Template:Project/Committee/Rubric

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

Proposals are scored according to the following criteria.

Evaluation criteria Considerations 1 = Weak alignment 10 = Strong alignment
Impact potential
  1. Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities?
  2. Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends? If it cannot, does it make a substantial enough contribution to the movement that it warrants funding or continued funding anyway?


Projects receiving this score may...
  • have no clear fit to strategic priorities
  • lack ability to sustain, scale, or be adapted elsewhere after the grant ends AND otherwise fail to make a substantial enough contribution to the movement to warrant funding
Projects receiving this score may...
  • directly address one or more strategic priorities.
  • make a change that can be sustained over time, potentially scaled, adapted elsewhere AND/OR make a substantial enough contribution to the movement to warrant funding
Innovation, iteration and learning
  1. Does it either: take an innovative approach to solving a key problem, or iterate on a proven solution?
  2. Is the potential impact greater than the risks?
  3. Does the project have an evaluation plan that can measure whether the project was successful and capture learning for the movement?
Innovative projects receiving this score may...
  • replicate past solutions and teach us little that is new/useful
  • involve risks that outweigh its potential for learning or impact
  • give no indication of an evaluation plan to measure outcomes and meaningfully capture new learning


Iterative projects receiving this score may…

  • demonstrate little potential for impact, relative to investment
  • give no indication of an evaluation plan to measure outcomes and meaningfully capture learning
  • are unlikely to sustain impact over time


Innovative projects receiving this score may...
  • be the next Big Idea for solving a key Wikimedia problem
  • risk very little compared to the large potential for impact (a higher threshold of risk may be acceptable for projects seeking to innovate)
  • have realistic measures of success and clear targets for evaluating impact and capturing learning

Iterative projects receiving this score may…

  • have an efficient and effective plan for replicating known solution(s) with high potential for impact
  • have realistic measures of success and clear targets for evaluating impact and capturing learning
  • are well-positioned to create long-term impact
Ability to execute
  1. Can the scope be accomplished in 12 months?
  2. How realistic/efficient is the budget?
  3. Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
Projects receiving this score may...
  • have an unrealistic scope
  • have significantly over- or under-budgeted
  • lack the necessary skills or experience on the team, with no plan to fill these gaps
Projects receiving this score may...
  • be completed in 12 months
  • have a clear and reasonable budget and cost projections
  • have the necessary skills and experience on the team, and a plan to fill any gaps
Community engagement
  1. Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  2. Does it have community support?
  3. Does it support diversity?
Projects receiving this score may...
  • lack a plan to engage with a specific target community.
  • not have any community discussion or endorsements
  • not support diversity in the movement in terms of projects, languages, or demographics
Projects receiving this score may...
  • have identified a specific target community and proactively plans to engage it
  • have notified members of the relevant target community and have significant interest/endorsements
  • support or grow diversity in the movement in terms of projects, languages, or demographics