User talk:AWang (WMF)/Sandbox/ApplicationTemplate

Dicussion. Alex, a few comments:

I've tiddled a little with style, and trimmed a little. Please revert what you don't like.

Invisible instruction: "Describe the tactical aspects of the project that will be executed if the project is funded." Is "tactical" going to be understood by English-speakers and in translation? I'm unsure how to make this plainer/simpler. Also, "executed" could be rendered wrongly in some languages (I'm being hypersensitive to the interlinguistic aspects). A few fragements that might be useful here: "the plan of action"; "the main steps in your plan"; "the sequence of steps in conducting your project". You might consider inserting "often" into "It is useful to provide ...".

Updated. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Invisible instruction: "Who will be better served or impacted as a result of this project?" I changed to "Who will benefit as a result of this project?". I toyed with "Who will benefit, and how, as a result of this project?", but that might be probing dysfunctionally for some projects ... needs a few thought-experiments, which I haven't done at this stage. Also depends on whether other parts of the application form will elicit the "how".

I added "/readership", since "audience" is, strictly speaking, those who listen (unsure whether other languages might make this distinction more strongly).

I think this is unnecessary and cumbersome. Audience is well understood, keep in mind that there are grantees that are not so great with English. Your example for changing "mitigation" to minimization later on is in a similar spirit, and I agree with it btw. Alleycat80 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Invisible instruction "Who will benefit as a result of the project?" (which I've trimmed down) – will applicants think this overlaps with some of "Fit to strategy"? If so, I'd like to save them, and reviewers, the duplication—either by merging "Target audience/readership" with "Fit with strategy", or by wording the instruction so that the distinction is easier to see.

Updated to make clear that we want them to list the Wikimedia projects they aim to impact. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fit with strategy: is this the PEG strategic priorities? Perhaps a link?

The link is already in there. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still alarmed at the notion that applicants be asked to necessarily focus on only one of those three priorities. The ramifications of this haven't yet been discussed.

They have been discussed, at least partially, in Wikimania's Grant Committees meeting. The general feeling was that we get a "supermarket list" of strategic priorities, with no clear distinction of which is actually the most important. By making a grantee choose the target that is most affected, we can ensure she is also focused on how to achieve it in the rest of the proposal and workplan. Alleycat80 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are applicants funnelled into choosing one to focus on? Tony (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As Alleycat80 explained above and as you have indicated in the past, the section on strategic priorities becomes a laundry list where grantees try to fit their projects into all strategic priorities. As the "invisible" text explains, most projects inherently address all three priorities. What we are asking is for them to focus their activities in order to achieve the greatest impact. For example, an edit-a-thon that includes an element of editing training can be about recruiting new users (participation), addressing a gap in content (quality), or building awareness about Wikipedia (reach). If these goals are weighted equally by the potential grantee, there is less possibility for impact in any one area. If, for example, the grantee decides to prioritizes quality, then they can build their outreach and activities appropriately -- partnering with an institution focused on that topic, bringing in topic experts, reaching out to experienced editors, curating resources, etc. If you have other ideas on how we can achieve this, please let us know. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Examples of risks ... I presume you'll add some examples of minimization (mitigate is a less accessible word, I think). How to stop applicants from leaping onto them and listing them verbatim rather than thinking more deeply about their specific situation?

Added a couple examples. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Community notification: nice. Should "Try to reach specific target groups if you can, rather than the general public." be added?

Yes, imho. Alleycat80 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The "invisible" text already says the grantee is "reponsible for notifying relevant communities". Adding "specific taget groups" might be redundant. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My only comment

I think that adding, below everything, a section for links to previous similar programs or reports is a good thing. Other than that, I think it's excellent, very well done. Alleycat80 (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

To address a previous GAC comment, request for links are included in specific sections (org details, activities, and resources) instead of in a summary. We can see how this goes. If it's cumbersome this way, we can change it. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A few more comments

I wonder whether it's wise to include "Endoresements". What is the benefit, and are there not easy ways to game this?

This has section has worked will for IEG proposals so we will be testing it on the PEG proposals as well. If we don't find it to be useful, it can be removed. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Could the measures of success instruction explicitly discourage circular items such as "We get the grant", and "We complete the project"? Tony (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft finalized

Please note this draft has been finalized and is now live on the submit request page. The template being used is here. We will be pushing the template out for translation so final edits need to be made this week. You can provide comments on the template talk page.

Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)