Grants talk:IEG/What is about - C'est quoi. A series of communication tools about Wikipedia. Cameroon pilot project

Active discussions
IEG key blue.png

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, €15,000

Comments regarding this decision:
We look forward to learning more about new ways to communicate about Wikipedia from this pilot.

Next steps:

  1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
  2. Review the information for grantees.
  3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
  4. Start work on your project!

Questions? Contact us.


Deadline reminder, and some first thoughtsEdit

Hi Iolanda and team,

Thanks very much for the time and energy you've put into this draft so far! Just a reminder that the deadline to propose for round 2 is 30 September 2013 - once you've finished adding all the necessary info, please let us know that you're ready to be considered by updating your infobox to status=PROPOSED.
  Done Changed the status in PROPOSED --iopensa (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm glad to know that you're considering adding some concrete measures of success based on actions taken by those who see the video in Cameroon - it seems both difficult and very important to learn if this kind of awareness-raising approach will have impact, and so I'll be interested to see what types of measures you ultimately settle on.

  Done Added outcomes in the Scope and activities. Finished the session Measures of success. --iopensa (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  • In terms of activities, I'm really curious to learn more about how you're thinking about distribution to your target audience...who in Cameroon should see these materials, and how will you reach them?

  Done I added details about the distribution on Scope and activities.
  Done Target audience.--iopensa (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  • In terms of content for the videos, I'm curious to know if there are any existing Cameroonian Wikipedians you would plan to bring onboard the Wikipedian/Wikimedian team that you mention should be engaging the producers in conversation? Or if there are folks you would engage with from other African communities? In absence of a large existing community presence in Cameroon, I see you're in a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, but I'd be curious to hear more thoughts around this piece.

  Done I put a specific reference to this on Target audience. The project relies on the fact that in many countries there is not an active local wikipedians/wikimedians community. Therefore the project is not based only on focusing on local wikipedians/wikimedians, but on wikipedians/wikimedians who can be based elsewhere...). --iopensa (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Wishing you best of luck finishing up this draft! Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --iopensa (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal historyEdit

The idea of this proposal comes from a meeting I had in 2010 in Douala with Michael Epacka. We discussed about Wikipedia, and it emerged the need - not to explain Wikipedia - but address broader issues such as knowledge, free knowledge and knowledge sharing. Already in 2010 Michael was interested in working on that concept. I saw the deadline of this call, I contacted him to say "hey, maybe this one is the right opportunity to try" and he confirmed his interest. I immediately contacted doual'art because they can guarantee the project an excellent local management. I sent a series of e-mail to some people working on projects in Africa to get an idea what they thought about this proposal. In few hours I received some very encouraging feedback. The September 30th call is the right one because in December the SUD Salon Urbain de Douala will take place (I'll be there payed by my research work at SUPSI) and we can use the time to have a meeting with relevant people in the field of communication, journalism and art (both people living in Cameroon and outside) and move forward the idea.
The complexity of this proposal and of talking about What Wikipedia is about is strongly connected to a completely different situation to bridge:

  • Piracy is the common practice. People already freely distribute and access content. But to make this content accessible on Wikipedia piracy is not an option.
  • Reuse and modification of content is the common practice. This is extremely clear in Hip hop music.
  • The educational system - with very large classrooms and a very passive learning based on learning for the test (also primary school has an exam) - does not emphasize critical thinking, personal/individual contribution and the idea that people have knowledge to share.
  • Traditionally knowledge is a sharing experience. The image of the Palabre, the tree where people meet and discuss, is a well-known reference. But there is a gap between tradition and contemporaneity. In the dichotomy Palabre vs. school, for people consider (and have been taught) that school represents contemporaneity and the Palabre is the past. It can be appropriate to talk about Wikipedia and what is about by referring to the past; an interesting paradox which of course means to shake a long lasting binary taxonomy system (tradition-modernity, past-present, authentic-Western, centre-periphery...).

Furthermore the proposal is timely because of the WikiAfrica Cameroon project. There has been a work related to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects implemented in Cameroon in (Douala, Edéa, Limbe) and it can be extremely beneficial to build on this experience and to provide it a new step. Furthermore this experiment can be used and eventually replicated within the frame of current projects taking place in Africa - Afripédia (11 countries), Activate Africa (Ethiopia, Malawi, Uganda, Côte d'Ivoire and South Africa). --iopensa (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

BudgetEdit

You need to hurry up and start filling in some budget figures here! I think this is a great idea and I have seen some of the material produced for Wiki Africa, which is mostly good. Sadly, I would have to agree that of those 4 million readers, most of them have no clue what Wikipedia is. In fact, a lot of those readers are not in Africa but are in the Western world, so go ahead and do this! P.S. If you can get anyone involved in Hip Hop music to participate in the project that would be totally awesome and well worth the investment. Jane023 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks June023. I just updated the budget. Today Guillaume Goursat is having a meeting with doual'art (Marilyn Douala Bell) to get their feedback. I didn't receive it jet. I already sent them the draft proposal for the budget but I didn't hear from them (in particular I need to check if the budget for their role and for the distribution costs are ok). I already checked with Mike Epacka for the production costs and it is ok. Yes, Hip Hop music will be part of it. Mike is very active in the music sector and he works specifically on music and with music producers and artists. They actually do very good stuff (they also manage Hip Hop Développé, which means Developed Hip Hop - with a specific reference to the cooperation and development crap). What is also valuable in Mike Epacka's role is that he is very professional and he has a very nice collaborative approach; so his name actually represents a team of of very valuable people he has been working with for many years. I also put in the outcomes a soundtrack because it will facilitate also the distribution (through radio). --iopensa (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't have confirmation from Doual'Art on the budget. I made it up but I'm worried is too tight. The usd and euro conversion is confusing me. Hope I still have until tomorrow to make some chances and I'll keep the same amount but in euro. --iopensa (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I put in the budget the project team traveling expenses to London: 1. it can bring two more African people to Wikimania (people who can actually contribute to Wikimania in Africa, Marilyn Douala Bell who has promoted WikiAfrica Cameroon and Mike Epacka who is making the video); 2. i put myself in the grant request so i do not have to apply for a scholarship for it, and it seemed reasonable. --iopensa (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

LanguagesEdit

The project uses a title both in English and French to show immediately that it is not meant to be in English only. The language(s) used in the Cameroon pilot project will be defined during the first meeting in Douala.
Some preliminary considerations:

  • English for the documentation. In any case, subtitles in English for the video and translation in English for the comics will be produced. English is specifically meant to share the experience and to allow the movement and a broader audience to access the communication tools and evaluate them.
  • Cameroon official languages are French and English.
    • French and English used in Cameroon are not necessarily the French and the English used in France and UK/USA (expressions, terms, rules, pidgin, accent...). Please note that this means that Cameroonian French and English are Cameroonian French and English, NOT wrong French and English. It also means that if those languages are used in communication tools and they are meant to address a Cameroonian audience, we will not have Académie Française and Queen Elizabeth writing the script. So be ready to get something which is not standard (if a standard exists).
  • Around 230 languages are used in Cameroon, this is why languages have different roles. There are languages used at home, with the neighbors, for rituals, teaching, learning, business, TV, newspapers, radio... People might know more than one language, the languages used depends on the territory and their function. It is like cloths: you use different cloths according to where you are going and cloths also represent the tone and register you want to express. The choice of the language(s) used in the communication tools will be decided by the team and it will consider the tone and people we want to address.
    • If we want people to understand what Wikipedia is about, we will not necessarily use languages which do not have a Wikipedia edition in that language.
    • people speaking a language might have no idea on how to read it and write it. The purpose of our communication tools is not to introduce or disseminate the use or a new use of specific languages.
    • supporting Wikipedia editions in certain languages might have a specific role for anthropologists, linguistics and politicians. This is not our main target audience.
    • reinforcing the use of a language over another have often a meaning connected to political and ideological claims. This is something which will be taken into consideration when deciding the language used for the communication tools.
  • The project addresses what we can call a local middle class. This means that we are not targeting people who live in specifically challenging conditions (i.e. homeless people, street children, refugees or what is considered to be the 25% of Cameroonian population age 15 and over who can not read and write). It is quite known that the structural adjustments in Africa had a extremely violent effect, and they have contributing in worsening the living conditions also of the local middle class. It might be useful to try to understand that a local middle class exists. It is not unusual that a family lives in one room with a shared bathroom and it has to contribute to support several other family members. They might have a TV, a mobile phone and they might make efforts to invest money for their children to go to private schools (even private primary school often guarantee a lower absence rate of the teachers, smaller classes and better results in the exams).
  • The projects also want to involve thinkers to engage them in a broader conversation about knowledge, free knowledge, sharing knowledge and Wikipedia. 100 people will be specifically contacted within the project and it would be useful if they can access the communication tools in a language they know.
  • Translations can be implemented
    • Translators without Borders can be involved on this (suggested by Kul)
    • Please note that not all the communication tools can really be translated. we can provide a sense of what they are about (for example we can make available the words of a song in other language, but this doesn't mean you get the song in another language).

--iopensa (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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) 05:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Community notificationsEdit

iopensa, has community discussed this proposal somewhere on a talk page, such as one at Wikipedia?
(The proposal being included onto a wiki-project or wiki-portal page doesn't demonstrate community reaction, while seeing it is the primary purpose of this section of the application.)
Thanks, Gryllida 03:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida. No. I can not think of the right place to discuss it on talk pages. If you have suggestions they are very welcome. I think my proposal is a meta project (something relevant for meta and outreach websites) because it aims at focusing on Wikipedia as a whole, rather than to a specific Wikipedia content. Maybe I should notify it in a discussion page there? my experience is that discussions on meta and outreach are more on mailing lists than on talk pages, but maybe I simply don't have experience in the right pages. I didn't notify it on Wikipedia (for example the Africa project or specific African countries projects) because wikiprojects relate specifically to content; maybe I could approach people working on the help pages? I need to look at it more carefully; I am not active in projects related to guidelines, instructions, assistance to newbies, but I think this can be a relevant direction. At the moment what I did was to approach personally by e-mail different people who I believed might have being interested in this proposal: the result of this community work appears in the endorsements. I approached some other people who didn't provide me an endorsements; some didn't answer, and with others we had some email discussions; but I think for privacy reasons it is better not to bring up their names. By email and by requesting endorsements I tried to reach people working in different communities: communication, wikipedia zero, people active in projects related to Africa. I decided not to use the mailing lists because it would have focussed the attention more on the IEG proposal rather than the topic of my IEG proposal (I think it is spam). I think I can include in the project an activity related to exchanging with the community active on Wikipedia in guidelines, instructions, assistance to newbies; this can be done in December. Please let me know if you have any recommendation or if you can suggest people to ask advice for this. thanks. --iopensa (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
iopensa, any public medium would do. A public mailing list for example. (Anything where a community discusses your idea openly). Gryllida 10:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
ok. thanks. At this point I can not send an email to a mailing list; it would be like I am contacting them not because I care about their feedback but because I'm responding to your request. my impression is that there are two things which can be done
  1. adding to the proposal - in the activity session - that i should browse relevant project pages to collect feedback and to inform people in the education mailing list (December 2013).
  2. if you need more feedback to evaluate the proposal, what I suggest is that you contact directly the education mailing list (i think it is the most suitable to have relevant feedback regarding this proposal) or other mailing list; you can ask their feedback for the evaluation process.

In any case the answer to your question ("has community discussed this proposal somewhere on a talk page, such as one at Wikipedia?") remains no. --iopensa (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interestEdit

Please note that there is a discussion going on on Wikipedia in English about my conflicts of interests. The discussion started with a series of edits by ThurnerRupert and a message on my talk page about Conflicts of interest editing. I clarified by position and I have provided a detailed information about my work and conflicts of interests. Since the beginning I had the impression the discussion would not have lead anywhere because ThurnerRupert was systematically removing content mentioning the name of organizations or projects I am related to (regardless if the content was relevant, a source or if I edited the article or not) and because the situation is interconnected online and offline (Rupert and myself are both members of Wikimedia CH). I have looked for a Third Opinion, but it was not the appropriate space and TransporterMan suggested me to seek "advice at the COI noticeboard if you wish to do anything right now". I submitted November 2nd 2013 a request of feedback on the COI noticeboard specifically related to doual'art. In reality the edits and message from ThurnerRupert are broader but i thought it was a bit less confusing to focus on doual'art and related pages. The discussion on the noticeboard started yesterday. --iopensa (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wikipedia in CameroonEdit

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 4
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact. 4
(C) The impact of the project can be sustained after the grant ends. 3
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects. 3
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 4
(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. 4
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement. 4
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact. 3
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 4
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 4
Comments from the committee:
  • Idea is interesting.
  • Unsure if making videos, comics and other media will lead people to get involved in the Wikimedia movement - definitely an experiment!
  • Costs in the budget may be high compared to the direct impact anticipated.

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 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Question on the feedback from the committee for Wikipedia in CameroonEdit

I have a question: did you consider the cost of a video production made by a professional company and the distribution costs at a national level? According to the evaluation criteria the budget proposed is between "The budget is generally consistent with similar projects; some items are likely to be over- or under-budgeted" and "The project plan contains significant over- or under-budgeting, and/or has not thoroughly accounted for costs.", a little more toward the first sentence. I presume the evaluation refers to the relationship between the activities and the budget and not between the budget and the amount of budget the commission is interested in spending (this issue would rather appear in other areas of evaluation - potential impact and innovation/learning). If the evaluation of the budget refers to its efficiency, I was wondering with which project/productions/distributions you compared it. Thank you. --iopensa (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please also let me know if you need any reference or comparative estimated budgets. I asked Victor Grigas if he can provide some insight about WMF experience related to video making or commissioning to external companies, but I do not know if he can share the data. --iopensa (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I had a short email exchange with Victor and maybe you can contact him if you need further information. I asked him because he is a staff member of the WMF, he has a wide experience in video making and because he has recently worked on a video in South Africa.
  • Basically the budget for the video making in Cameroon is similar to the price you would spend in having an internal staff member making a video in another country (travel, allowances, salary). If you ask an independent shooter or company the price would be much higher. I discussed and negotiated the price before presenting the project with Michael Epacka. I proposed a price which I know it is not the usual but he liked the project. Consider that equipment in Cameroon costs like the equipment in Europe/US plus the charge to import it; also professionals can be very well-payed in a country like Cameroon because there are not many. The video production includes the actors, staff, equipment, shooting and the video editing. Which I really consider a very good deal.
  • For the production of comics I used as reference a discussion I had some time ago with Almo. The amount is not very high but please let me know if you need more info about it.
  • The cost for the distribution is significant because it is the key. If we make the video and we get stuck in the distribution the project is a failure. We need to have the resources to test different distribution systems. The innovative part of this project is not only producing a video about what is Wikipedia and doing it in Cameroon; it is also targeting a completely different audience. If you make a video for Wikipedians you just need to get in on Wikipedia, you get an incredible visibility. The problem is how to reach who is not already there. Having the video on TV, printing DVD, paying people to send it out through the pirated Nolliwood DVD distribution, paying a press person, sending the DVD to intellectuals in Africa, commissioning three texts about the topic, organizing press conferences, organizing a conference with intellectuals, making translations and editing, printing a booklet with the comics, sending it out to the right people and distributing it, trying a different system if it doesn't work. If we have the resources to make the productions and then just a little to do almost nothing with the distribution, we are definitely condemning the project to have no impact and no scalability.
  • I also included the costs to Wikimania for a very simple reason: if two people make an innovative communication project related to Wikipedia in Cameroon they need to meet the community and become fully part of it. It is worth to keep them in it and to make sure they do more. Wikimania is a venue which allows this. Marilyn Douala Bell is also already promoting WikiAfrica Cameroon. Of course they could apply for a scholarship, they would probably get it, but I didn't feel that it made sense to make them apply for it and I personally have some doubts about how the accommodation will be in London for the scholarship recipients; I am not sure it is the right way to go with them. I think the participation to Wikimania makes sense as part of the project and it enhances the possibility of making the project really scalable and used by others. I added my Wikimania costs for pleasure; I have to admitted it, I consider it a reward because I have being to Wikimania before and it is important, valuable and you come back with tons of new things to do and to think about.
Please do not hesitate to let me know if you need further info. --iopensa (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for providing such detailed information about your budgeting, iopensa, it is clear that you've done your homework. Please note that these scores and comments come from the volunteer committee which provides input and recommendations to WMF as part of funding decisions for IEG; they aren't yet part of any wider WMF due-diligence concerning the overall feasibility of your budget. For what it's worth, I'm reading them as a general sense from the committee that the overall costs of this sort of project feel pretty significant for an undertaking where the return on investment is uncertain, and it may also reflect that fact that there aren't many other professional video project led by volunteers or grantees to compare with from the past (innovation, both a blessing and a curse!). I'm sure the info you've provided will be useful to everyone looking at this project idea. If your proposal is recommended for funding by the committee of volunteers, I will be in touch to discuss the budget specifics further, and I'm sure that we would be able to come to an agreement about the most feasible way to get this project off the ground - the committee feels responsibility for being frugal with donor resources, as we all do of course, and at the same time no one wants to see proposers end up with funding that isn't enough to allow the project team to complete their work, so I expect that in discussions we'll all be aiming to strike the right balance together. Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

MeetingsEdit

Meeting Friday 6 December 2013Edit

Mike Epaka, Didier Schaub, Iolanda Pensa.
Presentation of the project and discussion about it.
First ideas:

  1. Short stories playing with local culture and references.
  2. Turning around TV and cinema gender (i.e. spy movie, telenovelas, superhero movie - gender that people know very well).

Meeting Monday 9 December 2013Edit

Mike Epaka, Didier Schaub, Marilyn Douala Bell, Iolanda Pensa
Presentation of the project and discussion about it.
Concept around sharing knowledge.

  • Important to focus on a limited geography for the distribution. We will focus on Douala to make sure we invest energy in the most efficient way and with the potentially most relevant results.
  • Necessity to identify message, target, format, distribution (december).
  • Different formats for different targets.
  • Distribution. TV expensive (possibility of creating a partnership strategy). possibility to do an event, to print t-shirts. Distribution of comics within local press (this would be the most efficient strategy). Important: focusing on people in Cameroon who are already on the internet (social networks).
  • Showing that in Cameroon you can.
  • Evaluation: collecting data about the process (monitor of TV with planning) and interviews.
  • The management budget will be used by doual'art only (involving the accountant, Marilyn Douala Bell and Victor who is the junior coordinator of doual'art ICT projects; all internal staff members of doual'art with contracts). Siko can discuss more specifically with Marilyn Douala Bell about it.

To doEdit

  •   Done In the project plan: move issue of licenses on the area "production".
  • Next week: Meeting doual'art, Mike Epaka, Victor.
  • Next week: Online meeting with Siko

CalendarEdit

  • December 2013. Strategy - target, content, format, distribution (+ validation).
  • January 2014: Script and writing (+ validation)
  • March 2014: Preproduction and production.
  • April 2014: Launch and distribution
  • June 2014: Evaluation with interviews
  • August 2014: Presentation in London

Report by --iopensa (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Calendar moved to timeline and progress. --iopensa (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Reusing the project's materials in Germany and AustriaEdit

I am working on an exhibit about open data for a science exhibition that is to travel Germany and Austria next year on a riverboat (cf. en:Wikipedia:GLAM/Ship). Do you think your materials could be adapted for this purpose, and would they be available by the end of April (the boat's tour starts on May 5)? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions to Wikimedia FoundationEdit

I have a series of questions specifically related to Wikimedia Foundation

Hi iopensa. Unfortunately, we cannot answer your first question as we are not in a position to offer you legal advice. As for the rest, I've included answers in-line. --AVoinigescu (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. In the project we planned: "All non exclusive rights (including the right to sublicense the works) go to doual'art and Wikimedia Foundation; the authors maintain all their non exclusive rights and their moral rights (in particular attribution)." Is it ok for you? do you need to review the contract signed with the authors? do you already have a contract which can satisfy this type of rights management?
  2. For the distribution we noticed that it could be relevant to involve a media partner (to reduce costs to present it on TV or to publish comics in local newspapers). do you have a policy related? can we have other sponsors listened in a video related to Wikipedia and fully financed? do we need to require an authorization related to the name of the sponsor? is there already a procedure?
As far as we are concerned, we don't mind if you list additional sponsors. However, you should contact them for authorisation. --AVoinigescu (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. Attribution. How exactly do you want Wikimedia Foundation (and the IEG support) to be included in the communication tools? please provide a line if you already have one, language (does it need to be in the language of the video or in English) and logo to use.
Please include the following language in the credits: "This project was funded by an Individual Engagement Grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Puzzle Globe are registered trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation used with permission." You can translate this statement into French to match the language used in the rest of the materials. --AVoinigescu (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. The communication tool we are working on are focussed on Wikipedia and they will include Wikipedia logo. I have the impression from the guidelines created that it is a proper use, but please let us know if you envision any problem related to the involvement of potential media partners.
Using the "Wikipedia" word mark and the Wikipedia Puzzle Globe logo is allowed without a special license under the new proposed Trademark Policy because the communication tools you are preparing are intended for outreach. --AVoinigescu (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks, --iopensa (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you AVoinigescu (WMF). --iopensa (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I would add that while we can't provide you legal advice--and we are not familiar with Cameroon copyright law in any case--the language you mention in your first question may not be sufficient to get you the rights you want/need with respect to the works produced by other authors. You should try to speak to a lawyer familiar with Cameroon copyright law. --AVoinigescu (WMF) (talk)
Thanks AVoinigescu (WMF), i see your point (of course the text will be longer and with more specific information about the license etc; I have a model I used in Italy - reviewed by a lawyer - and doual'art knows some lawyers in Cameroon we can maybe ask to). My question was actually not really about the text (what to write exactly in the contract/letter), but rather about the all rights to Wikimedia Foundation (non exclusive). Can you archive this advantage and make sure people (for example people working in the communication at WMF) know about it? WMF owns the rights of the content produced by its staff; all the rest - i presume - is more or less under cc by-sa. this would be a different case and i wanted to make sure you are aware of it, ok with it and happy about it.
By the way, something which really surprise me is that your grant do not have a copyright policy related to the content produced with funds from the grant (at least i didn't see it). It is quite strange; obviously having the reports on meta makes them under cc by-sa, but how about the rest? I think it would be worth to clarify it. Creative Commons international is working on procedures for foundations; why not joining in? you are obviously one of the most sensitive institution to the issue of licenses and you can surely have a role in the discussion about it. thanks for your comments and advice, --iopensa (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Iolanda. In terms of what we request for licensing of materials created by IEGrantees, it is detailed in project eligibility for IEG. In line with Wikimedia values, we ask that "Any code or other materials produced must be published and released as free and open-source. Licensing should be compatible with current Wikimedia and MediaWiki practices." This gives you a bit of flexibility in terms of licensing, provided it is within the framework of best practices in the movement. Releasing all materials under cc by-sa (and uploading to Commons, etc) would obviously be preferred for anything generated over the course of your project. Could you please be a bit more specific about what exceptions you're seeking for this project, and why they would be necessary? (copyright is, admittedly, not my area of expertise, so the simpler/clearer you can be in explaining what you're looking for, the better able I'll be to help address this!) Thanks! Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Sent details by email. thanks Siko for following up already. --iopensa (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Free as free beerEdit

After the first brainstorming in Douala, Mike Epaka (who is working on the project content) proposed to focus on the key concept of "accessing and sharing knowledge for free". FOR FREE is not properly "free knowledge", but it is easier to explain and to focus on. I personally do understand and share the idea of not getting into the larger explanation of what "free knowledge" is. What do you think? wrong? suggestions? thanks. --iopensa (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My opinion: Yes, wrong. Restricting the message to "this is free of charge" puts Wikimedia on the same footing as e.g. Facebook and other eyeball-monetizers. It is bad enough that most people don't realize this (much) stronger meaning of "free" in "free knowledge"; we certainly shouldn't contribute to that ignorance in materials we prepare ourselves. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thanks Asaf Bartov for breaking the loneliness of discussion pages. I get your point but I think a bigger picture is missing in your comment:
  1. free knowledge. to explain what it is we should project the situation in another place, where people are not accustomed to Nollywood. Nollywood is well-known to have used piracy as its distribution system. The film industry gain money on the first days of selling (few days); the rest of the distribution and selling (after those few days) happens by illegally copy DVD. The system is so established that it is difficult for people even to perceive that this illegal. to make a video about what free knowledge means in the right and broader sense we should project the image somewhere else and talk about another place. But this is not our aim. We are not meant to make a sort of anthropological video-documentary about the bizarre and contradictory copyright regime of few countries of the world that is spreading behind the scenes (since it is not necessarily enforced) around the world.
  2. free of charge. this is a very rare situation in the majority of the countries of the world. you pay for everything; for a horrible shelter in a slum, for the food sent by NGOs and resold, for every small and minuscole task (the well-known informal sector). Something "free of charge" is not indeed a bad thing. the largest majority of wikimedia contributors contribute to the projects "free of charge" and they do represent the strength of the movement because no-one would be able to pay for it. And you do not have to pay a subscription to access and contribute to Wikipedia. Fee of charge (and without advertisement) is part of what we are and part of what makes us so unusual and unexpected. I do not understand why something that is important for our movement, that we believe in and that it is object of strong conflicts (related to advertisements, paid edits, paid advocacy) should be considered something which makes us on the same footing as e.g. Facebook and other eyeball-monetizers.
  3. ignorance. this is actually the very reason of this project. but to communicate we need to anchor what we say to something known, otherwise we only talk to ourselves. "free knowledge" is not our focus and it is not necessarily the entrance point to explain what Wikipedia is. Knowledge - useful - free appear to us as key concepts. do you have something else in mind?
  4. materials we prepare ourselves. this project is based on the idea that we need to differentiate what we say and that at the moment that very "we" does not take into account the broader "we" (because so many many people are not in). we open a conversation and I do consider relevant to listen to what a person who works in communication say about explaining the broader meaning of free knowledge in Douala with a series of short videos aimed at telling What Wikipedia is; what he says is that the word free is important to be included but not with a large and complex explanation. I do listen and trust him because he represent one of the "we are not". I am not sure though if "we prepare ourselves" means in your sentence "what is produced with a grant from Wikimedia Foundation". I am asking since in your signature you are "(WMF Grants)". I am not sure how to read it. I am not aware that a foundation which makes a donation to produce a work of art-design can control content; the project defines what is the object-result of the project. in our project we kept a large freedom on content and we didn't include in the plan a supervision of the content from WMF. do you think we should proceed differently?
  5. Bad. you do not ask hip-hop and comic artists to make something politically correct. if they do it they are not real and good hip-hop and comic artists. I expect what comes out to be good but i'm certain it will not accomodate everyone. if it accommodates everyone it was not necessary to make it in Cameroon - what is the point - we could have just used the materials we prepare ourselves.
sorry for the long message, but - as you know - online is difficult to grasp the encouraging tenderness of constructive feedback :) --iopensa (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Iolanda, I'd suggest considering the "we" as "we Wikimedians, who care dearly about spreading free knowledge." WMF's intention is not to supervise the specifics of your content, provided you stick to what we agreed to fund (materials explaining about Wikipedia to people who do not know Wikipedia and do not necessarily know what free knowledge and sharing knowledge are all about). But, you asked for thoughts here and so Asaf shared his :) These pages on meta-wiki don't get a ton of watchers, so if you're looking for more general community feedback this might not be the best place to solicit it. As for my own personal opinion: I'm torn. I think it is important to aspire to the best of what we want to see in the world, so I do think it would be best if the messaging aim for the fullest vision of free knowledge possible, and I know we'd all agree that "for free" isn't that fullest vision. I do understand this may be a complex topic to share in some mediums and contexts, however, and it may require some simplification and creativity to have the communication be effective at all. At the end of the day, I trust the project team, with help and input from their Wikipedian advisors, will come up with something that strikes the right balance. Have you considered trying out a few different kinds of messages in the focus groups to determine what works best, before baking this into the larger campaign? Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Siko for your kind message. I emailed three of the people who endorsed the project to get some feedback. At the beginning of the project I assumed that "Wikipedia" and "Sharing Knowledge" would have needed a translation, but I see that there are lots of other issues which are emerging: "free" is an example, but there are also "anyone can edit", "encyclopedia", and "education". Those terms acquire a different meaning in different contexts, but also Wikipedia is different in different contexts. The easiest example is that in Cameroon Wikipedia - rather than being the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" - is the "encyclopedia eventually someone might get the chance to edit". I think it is healthy that those issues emerge and I think this project can contribute to it. --iopensa (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm with you - definitely healthy to have these issues surfaced and discussed. I expect to learn a lot from the outcomes too :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OTRS permissionEdit

Permission for the work of Michael Epacka is stored in ticket 2014050110011601. Jcb (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Return to "IEG/What is about - C'est quoi. A series of communication tools about Wikipedia. Cameroon pilot project" page.