant. This is odd, especially in a context in which our currency has plummeted in comparison to the US dollar.

I hope this message —and expected answers— will help the committee to reach an informed understanding about this grant request.

Cheers.

—Joalpe (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joalpe, as a member of the evaluation committee, a teacher and a "leader of the education program" as you nominate yourself, I guess you are using the wrong place and tone to request details of the reports provided to WMF and to the Wikimedia Movement. You are accusing me of harassment doing international harassment, very negative comments, engaging in that discussion and stimulating people to join it in a not very productively way IMHO. I have all answers for your questions and have no problem to show it to the entire community, but I recommend you to use the right tone and place for it. You are attacking a mid point report of a grant and projects under execution, not concluded yet, like WLO, WLM. We had several monthly meetings with Wolliff_(WMF) since the last semester and all reports, projects and activities were discussed and shared with her team, including that new proposal. The WMF's grant team evaluate all reports, impacts and results before confirm the eligibility of a proposal/user group/organization. Talking in that way you are not only doing harassment to our group, you are criticizing Winifred/WMF's ability to judge and analyze reports and define the eligibility of organizations and groups for grants. Please, let's restart that discussion in the proper way/tone and place. Best regards Rodrigo Padula (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to answer my very objective questions whenever you feel like doing it. As a member of this community, I am pretty sure I am entitled to peer reviewing your activity and claims. --Joalpe (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just some obs address to WMF (and part of it also to the committee)[edit]

Well, I'm from Commons, so my focus will be the "Commons" work, okay?

WLO was funded via the previous grant:

Wiki Loves The Olympics

Main focus: New contents for the Wikimedia Commons and articles improvement on Wikipedia with focus on sports, athletes biographies and arenas.

Measures of sucess: articles created, number of edits, new accounts, photos uploaded, photos usage, new users engagement, media coverage, content produced

Activities

  • Photo and articles contest planning and execution
  • Complete campaign creation, openning the opportunity for other countries to help and participate
  • Create and improve articles regarding the history, arenas, sports, competitions, athletes biographies creation and improvement
  • Content production and local media coverage contacts to generate content for the international movement regarding Rio 2016
  • Promote Edit-a-thons
  • Main focus:commons:Category:Uploaded via Campaign:wlo-rio2016 1'000 photos, for 2'000 USD. Zero high quality images. In a community effort, Commons volunteers imported more images from Flickr and with more quality (4 FP until now) using... no donation money.
    • Wikipedia used 16 photos... checked via GLAMs' tools.
  • Activities:they do not promoted any Edit-a-thons, articles contest also no, the photos don't receive any kind of care, bad names, bad categorization..., no translations as promised... so activities they did half of the first point, as far I can see.
  • **And the bonus**!! 120 memberships right Olliff? And this BR-ER/Projects/Wiki Loves The Olympics#Equipe (equipe means team), just one dude... this one above.
  • ...

Okay next:

Wiki Loves Monuments

Main focus: New contents for the Wikimedia Commons and articles improvement on Wikipedia with focus on national monuments and history

Measures of sucess: number of edits, new accounts, photos uploaded, photos usage, new users engagement

Activities

  • Contest planning and execution
  • Contest pages improvement
  • Photos usage on Wikipedia in Portuguese and other countries
  • Photo exhibition
  • CC licences promotion
  • Promote Edit-a-thons
  • Monuments lists improvement
  • Main focus:commons:Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Brazil 2882 photos that's not clear how much it cost for us, maybe 2'000 USD also or more, well 1 dollar per photo.. chesus. Also no QI/FP/VI photos... 24 photos in use at WP...
  • Activities:The first two are obvious, the third what type of activity is that? And the others... well, you have the report.
  • **And the bonus**!! see this: commons:Category:Projeto Commons da Faculdade Cásper Líbero (JO/2016), this have 3'210 photos, all of them with correct names, categories, ..., all things that we, from Commons, expect. 118 photos in use at WY-pt and 1425 at WP-pt, distinct images used 1445 (44.96% of all images of category). The topic is the same, monuments, the approach is what I'm saying that is best for us Wikimedia Movement, since 2008... and again, no donation money involved.

Wiki Loves Earth

This one I havea list of problems, including listing improvements in articles, and them you enter and see the improvement and is this, if you want, I can show several problems, however, I already did that for the 2015 looking into 2014 version, and you did not care back there, it's a huge evaluation and available here, so just if you request I will seat and talk about it...

Institutional Partnerships

"1 GLAM partnership pilot executed and documented, laying the foundation for future GLAM work, and resulting in 1.000 files uploaded to commons improving at least 50 articles."

We received 40 files, don't need to say more, right?

...

Now

The actual proposal:


Institutional partnerships - GLAM

This program will result in quality content contributed to the Wikimedia projects, and increased participation of new contributors in Wikimedia-related activities.

Within 6 months, 150 articles created or improved through the education program.

100 teachers and students engaged through partnerships contributing to pt.wiki and participating in other Wikimedia-related activities.

1 GLAM partnership executed and documented, laying the foundation for future GLAM work, and resulting in 1,000 files uploaded to commons improving at least 100 articles.

1 GLAM meeting with potential partners, students and museologists

1 GLAM edit-a-thon for trainning and content usage

Main focus: Partnership with universities and teachers, GLAM projects, events and cultural mapping

Measures of sucess: number of teachers and students participating, number of edits, quality improvement, new accounts, new users engagement, users retention, academic publications, events, partners and good content identified, number of content loaded on commons/wikisource

Activities [in red all promised in the past grant]

  • content creation/improvement
  • research development using wikipedia data and users behavior
  • teachers and students trainning (how to use and contribute to the projects,specially Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia and Wikiversity
  • Use and improve brochures and contents produced by the Brazilian Catalyst Program https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Materials_produced_under_the_Brazil_Catalyst_Project
  • Improve the local blog in portuguese with good content about the Wikiemdia movement, projects and initiatives
  • Promote Edit-a-thons
  • tools development to support other projects with academic support/cooperation
  • identify potential GLAM projects and develop local efforts to move forward with GLAM projects in Brasil
  • Contact key local potential partners to define an agenda
  • Create partnerships
  • Select contents to be digitalized/published on commons/wikisource
  • Implement a mapping project to identify the potential partners
  • Promote a small GLAM meeting in Brazil
  • Organize the next edition of CCBWIKI and first Ibero-american Wikipedia Science Conference in partnership with other chapters/organizations

Practically all of this was made on this commons:Category:Collections of the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP, without using WMF money... I can't see how they will use this money, and how important it is.

And this not strange to you guys: "100 teachers and students engaged through partnerships contributing to pt.wiki and participating in other Wikimedia-related activities." 100 teachers?? 100 students?? 100 teachers is quite impossible, 100 students, you just need a partnership with one teacher...

"1 GLAM partnership executed and documented, laying the foundation for future GLAM work, and resulting in 1,000 files uploaded to commons improving at least 100 articles."

Same proposal as before, and they already fail in the past... and they are saying that in 6 months they will establish a partnership, digitalize the media, digest the metadata and upload it to Commons? We know that is not how things work, right?

"1 GLAM meeting with potential partners, students and museologists" What?? How this will be good for the community WMF? This is not strange to you? They do not do GLAM activities, and them they you do a meeting? Another party promote by them using WMF money, better Wikimedia Movement money, right?

"1 GLAM edit-a-thon for trainning and content usage" For whom? By who?...

"Main focus: Partnership with universities and teachers, GLAM projects, events and cultural mapping" This seems to be a very abroad focus, you normally recommend a more narrow one, don't you? And events??? This seems to be one of this pay my trip/tour, or "sponsored" walking around.

And did you stop to questioned their purposed activities, and saw that most of it they already promised in the past grant, and they didn't accomplished the major part of it (in red all promised in the past grant) :

  • "content creation/improvement"
Which content, how, who, where...?
  • "research development using wikipedia data and users behavior"
Same questions, and two more, why? and for? This activity is too vague for me.
  • "teachers and students trainning [...] specially Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia and Wikiversity"
This is more to you know, I don't know any Brazilian volunteer from this two highlighted communities that accepted being part of this project, he didn't request in any public place there, and we can't see any move of very active volunteers in this direction. And the "members" of this WUG are unable to manage that, as they have a minimum contact with this communities (barely none with Wikiversity), and what they had, was not helpful and health... as the contests that creates a thousand of problems to Commons. In WP they had a very strong opposition to their edit-a-thons for the same reason...
You already paid thousands of dollars on this, how they will improve it, with no staff, not using more thousands of dollars, with less time? And they not even touched in the last proposal...
  • "Improve the local blog in portuguese with good content about the Wikiemdia movement, projects and initiatives"
Which local blog? The audience justify the effort? How this could be good to Movement?
  • "Promote Edit-a-thons"
They didn't accomplished promised WLO, WLM... already mentioned, and one of this "edit-a-thons" as to manipulate results, focusing energy to nominate WLE photos to QIC at Commons, a major failure, as practically all of them didn't became a QI, showing how low they know about the community. And they could use the same energy to fix description, names, categories...
And again, we don't know what is this "Edit-a-thons", not even the focus community...
  • "tools development to support other projects with academic support/cooperation"
They have arms to that? Power to deal with this activity, or its just volume? Which tools? As a solution for what?
  • identify potential GLAM projects and develop local efforts to move forward with GLAM projects in Brasil
Two years to that? And nothing of it? Not even a list?
  • Contact key local potential partners to define an agenda
Agenda? 2016? 2017? 2018? ... and again, nothing of it?
  • Create partnerships
Well, more volume
  • Select contents to be digitalized/published on commons/wikisource
40 files in 2016, and no Wikisource.
  • "Implement a mapping project to identify the potential partners"
The Brazilian Program, already paid for this mapping, why they do not use that data, and would spend more money on this? And how this will be done?
  • "Promote a small GLAM meeting in Brazil"
Again, why, if they do not have any kind of GLAM project??
  • "Organize the next edition of CCBWIKI and first Ibero-american Wikipedia Science Conference in partnership with other chapters/organizations"
With 32870 USD?? Or they will use "participation Grants" again?

So WMF, all this is okay? Why are you are not making this questions? Looking the pass grant... "We had several monthly meetings with Wolliff (WMF)" so you now all this and more, how we will support more of this wrong uses money?

I JethroBT (WMF) Can I say that WLO was a a giant waste of money, and the WLM was a big failure comparing to the project manage by the Joalpe? I don't want to violates the behavioral expectations for our grant programmes, however I want to be clear as possible.

Trivia: And how Wiki Loves sth is related to Education and Research? Did you know that use .org at Brazil not being a NGO (legal organization) is not legal and their "blog" are using Wikimedia name under a illegal URL:wikimedia.org.br?

Observation, I'm not a member of Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil... and again this is address to WMF and part to the Committee also. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 06:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation[edit]

Committee recommendations
Funding recommendations:

The committee recommends $32,870 for the 6-month funding period 1 January - 30 June 2017.

Strengths identified by the committee:
  • The plan is well-designed, with achievable goals, and past results, experience, and expertise will help them succeed in implementing this plan.
  • They have succeeded in engaging more people with their work, including bringing new people into the movement, and have set up systems for volunteers to collaborate. The plan focuses on interesting and innovative aspects of community engagement, like recognition.
  • We appreciate that this group is beginning to focus more on international collaboration.
  • We appreciate that the applicant has a history of good results without costly and complicated governance structures.
Concerns identified by the committee:
  • We recognize that the applicant is functioning within a challenging political and economic environment. This has made it difficult to maintain the value of the grant, given rapid currency fluctuations.
  • A strained relationship with the other user group operating in Brazil will continue to be difficult to manage, and may interfere with program work as activities grow.
  • Some committee members have concerns about hiring paid help for design and PR, although the applicant has indicated in the plan that they have a need for these services.
  • While this group is new to the APG process, a strategic plan or roadmap will be essential in the coming years, especially if this organization plans to grow. It will be important to ensure that planning processes are consistent over time, and that decisions made by the organization are transparent. Progress in this area will be evaluated at the time of the next application.
  • While there are some concerns around this applicant receiving significant funding (including funding for staff) under an informal governance structure, developing more formal governance structures is something the applicant is currently addressing. Progress in this area will be evaluated at the time of the next application.

Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC) For the Simple Annual Plan Grant Committee[reply]

Decision from WMF
Funding decision:

Thanks to the committee for this decision, and to the Wiki Education Brazil group for this application and your engagement throughout the application process.

WMF approves this grant in the amount of $32,870 for the 6-month funding period 1 January - 30 June 2017. We are approving the committee's recommendations in full, although we have some minor concerns about the amounts budgeted for PR services, printing brochures, and local travel, which are relatively high for a 6-month grant. We will work with you during the implementation of this grant to assess these budget areas and ensure they are leading to proportionate impact. This may involve making some small changes to the current budget for the upcoming year, or it may involve making a plan to ensure that the impact of these budget items can be tracked and taken into account when planning your budget for the last 6 months of 2017.

Looking forward to our work together in 2017. Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 19:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:Simple/Applications/Wiki_Education_Brazil_User_Group/2017/H1&oldid=16111283"