Rural Community Engagement Archive

Unclear goals

Hi, this idea sounds interesting, but it needs some work. The idea is not clear, because we don't need to "develop strategy for dealing with rural areas that have inadequate coverage on wikipedia". We already have a strategy for that, namely increasing participation by increasing reach via Mobile reads. This will eventually help recruit people in those areas and get them editing Wikipedia. Right now it sounds like this idea is a great big "Wiki Takes your city" that has exploded to include all rural areas everywhere. In order to get funding you need to first build the list of rural areas you want to "take", and then specify the deliverables you want to facilitate (# of trained newbie editors? Wikipedia pages on places? # pictures of town halls on Commons?). Jane023 (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider to this bid, but a native of Western Australia, I'd note some of these areas are so remote they don't even have mobile coverage, in spite of being (somewhat) driveable from a major city. The critical mass is unlikely to ever be there to make a project which is dependent on participation work, as you have say 20 or 30 people every 50km, ekeing out a living against the twin evils of drought and soil salinity and hence unlikely to have the spare time to contribute to such a project. A lot of these areas *were* significant at some point past, which is why they're of heritage interest today. If a solution to these problems can be found in the project, I'd imagine the results and lessons learned would be of interest anywhere that the same issues apply (e.g. rural Russia, northern Canada, large parts of continental Africa.) Orderinchaos (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for your comment, I had tried to check where the possible issues might be and here is my response at this point.

I am sorry your assertion that mobile reads is a working strategy, is a probloem in that there was no sign such a strategy is operating in rural locations in Australia or any of the countries that I discussed with participants at the recent Wikimania event in Hong Kong.

The process of gaining information about the wheatbelt project has absolutely no connection with anything to do with city projects. The conversations in Hong Kong with editors from other countries were about the time and space issues relevant to physical operation in rural areas, and nothing to do with cities.

The rural area covered (please note the title of the project is very specifically using the words ..in reverse. ) can be understood by looking at w:Wheatbelt (Western Australia) and the first component project of the larger project is w:Wikipedia:Wiki Takes Western Australia Wheatbelt Railway

Deliverables - very specifically the project is trying to work out strategies of a reverse of generally accepted procedures and expectations of what GLAM and Wiki Takes involves, and develop methods of dealing with rural areas. In conversations at the recent Wikimania

in Hong Kong, editors from a range of countries expressed sympathetic understanding of where standard preoccupations of GLAM and Wiki Takes parametere simnply do not fit.

w:Yilliminning, Western Australia is an example where the notion of Town Halls, trained newbie editors, and similar established GLAM assumptions are being tested and examined in this project, as rural areas in many countries simply do not have such an opportunity.

Essentially the project is trying to work around the basic assumptions of what generally accepted GLAM and Wiki Takes conceptions are of places. Working in culturally and geographically diverse locations working towards what processes and guidelines are needed where urban concepts simply do not work.

sats (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2013

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 review. Please feel free to ask questions here on the talk page and make changes to your proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 begins on 23 October 2013, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Siko (WMF) (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information sats (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community Notifications

Hi sats,
As you know, the IEG committee will begin their review of round 2 proposals on 23 October 2013. To expedite proposal review, I'm looking over the community notifications section of each eligible application. It looks like your proposal's Community Notifications section may still need some updating. I can tell from your endorsements that Wikimedia Australia is aware of your proposal, but if there is some other on-wiki conversation with them, please wikilink that there. Also, in your engagement targets, you include WikiProject Trains. It would be good if you could include any communication you've had with them. Please paste a link to where you notified them about your proposal. And please do so soon so that the committee can more easily follow up. Thanks.
Best of luck! :)
Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

Due to a short notice and unique and specific event has arisen for the day on the Wednesday 23rd October, I will be adding material in the evening of that date (or a day later) due to issues relative to the preparation and involvement in that event.

The opportunity presented itself to further the project which requires me to drive 400km + tomorrow

In the circumstance, I do hope committee and others realise that some material may be edited a day or two after the deadline.

My apologies and a sincere and genuine hope for understanding in the circumstances. sats (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, sats.

FYI, Siko (WMF), sats explains this more here.

--Anna (WMF) 13:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National vs. domestic

Forgive me but for an Italian it's hard to understand the difference between domestic and national in Grants:IEG/Rural_Community_Engagement#Budget_breakdown. I suppose WA is the whole Western Australia here (which is probably bigger than my whole country/nation). --Nemo 22:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get an idea of the sizes/distances involved, take a look at w:en:Geography of Australia and w:en:Geography of Western Australia - WA is nearly one third of Australia, and Australia is slightly smaller than the contiguous United States, or 31.5 times larger than the United Kingdom. - Evad37 (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WA is about 9 times the size of Italy, the wheatbelt would cover over half of Italy. When SatuSuro is talk domestic he's referring to travel within the region, when he refers to National its about travel to other areas of Australia outside of WA Gnangarra (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for confusion... National - Australian travel or the need to go beyond Western Australia is important for perspective, so as not to be too focused on one area within the country. There is also the need to be able to gain information and contacts regarding the subject and issues where the relevant people and materials may be - such as Canberra where the National library and head officesw of government departments are located. Please see below regarding the change from a personal perspective. sats (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The change from International perspective to National perspective

Apologies are due here, I am sorry about the delay in this reply. I must outline the changes in thinking.

When I was at Hong Kong Wikimania and speaking to individuals from Africa, India and Europe abvout the idea of the project, an initial idea for this project was to create a working framework for dealing with rural - agricultural regions across cultures, so the initial format of the application included the idea of travelling internationally to seek both advice/learning experiences of how specific wikimedia projects/country specific projects deal with 'spread out' agricultural areas. There were specific concerns about increasing involvement, and the collection of materials and information in agricultural areas.

However on my return to Australia, I felt that there was a need to a need to sharpen the focus and the scope of the project. As a consequence of this decision, the idea of International travel was dropped from the application.

However the 'National' idea was still on the agenda, as almost each state of Australia has wheat growing areas (NT no, maybe Tasmania a lot less). In some states, information on wikipedia about agriculture in Australia is still very limited in coverage. Some states of Australia have limited information on their agricultural industries, with the related limited involvement by editors in the subject areas and as a result a large room for improvement.

As time passes and the various components of the larger 'Wheatbelt Project' have been discussed and talked through, this specific IEG grant application is being thought of as an important 'seed' part of the development stage of the project.

The larger project is still in development stages, at a stage of exploring scope and relationship with wikimedia projects.

It must be noted that the project in earlier forms has been in progress since the earliest days of the project participants experiences on wikipedia - now in some cases close to 7 and 8 years.

Also another way of understanding the projects size is to consider one part of the sub project - the railway part. For instance last week, I took over 12 hours, over 450 km driving, and over $200 in basic costs, for one part.

As the wheatbelt rail project is an important base part of the project, that one day is probably one part of 35 - 40 similar journeys in the next six months.

A possible way is also looking at the rail project is the photos. Only a very few photos have been uploaded due to a range of issues, but from 3 journeys of recent, approximately 300+ new photos are expected to be uploaded to commons, and probably up to 30 new articles are due to be written from material gained over time... As to whether that generates a situation of the gaining of new editors as a result of this is another aspect of this specific IEG grant application - to see whether 'by example' addition of material will attract new editors as much as 'tuition' methods...

Again apologies for delay in replying to the initial comment above. sats (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community notifications

SatuSuro, Gnangarra; please add links to archives as the current links don't have the relevant threads and search box isn't fruitful either. :-(
Thank you. Gryllida 11:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about delay in the reply... Effective understanding about the project and its scope has been com municated in most cases at a personal level.

From before Hong Kong wikimania, and after, the most effective responses, and the most productive interactions have been on a personal level.

This in turn indicates that part of the project in hand is to understand that the personal interaction for the project is where the processes will be the most productive, either in gaining understanding of what people require in the communities, or in the generating of interest in the project. sats (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective I can vouch for the fact that the Western Australian discussions have taken place during local meetups, that SatuSuro has looked to local editors including Orderinchaos and myself for support and assistance in developing the project. For contacting other Australian editors SatuSuro sought support through the Australian Chapter[1] and the endorsment from other editors show that people are interested in the project... Specific on Wikipedia discussions I'm not aware of any as the focus has been about developing new content, new editors and building the external networks to be successful, this is just seeking financial support to follow through in a reliable & professional manner. Gnangarra (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed links - but bear in mind almost all effective notifications/communications have been personal ones, and they have worked well sats (talk)

Potential confusion

Please note that I have had a conversation on wp en in regards to the sub-project that is focused on the railways of the wheatbelt region.

The conversation is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Takes_Western_Australian_Wheatbelt_Railways_2013

and the important point to make here is that:

The railway sub project is personally financed current reconaissance of the region which I have travelled when I was younger, simply to place a set of photos or article material as a 'base' of the larger and longer Wheatbelt Project which is considered separate from the context of this application.

The IEG application is for a very specific process to ascertain effectiveness of methods of gaining information from rural communities, and can be seen as part of the followup to some ideas and issues considered at the Hong Kong Wikimania Idea Lab and subsequent discussions. The IEG funding request/application is considered to be clarifying methods of engagement in rural communities, and a thorough examination of the methods.

As such the Railway sub-project might be considered self funded 'reconaissance', as a sub project of the wheatbelt project - a much larger and longer project.

However the IEG application specifically is placed in the situation of an examination of methods at the start of the wheatbelt project. The title should clarify - rural community engagement. It is an investigation as to how to engage. The methods that might work, and checking how they apply in a specific set of situations.

Please feel free to ask for further clarification on this issue, thanks sats (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Rural Community Engagement

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background)	Score 1=weakest 5=strongest
Potential for impact
(A) The project fits with the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities	3.5
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact.	3
(C) The impact of the project can be sustained after the grant ends.	2
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects.	3
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve.	3
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds.	2.5
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds.	2
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it.	3
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement.	2.5
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact.	2
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful.	3
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement.	3
Comments from the committee: Interesting ideas to address a little-researched area of rural outreach. A concerningly large budget for a focus on English-speaking projects in one area. Perhaps too expensive for the potential impact. Lack of community feedback doesn’t demonstrate support or need. Concerns about sustainability after the grant ends. Online outreach may be more effective here than offline. Sparsely populated areas would render the travel costs relatively low impact. Concerns about internet connectivity and mobile penetration. Wide scale of proposed activities lacks focus - fewer targets would be more likely to have clear success. Proposer is well-equipped and has long and good standing with the community.

Thank you for submitting this proposal. The committee is now deliberating based on these scoring results.

Funding decisions will be announced by December 16. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make sense of the assessment

At another project proposal the folling response was given -

Although clearly detailed, the budget is too large - appears oversized in comparison to other projects (Polish WikiExpeditions, etc) which have taken on travel, food, press and lodging costs for far less expense. The proposal would be more attractive with a significantly smaller budget that made some compromises on expenses.

This proposal has not had a similar response apart from

* A concerningly large budget for a focus on English-speaking projects in one area. Perhaps too expensive for the potential impact.

With no further request for any further details - I would, if someone had asked, been quite prepared to offer minute detail of the project cost details, but was not asked. I had been given the impression that project details could or would be points of discussion, there has been no on meta or off meta attempts to glean further details.

I would have no problems in responding most of the comments made at Aggregated feedback - as some points and scores seem, at first reading, to have been made without looking very far into comments made on this page, project pages or the main page.

The lack of communication between committee assessors and proposers in this process appears to belie perhaps a lack of understanding of the area being covered, or the conditions. I however, if not asked, or communicated with, remain somewhat puzzled by some of the assessments, and wonder whether feedback is either wanted or considered further...

Also no suggestion of negotiatability on either the budget or even how it is proposed to conduct the project are somewhat perplexing. sats (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SatuSuro, sorry I'm just seeing this post here now! I think the context between what you've proposed and that of other proposals you're comparing your feedback with is quite different, and hence the concerns from the committee are pretty different too. The comments on the Bangladesh proposals to which you refer are fundamentally about the budget being higher than things actually cost in Bangladesh, costs relative to the Bangladesh Chapter's spending, etc, and also then looking at how similar programs in other countries have made particular choices to keep costs low which these projects might consider emulating. We think it is quite likely that costs could be reduced in those projects, without sacrificing the overall goals. The concerns with your proposal, however, aren't fundamentally about it being more money than you'd need in order to carry this out in Australia. We expect outreach in Australian rural communities is likely to be pretty costly, and it probably isn't very likely that you'd be able to make sizable cuts to your budget (although you might be able to trim things like the last $5000 off, etc). The concern I'm hearing from the committee about your project is really more about the size of the impact we expect in return for the large budget. Although we understand that secondary goals are to develop a method that others can follow globally, this still appears to be a somewhat cost-intensive and labor-intensive strategy for increasing content about rural Western Australia for English Wikipedia. You would, of course, be welcome to iterate on your idea and make budget changes in the future based on this feedback. But I'd also encourage you to think about the overall strategy as much as about any single budget line-item. It may well be that you'd want to demonstrate the value of rural engagement on a much smaller local pilot with volunteers first? Best wishes, Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement 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, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!

Comments regarding this decision:
We appreciate the thought that went into this proposal aimed at engaging rural communities, and would invite you to continue to incubate this proposal in IdeaLab based on the feedback provided. Might it also be worth considering if a pilot for rural engagement could be accomplished via some other, less-resource-intensive means, without sacrificing the impact you’re aiming for?

Next steps:

Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.

response

Hello. I had thought there would have been feedback like this a month ago. I would have been prepared to reduce the budget at any stage, and to have changed perspective/scope and other details at any stage. Size of impact has to be understood in context of what the original title and sense of the project was. Takes and Glam in reverse - many rural contexts simply cannot fit with traditional style glam and takes due to the population spread - so the strategy in this form was to go out and try a numb er of ways of engaging people in a range of methods, and then to report back as the effectiveness, thereby offering the larger/global a set of metrics/aka results that are dot point/powerpoint - realisable as to how something works for spread out, decentralised rural population. In other words a pilot part of the larger project as an offering of rather tight metrics as to how a set of methods of getting people involved work or not.

I have no problem if the perception as to how such a project seems to be misunderstood, as far as I could tell most editors are not rural cognisant as an australian in the bush, argentinian on the pampas, or south african in rural area, etc as to distances, size etc. Thats the way of the editing on wp - we lack a coherent in depth agricultural coverage, and it will probably stay that way, bit like womens involvement in a sort of way, it is going to be a long haul to eventually get the sense of over-urban and male dominated perceptions of the world shifted in parts of the larger wm/wp project. In relation to the last comment - the local pilot with volunteers aspect of the project has started already in the Toodyay projects - the most important aspect of understanding all this is time. It is currently harvest time in the wheatbelt. Strategy (and it is in the detail somewhere in one of the project pages - not to be expecting any interest or involvement or feedback at harvest time) needs to be tied in with a good understanding of local historical, environmental and a whole range of other topics. It is something where IEG metric for turn around time do not match very well - as some relationships with contacts rely upon delays, on real life (at their end) and other things simply stretch things out over time. Institutional glam and takes projects can be confined to walls and limitations that are indoors - rural subjects and things can well go over time and space to an extent that non-participants might well have limited understanding. Strategy as a result has to make do with what is available and perhaps the psychology of potential new eds is a critical issue. New or trained new eds from the rural context are like most trained new wikimedians that I have seen as result of various takes/glam projects - they need to be provided with a huge amount of carrot and support and assurance. Consequently one trip wham bang thank you style involvement on the part of the person on the project is sheer fantasy land. Three, four or even five visits (as opposed to online communications) might be required just to nurture some new eds... or groups of eds... To make do with what is available at this point on the expectation that a single visit or encounter will see a crop of new functioning contributing eds is also fantasy land. Personal relationships - and developing of trust and sustaining - I learnt during Post grad fieldwork is something that requires things that do not always translate into dot point metrics that can be shown on powerpoint, patience and undertanding and resultant effor to improve a project cn be a lot more bumpy. I always like the story of the 20 years turn around time for one american anthropologist and her informant in Mexico. What I have encountered in rural Western Australia to date is why the initial budget was put to the larger amount. It - as a glam and takes in reverse - as first articulated it - takes time and travel, and it can add up even in 6 months, believe me, just the travel I have done at my own expense in the last 6 months towards initial investigations for the project have shown. Paupers christmas for good reason. But as the basic strategy ' make do' is the silent part of the strategy of the larger project, whatever happens the larger project will in fact be going ahead, and it may well end up being quite a few years of 'make do' with what is available.

I had gone away from the Hong Kong ideas lab, and initial conversations about this proposal that most things are discussable and negotiable, and I must say the quietness for the last month was somewhat perplexing. If someone had offered signs of (a) understanding the context of problems of rural engagement anywhere on the planet and was interested in discussing (b) asking whether I as proposer was prepared to adjust to a lower grant or tighter strategy or context - I would have gladly responded.

My apologies if I had given any other impression. sats (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wow edit conflict at silent talk page

how ironic. sats (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]