Grants talk:IdeaLab/Effective Engagement with Health Topic Experts using Guided Checklists

IEG or PEG?

Hi Marti and other WMF staff,

I created this IEG to meet the deadline for a this round to keep that option open. But I would like to discuss the pros and cons of doing the project as a IEG v. PEG. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2016‎

Question answered on IEG call. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for review and scoring. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period (through 2 May 2016).

The committee's formal review begins on 3 May 2016, and grants will be announced 17 June 2016. See the round 1 2016 schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us at iegrantswikimedia · org .

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Effective Engagement with Health Topic Experts using Guided Checklists

Scoring rubric	Score
(A) Impact potential Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both? Does it have the potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	8.3
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	7.9
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe? Is the budget realistic/efficient ? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	7.9
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	8.0
Additional comments from the Committee: Content improvement for Medical content is sorely needed. This is an excellent idea whose approach might be worth trying and could easily be adapted for other topics, if successful. This proposal fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities to increase volunteer retention and engagement by providing a tool to facilitate more meaningful/effective contributions from health topic experts, and to increase knowledge by developing curation and creation tools for user needs. The applicant makes a good case for the need of the tool and its potential for online impact. By building on past IEG work (Full Circle Gap Protocol) and incorporating/documenting other efforts to conduct content gap analyses, the result could be a method for creating assessment tools for other subject areas. Interesting project. I think this is an excellent proposal and has some really great potential for impact. As Blue Rasberry notes, it is still in an outline form but I would love to see it fleshed out more. Yes, this has proven to be well-used if the work in English Wikipedia is done well Innovative approach to addressing some of the technical and experiential barriers that prevent contributions from health topic experts. I really like that the proposed project includes a plan to test the tool. I'd like to see this project fleshed out a little bit more. Scope seems reasonable, as does the budget. The applicant is highly qualified for this type of work. It's not totally clear to me at this point how in depth the participant plans to go into working on medical articles although the interviews laid out can certainly be done in the time frame. I also have questions about budget line items that do not have specific numbers attached to them. Has some strong endorsements and relevant communities have been notified. Good to see the tie-in with the Wikipedia Year of Science too. The applicant is planning on including/interviewing editors from non-English Wikipedias in order to develop a more useful tool. While there isn't a detailed explanation of this, Wikiproject Medicine is among the most receptive groups on Wikipedia, so I would be very surprised if they would not be as receptive. This project already has an action plan within the Wikipedia community that I think is very effective. Another community that I might recommend reaching out to is medical librarians, as they spend much of their time thinking about how to engage with their communities (both in and outside the university/hospital) using pedagogical tools like Wikipedia. Go for it! I really hope it will work and provide a lot of insight into the mechanism of improving whole thematic areas. Good project; the biggest question is how to connect this quality check with the frequent changes but also with the "alternative" health practices. For instance, I could not imagine how to evaluate the "vegan diet" because opinions about this are very divided. Solid proposal. I would recommend relying on state-of-the-art tools such as Wiki labels. Also, refer to: Research:Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality.

--MJue (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the IEG Committee

Thank you IEG Committee for your feedback. I appreciate you all taking the time to read my proposal. I'll take your comments into consideration when I work on the project. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Notes from Interview with Marti Johnson

1. Explore both primary and alternative methods to use the Guided Checklists.
2. Method to track use of GC
3. Potential to expand project to create a holding space for GCs.

Round 1 2016 decision

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, $6,500

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support your work to improve quality control of medical content, and to guide health topic experts toward higher impact contributions to Wikipedia. We appreciate your clearly outlined approach to identifying best practices to inform the design of your checklists. We look forward to seeing how you might plan for sustainability in the tools you create.

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.