Grants talk:Project/Ainali/Video templates

Questions

1. Doesn't Victorgrigas already have some of this stuff that could be exported to open/free formats and be used at least as a starting point ?
2. This should also involve some basic documentation about the usage of the templates in my opinion. Not a full on explanation about video editing mind you, but "how to make changes to templates", how to maintain the template, what is allowed, what is not, links to the visual style guide etc...

—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? I'm confused, and don't entirely understand what is being asked of me? Victorgrigas (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah I replied too soon - I'm on holiday now, and probably ought to reply in a professional capacity when I'm back next week (assuming i'm not swamped with email!) Overall, I like the concept behind this project but I think it needs to be spelled out more clearly. 6 weeks of work at $500 per week might seem reasonable, but right now with this proposal it still seems unclear what exactly that is for. I'd also want to clarify the kdenlive as an editing platform, this might need multiple editing platforms provided. Victorgrigas (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

2: TheDJ: Yes, that is supposed to be included in the project, and is exactly what I meant by documentation (udner the header Activities).

Victorgrigas: I would love to support multiple open source platforms, but haven't really heard of anyone using something else than kdenlive. If you have ideas for other plattforms I would be happy to support them too (but that would of course take some more time).

Ainali (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be prudent to evaluate the others? I know that blender is popular as 3d software, and much less so for video editing, but it has that capability. I think what would be really valuable is to determine any cross-platform usability, like is there a 'universal'-ish or popular Edit Decision List that multiple non-proprietary and proprietary video editing systems use? Victorgrigas (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article on EDL is exhaustive, but if so, then it is not really what this project is looking to solve. It is not just a list of clips, but rather document templates where text is editable in (so that you can swap the dummy text 'Insert title here' to your own 'Editathon in Musuem X ' and have nice effects and customizable lengths on them as well as interchangeble graphics elements and so on). Ainali (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

1. If it is possible to export to free formats, it would be great, but I haven't seen any proprietary software that actually supports that.
2. Yes, that will be included, and is included in the activities section.

Ainali (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments of Ruslik0

I have questions/comments:

1. Can you provide some examples of how these templates will look like?
2. Where will the templates and documentation be hosted?
3. Have you considered applying to a rapid grant instead? The project is very short.

Ruslik (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions! Answers below, I took the liberty to number them for easier reference.

1. No, I don't have any ready now. This blog post describes the workflow really well and should give you a good idea of the end result (but with an added outro as well, and I might take use of the title editor instead of Inkscape depending of complexity).
2. Right now the templates cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, but they can be hosted on Wikimedia Sverige's wiki which accept more file types for trusted users. Documentation will on other hand make most sense to have on Commons (or possibly Outreach). I am open to opinions on that. Either way, soft redirects across projects should probably set up.
3. No, this project is a bit too big for that. Otherwise that was my first idea.

Ainali (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2016

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

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

The committee's formal review for round 2 2016 begins on 2 November 2016, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Video templates

Scoring rubric	Score
(A) Impact potential Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both? Does it have the potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	6.4
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	6.9
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe? Is the budget realistic/efficient ? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	6.3
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	5.0
Additional comments from the Committee: This is probably a good user to execute this. I'm not sure how much need there is for such a tool, though. The project has potential for online impact and can be sustained after its end. However the impact will be greater if the templates support multiple editing platforms. High potential for online impact; high risk that it will not be sustainable and easy to adapt later - we just get paid video templates but there will be nobody to edit later for free The case for the need for such a tool is not sufficiently made. Project should be grounded on an assessment of why so few videos are produced within our community, for instance as video invitation to events or as video reports. I am not convinced a template would solve this issue. It's a very interesting approach to give a new tool for Wikimedians. It can significantly impact the community that uses this type of tools. The project is more iterative than innovative. The risks seem to be minimal. The success can be easily measured although measures of success can be improved. The idea itself is interesting but measures of success are too low: 5 uses for 4,500 usd isn't enough I am sympathetic to the effort of improving our communications skill, but I do not think a template is an innovative way of making this happening. There is no previous understanding about who would use it, so risks appear to be very high. According to the applicant, on an exchange on talk page, "templates cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons," and this is a major issue, since it jeopardizes the ability to actually find these templates. Measuring the success can be quite tricky and the grantee should aim for a bigger impact. It has the potential to create a long-term impact. I do not see serious problems with the execution and budget. No preview was made available, so I am unable to address the quality of what is being considered as a video template. Budget is not very realistic. 3,000 USD every month look a lot to me for creating video templates. We are not able to know if the participant has the enough skills for doing this project. The community support appears to be low although the project has a target community (people creating Wikimedia related videos). No endorsement. More communities like EDU, GLAM and so on should be notified about this idea. It's they that will give this initiative a bigger impact. The cost is low enough and the user experienced enough that I think this would be a reasonable investment. It should be supported if the measures of success are improved and support of other platforms is considered. I am not ready to finance it without detailed schedule and breakdown of work; from my point of view it shouldn't take more than 7-10 days of work, so, I suppose funding of 900-1000 USD This project is not sufficiently grounded on a need. No preview was made available, so it is impossible to assess the quality of what is being proposed. In general, I like the idea of stimulating videos as invitations for events and as reports of activities, so there might be something to work along this general line, with community engagement and inputs from the WMF communications team.

This proposal has been recommended for due diligence review.

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal and recommended it for due diligence review. This means that a majority of the committee reviewers favorably assessed this proposal and have requested further investigation by Wikimedia Foundation staff.

Next steps:

1. Aggregated committee comments from the committee are posted above. Note that these comments may vary, or even contradict each other, since they reflect the conclusions of multiple individual committee members who independently reviewed this proposal. We recommend that you review all the feedback and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page.
2. Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on Thursday, May 27, 2021.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia  · org.

Round 2 2016 decision

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for a Project Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, $4,500 USD

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support your efforts to enable volunteers and Wikimedia affiliates to create professional-grade videos. We value the ability for them to document their work and learnings through a creative medium, and are excited to see what our fellow Wikimedians will develop as a result of this tool. The committee has concerns about the lack of demonstrated community engagement for this tool. Though we ultimately elected to support it because of indicators of need communicated from Foundation staff, we would like you to (1) further document use cases, in coordination with Chris Schilling (as communicated by email), (2) meet with Victor Grigas, the Foundation’s Storyteller and Video Content Producer, who will advise on this project, to refine your scope of work to include a more robust design phase and (3) with the coordination of Project Grants Program Officers, consult with the Foundation’s Communications Team about how to maximize the effectiveness of this tool.

Next steps:

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

Upcoming changes to Wikimedia Foundation Grants

Over the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has been undergoing a community consultation process to launch a new grants strategy. Our proposed programs are posted on Meta here: Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021. If you have suggestions about how we can improve our programs in the future, you can find information about how to give feedback here: Get involved. We are also currently seeking candidates to serve on regional grants committees and we'd appreciate it if you could help us spread the word to strong candidates--you can find out more here. We will launch our new programs in July 2021. If you are interested in submitting future proposals for funding, stay tuned to learn more about our future programs.

Marking project withdrawn

Ainali,

We have not received any response following numerous attempts to contact you about finalizing your funding contact. Consequently, we are marking this project withdrawn. We know that there are many reasons that an applicant may not be able to follow through on a project idea, and a project withdrawal does not impact your eligibility to submit future proposals, should you wish. That said, we are a little concerned that we haven't been able to get a hold of you, and we would appreciate follow-up contact. I would welcome an email at mjohnson wikimedia  · org.

Warm regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)