Grants talk:PEG/MrjohnCummings/UNESCO Wikimedian in Residence/discussion of draft

Active discussions

Note: This is the discussion of the application whilst it was in draft, the discussion of the application now it is open is found here.

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on this application, I will try to reply to your comments as soon as possible Mrjohncummings (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[]


[Wish to retract earlier remarks]. --Djembayz (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi Djembayz - while I agree with your overall point, I'm not sure this is the right place to make it. I am sure that (for instance) a grant proposal for a project to deal with sexual harassment would be welcomed by many, and the WMF will soon be initiating a round of grantmaking aimed solely at reducing the Wikimedia gender gap. But you seem to be opposing this idea not on its merits, but because other things are more important. That is not helpful. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Hi Diembayz, a large part of the idea of this project is to increase the diversity of contributors (including gender) by training contributors from UNESCO country and regional offices and their partner organisations and match them with local volunteers. Since UNESCO and it's partners deal with empowerment of women all around the world they will hopefully have some resources and approaches that can help address current lack of diversity on Wikimedia projects. If you have ideas on how to retain new female editors once they have been trained that would be very helpful. Thanks Mrjohncummings (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi Djembayz
I've been thinking about how this project could potentially help to address some of the gender issues on Wikimedia projects, I'm going to add this to my application, while the project isn't going to focus solely on it I hope this will contribute to addressing the gender issues on Wikimedia projects.
Aim of increase the diversity of contributors (including gender) by training contributors from UNESCO country and regional offices and their partner organisations and match them with local volunteers.
Make connections between people working to address gender issues at UNESCO and their partners with people working to do the same on Wikimedia projects with the aim of sharing knowledge, resources and approaches. UNESCO has a robust track record and a mandate to address gender equality and female education.
Does this sound a useful addition? Could you offer any additional suggestions I hope that you'll reconsider the application.
Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[]


Done :) Mrjohncummings (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[]


Please consider using the free software LimeSurvey instead, or specify why you can't. See [1]. --Nemo 21:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi Nemo, thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into using LimeSurvey, previously I've used SurveyMonkey (WMUK has an account). Mrjohncummings (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Ok, thanks. --Nemo 21:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[]


You used the pre-2010 Wikipedia logo in the page. Please make sure to use the correct logos (see c:Wikipedia/2.0). --Nemo 21:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Thanks Nemo, fixed. Mrjohncummings (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Basic infoEdit

John, I'm missing a clear statement of what your involvement would be. You're spending [1950 hours], based in Paris, working at UNESCO offices, with a trip to Korea. How long is this? Full or part-time? Paid what, gross & net ? , When is this to happen? [ok, in infobox only I think] If this isn't there you should squeeze it in. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi Johnbod
Please see the Activities section for a breakdown of the what I will be doing, also see the Wikimedian in Residence Salary and Taxation line in the Project budget table, the position will be full time for 1 year.
Mrjohncummings (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Yes, I had read those, but they don't contain that information, without complicated OR calculations anyway. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[]


Should UNESCO not be the ones funding this position? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi Doc James
As I mention in the Budget Narrative section UNESCO has lost 22% of their funding caused by the US cutting all funding in response to UNESCO granting Palestine full membership. There's more information here 1, 2, 3.
Mrjohncummings (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[]
All other WiR are funded by the organization in question. What is the budget of UNESCO? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Hi James - I don't think it is accurate to say all WiRs are funded by the organisation in question. Wikimedia UK has previously been involved with many with a mixture of funding models. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Indeed, at CRUK I was funded by Wellcome Trust for the original period, with the 2-month extension by Wellcome, CRUK & WMUK (50:25:25). At the Royal Society I was funded by WMUK. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Thanks John for the correction. And congrats on the extension at CRUK. Is a mixed funding model for this position on the table? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Hi Doc James
UNESCO isn't able to offer direct funding but will provide an office space in Paris for the year and staff time, additionally Wikimedia UK have kindly offered staff time and merchandise. If I'm successful in the application I will be looking for external funding for travel to additional conferences during the residency and to extend the project length. As others have kindly pointed out there are several funding models for Wikimedians in Residence positions, I've tried to find examples of each funding model listed below, it's been surprisingly difficult to find who funded some posts, it may just be me looking in the wrong place.
Wholly funded by the Wikimedia Foundation
Wholly funded by a Wikimedia Chapter
External grant funding
Part funded by the organisation part by a Wikimedia Chapter
Part funded by the organisation, Wikimedia chapter and external funding
Mrjohncummings (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Yes I was not thinking from UNESCO but more from an organization like the Wellcome Trust or Gates Foundation.
The WiR at Cochrane and that at Consumer Reports are funded by these organizations. Your proposal sounds good though.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Licensing awarenessEdit

The missions for many UN organizations include education, yet the default licenses for media, publications, press releases, etc generally don't permit reuse without explicit permission, which rather obviously impedes pseudonymous wikimedians from doing so. Making blanket arrangements permitting reuse will be a way for Wikipedia, wikinews, etc to substantially advance their missions. To my mind this should be the top priority. The rest will be almost pointless if each release has to be individually handled. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi LeadSongDog
UNESCO has released 100s of books under a Wikipedia compatible license, I hope to help them to expand this to other content and for this to be used as a model and example for other UN organisations.
Mrjohncummings (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Ah, looks like some good headway has been made since I last looked at it, yet the general terms para "a" still has that troublesome non commercial clause that WP really can't work with. At the WHO equivalent the standard terms are similarly well-intentioned but problematic. Clarification as to how the UN views WMF would help: are WMF projects considered "educational"? Do they accept the usual hyperlinked referencing (as used on commons) to be sufficient attribution for images, or are special provisions needed? Got the gist? LeadSongDog (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Hi LeadSongDog
I'm not sure how the UN as a whole views Wikipedia, UNESCO currently uses a special version version of the CC-BY-SA license called IGO for hundreds of its books, there are other parts of the UN that use a CC license but they all currently seem to have an NC clause. It would be an amazing thing to have all the UN agencies use a Wikipedia compatible licenses, I'm hoping that the work I do in this residency will build up a body of evidence to encourage them all to make the switch and understand why a non commercial license is so unhelpful.
Mrjohncummings (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Questions from PineEdit

Hi John,

In principle I like the idea of building capacity at UNESCO. However I have a few questions.

My understanding is that Wikimedians in Residence are funded by the hosting institution, in this case UNESCO. I am curious as to why this case would be an exception to that, and what the implications of that would be for other WiR projects. It looks to me like this project is getting close to the line of "paying for content" by having the WiR be funded by Wikimedia instead of the hosting institution, and it seems to me that budget problems at UNESCO are not sufficient reason for WMF to be paying for content. I'm curious as to what you think about this issue.

There may also be some interesting legal issues that happen if a WiR is funded by WMF or a Wikimedia affiliate instead of the hosting institution, and I'd be interested in hearing if you've thought about those. For example, who is liable if the WiR or someone that they train commits a copyright violation, and are legal defense resources available? If UNESCO has its own legal funds for this purpose, ok, but it would be problematic to have WMF be held legally responsible for the actions of the WiR because WMF is funding the WiR.

Another question I have is about sustainability. My understanding is that occasional outreach attempts in the United States to research institutions have been unsustainable due to lack of commitment and follow-through by the hosting institutions after training and outreach events have happened, unless the institutions make a point of appointing and funding someone internally to continue Wikimedia-related work. What are your plans to ensure that UNESCO follows through with what it gains from this one-year project, and has UNESCO's leadership made commitments to follow through in subsequent years of continuing Wikimedia-related work by setting aside funds specifically for this purpose or including Wikimedia-related work in a regular employee's job description?

I agree that having some sort of partnership between UNESCO and Wikimedia makes great sense, but I have concerns about the model that is proposed here.

Thanks, --Pine

Pinging @AWang (WMF): taking a look at John's proposal as well as Grants:PEG/Metro/Institutional Growth and Community Fellow, it's unclear to me where WMF draws the line between supporting GLAM or similar institutions with funding for staff or grantee support for outreach and growth, versus paying for content. There's also the question of whether WMF would fund events like scan-a-thons at a GLAM institution. Can you comment on where WMF draws the line between what's ok and what's not? For example, perhaps it's ok if WMF grants funds to a hosting institution for a staffer who will be employed by the institution to do GLAM work and scan content, but it's not ok for the WMF to grant funding to an individual directly to do the same work? Thanks, --Pine 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi Pine
Thanks very much for your questions, answered in order:
1. Funding for Wikimedians in Residence come from a variety of sources including from WMF, please see the discussion above.
2. I will have to get back to you about this, I will ask.
3. Sustainability of contribution is really important, I'm going to include local chapters, user groups and volunteers wherever possible to build long term sustainable relationships. Showing impact will be key in encouraging organisations in having long term goals to contributing to Wikimedia projects and asking them to do this before showing impact will be difficult. I think the key to sustainability of contribution is to find objectives that are manageable and realistic for UNESCO and it's partner organisations that plays to their strengths and expertise, these activities doesn't necessarily need a lot of staff time which is one of the major sustainability issues. A few examples with different time commitments would be writing Wikipedia articles, subject experts reviewing Wikipedia articles for inaccuracies and omissions at intervals e.g every six months, changing the license on material produced to be Wikimedia compatible and uploading it to Wikibooks, Commons etc. In addition I would look to external funders to continue the residency past the year if funding was available and there was still work to be done which seems very likely give UNESCO has over 380 partner organisations.
Mrjohncummings (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Endorse button not workingEdit

I am using a public PC running Internet Explorer 9, but I can seem to get the endorsement to work. I even tried clicking the "mobile users" link to see if that would work. I suppose that I can wait until I go home and endorse it from there. Axl (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[]

I am at home now and it seems to have worked. Axl (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Hi Axl
Many thanks for persevering, I'll feed this back to the grants team.
Thanks again
Mrjohncummings (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[]

위키미디어 대한민국Edit

Could you build in a meeting with 위키미디어 대한민국 while you are in Korea, and even organise for someone from Korea to attend the w:World Education Forum 2015. Local representation at the event will have far greater networking effects, and it would be very beneficial if you were able to make that happen. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi John
Great ideas I will certainly contact them, I will make enquiries about attendance of the World Education Forum.
Many thanks
Mrjohncummings (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[]


If I understand correctly, you will be bringing your own camera. How is that relevant to this PEG? What will be the outcomes of that line item, which has been included in the PEG as a contribution from others? John Vandenberg (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi John
The camera will be used to document the residency, photographing in person training sessions, conferences etc, this will make reporting and project storytelling much easier. I’ve now added this to the notes of the item in the budget.
Mrjohncummings (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[]

The Status of the ProposalEdit

hello there. what is the status of the proposal? it states that it is a draft... --アンタナナ 19:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi アンタナナ
The proposal has now been moved from draft to open,
Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[]
Return to "PEG/MrjohnCummings/UNESCO Wikimedian in Residence/discussion of draft" page.