Grants talk:PEG/WM PH/GLAM 2012

GAC members who have read this request but had no comments

• Abbasjnr (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• I don't like that the museum is charging even for electricity and sound system - normally, at least in Europe such kind of costs are included in rental of venue, but I guess this is normal in Philippines. Good they are not extra charging for using chairs, tables floor and doors :-) Except this I fully support this grant proposal. Polimerek (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• Béria Lima ^msg 17:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• --Ilario (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on timeline and scope

Congrats to Wikimedia Philippines for moving toward such great GLAM work! I'm very excited to see how things develop. Having carried out my own residency and advised on others, I had some thoughts regarding the scope of work for the Wikipedian in Residence.

The goals and scope are spot on, so no worries there! My only concern is whether a six month residency will be enough time to support 2 to 3 museum cooperations. The plan for the GLAM launch and preliminary meeting with the Board of the National Commission on Culture and the Arts is a good one, but because the institutions working within this program are not yet confirmed (if I read correctly), I was curious if you'd considered it taking longer than expected to carry out preliminary negotiations and actually get started. Often these things take unfortunately much longer than expected; however, you also are of course the most familiar with the level of potential for these institutions and perhaps that won't be a problem after all.

Whether or not the negotiations take longer than expected, the main point is that residency projects tend to eat up far more time than anyone ever anticipates, so you might want to consider focusing on one core museum for the first six months, but leave open the opportunity for future support for additional or ongoing cooperations come 2013. HstryQT (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lori! I truly appreciate your advice and we will definitely consider it. I don't want to put too much on our Wikipedian in residence' plate as well. The reason I am positive about this is because this museum also manages a library which is 3 blocks away and if they agree, we maybe hitting two birds and one stone. :) They recently donated high quality images of their collection to a cultural project of Google so I have high hopes that they will do the same for Wikipedia.

We are in the process of scheduling a presentation/proposal with them by the 2nd week of May. I've been reading the Wikipedian in Residence outreach page for days now so we can better pick the best candidate for this post. I am hoping you can also communicate with him/her and provide best practices and tips once he/she's onboard.

About the talks with the National Commission on Culture and the Arts, we actually started talking to them last January 2012 when we were aligning the Wiki Loves Monuments rules with the current Philippine laws (in an area in Manila where monuments are everywhere, the government is charging a USD 50 non commercial photography fee). We met key people who are movers and decision makers. In the end, they decided to permanently waive this fee.The Wiki Loves Monuments launch opened doors of opportunities for us. We got the support of the Department of Tourism and one of its attached agencies, The National Parks Development Committee, in pushing Wiki Loves Monuments and other similar projects. We also met people from the Association of Cultural Offices of Philippine Educational Institutions, basically they are members of the academe who are heavily involved with cultural projects. They committed to support us specially in executing GLAM and cultural mapping. They have a student base that we can tap if needed. With the positive support of the government, the academe, and the Global Wikimedia community, we can't help to be very optimistic about launching this project.

We've been meeting every week and the project team are in constant contact (its 12:30AM here and im still awake! :) )Sunkissedguy (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply! It's encouraging to hear more details about your ongoing talks with the National Commission. Best of luck and let me know if I can help in the future! Thanks again. HstryQT (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Some questions

Thanks for the submission. My general notion is to support this request, although I prefer clarification of some points. What is the number of people that will participate in operating these activities? Do you already have any contacts with the museums and the cultural institutions that you wish to clinch a cooperation with? Why your GLAM activities are limited on a specific geographical area and you point it as a success if you can take the matter further in any other region? Do you have active people in the other regions of the country and is it possible to make some activities happen in the other sites? Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kiril. I'll try to answer some of your questions, although be advised that I am doing this in a personal capacity and not as part of the GLAM team proper. (I am somewhat in the know though about the state of the GLAM project: I'm merely providing prompt answers to ensure the facilitation of this grant request.)

Activities are currently limited to Metro Manila (and Romblon in the case of the cultural mapping project) because that's where the vast majority of WMPH members are, and consequently, that's where a lot of the activities are bound to take place especially if we intend to target government institutions. The chapter currently has to deal with having a limited number of members from outside Metro Manila, and so bringing the projects out to the rest of the Philippines will be a challenge if we do not have the people there. Coupled with the existing plans and activities of the chapter to ensure that people from outside Manila join the chapter to begin with, we need to make sure that the projects we seek to implement are replicable in other parts of the Philippines, and likewise we'll have something to show to interested people outside Manila that our projects are successful and doable in their respective regions. We're taking things one at a time and, in the future, we intend to scale the projects further.

The chapter currently has contacts with several culture-related government agencies: last November, WMPH donated The Wikipedia Revolution to the National Library of the Philippines, and earlier that year we met with people from the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (Commission on the Filipino Language). We also have contacts with the Ayala Museum, the National Museum, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, the National Parks Development Commission, the Cultural Center of the Philippines, etc.: some of these contacts were obtained in preparation for Wiki Loves Monuments, and we intend to continue cooperation with these institutions in the field of GLAM activities.

By any measure, I hope I've answered some of your questions, and I hope for the expedient approval of this grant request. Thanks. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Great questions Kiril Simeonovski. I would conservatively say about 5 editor/members and 10-12 members (non-editors) would be working on these projects but there could be more, and while they're at it we'll get them immersed in editing. We've had a sudden growth of members after we launched Wiki Loves Monuments after people noticed found the value in what we are doing. So we thought it's time to start GLAM related activities. The Cultural Mapping Activity is set to take place in one province for now (more like a test case), as I've indicated it would touch based with local state universities for the pool of researchers in the field, there are also about 30 non-Manila based Wikimedians and these activities will boost our presence to have activities outside Manila. We are eager to implement the Cultural Mapping Activity in other provinces, the only stumbling block would be the availability (once the school year begins) of the cultural/historical lecturers and photo/video documentor. We don't have any equipment to do photo/video documenting, so we rather avail the services of a photo/video documentor who already have the equipment and has the skills to operate it. As for the lecturers we would entrust that to academic professionals so we can get quality lectures. As for the contacts with cultural institutions, we've already glossed over with them our projects and they are just waiting for us to present our detailed plans, of course it would depend if we have funds to execute them already. -- Namayan 23:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for you answers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope we answered your questions, thanks too. -- Namayan 14:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Paid for Wikipedian in Residence

Hi Namayan,

There is an issue or misunderstanding in your request that has come up in previous grants: the idea that the WiR project is for the WMF to pay for Wikimedians to work for cultural organizations.

The WiR project actually works the other way around: to promote the hiring of people knowledgeable of Wikimedia and its projects by the institutions.

It seems, from what I know, that it has been agreed that the only situation where it is acceptable for the Wikimedia Foundation to pay salary to WiRs is when it does so as a complement to the actual salary paid by the institution, as a kind of one shot incentive for the institution and the wikipedian to try it out.

Therefore, as you would need a previously arranged agreement with the institution, I suggest that the part of this grant regarding WiR be removed from here and presented as a separate grant request, so the rest of this grant is not delayed by that.

If you start this separate request, please let me know so I can help you out!

Hugs,

--Solstag (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Solstag!

Kindly check our comments regarging this query under the general responses section.

Thanks,

Sunkissedguy (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Solstag on this. From the cost breakdowm it looks like Wikimedia is supposed to pay for somebody to work at the institution as if WM is a commertial organisation using the space for generating profit. I know that many cash-poor cultural institutions in non-first world countries routinely rent out office space but it shouldn't be the case where a charitable foundation (WM) is involved. I can understand that the insitutions in question do not have any money to pay to a WiR, but the least they can do is provide a free room with air and electricity included and possibly even a computer. Wikipedia should not pay for providing assistance to the GLAM organisations.--Victoria (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, Just to clarify this, we would not be paying for any work space for the WiR that is part of the deal with the institution/s. The venue cost is for the launch of GLAM projects in the Philippines, where several representatives of institutions would be invited. It is totally not-related to the costings of the WiR. The idea behind this is while the WiR is working in one institution, other institutions would observe the work of the WiR so that it can be replicated in their institutions as well without too much intervention on our part wherein we would be required to provide an inhouse WiR. -- Namayan 15:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Victoria Thank you for your question! just to clarify, we did not budget any amount to rent out an office space for the WiR. If you are asking about the amount under GLAM launch, then we are renting a space for a one time event aimed to provide information to key people like GLAM institution leaders, government institutions that manages public GLAM institutions, members of the academe, etc. The expenses under the WiR are the operational expenses that the WiR may encounter for the duration of his stay, like food, transportation, internet, etc. I hope we were able to clarify your query.

Sunkissedguy (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cultural Mapping and Wikisource

Hi Namayan,

I'm not sure the product of the Cultural Mapping you propose is acceptable material for Wikisource. Wikisource is primarily for previously published material that is now in the public domain or under a free license. That usually means you'd have to first publish that work through more formal academic means, and then get it into Wikisource.

Of the wiki projects, perhaps Wikinews or Wikiversity would be a fit to this kind of work. It could be produced there, then published through a more formal, outside process with proper revision, and finally incorporated into Wikisource as published material for citation on Wikipedia.

--Solstag (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Being from a non-humanitarian discipline (I'm a biologist), I had to look up what impressively sounding cultural mapping (CM) means. And if I am to believe Wkipedia, this is something completely out of scope of WM projects. CM, as I understand it, is a research, e.g. accumulation of original, primary sources. As such it should not be funded by WM, but by other organisations, that are actively encourage and support CM, such as UNESCO. Sorry, guys, but if we don’t donate equipment to schools or universities, which would have arguably encouraged WM projects participation/access, funding an expedition for CM, especially into a remote area, is just not feasible.--Victoria (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, I am probably just as worried as you about these scope issues, but I don't agree it's so out of place here - though I agree it's subtle and it's excellent that you brought this up!

Given the general outline of what's been explained throughout this talk page, the cultural mapping must not be seen as an end in itself, but as a means to get partner institutions, governments and the public interested in free knowledge, wiki editing and volunteer culture. The outcome is to provide them with an example they will find valuable, and for them to learn and incorporate practices that will make it easier for them to contribute to Wikimedia projects and, yes, to produce new knowledge in ways that are useful to the Wikimedia Movement (free licenses, open formats).

So, as long as WM PH understands this and commits to work with their partners in a way that does not suggest "constant funding for cultural mappings", I see no problem in funding one iteration of such activity for the purpose of creating precedent for these institutions. About the individuals, as I understand the students will also be trained in editing Wikipedia and produce multimedia for Commons. It must be clear, for all sides, that this is being funded to establish precedent, to show the world that it is possible and beneficial to do something like this, with great results for both institutions and Wikimedia - and the people. The idea being that, once interest and trust and precedent have been established, institutions and people will see the value and commit their own resources to it.

In any case, I think it is very necessary for us to hear from our Filipino proponents of this request what they think of this, as I am suggesting an approach but cannot answer for themselves.

Cheers, --Solstag (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the topic General response for Namayan's comments.

Costs and counterparts from institutions

Hi Namayan, me again, more questions for you ;)

It seems that a general trend in your request is that every single item of infrastructure and work is not only paid for, but paid by the WMF. Let me be clear that if that is necessary, there is no problem at all, and other than that the request is in great shape. But, since this is quite strange in a context that involves so many institutions, it would be best for you to demonstrate and explain why it is so.

This may also be because you're simply omitting their counterpart, in which case I would request you to make it explicit. For example, if an item would cost U$2.000 but you're getting it for U$1.000, please make it explicit who is contributing the U$1.000, even if it is just by discounting the price.

Continuing, it seems to me that none of the institutions involved, who will also benefit from this, seem to be making a compatible contribution to the grant in any way, either financial, material or of human resources. I will detail my observations in the following sections so we can discuss them separately.

--Solstag (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see the topic General response for Namayan's comments.

GLAM Launch

The venue will cost over U$1.000 dollars for 4 hours, when the museum is clearly both directly involved in the theme and benefits, at the very least in terms of its reputation, from the event being held there.

It is not unusual, in fact it seems to be the rule, that Wikimedians can get good venues for free elsewhere in the planet, both in rich and poor countries. Sometimes that requires giving the hosting institution some benefits during the event, like having its director make a short speech at the conference, but most times not even that. This is usually true even among cultural institutions themselves, who are used to this kind of cooperation, but even more so with a volunteer movement like Wikimedia.

--Solstag (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see the topic General response for Namayan's comments.

Wikipedian in Residence

I treat this on a separate topic on this discussion page.

--Solstag (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Cultural mapping

I may be reading this wrong, but you seem to be requesting 8 thousand dollars to train 5 volunteers, which should be much better justified and detailed so we can understand why this is cost-effective.

Independently, but still in relation to that, an more to the point of this topic, there are at least three other local institutions involved, ACOPEI, NCCA and Romblon State University, who do not seem to be contributing neither financially nor with material or human resources.

Is this really scalable? Can it really be replicated without constant intervention from the WMF? Those are questions that should help shape the request. I am not telling you this is a bad idea, it is a good idea, but it does not seem sustainable or with proportional impact as it is presented.

For example, cultural institutions usually have lecturers and photographers on their payroll or on the payroll of schools connected to them, which they could allocate to this activity, which could also mean they could pay for their logistical costs, or which they could motivate as volunteers, which would at least save their fee.

--Solstag (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see the topic General response for Namayan's comments.

Some things to keep in mind

In most of the world, not asking a counterpart from institutions signals no expectation of deeper involvement with them, making the deal look more like a one-sided interest. We want institutions to join us, not to see this as something they're doing as a service to the foundation. So even if we can pay for it, it is good practice to get them to chip in too, so they come to see these actions as integral to their own work. It is also much better to work with institutions who are willing to contribute from the start, as it represents a token of future commitment. And, finally, we value our brand by always making sure we get some counterpart, making other institutions in the future more likely to invest their own resources as well.

So, again, I admit to not know anything about how cultural institutions work in the Philippines, and it can be that you're simply omitting their inputs, but the fact that this is so odd makes it desirable, in my view, to better consider your strategy. If you conclude there is no way to improve it, I would still advise you, or the WMF, to consult with someone with additional experience working with cultural institutions in the Philippines, who might help improve this in a way beyond what you know of.

Hugs and good work,

--Solstag (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see the topic General response for Namayan's comments.

General response

Hi Namayan, given that you chose to reply to some of my comments as a whole, I moved your response to this new topic. I will leave a note pointing to here on each topic I created that your reply refers to. Hope this is better to understand =) I appreciate your replies up to now, and will wait for its final version. Thank you! --Solstag (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Solstag,

Thanks for your queries, sorry about the delay in finalizing my response. I'd like to provide the general conditions in the Philippines why these projects are crafted this way. Allow me to provide answers to your questions in this section.

The strategy of WMPH is to make ourselves known to these institutions to establish some credibility as an organization with the intent and initiative of pursuing these type of projects. In the long run, organizations which have established a good reputation are in a better position of attracting donors.

• Fundraising in the Philippines: We had just entered our second year, being incorporated in 2010. This is just about time to start applying to become a "certified NGO" (because you need 2 years of financial statements). A certified NGO means that an organization is compliant with the regulations set under our tax laws (i.e. admin costs are under 30% of expenses, funds are properly disbursed and accounted for, has a systematic and codified manner of operation, etc). Once we achieve this status which could take from 6 months to 1 year, it would qualify us to become a "Donee Institution" wherein all donations to us would be tax-free. Until we achieve this status, we are not an attractive beneficiary of donations.
  To give you an idea, WMPH just needs to amend its Bylaws (this coming Annual Meeting on May 26), to incorporate explicit provisions that this certification process requires. Only a few documents still need to be finished and we intend to submit WMPH to this process not later than September 2012.
  So while, we are working on this process, we rather put something on our table to establish our reputation and credibility, so when we become certified, we already have made a name for ourselves institutions already know what we do and what we are capable of and the timing will then be right to solicit donations to the organization.

Interesting, thank you for this contextualization. --Solstag (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Funding from other institutions: As stated above, it's really difficult to have institutions share our costs as we still have to achieve this "certification".

I see, but just to be clear, not all contributions I mentioned configure financial donations. Like providing space for events, giving discounts in services and things like that, or even third parties paying directly, or allocating resources, for your needs such as catering, travel or tutoring. In all of these cases, costs are shared but a "donation" does not take place. I feel that you realize these things, I just don't see them very much put into practice, perhaps, as you say, because of the lack of recognition. --Solstag (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, that donations shouldn't just be in a financial form. We have worked with institutions where we entered in an ex-deal agreement with them (they provide the venue at a much discounted price if not for free, in turn we provide Wikipedia editing workshops or help them create their Wikipedia articles). Though in this case, this is a large institution and honestly in the way things are run in the Philippines, either you have government accreditation or connection within the institution to help you pursue your objectives of plans. We don't want to cultivate a culture of tapping connections, but would rather do it professionally.
The price quoted as mentioned for the venue is their published rates. Being quite a stingy person myself, I am not inclined to pay them their published rates. Rest assured we would still be working to get a good discounted rate if not a free venue or enter in an ex-deal agreement with them too, but should negotiations fail, we don't want that our plans would be halted too. The lack of recognition as to the certification I was trumpeting is a major hurdle that must be overcome now, especially when we have members looking forward to the projects that we are planning to cascade.-- Namayan 01:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Public institutions in the Philippines are under funded: We don't want to be defeated by the sorry state of our public institutions. It will be close to impossible to get funding, in this case to have Romblon State University chip in the cost of the project (unless we have "connections" who will divert university funds from other allocations), other than providing free facilities for us. It is common practice in the Philippines that the private sector pours money to public institutions if they intend to work something out.
  We do not limit the number of students we intend to train, however due to general conditions, rugged terrain, lack of regular transportation in the provinces, and with Romblon being an archipelago of 17 islands, where some islands have their distinct and unique cultures, the cost will be much greater if we have more students. To give you a picture, travelling through Romblon despite being only 1,500 km² in size can take 6-8 hours as you have to go through rugged mountain passes and take boat trips.
  The students will serve as fieldworkers and ideally we would tap students who are pursuing a relevant majors. But of course during training, we would not limit the number of students who can sit in and participate to learn about what we are doing.

Again, thank you for providing this context. My main question here would then be: given that you lack recognition to get support from institutions, and your plan is to create proof of work so others will agree to help you in the future, would it not be more productive, or even less stressful for you, to pick a location that does not suffer from all these additional costs?

It seems like you're doing the right thing, trying to create some good examples, but why start from such a high hanging fruit? Not saying Romblon is not acceptable, but have you considered other places? And if you did, then why Romblon? --Solstag (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Solstag,

The reason why we picked Romblon is because its an island that is closer to Metro Manila but it is unspoiled because it is a less popular venue for tourists. The National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA) the government agency that manages all culturally related activities in the country picked Romblon as the location of the National Heritage Month because not much information is known about this place. Any material produced about the this area is more valuable compared to producing materials about a more popular location. To give you a background, Romblon has 3 major islands, all of which speak a different language, different customs etc. Aside from this, there are a lot of endemic species of plants and animals in the island due to its isolation. We really appreciate your queries and kindly let us know if you have other questions.

Thanks!Sunkissedguy (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that looks like a legitimate reason to pick Romblon even if it costs more =)

It is also important that it is clear now that more people will be able to participate in training. Perhaps some of those who were not selected to receive a fellowship could choose to join the trip by their own means afterwards. Another possibility is to ask of those who receive the fellowship how much of the money they actually need to go, explaining that any money not spent will go to help other participants join them. This way, if a kid gets selected who has more resources, he could choose to pay for his own expenses and let another kid come along. In any case, I appreciate this explanation about Romblon and the request looks more natural in its light.

--Solstag (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Involvement of institutions: We have this in mind to get institutions committed to what we are working on, we just have to set the tone or provide a concrete example about the potential of the projects. We want them to see worthwhile projects, that they themselves can also implement. He have this in foresight. We would be there to provide impetus.
  For an organization that is just a little over two years old (carrying with it the name Wikipedia) is not enough to solicit so much impact. That's why we have to do a lot of groundwork, projects that have impact to get their nod to see the value of what we would like to pursue and help them find themselves and identify with our advocacy. Through this, by setting an example, wherein volunteers would take the time to supervise projects like these would create an impression that we are serious in what we would like to happen. This is the impression and credibility we would like to build, something they would get to know us by like a trademark.

Understood and agreed. That is a good plan =) --Solstag (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ambivalence of the government cultural institution: This is another story state of affairs. Ideally you expect people who are devoted to advancing our culture in these government institutions. But more often than not, those in position are political appointees or were accommodated because of their support to a politician, even though they don't have the needed fervor to be in a position (a lot can attest to this). As what we have experienced, just to get the endorsement of Wiki Loves Monuments had to take 2 months, this was already fast because we are not requesting grants from our cultural commission. Our ideas are welcomed by the young staff in our country's cultural commission, but they get rebuffed or pended when it needs approval of the division heads, often we are asked what do they get in return. Seemingly, they don't see the benefit of free and open-content knowledge.
  So rather than dwelling with this dead end, we would want to show what we can do and what are the "visible" benefits it brings to the public. We have to have an example first.

In a nutshell

• Cultural mapping project: The results would be published under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license then uploaded to Wikisource. I believe I wasn't explicit about that, but that was our plan. We will not limit the number of students to train to 5 volunteers, but we have to choose from among them 5 fieldworkers to do the groundwork. With regard to the question if it can be replicated without constant intervention from WMF, I believe yes, but we have to create 2 to 3 more cultural mapping projects after this one to show its potential (continued) to our partners so they can also invest in what we would like to achieve and pursue. Providing a tangible output is the best way of showing these to them. -- Namayan 01:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like your sentence was cut before it ended =) but I get the idea. I think I'd like a bit more clarification here: will it be formally published by the university? I mean, with sufficient status that the Wikisource community will accept it as a valid publication? Wikisource does not accept "anything that is published", usually it must have been published with some formality, like a book having an ISBN, or an official publication from a company, institution or government. If I publish a PDF on my personal website, wikisource won't just take it. Is officially publishing this after having it reviewed a counterpart you could ask from the university? --Solstag (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I wonder what was going in my mind at that time, but that was a good catch. We would peddle the work and request for a sponsor to have this published (most likely a university publication). The GLAM launch is the perfect venue to invite potential sponsors/publishers/partners to print or publish the materials we would be producing in the Cultural Mapping project and other GLAM projects. Basically, these three lumped project would work hand-in-hand and complement each other. -- Namayan 01:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• GLAM Launch: As for the cost of the venue, that is their published rates, but we are working to get them to provide us discounts. The venue is also a private museum strategically located at the heart of the country's financial districts with a potential to attract a lot of participants and audience, so it works well for us if we would hold in there.

Good, it would be reasonable from them to make a (good) discount for a nonprofit (even if not officially a charity) organizing an event from which they will themselves be beneficiaries! --Solstag (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally these are pilot projects with a vision to encourage these institutions to invest and fund its expansion and continuation. We will be there to be their partners in implementing these projects with a purpose of bringing the information gathered to Wikipedia and its sister projects. We do not intend to stop at this, the main problem domestically is that "free knowledge and open-content" is not that widely accepted, but if we can show the relevance in the groundwork projects that we plan here, we would be in a better position to convince them to share their materials and resources with us. As for experience, we are working with a group of professional volunteers who opt to work in their private capacity and be free from the influence and bureaucratic wrangling in state run institutions. -- Namayan 02:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Namayan (and Emmman below), I gotta go now, will reply to the rest later =) Hugs, --Solstag (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence

Hi Solstag,

I am Emman and I am the co-project manager of this project. We appreciate your comments and thank you for offering solutions. We apologize if it appeared to be a continuing salary, I am sorry for the confusion. This is actually a one time expense but we intend to distribute it equally so we can properly take into account his or her expenses, at the same time this will be our "risk control" to make sure that the allocated funds will be spent on its intended purpose. We just broke it down to a more detailed "estimates" of possible expenses that the Wikipedian in Residence may incur.

The amount that we budgeted for the Wikipedian in Residence is intended to cover all the operational expenses that this person may incur within the duration of the project. We practice frugality within the GLAM PH Project Team and we make sure that we spend every cent with prudence.

The idea of having wikipedians employed by these cultural institutions is perfect but in our situation, we are a very young chapter we are yet to prove our capabilities. We need to show them that we are serious, we have the integrity to be trusted and we want to make this work. Aside from this, cultural institutions in developing countries like the Philippines are underfunded and I don't think they can employ someone to execute this.

Whoever our Wikipedian in Residence maybe, I don't want him or her to spend his own money for operational expenses everyday for 6 months just to make this happen.

Since we contacted the museum management, 2 other GLAM institutions showed interest and we are hoping that we can also cover them within this year.

I am asked to present to a GLAM institution within the next two weeks and it will be during weekdays. I have no choice but to take some time off my regular work so we can show them how serious I am with this project.

If you still think that this should be a separate grant, kindly assist us on how this should be done.

Thank you again! Sunkissedguy (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Emman, nice to talk to you too.

I too have taken weekdays off to do outreach to museums that barely have any money, so I know how the saga goes ;)

I still think that the discussion about the WiR is a bit more complicated than the rest, and must be organized on a per-institution basis.

Some institutions will be able to contribute a little more, other won't, but that little more can be quite meaningful in terms of their commitment to the project.

You say that the money is only to cover operational expenses, and I can see how food and transportation fits there, but I find it difficult to understand in which situation does "contractor allowance", "communication allowance" and "coordination/representation" fit in the picture of an institution receiving a volunteer and giving them at the very least infrastructure for him to work with.

If a museum can't afford to give the WiR a table with a computer, then perhaps that's not the ideal institution to start with. Maybe it is, but then the reasons for such a specific choice would be relevant and it would be good to present them.

Therefore I keep my recommendation that the request of resources for a WiR be made separately from the rest of this request. WiR is not the only program for GLAMs, and perhaps in your context it should be thought of as a more advanced program, for institutions that have already incorporated at least the values of the Wikimedia Movement.

After all, a WiR will inevitably try to change the inner workings of this institution, so if there is not a good amount of goodwill and commitment, it's better to start with something simpler like a photo competition, a digital archive donation, or what has been called a backstage pass.

If you agree to start a different grant for this, just start from the beginning. You can refer to the present grant in the introduction to the WiR request, for example "in light of the upcoming work with GLAM institutions in the Philippines, we would like some resources to bootstrap a Wikipedian in Residence in the institutions to be contacted during GLAM Launch and Cultural Mapping...".

And don't expect that grant to be approved together with this one. In fact you could prepare it now as a draft, but only proceed with the request after GLAM Launch, when you have more specific information about the institutions. If you can explicitly name the institutions interested in WiR and specify how much they have committed in terms of resources and processes to the WiR program, that would be much better.

This concreteness seems to be a requirement for WiR requests, as they are all exceptional and must provide greater proof of necessity. Remember that WiR are planned to be funded by the institution, not by WMF.

I hope I'm making sense to you here, if not please feel free to ask me more questions about this. And if you'd like I'd gladly schedule a voice conversation with any of you!

Hugs, --Solstag (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I do completely understand your input here Solstag. The reason why we had inserted those provisions is to allow the WiR to financially get by with just performing WiR tasks and focus on the work they have to accomplish in the institutions and not take any more job for the time they are contracted by WMPH. The allowance provided also are very minimal similar to benefits given to "employees" locally.

As for desk/office space, we would not be paying for that, that is for the institutions to provide. Certainly, if they can't provide this, WiR will not pursue working with that institution.

With regard to organizing other GLAM activities like a photo contest, we have done a Wikipedia Takes the City back in January 2010, and Wiki Loves Monuments in underway in fact we are the first country to launch this year (last March) owing to the start of the travel season in the country. Personally, I am not inclined to do another Wikipedia Takes the City as it does not produce quality results. It is our aim that content about the Philippines would be of quality and GLAM activities like these gives us the opportunity to achieve this. -- Namayan 01:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello! So, I wasn't referring to this kind of public space, outdoors contest, though it is really cool that you guys are doing that. =D

I meant activities directly involving museums and their collections, like simple digital archive uploads or photo contests of the museum's collection, or using links to wikipedia in the museum's presentations and helping improve those articles etc. Those could be an easier start, for some institutions, rather than hosting a WiR. Some museums need to get a feeling of what this is about before committing to have a staff member dedicated to Wikipedia. Still, in some situations a WiR may help or even be necessary to bootstrap such activities - usually if the commitment already exists but the regular staff lacks the experience to implement these ideas.

In any case, just to make sure this is clear, the most important point I made was about the specificity of the request. From what I know of precedent requests, it makes more sense to request funds for WiR only after knowing which institutions will be involved, so you can adapting the request to their realities in concrete terms.

As WiR funding is an exceptional matter, budgeting a generic value before negotiations may not be the best path.

--Solstag (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Point very well taken. The budget is there to help us mobilize, actually some exploratory talks have already taken place. We haven't put anything on the table yet for them. More or less, there will be some unspent funds and we can utilize to explore such collaboration that you have pointed out. This brings more value to what we are doing and getting feedback from experienced Wikimedians like you will help us sort things out faster. We'd keep everything in mind, especially your inputs.-- Namayan 07:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing

Well, Namayan and Emman, thanks for your most recent replies in the many topics here. I read them all, but I no longer have much to add at this point, I think our discussion has moved forward a lot =)

I only hope I did not bother you too much! I'm happy to see you both committed to improving and clarifying this proposal, so it becomes as great as it can be.

In short, I think it is important to keep it real with the institutions and with people, making sure there is real collaboration and not just an exchange of favors, and I also think it is best to split the WiR part from the overall request.

I don't think I need to replay my considerations from the discussions above, as we've been over many important details of each items of this grant.

Perhaps you could update the grant proposal to reflect some of the main points you can identify in our discussion. In any case, the discussion is already here as documentation.

I think that, given all above observations, this is a fine grant and I will be waiting for other people and Wikimedia to speak up.

So thank you and cheers!

--Solstag (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Solstag, we actually appreciate all your inquiries. It helped us realize the need to document practically every step that we intend to make, not simply keeping them in the hindsight. I'm sure this challenges us to work better and achieve a goal to make WMPH earn a very good reputation to advance to cause of the movement in the Philippines. -- Namayan 06:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No to corruption

ATTN: Wikimedia Foundation is not a milking cow! --Filipinayzd (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Filipinayzd, could you please word your ideas in a less disruptive, accusative and irrational fashion?

We are very interested in hearing what everyone, including you, has to say. But we prefer when they do so with information and analysis.

If you don't improve your comment, we unfortunately can only assume you are either misinformed or ill intended, and shall disregard it.

Thank you, --Solstag (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Can we just archive this instead? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. -- Roel (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, User:Mentifisto deleted anyway. Should this discussion be deleted too? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the page can be undeleted? It can be used as reference for future grants why this one failed to secure approval.-- Roel (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)