Grants talk:Project/Mounir/Wiki Club

Questions from Superzerocool

@Touzrimounir and Ovva olfa: thanks for your submission. I've made some improvements, if there is something wrong, please change it! (my mother language isn't English). I've some questions and comments after reading your submission:

1. The actual project goals may be a part of project impact, because you're assigning number of participation or new articles. (See the help of project impact section). The project goals may be "create a new way to help to spread Wikipedia in the high school students and make more accessible to others in the south Tunisia" (it's an example, please, express yourself!)
2. I didn't see how to project continues after the grant ends. Do you will apply for a new grant or do you want reach new partners to make a new version in the future?.
3. The quantitative objectives seems too high. I don't know how works the process to make an article QA in ar.wiki, but 20 seems a very ambitious objective (I'm thinking in the Spanish Wikipedia process, it may takes a lot of time: over 3 months). And, making an article QA isn't part of your labour, because the arabic community may vote against and the project will fail(?). Please, consider it.
4. Please (and sorry for uppercase) MAKE THE COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION, this is the best way to involve more wikipedian to help you to make a great project.

Kindly, Superzerocool (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Superzerocool: first of all sorry for delay of my answer, and thanks for your help fixing some mistake in my proposal

you will find an answer for your questions below

1. the aim of this project to create a new way of editing wikipedia, and to prepare a new generation of wikipedia editors, this project will help participants to learn editing wikipedia very well and to create a space open for everyone in the town to learn about wikipedia
2. first we will try to reach partners first of the project, if we will not find partners we will apply for a new grant
3. it easy to do a good article in arabic wikipedia, but we will take your suggest in consideration, the idea is to give every participant an article to develop it and in the end of the project will be a QA

Mounir Touzri (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2017

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) 19:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hardware

I oppose buying equipment for individuals. It might be fine if you get the school or a local non-profit to be the fiscal sponsor, receive the money, buy the equipment and make sure it continues to be used after the grant. --Nemo 11:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Nemo: first of all I am sorry for delay of my answer, the money will be received by a fiscal sponsor,and he will support all the project Mounir Touzri (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for WikiClub (Wikipedia Club Metlaoui)

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?	6.2
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	5.8
(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?	5.0
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	3.2
Additional comments from the Committee: I like the project. In Switzerland too we would create spaces like this and the grant committee supported a similar project in Greece which has been successful. The project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities and has potential for online impact. However it sustainability is unclear - the proposed club will likely just cease to exist after the project ends. This project very clear fits in Wikimedia's strategic priorities. Potential online impact is considerable. Project aims for a second edition of the club, this is a key aspect for sustaining the project. the proposer did not clearly describe the key problem and the way of his solution, there is no detailed plan of realization, Yes, in my opinion the project is measurable and has a good relation costs/benefits. The project is innovative, at least in Tunisia. However the risks seems to be high - students might not be that interested and few of those promised articles may be created in the end. The success can be measured but the measures of success (number of created articles) look unrealistically high. Similar youth or student wiki clubs/camps have been done in some other places, past experiences should be considered. Project shows a possibility for a large impact given the cost. Targets for measuring the success and evaluating the project are set and seems realistic. the idea of the camp is not sufficiently explained success measures are low in relation to the budget The scope can be accomplished in the requested 6 months. However the budget seems to be rather high - 11 laptops is a lot. Some other expenditures like Wiki camp need further justification - a program for the camp will certainly help. Grantees lack explanations about their experience in similar events. Some aspects of the budget are unclear like the need for hardware if they are going to be given away afterwards. budget is not realistic compared to goals and expected results it's a private school, maybe it can provide (some) technical equipment for free use In this initial level of the project and with such measures of success it is not necessary to have a paid staff Community engagement is practically non-existent although for such a project it is important. Grantees seems to have some relations to projects developing close to their area but unclear on how to proceed. Communities have not been notified and there is not a plan to do that. there is no information about whether there is an interest in the community of this project. The project seems to be overpriced and has unrealistic goals and is not sustainable in the long run. Too ambitious project without any clue whether it will give results. My recommendation for grantees is to go step by step. Therefore, i recommend to be removed from budget the following items: laptops, payment for space, salaries and Wikipedia Camp. I'm voting for yes with changes but I would not fund it if we do not have clarity if they are going to provide more information and consider a budget reduction. at this point NO, maybe Yes, with changes if grantee can cut costs of staff, technical equipment and tell us more about Wiki Camp because there is no clear information of this event (how it will be realized and what is expected of it)

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 2017 decision

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. This was a very competitive round with many good ideas, not all of which could be funded in spite of many merits. We appreciate your participation, and we hope you'll continue to stay engaged in the Wikimedia context.

Next steps: Applicants whose proposals are declined are welcome to consider resubmitting your application again in the future. You are welcome to request a consultation with staff to review any concerns with your proposal that contributed to a decline decision, and help you determine whether resubmission makes sense for your proposal.

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.