Grants talk:Project/Engaging Academic Archivists, Librarians and Students to Address the Historical Gender and Racial Gap of Western Pennsylvania through the University of Pittsburgh Library System

Active discussions

Constructive feedbackEdit

Comments are welcome here. Please discuss any omissions that appear in the grant proposal, any advice, any experience in this position, contacts, etc.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a constructive proposal but rather limited in its own ambitions as it focuses on one university and one relatively small English-speaking region. It would help if it were to be presented as a pilot project for more general coverage of regional and racial gender gaps through local universities.--Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand your concerns. In the first (offline) draft of the grant proposal, a relatively complete list of nearby colleges, universities and organizations was included to demonstrate and address the potential scope of this project. I find this list somewhat overwhelming, but understand that it is a demonstration of potential and future collaborations. The ULS supports collaboration with these other organizations. Contacts have already been accomplished with some of these. Due to the length of the final online draft, it was decided to leave out the list of these. There are colleges within 40 miles of Pittsburgh, a half an hour to an hour drive. A few of these are within walking distance of the main library at Pitt. Some of these are branch campuses of larger universities:
  • Carlow University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1 mile, enrollment 1,407
  • Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2 miles, enrollment 6,673
  • Duquesne University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1 mile, enrollment 10,363
  • Point Park University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1 mile, enrollment 4,093
  • The Art Institute of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1 mile
  • Chatham University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 3 miles, enrollment 2,300
  • Community College of Allegheny County Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2 miles, 43,152 enrolled
  • La Roche University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 9 miles, enrollment 1,465
  • Penn State Greater Allegheny McKeesport, Pennsylvania 10 miles, enrollment 783
  • Robert Morris University Moon Township, Pennsylvania 13 miles, enrollment 5,359
  • Penn State New Kensington Upper Burrell, Pennsylvania 16 miles, enrollment 912
  • Community College of Beaver County Monaca, Pennsylvania 23 miles, enrollment 2,335
  • Penn State Beaver Monaca, Pennsylvania 23 miles, enrollment 705
  • Seton Hill University Greensburg, Pennsylvania 24 miles, enrollment 1,468,
  • Washington & Jefferson College Washington, Pennsylvania 23 miles, enrollment 1,362
  • Westmoreland County Community College Youngwood, Pennsylvania 26 miles, enrollment 5,900
  • Butler County Community College Butler, Pennsylvania 27 miles, enrollment 3,686
  • California University of Pennsylvania California, Pennsylvania 26 miles, 9,400
  • Geneva College Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania 30 miles, enrollment 1,791
  • Saint Vincent College Latrobe, Pennsylvania 32 miles, enrollment 1,646
  • Bethany College Bethany, West Virginia 35 miles, enrollment 1,030
  • Kent State University at East Liverpool East Liverpool, Ohio 34 miles, enrollment 1,338
  • Eastern Gateway Community College Steubenville, Ohio 37 miles, enrollment 2,904
  • Penn State Fayette Eberly Campus Uniontown, Pennsylvania 38 miles, enrollment 1,000
  • Waynesburg University Waynesburg, Pennsylvania 39 miles, enrollment 1,400
  • West Liberty University West Liberty, West Virginia 38 miles, enrollment 2,320
  • University of Pittsburgh 28,664 total enrollment
  • Washington Community College, enrollment 2,300
In addition, other local organizations house collections and archives that are largely not included in Wikimedia projects at this time: These organizations within the city limits are:
  • The Carnegie Museum of Art
  • The Carnegie Museum of Natural History
  • The Carnegie Library System (with 19 branches)
  • The Andy Warhol Museum
  • The Mattress Factory
  • The Heinz History Center
  • The Frick Art Museum
  • Three Rivers Council
  • Fort Pitt Museum
Though these art and historical museums are smaller, (smaller collections and archives are underrepresented in Wikimedia projects) they possess valuable resources that are not contained in Wikimedia Projects. I anticipate that they will be very enthusiastic about adding their archival and museum content to Wikimedia Projects:
  • West Overton Museums
  • Fort Bedford Museum
  • Fort Ligonier Museum and Gallery
  • Frank L. Melega Art Museum
  • Friendship Hill National Historic Site
  • Gallitzin Tunnels Park & Museum
  • Greenville Area Historical Society Museum
  • Greersburg Academy (museum contains Native American artifacts)
  • Hoyt Center for the Arts
  • John A. Hermann Jr. Memorial Art Museum
  • Allegheny Cemetery - unusual in this list, but extensive in biographical materials and documentation of notable people
  • Homewood Cemetery - also resource heavy
  • Johnstown Flood Museum
  • Kentuck Knob and Fallingwater - Frank Lloyd Wright museums
  • Kerr Memorial Museum
  • Leechburg Area Museum and Historical Society
  • McCarl Industrial & Agricultural Museum of Beaver County
  • McKeesport Regional History & Heritage Center
  • Merrick Art Gallery
  • National Museum of the American Coverlet
  • Ohio Valley Lines Model Railroad, Library & Museum
  • Old Economy Village
  • Olin Art Gallery
  • Paul R. Stuart Museum (Native American artifacts)
  • Portage Station Museum
  • Rachel Carson Homestead
  • Railroaders Memorial Museum
  • Rivers of Steel (museum)
  • Saint Nicholas Chapel and Museum
  • Southern Alleghenies Museum of Art
  • Tour-Ed Mine and Museum
and other small museums, galleries, archives and collections
Each adjacent county to Allegheny County also has its own historical societies. Only two counties in the whole state do not have a community college. Though I haven't specifically identified these (as of today) Their collections will also be extensive. Seeing this list will help illustrate the volume of potential of institutional involvement in Wikimedia projects.
Regarding the suggestion that these potential contributors are mainly English-speakers may not be accurate. This area of the US was an area settled by non-English speakers. Much historical material exists in the language of those immigrants.
Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

September 26 Proposal Deadline: Reminder to change status to 'proposed'Edit

As posted on the Project Grants startpage, the deadline for submissions this round is September 26, 2017. To submit your proposal, you must (1) complete the proposal entirely, filling in all empty fields, and (2) change the status from "draft" to "proposed." As soon as you’re ready, you should begin to invite any communities affected by your project to provide feedback on your proposal talkpage.

Warm regards,
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

EndorsementsEdit

Marti (WMF), I have been contacted by those who wish to give their endorsement but have questions about doing so. Can they use the same username that they use on Wikipedia/Wikipedya/CommonsWiki OR do they have to register a username on Meta? Do they have to identify themselves in any way? Can non-registered users endorse this grant proposal? Can I contact individual users on their own talk pages to inform them of this grant proposal? Does a user have to disclose their 'reaal-life' affiliations? Is there any way that a conflict of interest exists in endorsing this proposal?

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Barbara (WVS),
It's not required for people to register a username on Meta or to identify themselves in any way. However, an endorsement will obviously be weaker without some kind of identification. If the endorser has a username on Wikipedia, for example, linking to their userpage on Wikipedia is desirable, since it demonstrates that the person has some commitment to Wikimedia projects. If the endorser is not a registered user, then it would be worthwhile for them to indicate any experience or training that substantiates their endorsement, ideally with a link to verify their identity. Again, this is not required.
In regard to contacting individual users, I suggest you use your discretion about the boundaries that will communicate an appropriate sense of etiquette. In general, it is not a good idea to request feedback on someone's talkpage unless it is someone you know has a specific interest in this topic. If you imagine the person will perceive it as a desirable courtesy to be notified individually, then do so. If you imagine the person might perceive it as unsolicited canvassing, then I would recommend that you avoid it.
We do not have any policies that prohibit anyone from endorsing your project on the basis of conflicts of interest. However, it is obviously the case that independent endorsements will hold more weight. It is in your interest to notify widely any communities that might be impacted by your project whether they are likely to be critical or supportive. This shows you have a mature sense of how to communicate with and involve stakeholders in your work, and gives you a chance to consider and respond to any questions or concerns people may have about your project.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
warm regards,
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2017Edit

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2017 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through 17 October 2017.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2017 begins on 18 October 2017, and grants will be announced 1 December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

There are some good and useful comments on the Grant Proposal page. I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Amqui stated: "Wouldn't the resources of the Wikimedia movement be better used by developing didactic material like professional video tutorials or online courses like MOOC that can be re-used all around the world and translated to many different languages rather than providing training on a one-time basis to people that may or may not become contributors. You cite successful story where "one" person created three articles during the first training session, but how many others we spent energy on, and now resources through this grant, that never edited a Wikimedia project in a meaningful way afterwards? I'm not saying that there is no merit or no result in this type of training, but I am thinking cost benefit wise, the ratio of resources invested versus the results, may be higher and better serve the community with a different approach."

These training materials exist and have been developed by other grantees such as Kelly Doyle at West Virginia University and Merilee with OCLC. Their grant proposal included the development of training materials and I anticipate that these same materials will be adapted and used at the University of Pittsburgh. Training will not only be provided to librarians and archivists but also for students, instructors and other interested staff. GLAM has developed training materials that will be used. Perhaps these are not all translated yet, but they could be.
Translating these already-existing training materials for use around the world and translated into many different languages is a real possibility. At the University of Pittsburgh there exists a large number of international students and multilingual staff. Library staff have already indicated that would be willing to aid in translation. At this point in time, it is difficult to quantify the number of students and non-libary staff who will become involved in translation work but because of my familiarity with staff, I am very optimistic and have already engaged a librarian who is willing to provide translation help in Mandarin, Japanese and Korean.
I gave an example for one new editor at a recent edit-a-thon but there were many others who also created content and from what I can tell from their editing history, they are continuing to do so. As for training people who may not be long-term contributors, I intend to use a 'marketing' model to address this. I could not fully explain this approach on the grant proposal page but essentially it is this: spend the most effort to train and encourage those who show great interest and make a significant number of edits over a longer period of time rather than chasing after those who may have attended an edit-a-thon and ended up with a few edits and then discontinued their editing. I would like to point out that adding content, even if it only a few edits is a sincere contribution given in good faith to improve Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects). So even these one time contributors improve the encyclopedia and engaging with them, knowing that they may not stay active, is a worthwhile effort. The training that has been provided already is yielding results at this time. Librarians at Pitt are more active now than they were even last year. They do add references and content. Others are waiting to be trained.

Amqui further stated: "Second point, this proposal is to develop the skill set of the librarians and archivists of the University of Pittsburgh Library System, so your point about teaching how to find references is not applicable, because honestly if those librarians don't know how to find references, there is a greater problem in the hiring process of this library. However, this is not my main point, what I want to say is that this proposal is to develop the skills of people that will use them in their professional capacity, finding references, sharing knowledge, etc are all part of the work of librarians and archivists, so I think it should be financed by the University of Pittsburgh Library System itself, not with resources of the Wikimedia movement, since it's purely professional development for them. The grant proposal itself stipulates "Libraries are interested in the advancement of information literacy – contributing to Wikimedia projects helps meet these goals.", showing that it is fulfilling "their goals". It almost looks like, with this grant, that we want to finance the hiring of a staff for this library system or the procuring of a service with the funds from donors to the Wikimedia movement. If the library sees a need to have a trainer about contributing to Wikimedia projects like you, then they can hire your services as a consultant or something like that the same way they do for any other skill development. I don't think it's up to the donors to pay for that."

You are correct in stating that librarians and archivists should already know how to find references - and this is true of the library and archive staff at Pitt. I was referring to training new contributors who may have difficulties locating resources, such as those laypeople who are not librarians. During the edit-a-thon that I last attended, I helped new editors find references. There is no professional development planned for librarians. There is no plan to hire new staff, and at this point in time there is a hiring freeze due to the delayed funding from the State legislature. The funding that is proposed via this grant is no different from funding that has been awarded to other successful Wikipedians in Residence at various institutions. We used the other grant applications as a model for this one, even using the exact same wording in some sections. We are not requesting a new type of grant. Other Wikipedians in Residence engage and train librarians and archivists. These similar projects have been funded. Your comments are appreciated and have actually made this grant application better because you have raised concerns that needed to be addressed.
Best Regards
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Then it is the job of the librarians to teach their patrons on how to find resources, not WMF. Also, most other WiR grants I have seen were not for the amount of money and were smaller in scale. I think this is a lot of resources for only one library system at one university. If the proposal were more global in its approach, it would be more reasonable in my opinion. It's not up to the donors to the Wikimedia movement to alleviate funding freezes at U of Pitt. Thank you for your answers, Amqui (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
'I have answered part of your concerns closer to the top of this post to the discussion page. Fortunately, what you have mentioned is very true - Pitt librarians train students to use and locate library resources. They have already been providing classroom instruction to students at Pitt on how to utilize (not cite) Wikipedia. I trained those librarians. And though librarians train students to find references and use Wikipedia in their research, the other organizations listed above do not or may not. Community members of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Western Pennsylvania, and eastern Ohio may not have those resource-finding skills. A contributor to almost every Wikimedia project must know how to cite valid resources to add content. I have not been able to find many editors who have identified themselves as being involved with the organizations listed above.
As for your concern for a more global approach I can only point you to the list of colleges and universities listed above. All of them undoubtedly have a population of international staff and students. One Pitt librarian has already been trained to contribute library content to the Mandarin, Korean and Japanese Wikipedias. (I showed them how.) Another librarian contributes regularly to the Dutch wikipedia. A Japanese instructor at Pitt has contacted me regarding being trained in contributing to the Japanese Wikipedia. I have scheduled training with another native Russian speaker here at Allegheny Community College.
Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

CofinancingEdit

This is basically a proposal for a (rather expensive) wikimedian in residence in an institution whose buy-in in the project is unverified. If an institution is not on-board, it's hard to put its resources and employees in motion in the same direction as the wikimedian, as is needed to multiply its impact. Therefore, I oppose any WIR grant where the host institution is not putting at least half of the money. Also, I'd like to see some clarity how the WIR will be selected, to make sure it's the best qualified person available for the task. I don't see any detail on the hiring process. --Nemo 12:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this comment about the buy-in from the institution and the fact that it should put at least half of the money. I don't think there will be a hiring process, I think this grant proposal is for the grantee herself to be the WiR. Amqui (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I followed the procedures and instructions provided by WMF in writing this proposal. The instructions did not require information about 'buying-in' or verifying the project. Contact information with library staff is provided as a link at the end of the grant proposal. If there is a more formal process to confirm that the University of Pittsburgh is 'on board', that can be remedied in a day or so. Resources and employees have been in motion shortly after I was selected as a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar. The University has already allowed me to use as many of their resources as I have time to handle. I've been able to actually examine, handle and read archival materials, take photos of unpublished documents and upload these images to Commons. This could not have happened without the full support of the ULS. The University provides access to all library resources and librarians continue to add content and are only limited by the lack of more training. I would have to say they are in motion - but don't have a Wikimedian-yet. As for opposing any WIR that is not funded at 50%, this didn't seem to be a problem with other Wikimedians who are funded in the same way. I found no information provided in the instructions for applying for this grant detailing the need for discussing the hiring process. I've been interviewed for the position and the hiring process will probably begin after the funds have been approved, but since I am not familiar with hiring-processes in general, I can't provide such information to you. Thank you for your comments.
Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on grant request formalities, I'm commenting on the viability of the underlying project. Thanks, Nemo 16:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
You have been interviewed by who? By the university? So the WMF is financing the position but it is the university who does the hiring process by itself? So we are really financing the university to hire an employee for themselves it seems... Amqui (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the next post will help to understand the viability of the project. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Addendum and update - Organizations currently requesting training to add content to WPEdit

As information about the possible grant approval is being shared in the 'archival' community in Western Pennsylvania, personal requests for training on 'how to' add content to Wikimedia projects continues to increase. Archivists from the following organizations have requested training and further involvement with this project:
  • The Pittsburgh Symphony
  • The Rachel Carson archives at Chatham University
  • The 20th Century Club
  • Point Park University
  • Carnegie Mellon University
  • Northland Library

I am not sure if this answers any questions about viability or not. All I can say at this point is that there won't be much of a problem scheduling edit-a-thons or training with so much interest. One interesting thing I have noticed about these collections and archives is that content is not necessarily regional in nature. For example, the 20th Century Club possesses archival content related to World War I in France.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Nice! Is any of them willing to share part of the costs? Nemo 15:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I still don't understand why it's up to the the WMF to pay the services of somebody training professionals as part of their work. If those archivists are requesting training, they should find the budget for it. That's what any professional organizations do. Why is it different in this case? Why should the donors pay for their training that is done as part of their regular jobs? Amqui (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Barbara (WVS), could you answer this please? Thanks, Amqui (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Applying for a grant is a long and complicated process, as I have learned. And other organizations will undoubtedly want to support the project when they receive a request to partially fund this project. First, these other organizations have to be asked. As a part-time volunteer, I am unable to initiate this process yet. It will take time especially if the process is anything like what I've experienced in applying for this grant.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm saying that the concerned librairians and archivists, or their staff, who are paid full time should work to find funds, not you, the training is for them after all. Amqui (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Engaging Academic Archivists, Librarians and Students to Address the Historical Gender and Racial Gap of Western Pennsylvania through the University of Pittsburgh Library System Edit

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?
6.3
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
5.7
(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?
6.5
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
6.8
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • Fits with strategic direction of achieving knowledge equity by focusing on gender and racial gaps. I like the idea of setting up a Wiki Space and would like to hear more about this as well as other sustainability efforts - presumably, the idea is that trained librarians can sustain editing efforts after the WiR is gone but I would think more support and buy-in from the administration is necessary to make this work.
  • Neutral here. The project follows the strategy of Wikimedia to diversify the community but who knows how many different people are in Pittsburgh? In my opinion not so much. In addition the WiR in general animates the group if he/she is present, it's complicated to have a self-sufficient community able to survive.
  • Fits with the strategic priority of increasing diverse content. Online impact in terms of content is likely to be low because the content is from a narrow subject area. Online impact in terms of participation is likely to be moderate because librarians and students have higher editor retention rates than general population. Sustainability and scalability are low since event organization and training will stop happening after the funded period.
  • Moderate impact potential. It does address diversity, but I have doubts on how sustainable the impact will be.
  • Overall, seems like a low risk project. It’s obvious the applicant has done a lot of thinking around goals and impact of work but I would still like to see more specific measures (i.e. measures of impact rather than deliverables).
  • This is mostly an iterative project, but it is innovative in that one-to-one training is conducted. I am interested in knowing the outcomes of one-to-one training and how it affects editor retention. The measures of success in terms of content creation are not clear (25 articles in total?).
  • WiR is a well-known solution, although this project seems to be a bit more risky than average: there is already an ongoing collaboration which was not that successful (122 articles and no trainings in two years)
  • Applicant appears to be a good fit for this work - very prolific contributor with a number of endorsements (including from Wiki Ed Foundation), experience with the target university community, and a mature sense of communication and responding to comments/criticism. Would like clarity on what fringe benefits means in budget.
  • The scope is well-defined. The budget appears realistic, and the participant has the necessary skills for running this project. Considering that the participant is an employee at an institute, funding this proposal would set a precedent that WMF funds are available to support staff for a full time job to work as a WIR.
  • The proposal is rather complex (many goals to be reached, some require efforts and involvement from others) and might be difficult to achieve. The participant has relevant experience
  • Supports diversity as the focus is on improving coverage related to race and gender, albeit on English Wikipedia. I also like the idea of engaging and learning from other WiRs.
  • The target community is well defined. The project is well-supported by the community.
  • It has a community support and works on diversity
  • Given that we have recently funded projects that are also in the space of engaging librarians (e.g. the WiR at WVU Libraries and the WiR at OCLC), I would like to know more (and maybe wait and see) what the impact of these activities has been to date before funding another model.
  • It seems to me a WiR with the perspective of animate a group. I have experience of similar projects (i.e. Les Pages sansES) which has not created so big impact after several years. In my opinion it will create an impact but volatile.
  • Reduce the scope of the project by cutting down the number of editing workshops. Instead focus on one-to-one mentorship, and document the learning from this experience. Try to seek more funding from the sponsor institute to cover more of the WIR salary.
  • I don't support costs for attending conferences in the grant request for WiR
  • I would need more details on university involvement here. Looks like they were working together for some time but were not that successful. It might be a good idea to give it another chance but we should be sure that lessons were learned.
 

Opportunity to respond to committee comments in the next 7 days

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal. Based on their initial review, a majority of committee reviewers have not recommended your proposal for funding. However, before the committee makes an official decision, they would like to provide you with an opportunity to respond to their comments.

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 carefully and post any responses or clarifications or questions on this talk page. If you make any revisions to your proposal based on committee feedback, we recommend that you also summarize the changes on your talkpage.
  2. The committee will review any additional feedback you post on your talkpage before making a final funding decision. A decision will be announced no later than March 1st, 2019.


Questions? Contact us.


Barbara (WVS), please see note above about the opportunity to respond to committee comments before they finalize a decision on your proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Warm regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The comment about "different people are in Pittsburgh" reminded me of [1]. Sorry for the intermezzo. Nemo 07:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Response - Impact potentialEdit

Does [the grant] have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both?Edit

The grant has a significant potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects in terms of both content and contributors. Women in Western Pennsylvania have made a great number of historical contributions in the labor and feminist movements and at this time, Wikimedia projects are lacking this content.
Many of the universities in this region have robust Women's studies colleges or departments that have faculty and students that have the potential of adding content and contributing in women's and gender-related topics. These are:
Duquesne University, Center for Women and Gender Studies and coursework at the Graduate level
Carnegie Mellon University Gender Studies
Carlow University Women's and Gender Studies
Chatham University Women's and Gender Studies
The University of Pittsburgh Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies Program
La Roche University Women's/Gender Studies
Seton Hill University Gender and Women's Studies
Kent State University (Ohio) Women's Studies
Clarion University Women and Gender Studies
The region also hosts Women's organizations for which potential exists to involve members and encourage them to become contributors:
Muslim Women's Association of Pittsburgh
Strong Women, Strong Girls
International Women's Association of Pittsburgh
Women and Girls Foundation
American Association of University Women (Pittsburgh)
  • True: women and gender studies are very developed around here, with worldwide importance. See also [2] for an example list. Nemo 15:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I am very excited to see this list and I can't thank you enough for sharing the link. You probably just saved me days of work.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Does it have the potential for online impact?Edit

This grant proposal has great potential for online impact related to the vast pool of possible contributors and venues described above. Over 145,000 students are enrolled in colleges and universities within an hour's drive of the University of Pittsburgh. This is a large pool of potential contributors, especially since this doesn't take into account faculty, librarians, archivists and staff.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The mention of an indistinct large audience (145,000 students) suggests no focused plan to approach a realistic audience has been developed. --Nemo 15:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I am glad that you have mentioned this. Here's the focused plan. The first focused audience will be the multi-language speakers on the library staff. This has already been started but since I am only a volunteer, I have not been able to provide as much training as I would like. We have one librarian who is fluent in at least three Asian languages who I have taught how to add content. She wants to do more but needs follow-up that I don't have the time to provide. Another librarian is from Bulgaria. In addition, there are librarians who are fluent in Japanese, Polish and Portuguese. There is something that can happen here that may be unique and that is this: librarians are recruited all the time for the purpose of adding content and references. If multi-language librarians are trained to edit, doesn't that mean that other Wikimedia projects will benefit? The second focus is to identify students and faculty in the international studies program within the University that we can train. So at this point, the plan begins with multi-language librarians and then the International Studies faculty and students. The University of Pittsburgh is well-known for their four National Resource Centers in Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Western Europe and Latin America. Students and researchers from around the world come to Pitt to study and I hope to use that to my advantage. I will attend student events to begin the process of reaching out to other potential contributors. The plan will continue by responding to other requests for training from other areas of the University with the specific departments of Women's Studies. I will then respond and provide training for those universities in this region who have requested training. Their Women's Studies departments will specifically targeted. There really was not a place I could find in the grant application where I could describe a plan.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?Edit

Sustaining the impact of this grant proposal will be accomplished by taking different approaches to training. Contributors will be trained to 'train' others. This will result in sustaining contributions from enthusiastic participants. In addition, interested contributors can be trained to use advanced editing tools. These tools and scripts have already been developed but very little 'live' training in their use has been tried. Speaking from experience, using editing tools has resulted in the increase of quantity, quality and speed in contributing content. Increasing the sill level of contributors makes editing more satisfying and enjoyable - resulting in more content and quality. Small edit-a-thons for experienced contributors will result in a higher amount of contributions. Sustained impact will also mean that contributors-students, faculty, librarians, archivists will begin to 'own' the project, take the lead in some activities and will eventually lead to the formation of local user groups.
In addition, assessing the interests of contributors can better help guide them to topics and Wikimedia projects that best suits their interests. Contributors are more likely to continually edit and add content if they have an interest in a topic. Say, for example, if a new contributor shows interest in the Wikidata project, then perhaps they shouldn't have to add content or edit Wikipedia. I can give them the training to begin their contributions to Wikidata. If another new contributor is hesitant to contribute to Wikipedia and they speak a different language and want to translate articles from one language to another, I can show them how. New contributors will be trained in Wikimedia project contributions for which they have interest-resulting in sustained, long-term and increased participation.
Such a model, developed with this project grant, can be scaled to fit other efforts to engage contributors. An organizer/trainer can learn to assess the interest of contributors and adapt training to fit their interest. Once this grant project is underway, its adaptability can be demonstrated.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Train the trainer" is hardly a new idea. Have you studied past experiences? --Nemo 14:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
My experiences are based upon my participation in training others and attending events. This project can only be sustained with training others to not only edit, but to then teach others the skills needed to edit, and so on. At the events I have attended, further training was not offered. I have only been successful in training others when I have offered to teach them after they expressed interest. This seems to be the case currently with a small group of interested editors from Carnegie Mellon University. The person I trained will now be training and instructing his students on 'how to edit' in a regular classroom setting. I haven't counted his edits recently but I imagine he is motivated since he intends to train others.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Response-Community engagementEdit

Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?Edit

Since the project is based at the University of Pittsburgh, that will be its initial target community in engaging contributors among librarians, archivists, students and faculty. Engaging this targeted community will be accomplished by the establishment of a dedicated space where contributors can 'drop-in' for training and have the WiR available for training on short notice. This is different than past models to engage contributors since training can be done at the best time of the contributor. They won't have to wait for an edit-a-thon to begin to contribute. In such a dedicated space or small conference room, training can be done for even a small group of contributors. Engagement won't be 'often'. It will be continuous.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What "past models to engage contributors" are you talking about? The "drop-in" support is rather frequent for WIRs, but demand varies. Have you read on past experiences? Nemo 14:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for not specifically identifying "past models". I am referring to past models used in this area when an editing event (edit-a-thon) has occurred. Different people and organizations conducted these events and did an excellent job. They worked very hard and made the whole event fun and enjoyable. When there is an edit-a-thon, I try to be there. One event was an Art and Feminism project, another was coordinated by the Carnegie Museum of Art and another one was conducted by the Pittsburgh YWCA. Unfortunately, if those participants had questions after they left, there was no process in place for them to contact an individual to ask questions and learn more. From the start, expectations for continued contributions were not considered. I know this because I offered to help individuals when they had questions. Content was contributed and that was a good thing. The most recent edit-a-thon here resulted in the creation of three articles and additional contributions in editing others. Hopefully, some of those individuals who were trained will continue to contribute and I am optimistic. But this model of editor recruitment is like casting a wide net and hoping you get a fish. The event is scheduled, publicized, conducted and then everyone moves on with their lives. With my model, I will have the ability to identify interested contributors who want to continue to edit and reach out to those who participated to encourage their work. I will focus efforts on those individuals. Most of those participating in these events communicated to me that they weren't sure if they wanted to continue contributing to Wikipedia. At first I was surprised but then realized that the event itself was the original purpose. Like them, I had fun and socialized with those I knew. Some attended the event and did not participate in editing at all, much less showing any interest in contributing. So we have folks, and this probably happens everywhere, who attend an editing event, eat the pizza, and have no initial interest in contributing. Hopefully, knowing there is a resource for them to work with will encourage participants to continue their work for Wikipedia into the future. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Does it have community support?Edit

Community support can be evaluated in the appropriate section of the grant proposal. The support that you don't see there are comments from newer contributors that I have already trained. They do not have the skills (yet) to fully engage in Wikimedia projects and express their support. The University is hopeful that I can work with partners they have developed through their Historic Pittsburgh project in the greater Pittsburgh region and transfer my knowledge and skills to these groups. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Response-Ability to executeEdit

Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe?Edit

The timeframe is reasonable and allows for adjustments to be made. Because of the model used, individual training will have to adapt to the schedules of contributors.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the budget realistic/efficient ?Edit

The grant covers part of the cost of funding a full time position. Travel expenses are for the Wikimania North America Conference in Columbus Ohio and library conferences where presentations will be given about engaging University Libraries and the Wikimedia Foundation.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?Edit

Rather than providing a link that describes the skills and experiences of the applicant they will be relisted here and expanded.
* New editor training online/offline
* Article creation
* Article formatting
* Tables in articles
* Talk page creation
* WikiProject assessment/assignment
* Creation of templates
* Image uploads to Commons
* Category Creation
* Contributor to deletion discussions
*New page patrolling
* Category assignment
* Good article assessment
* Good article creation
*'Teahouse' host
*Kreyol Ayisien Wikipedya Administrator
*Welcoming new contributors
*Signpost columnist
*Wikipedia Visiting Scholar
*Wikispecies contributor
*Simple Wikipedia contributor
*Haitian Wikipedia administrator
*French Wikipedia contributor (Women's Health Content)
*Portuguese Wikipedia contributor
*Wikibooks contributor
*Mediawiki contributor
*Translator
*Wikiversty contributor
*Wikiquote contributor
*Wiktionary contributor
*Wikimedia Conference Speaker on the Gender gap (DC group)
*19.000 edits as user Barbara (WVS), 136 articles created
*19,559 edits as user Bfpage, 82 article created
Member NYC user group
  • I notice there's nothing about working with institutions. I also think we should talk about necessary skills first and then identify the most appropriate person, not the other way around. That's how WIRs are normally done by Wikimedia entities. --Nemo 14:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
When my collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh was initiated, I was interviewed and selected from a pool of applicants. In the role of Wikipedia Visiting Scholar with the University of Pittsburgh, they determined I was the best match and the most appropriate person for the position. Once the University saw the potential in training others, they encouraged me to apply for this grant. I have been fortunate to develop a good relationship with faculty and staff at Pitt's libraries and would think my skill set and knowledge of the organization would be a great benefit. In addition, I have started to make contacts with the other institutions and historical societies. I am well-known throughout the campus (because they publicize my work). The University may not be willing to go through the selection process again, but I can't speak for them.Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Response-Measures of successEdit

Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?Edit

Success can be defined as meeting specific goals for engagement and training. These are presented specifically in the grant proposal. Qualitative measures of success can be included in the grant proposal to ensure that feedback is provided from those who participate in training and activities.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Are they realistic?Edit

The goals and measurements of success are realistic. Success can be predicted at this point in the process due to participation in current and past activities as a volunteer.Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Can they be measured?Edit

Quantitative measures of success will be provided to the WMF in the required reports. New contributors, quantity of contributions, edits and even self-reported group (i.e. women, racial group, other-language) measures will track progress. The number of womens-related content can also be tracked. Some of these measures will overlap, but the numbers can be fascinating and indicate success or the possible ineffectiveness of efforts. Qualitative measures will be provided and quantified. For example, a qualitative measure will be generated from the responses of contributors. Satisfaction with the training and intentions to further participate can be expressed using a numeric grading system.Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Additional comments by reviewersEdit

CommentEdit

"Fits with strategic direction of achieving knowledge equity by focusing on gender and racial gaps. I like the idea of setting up a Wiki Space and would like to hear more about this as well as other sustainability efforts - presumably, the idea is that trained librarians can sustain editing efforts after the WiR is gone but I would think more support and buy-in from the administration is necessary to make this work."

Response: I apologize for presenting the same information many times. Sustainability is achieved by training contributors to train other contributors. Engaging the Women's studies departments at the various colleges and universities has the potential of continuous contributions from students whose instructors assign coursework in collaboration with WikiEd. The University will present its support in their response to these comments.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


CommentEdit

"Neutral here. The project follows the strategy of Wikimedia to diversify the community but who knows how many different people are in Pittsburgh? In my opinion not so much. In addition the WiR in general animates the group if he/she is present, it's complicated to have a self-sufficient community able to survive."

Response: The University of Pittsburgh has 3,000 international students representing 100 countries attending the university. The potential for engaging contributors to contribute content in their native language is an exciting possibility. The potential of translating content is also anticipated. The city and county have benefited from the immigration of many new immigrants, some highly educated:. "According to U.S. Census figures, from 2010 to 2016, the Pittsburgh area gained 22,588 residents from international migration, which is defined as migration by the foreign-born, Puerto Ricans and native-born Americans living overseas."[1][2]
A self-replicating community is a self-sufficient community. Contributors will be trained to train other contributors. The project will be 'owned' by the contributors who will have great impact on maintaining and sustaining a regional group of contributors. The WiR position is to support the activities of the editing community to the point where the group survives, flourishes and replicates itself in other regions.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


CommentEdit

"Fits with the strategic priority of increasing diverse content. Online impact in terms of content is likely to be low because the content is from a narrow subject area. Online impact in terms of participation is likely to be moderate because librarians and students have higher editor retention rates than general population. Sustainability and scalability are low since event organization and training will stop happening after the funded period."

Response: My experience has been that though an editing event starts with a narrow subject area, new contributors will continue to be engaged once they make the connection between editing and their own interests in a subject area. We can write Hungarian biographies during an organized event but engaging contributors with their own interests results in continued contributions. The librarians and archivists know where to steer contributors who remain interested in addressing missing content related to addressing the racial and gender gaps and some have already been trained to be contributors. Sustainability is obtained through the training and encouragement of contributors. There is no reason to believe that training will stop after the grant proposal expires especially if contributors are trained to train others.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentEdit

"Moderate impact potential. It does address diversity, but I have doubts on how sustainable the impact will be."

Response: I feel that my model (explained further below) will result in sustainability. The potential for impact is great. I can anticipate making connections with international students, provide training (including how to train others), and seeing such contributors become active in their native language wikipedias. After leaving the university, other language speakers can take the skills with them. Another opportunity exists to recruit expert contributors from the University of Pittsburgh Medical School. My editing experience has given me the skills to train medical content editors. Because of these opportunities, the vast number of potential contributors and my ability to provide training in the different Wikimedia projects, I am very optimistic about the impact and sustainability of the project. One of the benefits of me being the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar since 2015 is the ability to work with people I've trained to make sure they are on track, provide suggestions about new pages or pages that need editing. With contact and encouragement from me over the years, the likelihood of sustaining their work increases. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentEdit

"Overall, seems like a low risk project. It’s obvious the applicant has done a lot of thinking around goals and impact of work but I would still like to see more specific measures (i.e. measures of impact rather than deliverables)."

Response: Thank you for the encouragement. One way to measure impact will be to have those trained to provide a narrative about their own experiences contributing. They will probably provide a range of responses with some saying that contributing has had no impact on their lives to those who will describe the positive impact of training. This is easily done with follow-up questionnaires. Measuring the impact that international contributors may take extra time since I don't think there is a dashboard set up to track global edits, but perhaps that can be changed so that the impact of other language contributions can be further evaluated.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentEdit

"This is mostly an iterative project, but it is innovative in that one-to-one training is conducted. I am interested in knowing the outcomes of one-to-one training and how it affects editor retention. The measures of success in terms of content creation are not clear (25 articles in total?)."

Response: Since this is new position for me, and I have not tracked content creation before, I found establishing goals challenging. We came up with a projection based upon the reports of other WiR in simular positions to set realistic goals. New article creation is a challenging skill to teach and new contributors need much help. These measures can easily be modified.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I am glad that you brought up one-to-one training. I plan on applying a marketing model and apply it to editor retention. As far as I can tell this has not been tried before. What this means that new contributors are followed up! They will be encouraged and recognized for their contributions. They will be offered additional training and shown 'how to' find information on Wikipedia for the questions that they will undoubtedly have. The head count during an edit-a-thon means something-even one time contributors add significant content all the time. But if training is offered that will result in the continuing contribution of more dedicated contributors, I am confident that this will ensure on-going impact.
Another marketing model that can easily be adapted to training and then contributions is to find out 'why' people contribute. Chances are that other non-contributors may have the same 'why'. For example, I began writing more articles when I discovered the lack of content I was looking for. Perhaps that may become a 'why' for another potential contributor. There are other 'whys' and when potential contributors have their own 'whys' they will edit.
The development of new editors will naturally lead to a more vibrant group of contributors in this region. These contributors can work towards establishing a regional chapter. This will have future impact and result in ongoing activities in this region.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentEdit

"WiR is a well-known solution, although this project seems to be a bit more risky than average: there is already an ongoing collaboration which was not that successful (122 articles and no trainings in two years)"

Response: I don't have information about the other collaborations from this area for the past two years, though I participated regularly as time permitted. I did not organize or conduct the events since I am a Visiting Scholar instead of a teaching-WiR. I am not sure where the measures come from but since I am from this area and have contributed over 140 articles myself that number mentioned above is probably larger. I have done training (undocumented) here for the past two years. It may be possible to come up with a more accurate count since I could go back and count the edits of active editors and new editors from this area, but that would take some significant time. Again, my role as a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar did not include keeping track of the training conducted by other organizers in this region. The major problem is time. A dedicated, full-time WiR can build on these past activities, expanding them to include follow-up. Asking a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar to keep track of others contributions is outside the role of an already active contributor.
There are more requests for training to which I can respond. I interpret this as an indicator of impact that has already occurred. Many in the region now know of my existence. The impact of the work I have already contributed as a volunteer has already brought attention to WM projects. As far as I know, no other Wikipedia Visiting Scholar has been asked to provide training. My current impact is an increased interest in contributing to the encyclopedia.As the WiR, I hope to expand the pool of trainers to meet this need. Perhaps there were problems with documentation with the other collaborations here. One thing I did observe was that follow-up on new contributors often did not occur. My opinion is that organizing an editing event to train contributors is such a huge task (for a volunteer), follow-up just can't be done. Edit-a-thons in this region all seem to be one time events. That is not a bad thing. I understand the lack of time that people have to do follow-up, so this is not a criticism of what has already been done here. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


CommentEdit

"The scope is well-defined. The budget appears realistic, and the participant has the necessary skills for running this project. Considering that the participant is an employee at an institute, funding this proposal would set a precedent that WMF funds are available to support staff for a full time job to work as a WIR."

Response:


CommentEdit

T"he proposal is rather complex (many goals to be reached, some require efforts and involvement from others) and might be difficult to achieve. The participant has relevant experience"

Response:


CommentEdit

"Supports diversity as the focus is on improving coverage related to race and gender, albeit on English Wikipedia. I also like the idea of engaging and learning from other WiRs."

Response: The English Wikipedia is only the tip of the iceberg. With thousands of students from at least 100 countries attending the University of Pittsburgh, there is an exciting potential for this project to benefit additional Wikipedias. Students must have a level of mastery in English to attend the universities here. The instruction I will provide will be in English. Since I have also contributed to the Haitian wikipedya, I have the ability to demonstrate the translation process and train others.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


CommentEdit

"The target community is well defined. The project is well-supported by the community."

Response:


CommentEdit

"It has a community support and works on diversity"

Response: The support and endorsement from the Wikimedia community has been encouraging. I am very appreciative of all who took the time to respond. I especially appreciate those community members who asked 'the tough questions' that resulted in correcting potential problems that existed in the initial draft of the proposal.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentEdit

"Given that we have recently funded projects that are also in the space of engaging librarians (e.g. the WiR at WVU Libraries and the WiR at OCLC), I would like to know more (and maybe wait and see) what the impact of these activities has been to date before funding another model."

Response: This information would also be valuable to me. Perhaps I didn't perform a thorough enough search, but I couldn't find information on the impact of other related projects and don't know how to assess their impact or sustainability.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentEdit

"It seems to me a WiR with the perspective of animate a group. I have experience of similar projects (i.e. Les Pages sansES) which has not created so big impact after several years. In my opinion it will create an impact but volatile."

Response: I expect that an active group will develop from participation of long-time contributors and new contributors during the time this grant covers. The NYC Wikimedians have agreed to provide guidance in the establishment of a regional group of Wikimedians. I attended a NYC Wikimedians meet-up and saw first hand how such a group is organized. I intend to model this group and implement their best practices in this region. Learning from a successful group will lead to a established regional group of Wikimedians in this area, increasing short term and long term impact.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentEdit

"Reduce the scope of the project by cutting down the number of editing workshops. Instead focus on one-to-one mentorship, and document the learning from this experience. Try to seek more funding from the sponsor institute to cover more of the WIR salary."

Response: This certainly can be done. I can edit the grant proposal accordingly.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentEdit

"I don't support costs for attending conferences in the grant request for WiR"

Response: The inclusion of costs for attending conferences was found to be an expense that had been included in other grant proposals that I used as a model for writing this one. I would like to highlight the section listing the conferences that are to be attended. Two of these are professional library conferences where I will be speaking directly to other Librarians from all over the world. This is another change that may have a huge impact because unlike many contributors and WiRs, participating in a Wikimedia conference is time spent in front of people who already contribute and support Wikmedia projects. The support of contributors is expected in this context. But, speaking in front of a professional society of librarians is expected to have significant impact. These are professionals who will hear first hand from University of Pittsburgh librarians about the impact that their involvement could have in contributing to the sum of human knowledge. I even anticipate requests for training from this group.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentEdit

"I would need more details on university involvement here. Looks like they were working together for some time but were not that successful. It might be a good idea to give it another chance but we should be sure that lessons were learned."

Response:The Wikipedia Visiting Scholar with the University Library System at the University of Pittsburgh program administered by the WikiEd foundation has been one of the most successful, if not the most successful collaborations so far in the program. According to the most current tabulation, the grant applicant has contributed to 423 articles (on the English Wikipedia), made 9,19K edits, added 361K words, and uploaded 135 images. The article view count exceeds 165,000,000. During the past 3 years, requests for more information from the contents of the collections and archives has doubled. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The response seems unrelated to the comment. Nemo 14:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Nemo the relationship between the comment has to with the perception "they were working together for some time but were not that successful." I've been working with the University of Pittsburgh archives and libraries for three years and my work has been and will continue to be successful. The work of a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar was designed to be a remote position with all the content to be added in any location with internet access. This is a very different position than the role Wikipedian in Residence. When asked to provide training, I complied gladly. As a Visiting Scholar there was no requirements to keep track of the edits of those who I have helped to train since it was not part of my position. Since training others was not part of the position I obviously exceed that expectation. I exceeded all expectations related to training, enjoyed doing it and collaborated with some of those I helped to train online and during local edit-a-thons. I like training people.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, but unfortunately I would have to second this. @Barbara (WVS):, could you please specify how the university is involved. The issue here is that while WikiEd might have a different model, WMF does not fund content creation directly, it is supposed you are paid for helping others contribute.
I fully understand that the role of the WiR is not to contribute content-this is a very different role than I have now as the WVS. In the position of WiR I will not create content in my capacity as the WiR. On my own time I anticipate the continued contributions to WikiProject Women's Health.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I anticipate a full and complete response from the University early next week since we are on holiday. There was not an opportunity to include a full endorsement from the University on the grant application. The grant-writing-training did not mention that providing additional information from the sponsoring institution should be included in the application-we would have been happy to provide such information.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS):, we do not really need an official paper (although that would be a plus given that this is a rather expensive grant request) but we need at least a description on what they will do for you. Given that most WiR have the majority of funding coming from the host institution and this is not the case here we need to know what is the commitment of the university. Thanks — NickK (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Since I am reluctant to speak for the University, I will defer to their expected responses that will be posted here. Where should an official paper be sent?Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, what were your results in terms of other users trained and articles/edits made by other people from the university? You stated that Most librarians and archivists in the University Library System (ULS) remain untrained and do not contribute regularly to Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects, could you please confirm if this is the case indeed and what will you do differently this time?
It is not possible to assess the number of users trained, articles created or edited because that is not done in the role of Wikipedia Visiting Scholar. So I do not have that information. As a Wikipedian in Residence I will do everything differently! I understand that quantifiable results are required in this role and this is a good thing it is just something I did not track in my current role. The University will be able to confirm the statement: "Most librarians and archivists in the University Library System (ULS) remain untrained and do not contribute regularly to Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects"Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Secondly, could you please specify what are the commitments of the university for the next year? It is a mutual effort, and you are unlikely to succeed without some investment from the university. Thank you — NickK (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The University will be able to respond after the holiday next week.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Contributions numbers of the grant applicant is irrelevant. We already know that she is a good Wikipedian, that's not in question. Her personal contributions are made in a volunteer capacity, so it has nothing to do with this grant and how the money will be spent. Amqui (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Contributions are an indication of the skill and experience of a contributor. The scope of contributions can be a better measure. It reveals that great potential exists in the training of contributors who have other interests than the English Wikipedia. I can pass those skills onto trainees with efficiently and ease. This is a skill set that most editors do not possess.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Wikipedian in Residence within the University Library System at the University of PittsburghEdit

University of Pittsburgh Library System supports Barbara Page for Wikimedia-In-ResidenceEdit

ReferencesEdit

comment about Visiting Scholars vs. WiREdit

Hi all,

I just wanted to clarify something that may or may not need clarification. :) A couple of the comments above suggest there may be confusion about the role of Wikipedia Visiting Scholar and the differences between that role and a Wikipedian-in-Residence. Visiting Scholars receive access to library resources and use them to improve Wikipedia articles. That's it in a nutshell. Often times, Visiting Scholars will get involved with the sponsoring institution in other ways, but the role itself doesn't entail the Scholar doing any training, running editathons, etc. -- only improving Wikipedia directly and communicating with the institution about that work. From the perspective of that program, the connection between Barbara and Pitt has been a great success, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Barbara has been active in a wide range of Wikipedia activities, sometimes with Pitt (and uses her "WVS" username when she does so), so I can understand why lines may be blurred, but it shouldn't be confused with a Wikipedian-in-Residence position. In other words, Barbara was not expected, as a Visiting Scholar, to do anything other than improve Wikipedia with Pitt's resources. That she has gone far above and beyond that in her involvement only speaks to her commitment to the movement. No response necessary, and apologies if this clarification wasn't necessary. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ryan and thank you for this clarification, that's very helpful. Is it possible to document this programme somewhere? I do see pages Wikimedian in residence here on Meta and outreach:Wikipedian in Residence on Outreach Wiki, but links Visiting scholars and outreach:Visiting Scholars are red — NickK (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@NickK: Primary documentation is at enwiki at WP:VS and at the Wiki Education website. On Meta it comes up in a few places but it's true that it should be updated/expanded. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Round 2 2017 decisionEdit

 

This project has not been selected for a Project Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!


Next steps:

  1. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
  2. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
  3. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.


Return to "Project/Engaging Academic Archivists, Librarians and Students to Address the Historical Gender and Racial Gap of Western Pennsylvania through the University of Pittsburgh Library System" page.