Grants talk:Start/2017

Link to Values

Link to Wikimedia Foundation Values would be more useful (instead foundation:Values). Page Wikimedia Foundation Values may be translatable in the nearest future. --Kaganer (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree Divinesomu (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

NPO Accounting Software for Currency Conversions

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2017/nov/22/introducing-oxrlib/ --Nemo 17:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nemo: Thanks Nemo. We currently use services from Oanda to handle general currency conversions related to grants, but this looks like a useful tool to handle conversions from multiple currencies. That's a situation that comes up often enough for grantees that I'd like to look into whether this is something we could recommend. My one concern is that, as it is right now, only folks with some knowledge of coding/APIs will be able to use it, as there isn't enough documentation for folks without that kind of technical experience. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

paid advertising?

hi, I want to ask about paid ads (facebook Ads - Twitter ads .. etc), I have an project to encourage volunteers outside Wikimedia projects (it is helpful for outreach also), but I need to make ads campaigns to reach more people (normal methods is weak) and these ads cost less than 800$, is that grant is acceptable ? --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 07:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you checked whether your posts can be shared via the Wikipedia social media accounts, which have millions of followers? Jeff could help you further. --Nikola (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Move proposal from draft to ...

I created a new grant proposal at Grants:Project/Rapid/Gikü/Photo expedition before WLE 2017 in Moldova and I observe no activity there (except endorsements). The proposal is automatically listed under Grants:Project/Rapid/Browse applications#Draft proposals, but if I'm right 'draft' should mean I'm still preparing it as an organizer. I'm not preparing it anymore, it's been ready from day 1; how to submit it?? --Gikü (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gikü. If you proposal is ready for review, you can change the status= parameter in the Probox template from draft to proposed. Thanks for letting us know. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you I JethroBT. It was not obvious though. I believe it would help having the submit procedure being described somewhere on the Apply page. Thanks again! --Gikü (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly

On this page there is a mention of "quarterly Project Grants". I suppose that is an incorrect reference? Would it be possible to link such terminology, for easy browsing? Effeietsanders (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

They are now biannual. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If that is the current status (I understood the same), the description may have to be fixed :) Effeietsanders (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Excluded

Is there somewhere a list of all organizations excluded from Rapid grants? There's a general exclusion of 'annual plan grantees', but it is unclear if this also includes simple annual plan grants, for example, and I can't find an exhaustive list anywhere. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong places :) Effeietsanders (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders: Folks who are receiving funds from an APG -- both simple APG and APG -- are excluded from consideration for Rapid Grants. In fact the only grant that APG recipients can apply for are Conference Grants. I'll add some language to the Guidelines and Criteria page to reflect this exclusion, thanks for bringing it to our attention. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Thanks. Maybe a little background is helpful here. At the time, I was trying to understand if I could advise people to use the rapid grants, or not. As a third party, I don't know per se whether they applied for anything - but there are also some border cases that may be relevant. For example:

• are you eligible to apply for Rapid while you also applied for APG, but before the APG kicks in?
• are you eligible to apply for Rapid while you are inside an APG year, which will not be repeated/extended, for a project that only starts after the end of the APG-year?
• as a group (i.e. non-incorporated non-recognized committee/group) within a larger group with APG (i.e. a chapter), could you apply for Rapid if the chapter does not have that as part of their activities?
• as a third party, how do I know whether a group has an APG? (I found it impossible to know this for sure - but maybe I don't know how to navigate the maze?)

The easiest way to resolve most of these, is by linking to an exhaustive list with start- and end dates for all groups that are excluded. Two lists, if needed. Does that exist somewhere? How do *you* check whether the group has APG? Thanks! Effeietsanders (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Translation

This is stable and may be marked for transdlation? --Kaganer (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: This question is also for all subpages. --Kaganer (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Grant page layout suggestion

The reports page for grants has a table with the headings "Target outcomes", "Achieved outcomes", and "Explanation". It'd actually be a good idea to include an explicit "Target outcomes" section in the grant application to directly match. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 02:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

About a grant - Providing a Computer to School

Sir, I am an active Wikipedian. Mostly I edit Wikipedia in English and Telugu. My mother is a teacher in Govt school, near Eluru, India. Students in the school have potential to create at least 10-20 articles per month. But they are lack of Computer and Internet connection. I am sure that I can educate them editing and creating articles in Wikipedia. But will Wikimedia grant money for purchasing computer for them? Can someone please help me with this question asap.—IM3847 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi IM3847. Thank you for your question and contributions to the Wikimedia projects. Unfortunately, we cannot provide computers for schools as we do not have sufficient resources to scale this kind of program. If you can find a place nearby where the students can access a computer lab, we would be happy to consider a project where you train and mentor the students over a period of time. Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sir, I do even have another idea, I knew a school which have computer lab and we can conduct a edit-a-thon in that school. But whom should we contact about this? And to mention providing school I mentioned above with computers costs less than $1100, which is an acceptable amount, please consider this as they’ll edit Telugu Wikipedia, which has only a limited number of articles. —IM3847 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi IM3847. No need to call me Sir :) Partnering with a school that has a computer lab for an editathon or more regular editing activities is a great idea. I would ask them if this is something they would consider. If you need funds for internet access during the events, food, or other items, we can consider that in a grant request. You can read more about Rapid Grants funding for editathons here. Unfortunately, we still cannot purchase computers for your group. Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I can make contact with a school with computer lab and will confirm about their interest in participating Edit-A-Thon with in a week.-IM3847 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi IM3847, are you a part of the Wikimedia & Education community? Just hosting an edit-a-thon in a school might not be the best way to engage teachers and students. I would suggest you engage with our community, join the Wikimedia Education Greenhouse online course, or the Wikimedia & Education Open UG meetings to learn more about how to organize impactful activities. Learn more at the Education portal on Outreach Wiki

NSaad (WMF) (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@NSaad (WMF):Hi, thanks for suggestions. I've had this discussion with our community. We're planning to work with Telugu Wikisource community to upload audio files for Telugu Poems.--IM3847 (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Grant for hosting properitary tools

I was told I should apply for a rapid grant ($200-500/yr) to cover AWS hosting costs of a music identification tool for copyvio identification. This software is proprietary software and cannot be run on ToolForge or Cloud VPS. How likely is this to be approved. --Dispenser (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dispenser, that's a good question. Relating to software, proposals have generally been associated with software that is open source. On the other hand, this tool is useful for detecting copyright violations, and we have funded website hosting costs in the past on some proposals. Three questions I have up front:

1. Is there documentation available for this tool?
2. Who will use this tool?
3. How will contributors become aware of this tool so it gets used?

Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Information is at T132650 with services overview.
2. The commercial APIs are use limited. So either posting results to wiki or IRC or a subset of user would be able to directly run the tool.
3. Undecided, but it on this year's wishlist.

What about the open source AcoustID? I implemented it into an IRC bot (now dead) and as a web tool. Its limited, only picking out <~5% of Wikipedia Zero copyvios. The database just isn't large enough at 8 million compared with Gracenote's gold standard of 200 million. --Dispenser (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF): Any thoughts or updates? --Dispenser (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: I think an application along these lines could be accepted as a trial run for a year. The tool seems effective, and I understand that AcoustID's ability to detect copyvios is limited by its database. A couple of things that are be important to specify in this application are:

• providing a list of contributors who would be able to run it,
• posting an example of the results (or describing what they look after the tool is run)
• specifying where the results would be posted and,
• what actions would be typically taken based on the results

After running for a year, I think if the tool was effective at detecting copyvios and saw some use in Commons or other projects, you could make a good case for making another grant proposal to renew. Those are my thoughts-- the one place I'm unfamiliar with is whether we should be getting into the habit of funding grants that use proprietary software (even when existing open source alternatives are not viable), so I'm trying to get some answers about that specific question still. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation should not be funding the development of proprietary tools. If no open source solution is available, we should work on developing one. Legoktm (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Legoktm: You're in luck as Echo Nest release their fingerprinting software as open source before being bought by Spotify. So what's needed is several dedicated servers and 5-10 TB of hot storage. ...And a legal team with tact that obtaining and transforming 100 million copyrighted tracks without paying licensing fees from an industry that is notoriously litigious for the smallest of infringements. I'm sure $1-2 million dollars can solve that. Anyway, if WMF is to rebuild proprietary software they should start with their beloved Google Hangouts. --Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm clearly not comfortable with the idea any commercial service linked to such industry could state "We help Wikipédia [sic] to find copyright violations". Especially when it's a workaround for issues caused by a net neutrality violation. The ethics of the grant couldn't be favorable. A certain dose of pragmatism is certainly welcome (e.g. the use of Hangout is such pragmatism, Hangout being the only convenient HTML 5 solution for video communication), but that's not an excuse to accept anything only because it's useful. --Dereckson (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: I'm inclined to agree with Dereckson and Legoktm's assessments here, and have struck my earlier comments as they were premature. While I believe that the tool being proposed here would be effective at detecting copyvios, a larger conversation around copyvio detection for uploaded music and the tools the community is open to using to accomplish that goal needs to happen first, outside of this specific idea. For now, use of software that is open-source is certainly eligible for funding both through Rapid and Project Grants, as would efforts to improve that software so it is more effective, but I do not think we could fund a proposal supporting reliance on this proprietary software at this time. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Legoktm. We shouldn't support proprietary software. One of our guiding principles is that "we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.". There is an effective open source tool, AcoustID. We can help make it even better (including by submitting new fingerprints), but it's already effective. Mattflaschen - Talk 10:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mattflaschen, you are misleading with your zealous open source cheerleading. Extrapolating from "8.3 million tracks in first five years" means AcoustID will par track-wise with ACRCloud in the 2030s. At that point we'll be discussing adding H.265 to Commons. Even then, AcoustID is easily foolable by adding sounds to the end of a track. So full album uploads would never be identified. --Dispenser (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Quite simply, the main reason to not invest in proprietary software is a practical one - at the end of the day if everything goes south we're left with nothing. With free software we'd still have a right to fork and build something out of the code that was left. And given the subject area here, I'm sceptical of proprietary software given past history. Legoktm (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)