Grants talk:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Wikiesfera - Combatiendo juntas la brecha de género en Wikipedia

Endorsements

•  Strong support I've learned to edit Wikipedia during an edit-a-thon organized by Wikiesfera in 2015. It's a longstanding group with a permanent and solid work, based on truly collaborative and empowering editing activities in Wikipedia in Spanish (online and in person). The group has been the inspiration for other groups that emerged in the last years in Spain and Portugal (Wikipedia in Portuguese), as well as a great support for them to get on their own feet. Supporting Wikiesfera financially for the first time means investing in the movement's sustainability -- Contaminadas (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your words, Tila. Since 2015 we have gone through a very interesting journey of learning together. Having been able to count on participants like you who have then driven other feminists groups to edit on Wikipedia gives me great happiness and satisfaction. We will continue working together for a more diverse Wikipedia where we will finally close the knowledge gaps together. #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support I am very happy to hear that the Wikiesfera is asking for funding because we have learned a lot about fighting participation and content gaps from them. They have a very extensive and relevant work in the movement. I also believe that the approval of this grant opens doors and serves as an example for groups like mine, in other language communities, that do work within gender issues. XenoF (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your support and feedback, Flavia. I'm glad to know that Wikiesfera's trajectory has helped other groups to emerge within the Wikimedia Movement and we can make it more diverse and with less knowledge gaps in different languages. We will continue walking in this direction with all of you. #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support Wikiesfera is applying methods closed to Etienne Wenger's communities of practice, in my opinion, an interesting way to learn with others, open spaces to share and promote shared practices with an inclusive gender perspective. Despite this proposal is local, its impact reach an international level, because of the Spanish speakers can follow Wikiesfera's actions. I am part of Wikimedia Colombia's Culture stream, including Libraries, Archives and Museums (also known as GLAM) and Wikiesfera is inspiring our work. The proposal is going to benefit a core group, different groups in Spain, but also, many other groups in Latin America, even more if this initiative is made by active women as PatriHorrillo and Zapipedia from Wikiesfera. Wikiesfera's participation in Wikimedia + Libraries at Ireland proved their hability in networking and advocacy, proving the claims in section 9 (9. Please state if your proposal includes any of these areas or THEMATIC focus. Select up to THREE that most apply to your work and explain the rationale for identifying these themes.). I hope they can get this grant and make me curious about the results of their work. Hiperterminal (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing this point of view, David. Building open and collaborative learning communities is key to our Movement. However, it is difficult to find face-to-face spaces because it seems that virtuality and individuality are more valued. Although Wikipedia is defined as a free, open and collaborative encyclopedia, it is somewhat contradictory to see that, on many occasions, this philosophy is not assumed by the people who contribute to it. I am glad to know that the ways of working that we use in Wikiesfera are an example for other groups that can adapt them to their needs and contexts. #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support I started editing Wikipedia in 2019 during an editathon facilitated by Patricia Horrillo, in Lisbon. I'm an editor today and part of the Wikimedia in Portuguese community (also addressing knowledge gaps) because Wikiesfera expands their capacitation practices at a regional level, beyong language barriers. Besides promoting the emergency of our group (Wiki Editoras Lx), Wikiesfera has been a stable and longterm partner in translating the contents produced by our editors. By generously sharing practices, experiences and learnings, our user group was able to flourish and become autonomous, which shows their strong commitment towards collaboratively advancing the Wikimedia Movement, at a global level. Wikiesfera's work in essential for the Movement and I hope they can get this grant. -- Anita Braga (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your words, Anita. I remember perfectly well the rewarding experience that was that first editatona in Lisbon, and how your group grew in a few months after that. I always wanted to transmit the importance to share with each other in this kind of activity and enjoy the experience, not to learn a technique. And I couldn't be happier with what you achieved after that meeting! I also love the work of translations that we have been doing over the years to make visible in Wikipedia in Spanish so many profiles of women and LGBT people created by you with so much effort and love. We will continue to look for ways to collaborate and grow together. #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Support As a volunteer, I support this fund request because Wikiesfera is an active group of editoras still active during the pandemic, and the proposed growth seems to align with the new objectives. The difficulties experienced by closing MediaLab Prado (horrible news :sadface:) don't stop the group from continuing to contribute to Spanish Wikipedia. I see a clear focus on doing events (editathons) and creating a community to close the gender gap, and now, other gaps from many human groups (LGBT, gitano, etc), from Madrid. The intention to be multi-city is a way to try to reach new voices in our movement outside of Madrid and creating the network from the previous year (in pandemic, online events), is the best to confirm the great job done by the group. To end my few support lines, I encourage to Wikiesfera to continue this path to bring new editoras y editores and create a community that constantly creates, improves, and spreads Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in their world. Superzerocool (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your support, Superzerocool. After so many years, we think it's time to go one step further and multiply the impact of Wikiesfera. And, without financial support, our volunteer capacity has reached the ceiling to achieve it. Hopefully we can create new work nodes and get more editoras and people from minorities -traditionally marginalized groups, such as LGBT, gitanos, etc.- to join the Wikimedia Movement and turn it into a truly diverse movement. #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support Minimizar los gaps de conocimiento y combatir las brecha de género y de presencia de grupos minoritarios, no es solo una necesidad actual dentro de los proyectos Wikimedia, sino que es parte de las iniciativas de la Estrategia del Movimiento 2030, por lo que considero que este proyecto es muy necesario para la comunidad en español. La metodología de trabajo que utiliza Wikiesfera de crear una comunidad y acompañar a las editoras durante el proceso de aprendizaje es un modelo de éxito para la retención de voluntarias en el tiempo. Soy una de ellas, conocí el movimiento Wikimedia cuando asistí a un editatón realizado por Patricia Horrillo en 2019 y gracias a las reuniones semanales fui creciendo como editora y ganando confianza dentro de la comunidad; por lo que encantaría que muchas personas más, en especial mujeres, pudieran disfrutar de esta experiencia durante 2023 a través de la financiación de esta propuesta. Lalviarez (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Muchas gracias por tus palabras, Lili. Me pone muy feliz saber que la forma de funcionar que tenemos en Wikiesfera sirva a tanta gente para entrar a formar parte del Movimiento Wikimedia. Hemos hablado muchas veces de la importancia de que las nuevas editoras se sientan cómodas y acompañadas en un proceso que, de no ser así, suelen abandonar tras la primera incursión en Wikipedia. Creo que tenemos una comunidad maravillosa y activa que, con el adecuado impulso, podría replicarse en muchos otros lugares de España. Veremos cómo se dan los siguientes pasos ;-) #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support Wikiesfera is the case study par excellence of a high-impact usergroup upholding the Movement mission and doing it exceedingly well. The annual reports speak for themselves, from consistent high numbers attracting new editors and retaining them to smart media presence and a community model being replicated across the country. The work done tackling knowledge gaps - despite real resistance from people who do not want this work to be done - and building a thriving and healthy community is simply inspiring. It is ridiculous how much the group has achieved without receiving any financial support to date. Its viability needs to be supported and secured, and I am glad that they are asking for help to take the natural step to be sustainable and fully thrive. Keep up the great work. Raystorm (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your words, Maria. You have inspired me to take steps in this direction, believing in us and fighting from your position for a more diverse and respectful Movement. I hope this process of growth help us to multiply the number of female editors and their continuity over time. We need autonomous groups in every city to promote awareness of Wikipedia's values and its aspiration to be the place of reference for free and open knowledge that many of us believe in :-) #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support The project will be successful.--Jalu (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your support, @Jaluj. #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support Wikiesfera is one of those essential spaces on and off wiki, that we need for advancing our movement towards knowledge justice, for women, women of colors, queer women and the marganalized majority of the world. The collective is doing a remarkable grassroot work in combination with global advocacy. Strong support in behalf of the Whose Knowledge? team and community.--Mariana Fossatti (WK?) (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your words, Mariana. You are a reference of the Wikimedia Movement and your support specially delights us <3 We wish that, apart from supporting and sharing the necessary campaigns that you are launching, from Wikiesfera we can get involved in them more actively. #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support Espacios como Wikiesfera son muy necesarios para que las mujeres podamos acercarnos a Wikipedia en un entorno seguro y amigable donde se nos acompañe en el proceso de aprendizaje. Es necesario reducir la vergonzosa brecha de género existente en el Movimiento tanto a nivel participativo como de contenido y para ello, lugares como Wikiesfera son esenciales. En el grupo también se atienden otras lagunas de contenido debido a la gran diversidad de quienes participamos. Durante la pandemia, continuó activo gracias al interés de sus componentes y al esfuerzo económico de su fundadora, Patricia Horrillo. En este tiempo incierto, en lugar de extinguirse, el grupo aumentó al desaparecer el condicionante geográfico y sirvió de inspiración para el nacimiento de alguno nuevo. Esta comunidad de editoras viene creciendo y realizando su labor de manera impecable en sus más de siete años de existencia. Yo estoy a punto de cumplir mi quinto año y cada día más motivada gracias a Wikiesfera. La financiación, revertirá de manera positiva en el Movimiento Wikimedia. Elenaib (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Muchas gracias por tus palabras, @Elenaib. Me emociona leer en lo que se ha convertido para muchas el espacio de Wikiesfera porque, aunque nunca partió de un plan bien diseñado sino en construcción permanente, siempre quise que quienes veníais os sintierais a gusto, acogidas, "en casa". Creo que el grupo es tan seguro y amigable porque las personas que habéis venido desde hace años, lo habéis hecho vuestro y habéis transmitido eso a las nuevas participantes. Me siento privilegiada de contar con todas vosotras en cada avance del proyecto. #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support Siempre me interesó el mundo de Wikipedia, entré en contacto con el grupo de usuarias Wikiesfera y a partir de ese momento no dejo de aprender. Considero que la labor del grupo es fundamental para dar confianza durante el aprendizaje. El apoyo mutuo, la confianza y el sentirse en un espacio seguro son puntos de valor. Me siento muy identificada con todos los objetivos propuestos y creo que contar con financiación hará posible que se pueda seguir con esta filosofía. --Pintakuda (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Muchas gracias por tu apoyo, @Pintakuda. Espero que sigamos aprendiendo cosas juntas y generando todo el contenido faltante sobre mujeres y Memoria Histórica que tanta falta hace. La constancia y los retos compartidos codo con codo hacen que esta lucha contra las brechas de conocimiento en Wikipedia sea mucho más interesante y divertida. #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support Participo en Wikiesfera desde hace 5 años y, desde luego, formar parte de este proyecto es para mí clave en el trabajo que desarrollo en Wikipedia. El apoyo es fundamental y me vería muy huérfana sin la cobertura que ofrece este grupo de trabajo. Yo entré por una charla que escuché de Patricia Horrillo y mi motivación ha crecido todavía más por el ambiente de este grupo colaborativo. La comunidad creada es muy estimulante para participar en Wikipedia. Por ello, cualquier apoyo me parece necesario y muy positivo. SalviaRomana (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Muchas gracias por tus palabras, @SalviaRomana. Ser un grupo tan amplio y diverso es fundamental para el crecimiento del proyecto: cada una de las personas que lleváis años viniendo a las reuniones y a las editatonas aportáis un valor increíble a Wikiesfera. Crecemos todas porque aprendemos unas de otras en un entorno en el que, sobre todo, nos sentimos a gusto. No competimos sino que compartimos aquello que descubrimos. #JuntasSomosMásVisibles PatriHorrillo (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong support Wikiesfera es un grupo muy comprometido con las ediciones de mujeres LBT y ha resultado ser un gran aliado cuando necesitamos editoras que ayuden en los esfuerzos de la comunidad LGBT+ que edita en Wikipedia en español. Esta claro que necesitamos, la Comunidad en general, que mantengan una buena financiación para proseguir con sus tareas transversales. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  Gracias por tu apoyo @MiguelAlanCS. Estos últimos meses han sido particularmente ricos para Wikiesfera por la colaboración con el Wikiproyecto LGBT que impulsas y en el que tan buen ambiente se respira (¡y cuánto se trabaja!). Veros funcionar me ha servido de inspiración para futuras propuestas. Qué importante es sentir el apoyo de otros wikipedistas con los que nos une la ambición de convertir Wikipedia en un espacio real de diversidad. #JuntasSomosMásVisbiles PatriHorrillo (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from the Wikimedia Foundation’s Culture and Heritage team

Dear PatriHorrillo and Zapipedia,

I am happy to be able to review this proposal from Wikiesfera, which has a good story and has been doing a considerable amount of work and activities for many years. Your work has served as a reference for other gender-related groups in the Wikimedia community.

There are two aspects of your proposal that especially stood out to me as unique strengths of your approach:

• You state that you will work by "Avoiding the competitive spirit of creating more or ‘better’ articles rewarding participation regardless of contribution." This approach is really refreshing to see.
• You also state you want to work on the lack of visits articles about women receive once they are created, through "a more continuous and lively dissemination in social networks, we would make the profiles created known to the general public." This is really important and not something that every group is thinking about.

The most significant question I have about your proposal pertains to your reliance on editathons as your primary strategy for engagement. Over the years, experience and learning among organizers in the Wikimedia movement have taught us that this approach tends to be much less successful than more diversified approaches to engagement. In case you have not had a chance to review it, Alex Stinson, the Senior Program Strategist for the Wikimedia Foundation, gathered and presented these learnings in this important blog post a few months ago. In his article, he challenged the concept that “everyone can edit” (or that editathons are the best way to engage all contributors) as the best foundation for our organizing efforts. He pointed out that people need other kinds of initiatives and projects to really stay engaged and have a long term impact. I strongly encourage Wikiesfera to consider this learning and consider diversifying your approach to outreach and engagement, expanding beyond a primary focus on editathons. This is especially relevant for communities that are working with gender, in order to engage more participants and create further long-term impact. Could you share your thoughts about how Wikiesfera might further diversify its engagement strategies beyond editathons? For example, what are your strategies for training up advanced users? Is this something you would be interested in trying, or in learning more about?

Some additional questions I have:

• Wikiesfera does not seem to focus on other Spanish-speaking countries (especially in Latin America) that are also part of the Spanish Wikipedia, where you plan to advocate for more diversity. You briefly mentioned Wikimedia Mexico and Wikimedia Argentina. However, in order for diversity to work on Spanish Wikipedia, how are you thinking about the many other communities outside Spain and representation of women from these countries both on the content and as Wikimedia users/editors? Do you plan to engage people from other Spanish-speaking countries?
• What are your plans in terms of engagement with minority groups (other than women and LGBTQ+). What do you think about adding metrics for that?

Generally speaking, I think it would be useful for you to fill in more details in your activities plan and metrics sections. Because relatively little detail is provided, it makes it more difficult to share more in-depth feedback. If you were able to share more of the complexity and specificity of your thinking and plans, it will allow others to learn from you, and also provide greater opportunity for feedback and sharing. If you wanted to use the response period to these comments to fill in more detail in your plan and metrics, I would be happy to do another review of your proposal. Should you decide to do this, I strongly encourage you to focus on building out your metrics further. Having targets for your goals supports clarity and improves the likelihood of strong learning outcomes. You may find it helpful to look at some of the other proposals submitted in this round or in the past that were focused on gender gap work, for ideas.

Warm regards, GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear @GFontenelle (WMF),

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our proposal in such a serious and thoughtful manner. Allow us to delve a little bit into the philosophy behind our approach before we address your comments in detail.

Indeed, we believe that one of the critical components that have led to the success of Wikiesfera has been the unrelenting focus on building a community, and not just building content. This, we believe, has been a paradigm shift from what historically has been the focus of wiki-related activities and events. And it has worked extraordinarily well for us in our context. Our priority is to attract and - more critically - retain new editors, with the understanding that in the long term this will result in more content created and improved. Activities and events that just focus on content creation, in our experience, are usually geared towards the participation of existing editors and will seldom attract or retain new editors. We’re not saying it is not a valid approach, just that we instead prefer to gear our efforts towards new editors, which means specific messaging, assisting them from the first minute, developing and launching an easy-to-use methodology in activities and events, and, as you note, removing elements that could be perceived as hostile or stress-inducing such as competitive editing. There is a reason our community is composed of a large number of women, or that our activities and events attract mainly women, and we believe it is because of this differentiated, targeted approach.

We whole-heartedly agree with Alex Stinson, in the sense that we believe Wikimedians are made, not born, and that the concept of meritocracy is rubbish, an excuse to justify excluding women and minorities. Of course we have historically seen editathons led by men who were afterwards left scratching their heads wondering why they couldn’t retain women editors, and somehow conclude that the problem laid on the tool, the editathons themselves, as opposed to ‘’how’’ those editathons were conducted, and so the methodology was left basically unchanged so that even if women led them, the results were scarcely different. The editathons we do in our context are a reimagining of the old format, and with more than 80+ under our belt, we feel very comfortable saying that they do work, that they are a perfect entry path for women who wish to edit for the first time, and that they also serve as conduits for establishing relationships with cultural institutions in Spain. We have managed to establish several of these successfully, which we think is pretty impressive for a local group that has received zero financial support from WMF to date. But as we say, the editathons are a tool, one in which potential editors have fun while getting familiar with the experience of publishing in Wikipedia and where they don’t receive a saturating amount of information that will just make them give up. They serve as an entry point, the key element is the periodic weekly meetings in which women continue editing, ask for help when they don’t understand something, and after several hours we all go together to eat something. ‘’That’’ is how you build a thriving community of women who keep editing and eventually become advanced users. It is a slow but sure way to make it happen. If we could focus on doing this work, targeting institutions and developing relationships with them - especially in the education area - instead of having to do what we can in our spare time, our impact would be manifold. I am currently completing the Training of Trainers for Reading Wikipedia in the Classroom Program so that we can make that kind of qualitative jump.

As for your question regarding working beyond Spain, we would like to first say that Spain is a big country. :) We are currently working on creating a network within the country, in which we can have a presence in several regions. We obviously will engage with other groups that work on the gendergap in Wikipedia (you can see from our endorsements we have been successfully doing this so far), but we don’t quite understand why you say our focus should be Latin America? We are based in Spain and our proposal revolves around in-person activities and events given how we have seen during the pandemic how absolutely critical they are in order to help a community thrive. Of course, online events can be an opportunity to participate from other places, but we would be very mindful about the optics of a Spanish group suddenly trying to occupy Latin American spaces. In our view, given the historical aspect, we would have the Latin American groups lead and then, if they wish, invite us. We will be participating in Iberoconf 2023, and we hope we can engage in productive discussion about possible paths of cooperation there.

Regarding your second question, we have been working with both the Spanish LGBT Wikiproject and several Spanish LGBT organizations, and the Roma community in Spain. We *want* to be able to do more, but we are limited by, well, the lack of resources. We hope we can keep building on these moving forward.

What kind of additional metrics are you thinking of? As we have said, our paradigm shift is to move away from what could be perceived as competitive editing, and yet we still have added some metrics related to content creation. The reality is that the existing widespread metrics are kind of not very aligned with the reality of activities and events centered on attracting and retaining non-hostage (ie, not a classroom) editors. Our reports can attest to the success of our approach, but if we are forced to focus on articles created or images added, we will again be shifting towards de-prioritising people. We have seen other proposals from more established groups who have had multiple staff for years - that is not our situation, and it is hard to use it as guidance. Is there a specific group you are thinking of? We have been told before that there would be flexibility regarding which metrics we could use, since innovation is a core aspect of Wikimedia 2030, so I guess our question is: is the objection that the metrics we use are not correctly measuring new editors and events/activities, or is it that you believe we need more nuanced metrics - in which case, we could then add “number of events”, “number of new editors”, “number of returning editors”. Would that correctly address your question? We thought about adding “relationships with institutions”, in which case we could also add related metrics on communications (messaging, number of posts, the resulting visits to recently created articles, number of followers, media presence, and so on).

Thanks again for taking the time to thoughtfully review our proposal, we really appreciate it. Best regards, PatriHorrillo (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from the Northern and Western Europe (NWE) Regional Funding Committee on your proposal

Hello PatriHorrillo, Zapipedia and the Wikiesfera Grupo de Usarixs

Thank you for taking the time to submit your General Support Fund proposal in the Northern and Western Europe region. We are pleased to have reviewed your application and we have the following comments and questions:

Your proposal is clear and coherent, and in line with work areas where you have demonstrated success. We liked your approach to encouraging women to edit, especially the focus on supporting the editors and not just on content. It is great to see the strong support you have received on the discussion page which emphasises the success of your work.

We also value your focus on strategic partnerships. Your desire to expand and consolidate your work with third sector organisations is very important. We wondered if you could provide us with additional information in these areas:

1. Can you provide more information about the urban, Madrid-based focus of the proposal? We wondered if you have considered approaching the more rural communities. If so, how do you propose to do that?

2. Have you given consideration to support that volunteers might need to enable their participation (for example: providing data packages for volunteers living in poverty, offering childcare or other support that might be important, especially for marginalised communities?

3. Can you provide more detail on how you work with other affiliates which work in the same region?

4. What is the organisational structure of the User Group? Who will the paid staff report to? How is the work reviewed and when? We like to see affiliates think about developing a structure to support and oversee the staff that supports maturation over time.

5. What plan is in place for organisational stability – if staff step down etc.? We encourage affiliates to consider this before beginning to hire their first staff members.

6. Can you provide further detail about the two roles requested, what each will do and how they differ?

7. Could you please provide supporting references that could give us context around the staff salary figures? For example, could you point to pay scales for similar roles in your context to help us interpret market rates.

Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you.

On behalf of the NWE Regional Committee,

☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 21:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Antiqueight,

Thank you for your questions. We will try to address them in detail, providing a bit of context beforehand so our thinking can come through. Do bear with us while we do this.

1. We are not bound only to Madrid, as you can see from our past reports. That said, for us it is a clear advantage to have Madrid as our base of operations, so to speak, given it is the capital and a Global city, which means it houses the headquarters of national and international cultural institutions and organizations. This allows for an enormous potential for strategic partnerships and alliances, of which we have barely begun to scratch the surface. We have indeed done work with rural communities thanks to our ongoing partnership with the Government of Aragón - which kickstarted in Madrid, thanks to our institutional contacts here - and our joint project ASPASIA, which included an editathon centered in rural women, and the local community has been growing steadily. We have indicated in the grant proposal our intention to continue with this project to take it to a new level. We intend, as we continue to work in the gender gap, to make sure the partnerships and alliances we establish have a focus in less represented communities.
2. The conditions in Spain in order to provide childcare are strict (and rightly so). It would require hiring carers with educational training and first aid instruction, one every eight kids. If the committee is serious about providing support for this, I will have an amended budget for you within four days. It is not cheap and we would love to regularly offer childcare because we have heard before - as we have a community composed mainly of women - how this has been at times a dealbreaker. However this would be a serious expense, and we honestly were not confident this is something the committee would fund or understand the need for it without cutting funding elsewhere in our budget. If this is not the case and the committee is willing to fund childcare unconditionally, because it believes it can be critical to womens’ participation in the Wikimedia Movement, please let us know so we can amend the budget to include it. It will be our pleasure.
3. It is important to remember that our focus is thematic, and our work with affiliates reflects that. We only wish there were more affiliates working on the gender gap, especially in our context (Spain-Portugal-France). The more the merrier. We have prioritized working with affiliates that have put the gender gap and marginalized communities at the core of their work. We have a strong partnership with the Wiki Editoras Lx group and with the Spanish speaking LGBT group, to provide some examples. We are very open to collaborations with affiliates such as Whose Knowledge?, whose work is an inspiration for us and with whom we hope to do something together soon. We are definitely open to collaborating with affiliates that work in our thematic area, but evidently we do not intend to work with affiliates that either deny the gender gap exists or is a problem, or that host toxic people who target women. For example, we will work with Les sans pagEs, but we will not work with those who coordinated to harass them. We believe this is not just a logical ethical stand, but also the only safe one for our own community members.
4. From the start we have aimed to establish a feminist organizational form, in the sense of adopting structures and working models with a feminist lens. We are aware that the Wikimedia Movement has historically tended to push towards hierarchical organizations, with Boards that hold power and staff that execute, and which are bogged down by bureaucracy. User groups, fortunately, have an opportunity to provide alternative models. Up to now, we have upheld a cooperative model based on some simple organizational values: self-determination; which means creating the space for one and others to self-govern, take initiative and own tasks; pragmatism, or doing what can be done with what you have, and always asking before making assumptions; accountability to the group, or being aware of timelines and calendars, responding to emails within four days, calling or texting for a fast response; and accountability to each other, communicating boundaries and needs, addressing conflict with dialogue, and being considerate of others’ schedules. This system, based on collective leadership and total transparency especially regarding activities, has been working extremely well for us. Evidently, as (hopefully) the group grows and the work becomes more complex, this will become less pure and bureaucracy will set in, we are not naive in that respect. Nonetheless that does not mean that even if we must start adhering to traditional structures, that we cannot be intentional about the outcomes, i.e. accomplishing goals without exploiting people. Given this thinking, this first year we advocate for a hybrid approach, in which staff will report and be accountable to the collective leadership and each other, even if we understand this may necessarily lead eventually to a more traditional structure (but not necessarily different principles or outcomes).
5. Indeed, contingency planning is something we have considered given we would like to avoid existential threats - and securing our sustainability is at the heart of it. That is why we have defined just two part time paid roles with few hours per week (20h/w and 10h/w) to start with. While we would feel more comfortable aiming for more redundancy, so that if we lost someone the impact would be mitigated, this here is quite literally the first step towards making sure the group can continue its work beyond hoping that volunteers have no critical changes in their lives or work and are able to dedicate their spare time to the user group. And not silently burn them out or lose them. Should someone need to step down, we would immediately look for replacements in order to make sure the work doesn’t suffer, as any other group would do.
6. The two roles are Project manager (lead) and Project manager. Both will be part time: one 20 hours and the other 10 hours. The first one (20h/w.) will do the planning of Wikiesfera for 2023 and establish a partnership strategy. Tasks will also include: community building, relationship with institutions, affiliates and collaboration agreements, those related to execution of activities (creating the calls, managing registration, communication with institutions and participants), lectures, workshops, editatonas, coordination with the media person and disseminating the work the user group does. The second one (10h/w) will design and also execute activities, do consulting activities, manage relationships with the community, supplier management, write reports, and basically support the lead project manager according to the activities’ needs.
7. Certainly, we can provide the comparative rates and the surrounding relevant background information for ‘’autónomos’’ (contractors), which is what we would legally be in Spain. As autónomos, we have to include a number of expenses such as (please, note that these are rough figures): self-employment fees (€4.534,08/year, or €377,84 x 12 months, per Régimen Especial Trabajadores Autónomos), taxes (Retención IRPF 20%: €7.920) and other business related expenses such as home office, which includes internet connection (€636/y), 30% of home supplies cost (electricity, water… €960/y), amortization of office equipments (€500 per year), telephone line (€600 per year), G suite (€125/y), sick leave insurance (€400/y), office supplies (€250/y), etc. Based on all these figures, we estimate ≈€22 per hour (as net income). For your reference, the average salary ranges for a full-time Project Manager position this year in Madrid, where we are based, were between €50.500 and €61.500 (gross income) for a Senior Project Manager. In order to establish a fair amount in line with our peers, we have also taken as a reference the amounts established for the figure of Project Manager in other similar grant proposals in Spain that were approved in previous calls. The best reference we have found in English for pay scales for this position in Spain is this one (p.251). Please note that these referenced examples refer to waged workers, which implies that they do not have to bear the same expenses as autónomos, such as the self-employment fee or home office costs among others.

Do let us know if we need to expand or clarify anything. Regards. PatriHorrillo (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Brecha de género

Es una gran noticia que otro grupo más se sume a todo el trabajo que se hace contra la brecha de género. Es una suerte que en el estado español seamos ya tantas personas trabajando en esto, como Wikimujeres, Cuarto propio, Wikiemakumeok y por supuesto WMES (desde 2012).

Desde Wikimedia España nos gustaría poder trabajar una estrategia conjunta, de forma coordinada, como lo venimos haciendo con el resto de grupos del Estado desde hace ya tanto tiempo. Tenéis abierta nuestra asociación para trabajar por el propósito común de reducir la brecha de género en los proyectos Wikimedia.  Os deseamos lo mejor en esta empresa. Firmado en representación de la Junta Directiva de WMES. Florenciac (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Gracias por el endorsement de WMES a esta propuesta, @Florenciac. Desde Wikiesfera estamos muy orgullosas de llevar casi ocho años combatiendo duramente la brecha de género de Wikipedia con una comunidad que no ha dejado de crecer. Cada grupo que aparece es fundamental si queremos que esta lacra desaparezca de Wikipedia y, con esa prioridad, seguiremos trabajando. Ojalá surjan cada vez más grupos de mujeres feministas que hagan suyo el espacio digital y construyan desde sus contextos una Wikipedia verdaderamente diversa. Solo creando una red descentralizada de wikipedistas ganaremos esta batalla. PatriHorrillo (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Un par de cuestiones

Toda iniciativa que pretenda abordar la brecha de género en Wikipedia para disminuirla es siempre una buena noticia. Sin embargo, leyendo la propuesta me surgen un par de cuestiones. La primera tiene que ver con un vacío, y es que me llama la atención que no se mencione a los grupos –formales e informales– que dentro de la comunidad wikipedista en el Estado español –ámbito de la propuesta– llevamos tiempo trabajando con este mismo objetivo específico. En concreto, los grupos que se nombran en el anterior comentario –Wikimujeres, Wikiemakumeok o Cuarto Propio en Wikipedia, al que pertenezco– y que la mayoría comenzamos la andadura hace más de siete años. Y esto es especialmente relevante, en primer lugar, por coherencia con un contexto colaborativo como es Wikipedia en donde todo se construye a partir de la suma de muchas voluntades que trabajan en la misma dirección. Y, en segundo lugar, porque un proyecto que pretende erradicar la brecha de género, debería de empezar por dar reconocimiento y visibilidad a las mujeres y los grupos de su entorno más inmediato, nuevamente es una cuestión de coherencia.

También me llama mucho la atención que no se mencione a Wikimedia España, para empezar, porque es el capítulo del área geográfica en la que se desarrollará el proyecto, y para continuar porque es uno de los pocos que tiene una presidenta, y quizá el único con una junta directiva con mayoría de mujeres. Una junta que, doy fe, está trabajando con ahínco con una perspectiva claramente de género y actuando de facilitadora en este sentido con los grupos que tenemos este objetivo. En función de lo anteriormente expuesto mi primera duda sería ¿se tiene intención de establecer algún tipo de coordinación, diálogo, etc. con todos estos espacios que he mencionado?

Por otro lado, señalar que todos las personas y los grupos que venimos trabajando en esta dirección, lo hacemos buscando sinergias entre nosotras, intentando sumar, y siempre de una forma colaborativa y desinteresada. En este sentido, una propuesta como esta, que plantea remunerar por esto mismo a dos personas, creo que amerita una reflexión dentro de la comunidad wikipedista/wikimedista acerca de si esto podría estar trastocando las claves sobre los que una enciclopedia abierta, libre y colaborativa se sustenta. Gracias de antemano por las aclaraciones. Garabata (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hola @Garabata, vamos a comentar tu par de cuestiones, que afortunadamente tienen respuesta sencilla.

En primer lugar, y esto ya se ha dicho anteriormente, Wikiesfera, como otros grupos de usuarios y organizaciones temáticas, tiene un enfoque temático, no un enfoque basado en España. Nuestro trabajo efectivamente está basado en múltiples alianzas y trabajo colaborativo, y creemos que buena prueba de ello son los numerosos endorsements que hemos recibido en esta misma página de los grupos y organizaciones con los que hemos venido trabajando con tanto éxito hasta la fecha. Hemos colaborado con todos los grupos que mencionas en el pasado de forma puntual. Lo que no es lógico es exigir trabajar con todo el mundo todo el tiempo: tenemos una serie de alianzas activas actualmente que son las que queremos desarrollar y potenciar, y nos parece legítimo hacerlo. ¿Que podemos establecer otras en el futuro? Perfecto, pero consideramos que eso no quita un ápice de valor a nuestra solicitud. (Y francamente, si lo que queréis es trabajar con nosotras, hay formas mejores de pedirlo.)

Por otra parte, en el Movimiento Wikimedia está más que establecido desde hace muchos años que los grupos oficiales al corriente de sus obligaciones pueden solicitar subvenciones, y en este sentido Wikiesfera por primera vez en casi cinco años decide valerse de dicha oportunidad para asegurar la viabilidad del grupo y poder continuar y ampliar el trabajo que hacemos. ¡Sólo faltaría que fuéramos el único grupo que no tiene permitido hacerlo! Pero bueno, ya sabemos que especialmente en el tema de apoyar la lucha contra la brecha de género, a veces hay mucha distancia entre las palabras y los hechos. PatriHorrillo (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Round 1 2023 decision

Congratulations! The Northern and Western Europe Regional Funds Committee has recommended your proposal for funding!

The Wikimedia Foundation has approved the committee's recommendation to partially fund your proposal for 44,500 EUR

Comments regarding this decision:
The NWE Committee recommends partial funding of 44,500 EUR for Wikiesfera UG. This offer of funding comes with one condition:

The committee is supportive of affiliates experimenting with alternative governance structures, which supports learning in the Wikimedia movement. We would like Wikiesfera to provide more thorough documentation around your alternative governance structure to support clarity, transparency and learning. In the Northern and Western Europe region, traditional nonprofit structures include processes for mutual accountability and transparency among staff, volunteer boards and members that are intended, among other things, to safeguard against the possibility of misconduct and to provide a mechanism for sharing power more broadly. We respect your feedback that traditional models also bring their own shortcomings and support you in your intention of experimenting with alternatives. We ask that as you design your alternative structure and processes that you document how you will handle the risks and needs that more traditional structures seek to address (such as how to address the possibility of fraudulent behaviour by staff, or how to provide members with a voice in your program planning). Your documentation should include:

• Clarity about your membership model
• A model of participatory governance (for example, a mechanism for members to be able to have some say in how board and/or staff direct their work)
• A clear method for staff oversight

We understand that you may need time to develop and document your model. We ask that you plan to submit this documentation along with your midterm report.

In addition, we share these suggestions in the spirit of thought partnership. These are not requirements or conditions for funding:

• We encourage you to consider offering support for volunteers attending events. This might be via set stipends to cover a portion of costs for childcare, or data packets, for participants, following Art+Feminism’s model.
• Given that there are a number of groups in the region with overlapping geographic and/or thematic focuses, we encourage Wikiesfera to communicate and coordinate efforts with other groups sufficiently to avoid confusion among overlapping volunteer communities and institutional partners you may share in common. We recognize that various affiliates and groups may have different goals, priorities and target communities that require different approaches, and the intent is not to discourage that. Where appropriate, however, we encourage you to consider ways your approach can still support a spirit of good faith in the broader network of affiliates and communities so as to avoid unnecessary conflict or competition.

Next steps:

1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement.
2. If you have questions, you can contact the Regional Program Officer for the Northern and Western Europe Region.

Posted on behalf of the Northern and Western Europe (NWE) Funding Committee, –Marti (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)