Grants talk:PEG/Bedu Mumtaz/Jordan startup

Comments

Notes by NLIGuy

Dear Mr. Mumtaz,

Thank you for submitting the proposal, it is a refreshing idea, and as a Middle-East inhabitant, I can relate to the need for more editors, especially women, in the Arabic Wikipedia and in general.

I have a few questions:

1. Could you please elaborate a little more about your plans? The description is very laconic, and missing some elaboration into how you're going to recruit editors, where you will be visiting, and especially the technicalities - how many sessions (why only 3 and not 5 or 7?), what is your previous knowledge/education in enlisting a community of editors, how do you plan to be in touch with them, etc. I also don't understand why there is a need for 9 computers and 3 routers. You get the gist - - more details in the proposal, less trivial questions to be answered...
2. Where is this classroom be located? is it portable? if so, it seems unlikely that you could take everything with you on a bus.
3. Are you collaborating with an organization? Who is going to carry on helping the Jordanian women after you're back in the States? Do you have a plan in place for sustainability? Are you aware of any NGO in Jordan which may help you in that?
4. If you're only staying in Jordan for 12 weeks, why do you need data connection for a year?
5. The accommodation calculation is confusing - if you're staying 90 days * 30$ a day, why is the sum 1,800$ and not 2,700?

That's all for now, I wish you the best and look forward to hearing from you, NLIGuy (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Notes by  Klaas|Z4␟V: 

Great idea to get more islamic women involved to make the too small Wikipedia compared to "native" speakers in Arabic larger and above all more neutral.

1. Is it possible the women can bring their children as well?  Klaas|Z4␟V:  20:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

I'm definitely not opposed to the project, but I think it needs more refinement before it can move forward. I think that identifying on-the-ground collaborators and collaborating institutions is something that must happen before any project would be funded. The metrics of success also worry me: is that really all that you would expect to gain from this project? I understand they are minimum goals rather than optimal targets, but if this project were executed and met the minimum goals as they are laid out, I would not feel like essentially paying around $67 for every single edit would be an indication of success. Kevin (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments

• You can communicate sensitive information to Asaf or one of the other Wikimedia Foundation staff involved in the grants program. If there is a good reason for it to be anonymous (and I can certainly see one here,) I expect that both Asaf will be happy to relay his impression of the information you conveyed on to us, and that most members of the GAC will be happy to accept Asaf's impressions. The Wikimedia Foundation has a significantly better privacy record than just about any other large US-based website you will ever encounter, and any personally identifying information you'd need to give Asaf to demonstrate your ability to conduct this project you'd likely need to give him to physically receive the money anyway. But, for the grant to be approved - one way or another - you'll likely need to convince us that you have the ability to execute successfully the on the ground portion of the project. I also still wouldn't accept the budget paired with the goals as they are currently set; it literally works out to considering $67 of donor funds spent per edit a successful project, and I don't think personally think that is a remotely adequate target. Please understand that this message is not meant to criticize the idea of your project, but only to ensure both that you are prepared for challenges going in to it as well as you can be, and that there's not a high chance of donor funds being poorly spent. I wholeheartedly want to recommend the approval of this project, but feel like I can only do so with an adequate project plan in place, and feel like there are at least two big gaps currently. Kevin (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The activities of WMDE have effects far beyond their membership. To take an example, one of their long-time projects (albeit one being transitioned to WMF now,) Toolserver, provided the necessary infrastructure for many common tools used by almost every experienced Wikimedian across most projects. They also provide tons of support to the second largest Wikimedia project, host conferences with movement wide benefit, etc. $ spent per edit is not the best measure of effectiveness, but it can certainly serve as a proxy measure of it. You have provided very limited details about yourself (and in fact don't appear to even have an account registered?,) not supplied evidence that you can carry out the plan you've set forward, and the metrics of success you have put forward make it seem like this project succeeding (by your definition of success) would still have less impact on Wikimedia's actual content than almost any other way we could spend ten grand. With no track record of contributing to Wikimedia projects, no detailed plan, and an unwillingness to provide basic details, there's no way we can reasonably fund this project. I think this may literally be the first gendergap related proposal I've ever not wanted to fund, but there's just too much missing here. Kevin (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also... the Wikimedia Grants program is actually significantly different than any other grant-making program I've ever encountered. We usually fund something like 95% of all requests that we get, and we usually do so in less than thirty days after receiving a request. In general, we really, really like giving people money. But we do have an obligation to try to make sure that donor funds are spent on programs that are likely to succeed. If you came back six months from now with a track record of contributing to Wikimedia projects, a more detailed program plan, better metrics of success, you would very likely receive a positive answer. Kevin (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Laptops

1. What are you going to do with 15 laptops, after the end of the program? Even if you teach the woman how to edit - it would be useless when she has no her own laptop... If you are about to donate the laptops to the most promising woman - it is a subject of legal issues - ie. ownership transfer from Wikimedia Foundation. If you focus on woman who have already any equipment they can use to edit Wikipedia - there is no need to buy 15 laptops.
2. What about access to Internet in Jordan? Have you any ideas where and how to organize your teaching?

Polimerek (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Responses by Bedu Mumtaz

Thank you all for your questions.

A little more about myself:

I am western, and female. In the context of Arab culture, where women do not ordinarily talk to men outside of their families, this makes a huge difference to a project like this, both in terms of mobility and in access to Jordanian women. At this point I would prefer to remain publicly anonymous, so I hope you will understand if I do not offer any personally identifying information.

About the proposal:

Some time ago I read the Wikimedia blog article "Let’s throw more Wikipedia editing parties". The writer says, "My friends are smart, professional women who have a lot of information in their heads and at their fingertips, but somehow they’ve never gotten around to making that first edit on their own." That sounds exactly like some of my Jordanian friends. "Seriously, all you need are a couple of friends, some refreshments and internet access, and off you go." Refreshments are no problem, my Jordanian friends are very good at food. But the internet access? That is basically what this project is about, finding a way to give Jordanian women a chance to make that first edit.

Response to NLIGuy

As you note, this plan is very broad in its outline. Any plan that would succeed in this part of the world needs to be very flexible. In other words, you will need Plan A, and Plan B, and then you will need to be able to throw all of these away and try something else. Above all, you need to be able to listen to your local counterparts. And in this part of the world, discussion is best conducted in person, face to face, with much tea and ..... consensus building. Just like Wikipedia.

In answer to your more specific questions:

1. The plan is based loosely on the article I referenced above, that shows three laptops and mentions the WIFI in a friend's living room. Jordan does have good personal internet plans--I used Zain with my USB modem on my laptop when I was there recently. But in the proposal, I specified WIFI/router, mostly because the social aspect, and the fact that they meet together once a month for editing, seems to be an important element to the success of the editing parties. I would hope that the plan would be flexible enough to substitute laptops for routers, and vice versa, or even desktops, or for 10 pizza parties for 3 people instead of 3 pizza parties for 10 people, depending on the need. But I suspect the grant process might not be quite that flexible. The other numbers are arbitrary. I would like to set up maybe three test groups to see how this might be adapted in an Arab context, with an eye to expanding it in the hypothetical future. I'm thinking about one in the capital, one in a rural area, and maybe the third in an educational institution, if I can find one, or possibly a business. The idea is to pay for their internet connection, with the understanding that they will make, or get someone else to make, a minimum of 10 edits per month. This is an arbitrary number with an intentionally low bar to participation. The goal is to get them to continuously show other people how to edit, in order to find someone who actually *likes* to edit, who will end up doing much more than that on their own.
2. The "classroom", or maybe "home office", would be portable at first. I would shop for one setup locally, probably one laptop and one router, first on my own, then maybe with guidance from an interested local person, to see how it works from the technical standpoint, i.e., whether the connection works in rural areas, etc. A laptop is perhaps a bit heavy to carry around, but I do it routinely. These days you see a lot of travelers with 8-inch or 10-inch touch screens, but so far these devices seem to be better for viewing information than for editing. I don't see any way around having a proper keyboard.
3. This plan is strictly for collaboration with individuals. I would not rule out institutions, but I think care must be taken with this, as their goals and procedures may not be compatible with WMF. I would prefer collaboration with government institutions, but in this part of the world it can be notoriously difficult, even for high profile organizations.
4. I think this has been explained elsewhere, but the connection is meant for the Jordanian women, as being a necessary bit of infrastructure needed for editing.
5. Ah, so it is. There is also an error in that the total cost listed in the budget section is not the same as in the financial details section. I think there is also a meal allowance available that I have not listed. I have also not taken into consideration either the cost of paying monthly bills while traveling abroad, or storage of possessions while abroad. There is also a matter of opportunity costs that will probably prove to be an even more difficult barrier to the proposal. As this is a wiki, and with access to many who are more experienced in these matters than I am, I would add these issues to the public discussion. Once the broader outlines are taken care of, I think these smaller details would fall into place easily.

Response to Klaas|Z4␟V

Most, if not all of my contacts are in fact Muslim, but I would like to emphasize that the proposal is country-based, not religion-based. To some extent it is language-based as well, since at least part of the goal is to encourage crossover between the Arabic and English wikipedias.

Children will not be an issue in the short term, as my contacts do not have school-age children, but the issue might need to be addressed if the program was expanded at some point. If Jordanian women want to bring their children, they will bring them, but it is my fervent hope that they will not. Jordanian families can be large, with up to 12 children. I have taught (and studied) both in environments where children were not permitted and where they were allowed to wander at will, and vastly prefer the former arrangement. Day care might be an affordable option; when I lived in Jordan several years ago, the monthly salary for a day care worker was 30 dinars, or about $40 USD per month. Bringing a son might be a different issue, since women are traditionally escorted everywhere by a male family member. A Jordanian women I once talked to at a convention told me she had had to take her son out of school for the day for escort.

Response to Kevin

I'm not sure I understand your objections, or your point about organizations. If you want to consider Wikipedia in terms of cost per edit, then consider the German chapter organization, with about 4,000 active members and a budget of $23,372,268 USD. If you assume they are mostly male and will all make 10 edits each, as a direct result of this expenditure, then the cost per member would be (check my math here) $5843, and the cost per edit would be $584. This would appear to be quite a gender gap: $67 vs. $584. The cost of one female Arab edit would be 11% of one male European edit.

But of course this is not Citizendium, or even Tagipedia, and this request is not about cost-per-edit. The (quite minimal) requirement for a small, token number of edits is merely to show continued interest in the project, in return for being provided with access to the equipment needed to participate in it. And of course this is only Plan A, subsequent conversations with actual Jordanians may yield a better plan. In fact, this plan may yield no edits at all, or it may yield the sum total of all Arab knowledge. The foundation is not being asked to fund edits, it is being asked to fund a roll of the dice.

If WMF wanted to increase participation of Jordanian women, the best plan would be to send someone to talk to Jordanians and see what they think, what they already have, and what they would need to get started...someone with the authority to tap the knowledge base of the foundation, and an expense account for pizza and two or three pilot projects, with the understanding that 5-10 more such projects might follow. Ideally, the pilot part of the process would take place during spring semester of 2014, and any followup projects for fall semester 2014. Unfortunately, the grant disbursement schedule doesn't permit that, you have to request all the funds before you can do an evaluation. The other alternative would be to do an assessment in Spring 2014, make a request during the October 2014 request cycle, receive disbursement in March 2015, and have the equipment in place for the beginning of Fall semester of 2015. So your narrative in approaching these tribal women is going to go something like, "hello, I don't really represent any entity and I don't really have any authority except for my own personal authority, but I want to form a partnership with you which might result in you being able to edit something called "Wikipedia" a year and a half from now, in which case I might be able to take time off from my real job and attend to it, if I ...and if you all...are still interested after all that time." Not gonna happen. In all fairness, although this seems to be a system that is doomed to failure, it doesn't seem to be all that different from other agencies that work with grants. The second piece to the equation is that you have to spend all the money, even though you haven't been able to properly evaluate the needs. Any discrepancy of more than something like 12% has to be explained. This is a huge incentive to say that your plan worked very well indeed, and that there is no need to re-evaluate or to change direction. It's a shame that the extraordinary creativity and sheer brilliance that went into the birth of Wikipedia has not been able to transform the structure of grant programs as well.

Comment by Aegis

[Only after minutes I have realized that Kevin had already responded to your response higher on the page - as this is not obvious I would post my comment here.]

If you assume they are mostly male and will all make 10 edits each... - you do understand that this is not how the effect of Wikimedia Deutschland can be calculated? Their members don't need to edit, they support not only their members, average active Wikipedian makes more than 10 edits (per year?) and the number of edits is not even the main aim and purpose of WM Deutschland's existance as they have a fair number of goals. What is more, you have used the richest chapter, running an own fundraiser and contributing a lot to the WMF and the movement. Comparing to a small chapter, say Wikimedia PH with a budget <20k USD and ca. 50 members and a few projects or WMEE with ca. 10k Euro and 30 members, it looks a lot different.

approaching these tribal women - I might not be an expert in the local culture but wouldn't it be far simpler to outreach to local "elites" (every society has top x% in terms of education, wealth, citizen participation, free time etc.) or just already persuaded people and empower them to establish something sustainable there, so the selected "local people" we trust can run sustainable projects as well as persuade and guide these "tribal women" on site. At least as far as I know this is the model which the vast majority of NGOs used. Would you like to elaborate on that and why you believe your approach is the best one, judging on your personal experience?

Finally, your experience in this topic that you haven't revealed. The right person is the key and at least I simply don't know who you are, what are your connections with local communities, skills and track record in such projects - what I know is your Cambodian IP. I would highly recommend you to present yourself at least to Asaf - not only because he needs to make the decision but his recommendation would be crucial for others. It would be sad if we turned down an enthusiastic comminity member (it means You) who we want to support and the demographics that we want to support because of such a basic thing.

Warm regards, aegis maelstrom δ 09:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to Aegis by Bedu Mumtaz

Aegis, interesting points.

• Goals I'm sure the German group does valuable work--software development, fundraising, conferences. I certainly miss the toolserver when it's down. But I don't believe cost-per-edit is a valid measure, either of the German project or of this one. This particular project addresses the goals of correcting systemic bias, both with regards to gender and the Global South. The Arab world is grossly underrepresented in Wikipedia, and this is one of the very, very few opportunities to even get a toe-hold in the area of Arabic language. If shown to be effective, this is exactly the type of project that could "add new knowledge to or spur innovation in the Wikimedia movement", by providing a culturally-appropriate, and potentially expandable, model for this part of the world. And the cost to the foundation would be miniscule compared to other projects. I'm sure the German chapter spends several times this amount just to mail receipts to their donors.

• selected "local people" we trust. "Local elites" are certainly free to edit the Wikipedia already, but what has it yielded? Not enough, clearly, if WMF has chosen this as one of its strategic goals. I don't think we can look too narrowly or try to exclude certain groups. WP is supposed to be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"-- certainly a more diverse type of participation will yield a wider range of knowledge. And how do we know who to trust? Institutions with westerners in positions of trust--universities and so forth--are often sought out by the locals in these areas, precisely because there are westerners. My point about the tribal women, I think, was more about the need for straight and simple communication, and a useful plan, from the start; there are many people in Jordan who cannot do what they say they can do.

Jordan is unique in its diverse population--Armenians, Circassians, Christians (mostly Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox), as well as Palestinians from two major migrations after conflicts in 1948 and 1967, and now Iraqis. The Palestinians probably are around 60% of the population, but it was the traditional bedouin tribal families who formed the core of support for King Hussein during the 1969 civil war, as they did for his grandfather, the first king of Jordan. The tribes are fairly autonomous, and have their own villages, schools, elections, mayors, etc., and also women with university degrees, but of course they are not the only people I would be talking to.

The women I would approach here would be chosen with the idea that they are already involved in the education sector, and probably also have some bilingual skills; this is the skill set that would be the most useful to "sustainability of impact beyond the duration of the grant", that is, a core group of people who know how to edit and can teach others "to fuel later work". (I'm quoting here the criteria for reviewing applications).

• Identity issues. I can appreciate that it must be frustrating not to have a username to identify with the proposal, but at this point I feel I must insist on maintaining my privacy. The fact is, if you allow applications by user name, or anonymously, there is no way you can know the person's credentials. Let's just say that I have read the requirements as explained in the application instructions, and have made the required contacts.

It may very well be that I am NOT the proper person to undertake this proposal. In fact, I am finding that although Wikipedia can be an interesting hobby, in the case of this proposal, it may be one that I can not afford. In that case, the resulting dialogue may still be of use to the foundation.

So maybe the more interesting discussion would be not about myself in particular, but a more generalized discussion about the scope of the proposal and what kind of person, or people, would be right for it.

Thank you very much for your explainations on target demographics and why it is important in terms of the systemic bias. I am fully aware that Wikipedia activism is underrepresented in Arab world, especially considering its huge young population and diversity. Moreover, if I read you correctly now, many subgroups can have it very hard to develop own activists, Wikipedians, organizations with funding etc. These are good reasons for WMF activity, even without the focus on Global South - and I agree this is worth our time and effort.

Regarding this particular project - revealing your person to the WMF Team and their trust is fine for me but it certainly needed to be done anyway in order to provide you with some assistance / transfer the money / monitor the project / exclude a straightforward fraud (I don't know many orgs which are funding anonymous people). Regarding the details - I still believe that they need to be ironed out before any project starts and here again Asaf - as the Global South person - should be the best evaluator and to consult with to act in line with WMF's Global South Strategy, existing efforts and costs they are willing to take.

Best Regards, aegis maelstrom δ 13:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to Polimerek

The laptops (9, not 15) are meant for the Jordanians, and would stay in Jordan. Whether they would be gifted, or loaned indefinitely to someone who wants to start an editing group, doesn't matter to me. Equipment requests seem to be common enough, perhaps there is some standard procedure for this.

Internet connections in Jordan are excellent, at least in urban areas. A SIM card is about $3 and I recently paid about $20 a month for a data plan for a USB connection. There are also many restaurants in Amman with WIFI. The location for the editing sessions will have to be chosen by the Jordanians. There are many things I can do as a westerner that they cannot do, they will know what is permitted by their families, and how to arrange it. I have taught computer to mixed language groups elsewhere, and a group of 20-30 people is very difficult to manage, even with two or three bilingual teaching assistants. The small group editing party described in my introductory comments seems ideal for this project.

My thoughts

Thanks for the submission. I see that many things have been already discussed here, so my comment will include only a brief summary to illustrate my opinion on this one. The purchase of technical equipment is something that was discussed numerous times in the past and reveals the ownership-related issue after its use for the purpose of these activities. In addition, it looks like a better solution might be to borrow this equipment which would surely save money and bypass the same problem being discussed once again. One another concern that is evident from your request is the lack of measures of success that will provide convincing evidence that granting these funds will end in something feasible. Could you please list more numerical information of the measures that will be taken into account when evaluating the success of this project? I see that the only measure of success is the number of new users who will make at least one edit on either the Arabic or English Wikipedia, which doesn't seem to be convincing enough to justify the amount requested. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to write pretty much the same summary as Kiril did, so instead of repeating it, I'm joining his statement with classical "+1".
— Danny B. 15:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional responses by Bedu Mumtaz

Responses to Kevin, Kiril Simeonovski, and Danny B.

• Technical equipment ownership: I don't see any problem with the WMF owning the equipment and loaning it. I suppose this might be purchased inside the country, and depreciated as capital equipment.
• Concerns about anonymity: my understanding of the program rules is that applicants are not required to publicly disclose their identify, but need to be able to identify to the foundation, which I am willing to do. My activities elsewhere with the project have little or no bearing on this proposal, but I have included much personally identifying information here, that is not available elsewhere, that I do believe is essential for proper consideration. I had hoped the proposal would be considered on its own merits.
• Timetable concerns: the information I used to base my understanding of the timing of disbursements was found here and here.
• A requirement for "identifying on-the-ground collaborators and collaborating institutions" before funding a proposal to identify collaborators and institutions: this is a circular argument. This should have already been answered by my other responses.
• "More details needed." What kind of details?
• "The proposal would be better six months from now." No. There are timing considerations. Six months from now would be the end of the school year, with educators very preoccupied with tawjihi exams and other end-of-semester details, followed in June by Ramadan, when nearly everything in the country comes to a halt. Also the high season for travel, with fares sometimes doubled.
• Measure of success: the goal is to identify potential editors, and enable them to make their first edit. That's all. Initially I thought 10 edits might be reasonable, but I went back and looked at my own edit history, and it took me 4 hours to make the second edit. So even two edits might be an unreasonable goal to accomplish in an editing party. The point is to get them to enjoy it, so they will *want* to make a second edit. But once they have an account, their edits can be tracked to get a better idea of what does and doesn't work in this cultural setting. If you look at the metrics video, there has been some tracking done in school environments, also there is some newly-developed software that can track cohorts. Of course a lot of unexpected things will probably happen along the way. For example, Jordan has a rich archeological heritage, but where is the Arabic-language article for the desert castles? What about Qasr Tuba--it doesn't have an Arabic language article either. And the article for Jordan's first king is barely a stub. !حرام An informal discussion over a glass of tea may yield even more interesting observations. For the more background to what has been learned in all the work that has already been tried, and done in the Global South, see also the next section about self-motivating editors.

"A core of self-motivating active editors"

I just finished watching the October 2013 WMF Metrics Meeting video, and was struck by this:

• The sine qua non of most programs is a core of self-motivating active editors.
• It can be as small as 4 or 5 people, but those people need to be actual, active editors, people who edit because they like it.
• So this is the big big challenge. I would say we don’t have an answer to how do you grow such a core, how do you come from not having a core in a certain country to having one. That’s a big one, and we haven’t cracked it.

I am proposing here to crack this challenge.

This proposal incorporates several elements that have already been identified as successful in the Global South. It has a carefully selected audience, based on personal relationships and mutual professional interests. It involves learning, listening, participating in the community, which has yielded practicable plans in Brazil and India. And it incorporates methodology that has already been used successfully in the U.S.

A note on identity and local community

Hello, everyone, and thanks for the engagement so far.

I would like to state that the applicant has identified herself, in both name and username, to the Grantmaking team at WMF. I have looked into the user's contribution record, and can state with confidence that she does have enough English Wikipedia experience to deliver Wikipedia training, including navigating the usual issues, like NPOV, reliable sources, etc. She does not have a significant record of edits on the Arabic Wikipedia.

Bedu, thank you for responding to the questions so far. I think what would help make progress at this point is an answer to the following question: have you attempted contact with the local editing community, to perhaps collaborate on this? If not, would you consider doing so (we can help make the connection) to explore whether and how you might work together? I can say this "roll of the dice" would be a lot easier to fund if a way is found to involve a local Wikipedian (perhaps a woman Wikipedian, given the context). Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Asaf. More active participation of WMF in this issue would certainly be welcome. I also appreciate clearing up the identity questions.

I have looked at some of the better-written articles related to Jordan: Abdullah II of Jordan, Rania of Jordan, and Petra, but the people who maintain the articles, that is, monitor the edits and respond to vandalism, seem to be all Europeans. Likewise, many of the members of the inactive WikiProject Jordan do not seem to be actual Jordanians. So far, I have not been able to identify any Jordanians writing in English, much less any women editors. It would certainly help move things forward if there was someone who could identify several such participants.

I would think it preferable to have women involved here, given the cultural context. It's not unheard of for an Arabic-language online forum to have a separate section for female participants.

Jordan may be a roll of the dice, perhaps, but I would like to think the dice are loaded. Jordanians, men and women alike, are used to doing faith-based types of volunteer work, and Jordanians can also be enthusiastic bloggers.

Wikipedia is the face that Jordan presents to the world. There must be Jordanians somewhere who will consider Wikipedia important enough to take an interest. —Bedu Mumtaz (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've talked to Asaf some, and accept his evaluation of your ability and record. In most situations, I would oppose a grant that involved giving nine volunteers laptops, but given the area of the world and potential for impact, I'm okay with it here. As with Asaf, I would be more comfortable if the grant were conducted in conjunction with a local Wikipedian - I think he's working on trying to set up something now. It occurs to me that Netha Hussain is at least fairly close by (probably a six hour flight to Amman,) and has extensive experience conducting outreach to women in culturally sensitive contexts. I don't think she speaks Arabic, though; is that likely to be necessary with the circle of people you would be reaching out to? If it isn't, I'll ping her over here to take a look at the project and see what she thinks.

One other comment I would currently have: in most projects in the past, we have seen that one session per group of participants is not enough to provoke lasting interest or engagement. If possible, I would prefer to have multiple sessions involving the same set of participants, even at a greater cost. Usually, editors are a lot more likely to stick around after two (or even three) sessions. Kevin (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Update

I have now connected Bedu (the proposer) with an experienced Jordanian editor of the Arabic Wikipedia (a woman), to discuss possible collaboration. I hope we hear back from them soon. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for the delay. We are now in contact. —Bedu Mumtaz (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation by the GAC

GAC Members who oppose this grant request

1. This project could be the jewel of GAC projects - really! At this moment, I lack community support, a clear view on the program and the costs. And that kills any project. I would advise to rethink your project, and would consider a collaboration with an existing chapter (Israel, South Africa, Germany, to name a few) MADe (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
2.  Klaas|Z4␟V:  12:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC) The answer to my question made me even more doubt in the chances for success. Taking kids off school for having male company? Sorry, but I can't take those kind of rules very seriously. Where in the Quran is written that women can't take care of themselves like in the vast majority of this (almost) free world?  Klaas|Z4␟V:  12:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Remaining issues

So, now that Bedu is in touch with a local (female) Wikipedian, who has expressed interest in collaborating on this, I am satisfied about the outreach aspects of the proposal. What remains to settle before this can be approved is the following two issues. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 06:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Updated budget

As of this writing, the grant total is undefined on the grant page. We need an updated budget proposal and grant total. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 06:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Equipment ownership

We need a solution for the question of who owns the equipment the grant is proposed to purchase. The need for the equipment is understood and we are not unwilling to fund it; the problem is we need some kind of accountable way to ensure at least a reasonable likelihood that the equipment ends up serving the mission. I encourage the applicant and the GAC to brainstorm over how this might be accomplished (a competition? ownership by a local partner? etc.). If we can find an acceptable arrangement, we would be able to proceed. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 06:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A fruitful discussion with solution on this specific case might be a good starting point towards adopting a standard to deal with all the grant applications requesting purchase of equipment. My personal opinion on this, roughly based on the time frame for the activities and the fact that the equipment should remain in use after the completion of this project, tells me that it might be preferable to lease it for the sake of the project. The actual price of the equipment will have to be much greater and it doesn't hold to buy it with no concrete plans after these activities. I understand that it might be better to make a purchase from a viewpoint of individual investor, but the ownership-related issue in a case when the grant application has been submitted by an individual strikes me to think that it's a reasonable solution. However, any initiative that will result in creating a chapter or any other affiliated organisation in Jordan is welcome and may justify the purchase of the equipment because it could be, then, easily entitled to that organisation. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I already read about the difficulty at this point of finding institutional support or who will have the government protect the equipment. Is there any way to contact a local free culture initiative (if it exists in the country, such as Creative Commons or Mozilla), or an educational NGO that can support the safeguarding of equipment? --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In Wikimedia Polska - we have a system of agreements for lending an equipment to persons who need it for a specific project. The agreement states for what purpose the equipment can be used, how long and who is responsible for it. Then we screen from time to time if the project is going well and if not we ask the person to send it back to our office. The agreement says that it is acceptable "natural wear and tear" but destruction or loss of the equipment will be covered by the lender. At least in theory the agreement let us sue the lender in case of not sending back the equipment. Maybe - WMF could prepare a draft of similar agreement? Polimerek (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see a local group, perhaps a WikiProject, take charge of the equipment and make the decisions over where it would be used or loaned out. However I don't know enough about chapters and affiliated organizations to know what kind of structure to suggest. In the initial stages at least, probably the simpler the better. Of course, no matter what you do, you can still risk ending up with a stack of thumbprints, and no program.

In the trade-off between security and accessibility to the equipment, I would prefer to see the Jordanian Wikipedians have easy access to the equipment. If it is any consolation, theft is not that common in the Arab world. You can accidentally leave your possessions in a shop, and come back the next day to find someone has taken charge of them and is protecting them for you.

My experience with equipment contracts in this part of the world has not been positive. One organization required employees to take charge of computer equipment and sign for it. Those who kept the equipment at their accommodations and did not use it, found they were able to return the equipment without financial penalty at the end of their contracts. Those who tried to use the equipment at work quickly found that the locked areas were not secure, and that anything that was not removed from locked desks and locked rooms at the end of the day would disappear when (non-Arab) staff came in at night. Those who went this route ended up buying heavily discounted non-functioning equipment in the market in order to have something to return at the end of their contracts and avoid financial penalty.

This plan as presented provides for WMF to pay for monthly internet connections. While it would be reasonable to expect that someone who was borrowing WMF equipment might use it for personal activities, like email or blogging, eventually, if they didn't use it for Wikipedia activities, the internet connection might be terminated, and the equipment loaned to someone who was more likely to use it for editing. Conversely, if they didn't want to lose the use of the equipment, (say, for a classroom), but didn't want to edit Wikipedia themselves, they could still keep teaching other people how to edit, or assign one of their students to teach them, and be quite useful to the project in that way. —Bedu Mumtaz (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now added a line item to the proposal for storage cabinets to secure the equipment. --Bedu Mumtaz (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As of this writing, there exists no such structure in Jordan. There are only some individual Wikimedians. Thus the question of what is to be done with the equipment remains problematic. Since you also suggest contracts are not the way to go, I wonder how we can find a responsible way to manage this proposed equipment purchase, or to avoid it entirely. E.g. perhaps borrowing/renting equipment can be made to work? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm exactly suggesting that contracts are "not the way to go", only that I have had negative experiences. It may well be the alternatives are worse. In the West we are used to tracking capital equipment with serial numbers, by signing things out, or requesting shared equipment for scheduled meetings or classes. On the whole I think it a good principle to establish accountability mechanisms from the beginning.

But this is a conversation we should be having with the women themselves. This is a chicken or egg situation. What do they need in order to get started? We don't even know until we can have that conversation. And that conversation can be very difficult, because of the language barrier, and because of their cultural practice of hammering things out by consensus, face to face, over a glass of tea. --Bedu Mumtaz (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

One question

In my personal Wikimedia work, I'm a strong supporter and promoter in the gender gap work. I read all the background of the project and sounds very amazing. I think the project have a strong basis in the background, but, the description is very unclear about how the objective will be reached, and the places or the way that you will work the workshops. In my opinion, all the measures of success as is written are ideas of success. Can you add more information about this? Regards, --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the original inspiration for this came from an article Let’s throw more Wikipedia editing parties on the Wikimedia blog, that noted "many women who start contributing at these events [formal edit-a-thons] enjoy the social nature of editing together in a group and are more likely to make their next edit at another event than at home alone". For this particular editing party, one women offered her living room and WIFI, another brought snacks. They created accounts, then worked on articles in their fields that were in need of improvement. This type of editing party has an advantage over the more formal editing sessions, since the preparation doesn't take so much time and energy.

Because of cultural considerations, editing in someone's living room may not be an option for Jordanian women. It would be up to the local women to decide where to meet, whether at work, on campus, or perhaps a coffeeshop. As the article says, "all you need are a couple of friends, some refreshments and internet access, and off you go." —Bedu Mumtaz (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the reason and the background, but will be best the proposal if you can add some measures of success more clear and measurable. For an example, the goal of this project can be create ten new wikipedists, or the creation of some topics in the Wikipedia in a period of months. Something like that. Regards, --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The measures of success are here. They are: "Between 5-15 new users minimum registered to either Arabic or English Wikipedia, and make an edit under their user name. They will be invited to join a project, such as 'WikiProject: Daughters of Jordan', or perhaps a more global 'heritage' theme." --Bedu Mumtaz (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Not Funded

This proposal will not be funded as it stands. While it has generated useful discussion and at least one promising avenue for possible outreach work in Jordan, the original proposal remains fraught with logistical and operational questions, and its means and approach remain unclear and mostly aspirational. Therefore this proposal is declined, though we remain open to future ideas in this direction.

Thank you to GAC and other community members for the fruitful discussion. Rest assured it has contributed to our thinking (and will for example fuel updates to our program policy pages). Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 05:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)