Open main menu

Grants:PEG/Criteria/es

This page is a translated version of the page Grants:PEG/Criteria and the translation is 0% complete.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
British English • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Kiswahili • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎română • ‎shqip • ‎Ελληνικά • ‎русский • ‎العربية • ‎日本語

Las solicitudes de subvención deben apoyar la misión de Wikimedia y sus prioridades estratégicas. WMF favorece peticiones de 'alto impacto' así como peticiones de bajo impacto, trata de abrir nuevos caminos, y busca aumentar la capacidad de cada concesionario para desarrollar y ejecutar nuevos programas y asociaciones.



Algunos ejemplos de presentación de proyectos compatibles con la misión incluyen: concursos de contribución de artículos, actividades de divulgación para reclutar y entrenar a nuevos participantes, actividades de colaboración con GLAMs u otras instituciones, o los esfuerzos para ampliar contenidos locales en los proyectos. Para obtener una lista de todas las presentaciones anteriores, consulte Grants:PEG/Requests.



The Grant Advisory Committee and WMF staff review applications based on the following criteria:

  1. The fit with the mission and strategic priorities of Wikimedia.
  2. The potential for impact in the targeted Wikimedia projects (e.g. Spanish Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons). What would the activities improve? What would be created or changed thanks to the work enabled by the grant?
  3. The availability and readiness of volunteers and the availability of other non-financial resources required to implement the activities. Would the applicants be reasonably likely to be able to deliver the expected results? Is the scale commensurate to the size of the team and volunteer base? Has this been demonstrated?
  4. The track-record of the applicant(s) in managing grants (where applicable).
  5. The degree to which the activities would add new knowledge to or spur innovation in the Wikimedia movement (ensuring that the activities are not based on models already proven ineffective).
  6. How efficiently funds would be used.
  7. The quality of the proposed measures of success. Are they actually measurable?
  8. The sustainability of impact beyond the duration of the activities. Would the work keep on giving? Would the new infrastructure/capacity fuel subsequent work?