Grants:IEG/Questions/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Content creation - photos

Hi, you answered near similar question about content creation - article creation. But, what's about photos from cities or villages in my country? It is therefore possible to get a grant for a photoshoots missing villages and other "have article" things in my country (like observes, nature reserves, rivers, bridges, etc). It is possible?--Frettie (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Frettie! Like with kinds of other content, we won't pay someone to take or upload photos. These grants can, however, fund expenses involved in organizing volunteers to make photo expeditions, or something along those lines if that is what you had in mind. Hope that helps! Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

IEG Committee

Hello! I've wanted to ask - when will a new round for election of new Committee members be announced? As I see at this page, I can add myself even now but Grants:IEG/Committee/Candidates/Selection_process says that candidates are added according to schedule of rounds, though I see no schedule for future rounds... So, I am a bit confused whether I can apply or not :) rubin16 (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi rubin16! You'd be welcome to add yourself to the list of candidates now :) We'll be announcing the call more formally along with the proposal open call on March 1, and the new members will be announced by March 15 (see here for the schedule of this upcoming round. Hope to see you there! Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Siko (WMF)! Let's try to do it :) rubin16 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Siko (WMF), hello once again :) According to schedule committee members were to be finalized at 15 march but I see no changes on the list of candidates yet. Are there any changes to schedule? :) rubin16 (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi rubin16. We are almost done closing the committee discussion and should have our consensus out this week. Sorry for the delay! (IEG Committee) Ocaasi (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia merchandise for volunteers

While copyediting and revising the Pronunciation Recording Gadget proposal, I discovered Wikimedia merchandise for volunteers in a comment below Tools, technologies, and techniques -- what would be covered by "Wikimedia merchandise"? Would it be possible, for example having a pronunciation rally and issuing a merchandising article to the winners? Would I have to check whether participants are legally allowed to take part in such a rally (there are restrictions in some countries ...) -- Rillke (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rillke, I think having a rally with merchandise as prize is definitely possible (although I'll defer to your understanding of local restrictions, we haven't come across much of these yet). Past IEGs have included some funds in their budget for WMF merchandise (as contest prizes, thank you gifts for volunteers, etc). and in those cases how it works is you include a line item in your proposal for the amount of money you plan to spend on merchandise overall (see the WM shop for an idea of prices and what's available). Then, when making the grant, we'd work with you to see what specific items you'd like to order, and most likely send you the items directly instead of that portion of funds. Hope this helps, Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Use non-gender-specific terminology

The infobox instructions include Guys' Name. I suggest changing that to Person2's' Name. Libcub (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Will have a lookout for issues like these in our next template-update sprint, thanks! Siko (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

next round deadline

The deadline for proposals for the next round should be 30 September, not 31 September, since there is no 31 September, right? Sumana Harihareswara 13:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You are so right. Fixed! :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Two suggestions

Hi, I wonder whether "step 1", "step 2", etc, could be made a sharper colour, in line with their reasonably high position in the hierarchy of headings. At the moment they're a very light shade of grey.

"We are best able to support proposals submitted in English"—that does sound as though you've got a better chance of approval if the application is in English. I'm not sure that's what you intended to mean. Perhaps it would be better to say "Proposals submitted in English are dealt with a little more promptly, since they don't have to go through the process of translation." That would be more neutral ... if it's what you intend to mean. Tony (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising these, Tony. Paging Heather for considering the feedback regarding color changes in future design updates. As for the text about languages, agree it is clunky/discouraging as currently phrased! What would you think about something more like "You are welcome to submit a proposal in any language. If you are not submitting in English, we'd encourage you to submit your proposal as early as possible to ensure time for translation. If you have questions about this, please contact us to discuss." Seem better? Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Siko, your suggested text sounds very good to me. (May I propose a slight tweaking of the text? "You're welcome to submit a proposal in any language. If you're planning to submit in a language other than English, we encourage submission as early as possible to ensure time for translation. If you have questions about submitting a grant request in a language other than English, please contact us to discuss.")? I see that a similar question has been raised about languages other than English at GAC. Perhaps grantmaking staff and GAC might consider your suggested wording for that process too? I've left a note there. Tony (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Tony, sounds good, and I've updated the IEG rules as discussed :) Thanks!Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Goals

In reading WMF's proposal to the FDC, it was stated that the WMF's grant-making goals were focused on "Structures, systems, and processes; Learning and mentoring; Diversity". Is this true for IEG's prioritizing and evaluating individual grant proposals or are these loose guidelines just provided for a general proposal for the entire WMF organization? Thanks. Liz (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Liz. As a committee member, I'd like to point you to the IEG selection criteria:

Impact potential - Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities? Does it have potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?

Innovation and learning - Does it take an innovative approach to solving a key problem for the Wikimedia movement? Is the potential impact greater than the risks? Can we measure success?

Ability to execute - Can the scope be accomplished in 6 months? How realistic/efficient is the budget? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?

Community engagement - Does it have a specific target community within the Wikimedia movement, and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support? Does it support diversity?

The total amount of funding available - annually approved by the WMF Board.

I'm sure Siko Bouterse will have more to say on that, but I know that these are what guide us in reviewing and rating applications. Best, Jake Ocaasi (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to add here, Ocaasi covered it! IEG has its own selection criteria, as described above, which is aligned with the broader WMF grantmaking goals, but they are a bit more specific to IEG's aims. Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Pages associated with this project

I find the IEG pages nice to look at but a little hard to edit as the Media WIki markup is complicated and there are no edit buttons for each subsection. We also do not have the standard TOC and there is a fair bit of white space between section. IMO it is usually best to keep markup simple so more people can get involved. Anyway just my 2 cents. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this would be quite helpful. Libcub (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

This discussion page is getting long and a bit hard to navigate. How about setting up automatic archiving by date (for example, with a threshold of 180 days initially)? @Sbouterse (WMF) and Heatherawalls: will there be any complication in styling when auto archiving is set up? whym (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree, great idea, whym! I don't think it will break the styling, since the bot should just be looking at sections below that, but I guess we'll find out :) Any chance you want to set it up? :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it's now turned on. A regular run in a day will (supposedly) archive threads older than 180 days. whym (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you whym! It looks like the bot ran. Is there a way to have it add links to archival pages in the archive template here, for those who want to browse rather than search archives? Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a parameter missing. This edit should fix it. whym (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem with a template on the final report page

I need some help with a template. In the final report page you are asked to fill in a template to report "Progress towards stated goals and targets". The content in the first row left ("Planned measure of success (target)") does not appear. I have checked also other final reports and also there – even if content is provided – it does not appear. I had a look at the template but i'm not good enough to identify and correct the mistake. Can someone have a look? here is an example of how it appears Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision/Final#Progress_towards_stated_goals_and_targets and here are the templates I have looked at:

thank you, --iopensa (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Heatherawalls:, I took a look but it's above my paygrade. Cheers and hope you're well. --Jake Ocaasi (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it. The parameter was changed in the template but not on the pages, so it wasn't calling anything. If you want to change it to target, all the pages where the template is used have to say target=, too. I switched it back to goal because it's the easiest way to solve it. ;). Yay for an easy fix! Done heather walls (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Query about scope of grants

I am an intermittent photo contributor. Over the years my camera equipment has gradually gotten better, but I continue to be on a budget. As a result I continue to by used equipment (camera lenses and bodies) and generic accessories (lens hoods, UV filters, and remote shutter controls). The result of my buying used equipment has been that some of my sessions in which I have attempted to create photo content for the project have produced results indicating that my equipment needs significant calibration and adjustments. I have also found that my generic accessories sometimes cause problems. However, I do not know if individual photographers are eligible for grants for general photography contributions. I have no specific event in the next six months that state I need equipment for. I might not even attend another event for picture taking for another 4 or 5 months. However, I can point to recent events at which I produced lackluster results due to newly-acquired used equipment. E.g., on September 19, 2014, I attended a baseball game between the Dodgers and the Cubs. It turned out to be the 20th victory for the best baseball pitcher of the current generation (w:Clayton Kershaw). The odds are not very long that this could be the first time since 1968 that a pitcher wins w:National League MVP. I feel like the game amounts to the 20th win of the best season of the modern day w:Sandy Koufax. I shot 3803 pictures. All but 228 of them were with a newly-acquired used w:Canon EOS 7D and a w:Canon EF 70–200mm lens. It turns out that my 7D and this lens are not jointly calibrated and when used together they produce results bearing a problem known as front focusing. Over the next few weeks, you will see some of these less than perfect images at Commons:Category:2014-09-19 Cubs v. Dodgers baseball game at Wrigley Field. My generic accessories, cause problems too. E.g., during the game, I was using a generic remote shutter release cable. Sometimes this did not trigger shutter release immediately when I pressed it. If you look at Commons:Category:Matt Kemp you can see that I was shooting for shutter release timing like File:2011 Home Run Derby - Round 1 - Matt Kemp.jpg with the ball coming off of the bat. However, with my generic shutter release control, I ended up being a split second late and got File:20140919 Matt Kemp home run (1).JPG, File:20140919 Matt Kemp home run (2).JPG and File:20140919 Matt Kemp home run (3).JPG instead. I just am at a loss to describe what my specific engagement is however, because I am not a professional photographer with specific event responsibilities to attend to. I have specific equipment needs that would enable me to be a better photographer (A body and a lens or two). Can you give me advice on whether it is worth applying and how I might approach applying?--TonyTheTiger (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: One point I would like to note is that, as larger impact to the Wikimedia projects is desirable, I believe a project that will help many people would be more likely to be funded, than helping one person. Grants:IdeaLab/Cameras for Commons photographers is a similar idea with a bit broader scope; I suggest looking at its talk page if you are interested in expanding the scope. Another idea might be to seek fund from a chapter or user group near to you that can help finding fund for shared equipment in a more informal and quick way. whym (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki extensions

"Any technical components must be standalone or completed on-wiki. Projects are completed without assistance or review from WMF engineering, so MediaWiki Extensions or software features requiring code review and integration cannot be funded."

I don't think that's true. There are plenty of volunteers with +2 on extension repositories and core so major projects could easily be completed without any assistance from WMF engineering. It's a shame that IEG restricts people to working on gadgets, when they could and should be real MediaWiki extensions. Legoktm (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This restriction, at least, does not promote complying with MW's coding conventions and using a peer-review system (which probably should be endorsed). -- Rillke (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Definitely, also considering that gadgets could have security issues too. A more in-depth discussion can be found in the archive. --Ricordi samoa 16:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not requesting a grant

Please consider this feedback on your talk page. This is the page I was send to when I clicked on your talk page. If this is not the right place, feel free to move it to the correct location.

I wanted to start a project. Until I read this. This is bureaucracy. If you want to start a project, you have to wait 15 months. Moreover you can only ask at specific times in the year, so you actually have to wait 15-27 months. And the support is only for 6 months (or 12 if a second request is granted). This means the project could already have been done 3 times. And moreover people have to spend time on the request forms, with an extensive project to support request forms, and monthly reports, and midterm reports, and final reports. And why do you put a limit on the duration of a project. What problem is created if people spend less money over a longer period. Time limits are probably caused by the monthly reports. Drop the monthly reports and ask for a certain amount spread over the period and you are fine too.

If I ask my local chapter for support, I can start my project tomorrow. And the project has no time limit. There are two dozen requests here. Sit down, check a request a day. See you in a month. Maybe some delay, see you in 2 months. Or start a second commission if it is too much. Or a third. Anything, but don't make people wait 20 months. Wikipedia celebrates 15 years soon, and these people spend 10% of that time, waiting for a grant. Wikimedia is supposed to support the volunteers. Spending volunteers on bureaucracy is actually taking away volunteer time. Instead of writing these volunteers are in discussion for 20 months or waiting in line for 20 months. Being open is great. Delaying projects that can help us, is not.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And for the record, my project idea was to start local Wikipedia communities at Universities and Highschools. Send 1 email to 10.000 students, put up some flyers, if 1/1000 people is interested you maybe get 2 people who stay. Have them start a Wikipedia student organisation (not a Wikipedian in resident or ambassador, just students being students), and meet monthly. Give them 5 dollar per meeting for drinks, food or flyers; and let the students gather more students. Call the meeting a Wikipedia helpdesk and the entire university has instant access to Wikipedians. Most Wikipedians live within 30 miles of a university/highschool (in my area at least) so every (non-student) wikipedian would have a local meeting they could attend. Schools already have internet, computer, rooms. A grant would only be needed to set it up. Once in place, everything is free. Two people at 20 universities/highschools and a local Wikipedia would have a huge boost in volunteers. I am doing this in the Netherlands without a grant. Sure it is a long term plan, and it cannot be done in 6 months, but it is a plan and a grant request would have stopped me. If someone wants to start this in their own country, tell me and you have my support. Taketa (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Taketa, Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the IEG program. I'm offering some responses below:

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean when you say that you'll have to wait 15 months to start a project. From the submission deadline, the community and committee review of proposals takes around two months to the announcement of grant awards. Assuming grantees are responsive in their communication, it usually takes another 2-4 weeks for funding to be disbursed.
We do think that providing some budget and timeline guidelines helps many grantees to organize their projects into manageable phases, but we have always been flexible about project cost and duration when grantees communicate needs that require it.
That said, we think you're right that some projects would benefit from a quicker and lighter-weight application process, and that it would be better to offer more opportunities to apply for funding. We're working on restructuring our grants programs now and we'll be making changes that will improve our structure in relation to both these points. You can read more about the changes we're considering in this report. There, you'll see that we're planning to launch a quick, lightweight Rapid Grants program with a rolling application process. We're also doubling the number of open calls each year in the new Project Grants program (replacing IEG) so that people don't have to wait so long between opportunities to apply.
If you'd like to reconsider your decision to submit a grant proposal, I'm happy to talk with you about your project or offer support with putting together an application. There's still time to apply by the September 29 deadline.

Warm regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Marti, thank you for the clear response. You are ofcourse correct, I must have had a bad evening if I misread a december 2015 as december 2016. Also good to hear you will be increasing the amount of dates a year. Let me put it in perspective. The good thing is the idea of a 15 month wait pissed me of enough that I have started a writing week. I made some calls today and made agreements. Next week several newspapers will anounce the writing week to 100.000 homes, Wikimedia Netherland already supports it and has announced it on their website, Wikipedians have expressed support, I have cooperation of a library which will hold a meeting, 3 newspapers, probably a television crew, municipal politicians, etc. Tomorrow I am calling the governor, provincial media and a local school (all of this on the other side of the country, with two other Wikipedians manning the meeting in the library). Oh, and some of the articles written during the week will be published afterwards in a newspaper with 70.000 copies, to reward Wikipedians who write articles. It is that easy, it takes no time at all. I will give it another thought whether or not I should try the grant system or stay out of it. At least thank you for your time and for your clear explanation. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, it sounds like you've been very busy, Taketa! Good idea to have the local newspaper publish some of the articles as an incentive to participation! You may already know this, but I want to make sure you are aware that there is funding available to support events through the Project and Event Grants (PEG) program. That program has a rolling deadline, so even if you don't apply for IEG by September 29, you may still want to seek support from that program. Either way, I wish you luck with the awesome work you are doing! Cheers, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)