Grants talk:Project/Wikiup - Research and Integration tool for Indigenous Storytelling

Comments and questions from LMiranda (WMF)

Hello JosephMacLean, my name is Lauren and I am a Project Coordinator within the Community Engagement department at the Wikimedia Foundation. I have enjoyed reviewing your proposal and would like to ask you some follow up questions to better understand your project. Could you provide more context for Wikiup and how this platform is currently being used? How has it been successful and in what ways will these resources impact further success? I would also like to better understand the activities within this proposal. Your problem statement describes creating a "user-friendly tool" but later in your project impact section you mentioned the software was currently functioning and there was a needed focus on "content development, community engagement and research management". It would be helpful to see a timeline breaking down these project activities, the primary contributors needed for the project, and how the impact goals will be measured. I would also like to hear more about how this project will support Wikipedia. Thank you and I look forward to learning more about this proposal! LMiranda (WMF)

Comments of Glrx

I would decline this proposal. First, the project seems to be more about developing Wikiup.org and improving its workflows rather than improving an existing wiki. I go to wikiup.org, and the website tells me little; it wants me to register to download an app. I expected to find something about indigenous peoples. Clicking a link took me to w:Wigwam. Why did it take me there? Did Wikiup furnish the unsourced translations (e.g., Cree Indian)? The Algonquian statement is unsourced. Second, I don't get the sense of a concrete proposal but rather one that believes connecting to WMF projects would be a good idea. How would those connections be used? What would be pushed or pulled? The proposal does not say; instead it offers a research project to think about the connections: "We will engage a small software development team to define the best first steps in incorporating Wikimedia APIs into the Wikiup framework." Third, storytelling does not have the usual wiki publishing standards of verifiable or notable. The proposal seems out of scope for WMF. Glrx (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There's also no indication that the grantee has any experience doing or managing software development. --Nemo 14:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2018

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2018 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through March 12, 2018.

The committee's formal review for round 1 2018 will occur March 13-March 26, 2018. New grants will be announced April 27, 2018. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

JosephMacLean, as indicated by the comments on this talkpage, it's not totally clear from your proposal that there is sufficient focus in your project on improving Wikimedia projects, which is the sole charge of this grant program. I am marking your proposal eligible because many of your goals do seem to be focused on creating a sustainable process for improving Wikipedia and Wikidata representation of indigenous knowledge. However, the more the proposal seems to be focused on improving a third part website (Wikiup), the less likely it is to be selected for funding. I strongly recommend that you find ways to tighten your proposal's focus on contributing to Wikipedia and Wikidata. I am happy to meet with you to discuss this further if you wish. You are welcome to reach out to me at mjohnson wikimedia  · org if you would like to set up a consultation. Warm regards. --Marti (WMF) (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments and Concerns

Hi Friend, I am glad to see you created a proposal and I am excited about the topic. I am eager to have more global knowledge on Wikipedia and projects. There are already some existing organizations working on this, but they are connected with Wikipedia. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you’d be using Wikipedia as a resource for your project instead of contributing to the Wikipedia community.

For me to feel comfortable supporting this project, I would need to learn more about how you plan to contribute to the Wikipedia community with your efforts. Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wikiup - Research and Integration tool for Indigenous Storytelling

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?	4.1
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	3.3
(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?	3.7
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	3.1
Additional comments from the Committee: The proposal has an interesting way to improve contents about indigenous topics, but the project haven't a clear focus in the Wikimedia projects. As software product, the project will improve an external website. I am not sure that improving a third party website fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities. In addition, the proposal is so vague that it is not clear whether it can be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends. this proposal has a clue that it is possible to improve the parts of the wikidata and wikipedia, but the greater part is related to the third party - Wikiup. this is not a problem, but concern is in proportional representation - less for wikimedia more for Wikiup. Impact on wiki projects is very small This does fit Wikimedia's strategic priorities as expanding our scope to non-Western forms of knowledge, thus including indigenous ones, are a part of our 2030 strategy. The potential for online impact is however limited: Wikiup app seems to cover only a small area of British Columbia at the moment, and it would not be easy to scale and adapt to other regions without any promotion efforts. I love this project proposer’s desire to include stories and other ways of knowing into available knowledge. I do wish this person would include more to contribute to Wikimedia projects or connect with other organizations focused on notability and bias. There are few ways to establish the success of the development of this tool, because the metrics seems to vague to determine if the software is deployed. The approach may be innovative. However the impacts are unclear and risks are very high as none of project participants seems to have any experience in the software development. There are no definitive measures of success, measure of success are vague and difficult to follow I can't say it's very innovative, the idea of creation of an app for recording something is not new, nor is recording indigenous knowledge. My main issue is that there is a very limited potential for impact relative to investment: the number of contributions to this app seems to be very low, I found just a few dozens items, which corresponds to a size of a collection of a small local organisation. This project has goals, but they are not for the Wikimedia movement, but rather for the start-up itself. The staff is clear but their roles are not described in the proposal. There is a lack of technical language to understand the integration of both web sites and how the information could be used in both projects. It is difficult to say anything as the proposal is so vague: it is unclear what app, for which platform, with what capabilities etc is going to be developed. The experience and skills of participants are questionable. the budget is short and it is clear what is being paid, but it is not clear the time frame and a specific job description (who, how long and what) I don't see any evidence or track record of people behind Wikiup: they seem to have knowledge of indigenous cultures, could not find information on how good they are at managing software projects or at working with Wikimedia content. I am not sure they budget is efficient either: the current size of their collection (no evidence of free license) is quite small and it can probably be donated directly, using Wikipedia app to contribute also seems to be a better investment. The current plan could be executed, but I do wonder if the 10,000 downloads would be achievable. This person might consider partnering with an existing organization working on notability and free knowledge to amplify the project impact on Wikimedia and in general. It has a base of supporters and supports the diversity, but the Wikipedia users are not mostly interested. The applicants intend to import data into Wikipedia but the community engagement is very limited for such a goal. it is completely unclear whether there is an notification of the wiki community and that the project has any kind of support. the existing endorsements left unregistered accounts (mostly) and we do not know who is behind them. Wikiup seems to be used by a small community in Metro Vancouver only. While it is positioned as a global app, it does not seem to be known or used besides this organisation, nor there is any plan for engagement beyond this area. On the other hand, it does support diversity. The proposer did engage with their communities in their area. They, however, did not engage with any Wikimedia communities. They note inspiring youth to become editors on Wikipedia, but the content they are looking to create will be hosted on their own site. The idea to develop new tool for external webs to use Wikipedia/Wikidata is not the best way to use the Wikimedia funds. The community seems small to use the new information and there is lack of information about the proposal. The grantee seems unresponsive in the talk page. I would be neutral until the calculation of manpower is not justified. How the cost of project management and programming is calculated? How much is the hourly fee? Sorry but these are the fundamentals of project management. The proposal seems entirely unrealistic: it is vague, has no well defined goals, no definitive measures of success, no vision of how the proposed app is going to look like. The participants seem to lack experience in the software development. Although the budget is small, - No for now. the proposal is unclear, there are no good success measures, nor a clear history of previous experience in programming Not ready to support the project in the current form. I am afraid this will not be beneficial enough for Wikimedia movement, particularly due to narrow coverage of the project. I think a regional project targeting specific groups in Metro Vancouver can be more efficient for this cost if this is really the goal, alternatively I would expect a much better strategy of outreach beyond the home area of Wikiup in Vancouver: if we are funding an external app it should probably be used at least in several regions by different, independent communities. I love the focus of this project and feel collecting and preserving knowledge of communities by the communities is highly important. I, however, fail to see how this project plans to directly impact Wikimedia communities.

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.

Round 1 2018 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.