Grants talk:IEG/Rethinking Meta-Wiki

Cool idea. Needed - I'm unsure what the best approach is, but it's worth starting. –SJ talk  21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you SJ! I have a vague idea of what the redesigned main page would look like, but I am reluctant to build it into the proposal since I am not sure how useful it would be on Meta, nor do I want to convey it as the one correct way when it is not. harej (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a neat idea. I think your proposed approach (evaluating what's here before moving forward) makes a lot of sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment and query

James, this is a very interesting project that could have an impact on a pressing deficiency in the movement's ability to organise and communicate. $10K is a substantial sum. Could we have details of how much per hour your input would cost, assuming a casual rate without on-costs, and how many hours you (roughly) predict each segment would take? This is also, vaguely, a job application, although it's different in key respects from the standard type. Could you specify what skills you think are required to achieve success? Tony (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am estimating that this project would take about 40 hours per week for six months, including all necessary reporting. I expect the site analysis to take the vast majority of the time (at least 600 hours), given the amount of sheer work it would take. The design process would take up much of the rest of the time—though putting together a web page can take little time, it's the fine-tuning that takes forever. The documentation would take up the rest of the time. So overall it should balance to about 40 hours per week. Regarding qualifications, this project requires the ability to work in a collaborative environment and to understand how to organize content and processes in addition to being able to design pretty pages. As I will elaborate upon in the participants section of the proposal I have years of experience using technical solutions to improve Wikipedia procedural workflows, as well as experience with designing pages within MediaWiki. harej (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

James, that's $9.62 an hour, including on-costs (or perhaps this is a "casual" hire, without on-costs), given 26 weeks @ 40 hours per week (a total of 1040 hours). It doesn't seem right. I was assuming someone with your skills and application, combined with your knowledge of the movement and the trust factor, would be properly compensated at the level of at least a junior WMF employee, per hour, accounting as well in your hourly-rate estimate for the on-costs that WMF employees receive. An IEG grant for labour expended is, in effect, a contract between WMF Grantmaking and you, and let's not talk silly money—either silly on the low side, where we can hardly complain if nothing much comes out of it, or silly on the high side, where donors might reasonably query the efficiency with which their gifts are allocated.

The allocation of your time might be roughly:

• 350–450 hours for site analysis;

  350–450 hours for web-page design;

  100–200 hours for documentation.

You might consider trimming it back so that the compensation is reasonable. And for a $10K project, I'd expect a rough timeline (not fine-grained).

What about some basic numbers in your budget for both the $ and the time-allocation? For the latter, more detail than just three categories would be welcome: for example, the "site analysis" would involve the analysis of x, y, and z functions of ~200 major pages and 400 minor pages; it will entail Meta- and user-space talk-page exchanges, discussions with stakeholders via Skype/phone, including WMF personnel (which departments?), affiliated organisations, and other Meta editors; personal reflection; and possibly 100 pages of write-up. Will it all be done with English-speakers?

I'm just guessing. And you can guess too, but with more certainty than I could. At least with benchmarks we know where we stand, and if you end up having to re-allocate during the project to achieve your aims, that's all very well. Tony (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the specific mechanics are within the Foundation, but my assumption is that I would be treated equivalent to an independent contractor (in American tax parlance, a 1099), so I would be responsible for my own taxes. As such, $10K would be the total cost to the Foundation (not including expenses inherently incurred in the course of running the IEG program). In the course of writing this proposal I tried coming up with a number that would be consistent with other programs funded through IEG, which is how I came up with the $10K figure. The dollar amount is indeed on the low side but it is a figure I am comfortable asking for.

As for the rest of your response, you seem to be saying two different things: that you would expect a rough (and not fine-grained) timeline for the project, yet you request a more specific description of the tasks involved. I can definitely clarify details of the proposal—after all it is still in draft mode—but I would like clarification on what you are requesting.

Regarding language: in theory this should be a multilingual project, since I want to get input from all sides, including non-English language communities. That said, I am unfortunately limited to English (and French if I try very hard), which means there is very little I can do personally to facilitate multilingual discussions. Whatever people with better language skills can do to help out would be much appreciated. In the meantime, the page designs that come out of this project should be readily localizable into any language. harej (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the mechanics are either, but I'm surprised by what seems to be the assumption by Tony1 above, that suddenly we need to pay our volunteers (and be ashamed if we don't, because if we don't pay them enough it means we don't value them). This is not the case for most grants and not even for most individual engagement grants so far, even the "bigger" ones like Elaborate Wikisource strategic vision. --Nemo 17:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Still shallow

I'm currently unable to find any substantial content in this proposal, apart from «a new main page for Meta and auxiliary navigational pages and templates». Seriously? Also, the title doesn't seem to fit the content and I wonder how you can e.g. document how translation works when you've not even been able to find the existing documentation (which is very current). --Nemo 10:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: title, perhaps "Auditing Meta-Wiki" would be better? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Auditing Meta-Wiki" is a good name. I have no particular attachment to the current name so I am certainly open to changing it. harej (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Indexing Meta-Wiki" seems a more fitting name for the current content. --Nemo 17:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the depth of the proposal, it is necessary to look past the surface of the main outcome and look into the process it will take to get it, which will be extensive. You can't just design a website without knowing what's on it and what people are looking for. Otherwise, you're not solving the problem—you're dressing it up differently. And it's problematic on Meta because it is used for so many different purposes, yet it's almost impossible to get involved with these things if you're a newcomer. So I am proposing to study every last corner of Meta, describe concisely what Meta is used for, and on that basis figure out how to make participating on Meta and finding content on Meta easier with the input of people who use—or want to use—Meta. The documentation process would then occur based on what changes. If the translation documentation is already up to date and needs no further change, it won't be updated. If, in the process, we figure out a better way to handle the translation work, then that documentation would be updated. harej (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying the process you are proposing is not extensive, only that it has no direction. If what you call the "main outcome" above is not what you really care about, just not mention it (because frankly, yet another update of the main page and yet another herd of navigational templates, however well organised, are surely something we don't need a specific effort to get). --Nemo 17:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I do care about the outcome, just that I do not know what it is in advance. If I knew exactly what to do to make Meta easier to use, I would just go ahead and do it. The process helps determine the direction. harej (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Unclarities

I think redesigning Meta is a very good idea. It's absolutely not user friendly and does not help in resolving the different divides (in language, culture, approach) that exist in our community.

As I read your proposal, I'm surprised of the scope and extent of the proposal. It involves content analysis, discussions with stakeholders, design & implementation (!), documentation and internationalization. That's like a full project multiple people could work on for a year. What's your experience with these different aspects, eg. user (interface) design, working with communities outside of the US/UK?

The cost structure is, strangely, very unclear. What's your hourly wage, how do you cater for external costs (eg. travel)? On this discussion page, you mention that this is not included in the 10.000$. What's the estimation of these extra costs (that will be borne by the WMF)? MADe (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As I state in the proposal, I designed the layout of wikimediadc.org, including its main page and mobile version. I am not a professional designer but I am a competent amateur. As Wikimania 2012 Coordinator I worked with a multinational team that included more than just Americans, and generally the English Wikipedia has volunteers from throughout the world. As far as expenses go there would be no additional expenses beyond the $10,000; the only expense is my time. Though I have estimated that I would be working 40 hours/week on average, the dollar amount is a lump sum in lieu of hourly billing. This way, there are no billing surprises. (That said, I would keep records of time spent working for documentation purposes.) harej (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Harej, firstly on the scope; designing a wiki layout is nice, but I'm not sure if that's enough for the task you describe in this grant. Doing the analytics, a stakeholder analysis, following good design and interface rules... At this stage I'm not convinced on your experience with these aspects.

Secondly, as project manager I have fears about the (approach of) the budget. The timing of 6 months will be not easy to achieve (just look to the timings in "4.1.1 Scope and activities"), what would change if you need more then 6 months to finish? Or if unexpected external costs (eg. hiring professional UI equipment of expert, travel ...) would be necessary? MADe (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn

For personal reasons, I have decided to withdraw the proposal. Anyone interested in taking up this proposal (and doing whatever with it) is welcome to do so. harej (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)