Grants talk:IEG/Automated inventory pages for all WikiProjects


  • What is your plan for seeking community consensus and getting input from communities which need to use this page but which currently are not because of lack of accessibility to their demographic? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You mention the good precedent set by WikiProject Military history. What are some examples of practices from that WikiProject which you would like to adapt to this one? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the second point, I think that's beyond the scope of this grant, strictly speaking, but it will definitely prompt some WikiProject self-evaluation as I tackle the project. I used to think we might benefit from coordinators such as there are at the Military History WikiProject. Perhaps having Axl listed as a chief person for the project would be great because he is a FA-article directed person. It was my decision to exclude FAs from the stated goals on the front of the WikiProject page, but I've changed my mind on that issue. I think that was a mistake. Biosthmors (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the first point, I think that is, strictly speaking, also beyond the scope of this (now $10 USD, previously $300 USD) grant, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Biosthmors (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorization problemEdit

User:Another Believer is perpetually engaged in reforming the category structures of Wikipedia outreach projects. I am sure he has ideas of how to best structure page organization for a large and complicated WikiProject like WikiProject Medicine. Could you seek his input for this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I received a notification about my name being linked above. What's up? (Please post a note on my talk page or link my name again if additional discussion takes place, as this is not a page a have on my watchlist. Thanks. --Another Believer (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the idea. I will follow up with Another Believer during the grant period. Biosthmors (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject CouncilEdit

On English Wikipedia there is a en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Council which gives guidance on best practices for establishing and managing WikiProjects. If you were to reform the medicine page, what if anything could you produce to help the WikiProject Council reuse whatever you do and adapt it to other WikiProjects? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 to this point - I'd be most interested in a WikiProject project that brings improvements and best practices for all. Although I can see the value in experimenting on 1 WikiProject in particular, I'd like to see an IEG project aimed at having a bit broader impact than 1 WikiProject alone (particularly as WikiProject Medicine is pretty darn active even in its current state). Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd definitely try to collaborate at and leave something behind for :en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Council space. I recently became aware it existed. I should incorporate that into the proposal. Note to self. Biosthmors (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


To what extent might you be able to arrange for anything to be done to help editors who are interested in developing health articles but who work outside of the English language? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've previously added links to the project page about the translation program, but I'll see what else might be efficiently said. Biosthmors (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is a grant needed?Edit

Hi Biosthmors, Thanks for taking the time to write up this proposal! I'm curious to hear a bit more about why you think a grant would help make a project like this more successful. It seems like you don't foresee many project expenses, other than a bit of your own time. And while we're certainly willing to fund people's time for online projects, for a request of this size, I wonder if the bother of fulfilling grantee responsibilities would be worth it. IEGrantees file monthly reports, a midpoint report, and a final isn't intended to be a lot of work, but I still would be interested to hear more of your thoughts around the $300 ask. Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome Siko. Thanks for asking. See there for an explanation. I've now changed the amount to $10 USD (see below). Best. Biosthmors (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks allEdit

I will respond to comments later. Due to an unforeseen knee-jerk reaction against paid editing at en:WT:MED, I have reduced the grant amount down to a token value of $10. Biosthmors (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've caught up on replying to talk page comments for now. Biosthmors (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2013Edit

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 review. Please feel free to ask questions here on the talk page and make changes to your proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 begins on 23 October 2013, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Siko (WMF) (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expanding title?Edit

I was wondering if we can we move this page to Grants:IEG/A redesigned WikiProject Medicine page—and redesigning WikiProjects? or if I should just propose ideas within the grant proposal itself first. Biosthmors (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to move it to a new name, as long as you don't take off any categories etc in the move, and you leave a redirect behind, all should be fine. Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A huge increase....Edit

Hi, I'm trying to score your grant and this change is not commented. I saw the discussion in WikiProject Medicine (on en.wikipedia) and here (Meta) and I don't see the justification to increase the requested amount from USD 9010 to USD 9010. Do you want comment us why you need USD 9000 more? (yes, I see: 8000 as coding and 1000 as mgmt. Regards Superzerocool (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the notification Superzerocool. And I'm sorry that's not more clear. As you can see in the diff, I radically expanded the scope of the project to include a software package that can be adapted to every WikiProject on English Wikipedia. Biosthmors (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yes, Superzerocool, an ideal coding system would be one that is adaptable to any Wikimedia project, though I have no idea how that would work. =) I need to find coders first. =) I'm working on that. Biosthmors (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Biosthmors, thanks for the reply. It is nice to see wider scope of the project.   Could you please describe the software in more detail? How do you plan to work it out? Thanks. Gryllida 09:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biosthmors, what development experience do you have? Or would you hire somebody? Again thanks. Gryllida 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Gryllida. Thanks for finding something positive! This would be my first experience managing, and yes I will hire someone, if I can manage to get this approved. =) I am currently looking for help on the technical front. I have sent an email to wmf:User:Qgil at the suggestion of mw:User:^demon to find development assistance. The best description for the vision I have is at my old proposal. Thanks for asking. Biosthmors (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. This information looks useful. Hopefully you'd find someone sufficiently interested in the task, and sufficiently experienced.  
(In general grantees are welcome to keep working on old proposals; they're not set in stone after the relevant deadlines, and may evolve and get re-submitted. It is not required, but it is allowed.)
Many thanks, Gryllida 09:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you succinctly state the problem?Edit

Bios, perhaps in the "Project idea" section you could state either or both what the deficits are now, and the opportunities improvements we'll gain from your project. Just summary and simple at that point. "I will redesign the project page and make related edits in project space that maximize efficiency." doesn't give me a sense of the specific issues. Also, the opening could have done a little trumpeting about how successful WPr Med has been, with a few brief, recent examples. Tony (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done and thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies. Can we withdraw this and place it in the Idea Lab?Edit

Hello all. I apologize, but I am running short on time to get the technical/software expertise, so I'd like to put this in the Idea Lab for further development. My apologies to the committee. Biosthmors (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Biosthmors, Thanks for the update. As the committee has already scored your proposal and is preparing to post back feedback and scores to everyone within the next few days, I wonder if you'd like us to post these scores and feedback on your idea before we formally withdraw your proposal? It might be helpful for you to get that feedback in case you decide to bring this idea back to IEG in a future round, so I'd suggest waiting for that step before we withdraw your proposal, if you're serious about returning to this idea in the future. Let me know either way, and I'll handle the withdrawal back to IdeaLab accordingly (either right now, or after scores are posted, as you prefer). Best, Siko (WMF) (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would love love love feedback! By all means, keep it open then. =) Thanks Siko. We can withdraw to Idea Lab after the feedback is posted. Thanks much. Biosthmors (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmmm..... or should I keep it open, Siko? It looks like if I work on it it might have a chance... I'd need to identify some technical assistance, though. Hmmmm.... Biosthmors (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's your call either way, Biosthmors, so just let me know your preference. Personally, I generally think it is a good idea to see things all the way through to the end, (otherwise I always wonder how it would have turned out), but I'd certainly respect your decision to withdraw now if that is your preference. Either way, I hope you've gotten some useful suggestions for the future of this idea or others. Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's keep going then. =) I want this idea to succeed. I've emailed Quim again to see if I can get connected to any help. Thanks Siko. Biosthmors (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Siko. I've made changes to the grant, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok! Thanks for confirming :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for A redesigned WikiProject Medicine pageEdit

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background) Score
1=weakest 5=strongest
Potential for impact
(A) The project fits with the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities 3
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact. 3
(C) The impact of the project can be sustained after the grant ends. 4
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects. 4
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 2.5
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 3.5
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds. 2.5
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it. 2.5
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement. 2.5
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact. 2.5
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 2.5
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 2.5
Comments from the committee:
  • Giving a new face to the existing Wikiprojects would be a good idea to convert many newbies to long time editors. There has not been many experiments done in reviving Wikiprojects, this could be a good start. Making participating in Wikiprojects a fun experience is a good aim.
  • Overall idea is good. Would like to see proposer use the WP:MED redesign as a jumping off point for developing 'kits' that all WikiProjects might draw from.
  • Proposal is somewhat vague, exact nature of the redesign in mind is unclear.
  • Overall cost is high, coding budget could likely be cut in half.
  • The required development is not described in enough detail. Targets may be compromised because proposal team lacks technical skills. After someone formulates the development task it has more potential for funding.
  • Impact measures should also include quantitative measure such as usage of tools created for the grant and page views for the WP:MED and WT:MED pages, as well as edit activity on WT:MED.
  • Lacks community input. Appears to be little support from Wikiproject:Med, and because this project was re-written from WP:Med to "all projects," we don't have enough general Wikiproject community input. We might prefer if the proposer rewrote his/her IEG in a future round for Wikiprojects more generally, so that the project might have impact worthy of the high budget request.
  • Though there are many people interested in medicine, most of them contribute to medicine articles outside the Wikiproject. To ensure participation in the Wikiproject is boosted, the proposer might suggest his idea to these potential users, i.e. editors interested in medicine but not already participating in the Wikiproject, and make use of their needs and ideas too.
  • The proposer has a history of generating many good ideas but this proposal in particular felt “clumsily presented” and unfocused. Advanced planning and more time for feedback and refinement would improve future proposals significantly, encouraging the likelihood of clear and strategic execution.
  • While budget flexibility is good, the jump from $10 to $9100 felt sudden and could be have been more thoroughly explained. Again, more forethought and discussion would help build understanding and support. In the future, the proposer should make an effort to form the grant idea more clearly in advance so the updates to the scope and budget of the project are not a moving target.
  • Projects that require significant technical or design expertise outside of the project lead's skillset would be easier to fund if a qualified team was fielded before the proposal was submitted.

Thank you for submitting this proposal. The committee is now deliberating based on these scoring results.

Funding decisions will be announced by December 16. — ΛΧΣ21 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status updateEdit


This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!

Comments regarding this decision:
We appreciate the updates made to this project over the course of the submission period, and regret that the last set of iterations came too late for thorough consideration in this round. We’d invite you to continue incubating this idea in IdeaLab, taking the above feedback into account, and to return in a future round with an updated and stabilized proposal for consideration.

Next steps:

  1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
  2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
  3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
  4. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.
Questions? Contact us.
Return to "IEG/Automated inventory pages for all WikiProjects" page.