Grants talk:Project/Uniba - Dipartimento LELIA/Translatathon@Uniba: Developing Transversal Competences

Eligibility confirmed, Round 1 2020

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) 19:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Translatathon@Uniba: Developing Transversal Competences

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?	5.5
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	4.0
(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?	4.8
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	3.8
Additional comments from the Committee: Proposal focuses on an interesting area and approach to content creation. Grantees are interested in further understanding/researching the nature of teaching translation using Wikipedia which could result in important takeaways for the movement. However, I think there needs to be more of a focus on applied learning/solutions (e.g. guides on identifying articles of the 'right' size/length that can be translated in the educational context; resources on supporting collaborative translation tasks) than on academic publishing. It fits the strategy and the education aspects of this strategy For this to be successful, the grantee needs to be familiar with what we expect to see as impacts. For example, 1. The number of articles created during an edit-a-thon 2. The number of participants that continue to edit at least a month after a training or series of trainings I don't think they have this understanding, at least from the proposal and past report of similar project/program Normal translatahon but extended to a specfic context (university) I’m not sure about the value of the launch event/conferences, even outside the context of COVID-19 and current constraints around in-person meetings. There is a mismatch between goals and proposed activities, whereby the goals can seemingly be achieved by the training workshop and translation editathons, and the conference and dissemination activities are not needed. It seems unlikely for the project to be executed with the current plan. Very little community support which is surprising given plans to contribute to the project Healthcare Translation Task Force. While it’s great to see continued participation by Nicolabel from the Rapid Grant, given the larger scale of this project it would be nice to see involvement of additional Italian Wikimedians. There are a handful of supports by community members. No acknowledgement of any contributions by the project's host university or very little (if any) involvement of local Wikimedia communities/affiliates. The proposal in its current form seems more interested in studying and researching translation theory and teaching, with the on-wiki activities more of an afterthought than the focus. Would be more inclined to support if the budget was reduced (i.e. greatly decrease or eliminate expenses related to the launch event/conference/dissemination activities) and if there was more community involvement or at least support. No specific problems except that of social distance which can impact surely on this project but I am confident that an online activity may be done. It's not clear from the proposal how they plan to measure impact. Participating in training or series of trainings by a group of people isn't sufficient. Participants need to continue to contribute to Wikimedia project(s) after the training(s). That's one of the ways we could measure the impact of the training. I reviewed the report of a similar project by this grantee, funded by the rapid grant. She reported that 33 new editors participated. From these 33 participants, how many of them continue to participate after the training? I expect to see a reference to that metrics in this current proposal. I expect to see a note on what worked well and what didn't work well and what they plan to do differently if this proposal is funded. This leaves me with the impression that this project may not have any real impact if funded. It just looks like we are going to have a set of new people again attending this training with no plan to engage or follow them up after the training. The first budget was based on offline meetings/training. From the proposal, it seems like they should review their budget to reflect online activities. I wouldn't recommend funding for this project at this time. They should design a way to engage the previous participants. This could be funded with a rapid grant and when we see the impact of that in 6 months or a year, they could resubmit this application in the next round (2021) for review.

Opportunity to respond to committee comments in the next week

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. You can read more about their reasons for this decision in their comments above. Before the committee finalizes this 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, clarifications or questions on this talk page by 5pm UTC on Tuesday, May 11, 2021. 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 Thursday, May 27, 2021.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia  · org.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

General comment on feedback

On the basis of the feedback received, the best option seems to be to resubmit next year, while going on with smaller-scale online activities aimed at both promoting continuous engagement by previous participants and at establishing a niche of interest in Wikipedia activities academia at our University. We'll be back soon with more comments on individual issues raised by the reviewers.

Round 1 2020 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.

Comments regarding this decision:
We will not be funding your project this round. The committee appreciates that the proposal focuses on best practices and complexities of translation work, which has broad and fundamental importance across Wikimedia projects, as well as the expertise that the applicants bring to this domain. However, the most significant concerns expressed by the committee were the absence of prior community engagement or support for the proposed work and the sustainability of the work in terms of continued participation and impact by trained volunteers.

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.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of publishing this decision after the scheduled date for final decisions. Unfortunately, due to limited capacity of Wikimedia Foundation staff based in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as civil unrest, our routine activities have been somewhat disrupted and slowed. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)