Grants talk:Project/Hjfocs/soweego 2

Active discussions

Review of soweego 1Edit

Please see Wikidata:Project_chat#Soweego_1_review (February 2020). Jura1 (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, Round 1 2020Edit

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for Round 1 2020 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through March 16, 2020.

The Project Grant committee's formal review for Round 1 2020 will occur March 17 - April 8, 2020. We ask that you refrain from making changes to your proposal during the committee review period, so we can be sure that all committee members are seeing the same version of the proposal.

Grantees will be announced Friday, May 15, 2020.

Any changes to the review calendar will be posted on the Round 1 2020 schedule.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants   wikimedia  · org.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about Open Library (Q1201876)Edit

See User_talk:Hjfocs#OpenLibrary. --Hjfocs (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Important notice on community events attendanceEdit

In light of the current health emergency related to COVID-19, I would like to explicitly mention the following statement:

This proposal does not plan to host any offline event. However, there is a budget line for attendance to 2 relevant community events: Grants:Project/Hjfocs/soweego_2#Budget.

Of course, I would fully comply with the WMF requirements, meaning that my choice and attendance to any available offline events would be postponed until the World Health Organization declares the COVID-19 pandemic over, or just cancelled.

--Hjfocs (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 planning section addedEdit

See Grants:Project/Hjfocs/soweego_2#COVID-19_planning. --Hjfocs (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for soweego 2Edit

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?
8.0
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
7.8
(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?
8.6
(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:
  • Potentially the project is interesting and keeping it in a beta version is not good.
  • The project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities as it is intended to solve one of the main problems of Wikidata - an imperfect synchronization with the donor adat catalogs. If it is successfully completed, its results may be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere.
  • I appreciate the depth of this proposal and the potential as Wikidata becomes more integrated with Wikipedia and content.
  • The idea is potentially interesting.
  • Good continuance on previously successful work.
  • The approach - based on AI - is without doubt innovative. The potential impact is significant though not without some risks. The success can be reliably measured and the measures of success have become more specific as compared to its predecessor from 2017.
  • This project opens up a great potential for additional catalogs to connect with Wikidata.
  • They've done it before.
  • The scope can be accomplished in 12 months and the budget seems to be realistic. The participants have necessary skills as I can judge from the completed IEG/StrepHit project and follow up work.
  • I have strong confidence in this team to complete the project.
  • The grantee has a track record of executing a similar project.
  • No comments from the community neither from Wikidata community.
  • Supportive comments show it has been done.
  • The project has one specific target community - the Wikidata community and the community support is seemingly strong.
  • This group has outlined the appropriate community members with whom to engage. I would like to see more engagement and evangelism though.
  • It depends. May it be possible to have the result of the 1st phase? How many items have been modified?
  • I am willing to give this proposal a chance as I did in 2017. The project is now focused on data validation instead of directly adding data to Wikidata, which alleviates many concerns from 2017. Also as a result its goals has become more specific and realistic.
  • This proposal is rather expensive if given just a $100,000 budget and I would lean toward funding various smaller efforts focused on expanding knowledge equity.
  • The budget is high. The project lead should consider spending 30/hrs per week unless there is a compelling reason(s) to suggest that the project outcome could not be achieved if the time or working hours are reduced.
  • If this project is successful, it would be of great improvement to Wikidata and the community.
 

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:

  • 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.
  • If you have had an interview with a Program Officer, you may have orally responded to some of the committee comments already. Your interview comments will be relayed to the committee during the deliberations call.
  • You are welcome to respond to aggregated comments here on the talkpage to publicly share any feedback, clarifications or questions you have.
  • Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on May 29, 2020.

If you have any questions, please contact us at projectgrants   wikimedia  · org.


--Marti (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply to committee feedbackEdit

We are grateful to the review committee for their work and precious comments. You can find below our responses to a few points that we would like to clarify.

  • No comments from the community neither from Wikidata community.
We acknowledge that the community left their comments in different places, so here is a centralized list.
  • technical review of soweego version 1[1]
  • discussion on opportunities for collaboration with the Open Library (Q1201876) catalog[2]
  • constructive crticism extracted from current endorsements:[3]
    • the catalogs generated for Mix 'n' Match must be improved (better identifiers and descriptions to allow decisions without *always* having to click through). Some reflection is also due on why relatively little work has been done with MnM so far. Finally, I'd like to see a clear plan for maintenance and sustainability of the project beyond the project lead's current academic context. Will community members be able to keep running the tool? by Ijon
    • I agree with Ijon that a focus should be put on making it sustainable so that the project results can be kept active without the project ongoing in the future. by denny
    • Please take on account data repositories outside USA and Europe, and non-English-based alphabets, don't get the data biased. by Salvador_alc
    • Perhaps a dedicated Tag in the queue could be added to Soweego 2 for OpenRefine to be used for the uploads, so we know that uploads came from OpenRefine tool users. by Thadguidry
  • This group has outlined the appropriate community members with whom to engage. I would like to see more engagement and evangelism though.
Since soweego is a technical project, we first targeted the most specific relevant community members. Said that, we are more than pleased to expand our engagement to the broader community starting from the standard channels, such as the Wikimedia-l mailing list.
  • May it be possible to have the result of the 1st phase? How many items have been modified?
You can refer to the final report summary of soweego version 1[4]
  • The budget is high. The project lead should consider spending 30/hrs per week unless there is a compelling reason(s) to suggest that the project outcome could not be achieved if the time or working hours are reduced.
The main reasons that led us to formulate the budget section are as follows. First, validation criteria were informally designed and must undergo extensive community discussion. This leads to story M1.1 (validation criteria): it will build on top of existing criteria, partly sketched in an open ticket.[5]
We believe that a crucial requirement is to lower the entry bar for target catalog imports, which entails a reasonably high effort. In our experience, the current workflow[6] is likely to be a bottleneck for adoption by the community. As of today, a potential contributor must (1) set up a development environment; (2) declare relational database attributes; (3) implement the catalog extractor; (4) set up the command line to import the catalog; (5) run the importer. See for instance the request raised by a community member, who was probably willing to contribute, but actually got scared: provide programming-free method to contribute catalogs.[7] As a result, we aim at output O5, namely procedure to plug a new target catalog that minimizes programming efforts.[8] In terms of work package, we need to abstract away as much target-specific code as possible, resulting in a codebase generalization (story M4.2). This is a precondition to enable a simple import facility (story M4.3).

--Hjfocs (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

Round 1 2020 decisionEdit

 

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, 80,000 €

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support further development of soweego, improving the process of integration of large external catalogs into Wikidata by enabling mutual data quality checks between Wikidatans and catalog owners.


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!

Questions? Contact us.


Return to "Project/Hjfocs/soweego 2" page.