Talk:Wikicite/e-scholarship/Mike Peel (Cite Q improvements)

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

Initial feedback[edit]

Dear Mike,
Thank you for creating this e-scholarship proposal and notifying me of it. As you continue to build this draft (I note that it currently is stated as 'draft' so it may still change, which is perfectly fine) here are a few questions/comments on what is there so far.

  • When you do mark it as 'open' (no longer 'draft') please also remove the 'add yourself' note(s). As this is, at its heart, an application for funding which is calculated by the participants and their locations it is important for the grant reviewing committee to know the cost for our budgeting purposes. Others may certainly be involved/assist/comment/endorse, but it needs to be clear in the e-scholarship application the precise scope of the financial component.
    • To that end, I note that RexxS states "Not applying for grant" in the section entitled Details of team members. I just wish to clarify: this means that you wish to be a part of the project but, should it be accepted by the committee, you chose to waive your right within it to receiving the per-diem calculation of living expenses? This is perfectly allowed if you wish to do so, I just want to be sure. Note: your decision here will have no bearing on the assessment of the proposal itself.
  • The subject of the proposal - the CiteQ template - is very pertinent to the goals of WikiCite, and the team (of 3 thus far) who have co-signed to join are eminently qualified to do the work of improvements. However, could you elaborate a bit on the nature of the proposed work itself? Ideally, there would be a task-list (like a phabricator board) which is pre-existing [but that is not a requirement] or some kind of summary of the work needing to be done e.g. on the cite-q page/talkpage itself. This would be useful as it would help us assess the scale of proposed work and give a measure of how much you were able to complete by the project's end.
    • "rewriting cite-Q so that it uses Template:WikidataIB" is the high level goal, but breaking that down into some sub-components in this application page (even if just as a few bullet points) would be very helpful.
    • You mention "address outstanding issues with the template", pointing to where these are described, even loosely, would also be helpful.
    • You mention documentation as part of the scope of work – this is particularly important to the committee (based on initial feedback I have already received). Please ensure this is high on the agenda.
    • You raise the point that the template is "controversial on enwp", and also that "optionally, the template parameters could be translated" [for use on other language editions]. I would suggest that these are two sides of the same (or at least similar) coin: if you are able to identify a language edition which would willingly use the new features you are proposing to produce, targeting their needs, parameter translations and test-cases, would be a perfectly valid way to scope this project - if you wish. The above point about documentation and this point about adoption in an edition other than enwp speak to the Committee's desire to ensure that your work is as scalable to many WP editions as possible.

I hope this feedback helps. Please ping me if you have any reply-comments, and also when you've finished drafting the proposal. [you can still edit it further even after marking it as no longer draft, until the deadline on 1 October]. Sincerely, LWyatt (WMF) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

Hi Liam. Yes, that's exactly what I intended. I've been happily retired for eight years now, and when I retired, I made myself the promise that I would never do work for remuneration again (even indirectly as in this scholarship). I'm more than happy to donate my time and expertise to worthy projects and this is certainly one of them.
To cast a little more light on one of your comments, one of the key features of WikidataIB is that it is already almost fully internationalised (it still has to have error messages and tracking categories translated), but the information it draws from Wikidata uses the relevant language and formatting for words, numbers and dates automatically That means converting templates over to using WikidataIB (which is already in use on 100+ wikiprojects) will ensure their ability to be ported directly into many different language Wikipedias. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Checking the logistics[edit]

Talking with @Wittylama:, I understand that the per diems are all sent to one person, who then sends them on to the other participants. Apparently working across multiple countries is a bit unusual. :-) Fortunately, I have bank accounts in the UK, Spain, and Brazil, so I think I can receive the money and then transfer the part for @Pigsonthewing: in the UK and @Ederporto: in Brazil. @Adamant.pwn: transferring to Russia may be tricky, do you think you'll have a German bank account by October? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I do have a German bank account right now, although I haven't used it yet. I have a flight to Berlin scheduled on 20 September, so it shouldn't be a problem. Adamant.pwn (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
That is good to know. I've run the calculations for the per-diem rate for your respective cities, based on the details on the grant application, and the 'meals and incidentals' listing on the US State department per diem calculator - calculated at the WMF standard 75% of that rate. This results in 68.25, 55.5, 87.75, 92.25 USD per day for Mike, Andy, Adamant, and Ederporto respectively. Multiply that by the four days of the proposal, that is a total grant value of 1215 USD. FYI. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)