Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2016-2017 round 2/Wikimedia Armenia/Proposal form

Preliminary remarks from WMF

• Summary: Hello Wikimedia Armenia Team. Thank you for submitting this proposal. In order to add a meaningful summary for the community review, I thank you for providing here on the talk page a shorter summary, the one included in the main proposal page between the tags <summary> and <end of summary> is too long! Thank you! Best, Delphine (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Hello Delphine and thank you for bringing up the issue. The shortened version of the summary is below, would be good to know if it needs to be even shorter.

SUMMARY of APG/Proposal/2016-2017/round 2/Wikimedia Armenia

Building on its reputation of a reliable and predictable organization and partner, in the upcoming funding period WMAM, will strive to establish sustainable operational and highly inclusive governance models that will allow to upgrade and scale up existing projects, diversify and expand funding, and involve wider wiki community in innovation and design of new programs, tools and projects supporting qualitative and quantitative expansion of wiki movement. WMAM will work with the government and local and international partners to increase motivation of teachers to introduce wiki tools and projects in teaching and learning and creation of educational resources. We will redesign and repackage WikiCamps and WikiClubs to position them as a great personal and professional development opportunity for wiki contributors and to scale up projects by attracting new funding sources. WMAM will move to interactive and valuable relationship building with all community members and their effective inclusion in decision making, research and promotion of wiki movement. WMAM will also expand Western Armenian projects and will strive to introduce it as a distinct language on Wikipedia. WMAM will also boost collaboration with GLAM institutions and digitization efforts. WMAM will put maximum effort to become an experimental lab for Wikimedia Movement through our active exchange and collaboration with WMF Chapters and Wikipedians worldwide. ArturKhalatyan (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

About this proposal form (remarks from WMF)

Missing figures

@Lilit (WM AM): - @David Saroyan: - @ArturKhalatyan:

• In the section Staff and contractors: upcoming year's annual plan, please be so kind as to add the missing answers to question 3 and 4:
  • 3. How much does your organization plan to spend on staff by the end of the current funding period, in currency requested and US dollars? and 4. How much does your organization plan to spend on staff by the end of the upcoming funding period, in currency requested and US dollars? Delphine (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delphine (WMF) thank you for bringing this up, and sorry for not having the figures and explanation in the first place. I have added both numbers and explanation for increase. ArturKhalatyan (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Here is the diff for better visibility of changes brought to the proposal. Delphine (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Operating reserves
  • Table 6 is empty. This would mean that you have no operating reserves at all. If that is the case, thank you for confirming this here. If Wikimedia Armenia has operating reserves, thank you for adding the number in this table. Delphine (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• We confirm that we don't have and are not asking for operating reserves. ArturKhalatyan (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Questions from FDC members

Risker

Thank you for your submission, which I am reading with interest. I note, however, that the request in this proposal represents an increase of approximately 68% from last year's grant, which was in turn an increase of 50% from the 2014-15 grant. That is, the request for funds has increased 240% over two years. This is quite remarkable, and I am concerned there is not sufficient explanation of the dramatic increase in budget. I would like to hear more about why there is such a huge increase from last year's grant ($118,000 approx.) with only 0.75 FTE added in staffing. Risker (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Risker, and thank you for raising the question. As you know in FDC recommendations from last year APG proposal a concern was raised about organizational leadership sustainability and requested to present in current APG how we addressed this concern. In particular, we have hired an ED and I would like to thank FDC members for this suggestion. It is especially important decision for us in the current stage, as we have developed several powerful programs (WikiCamps, WikiClubs, Wiki Loves Science) to generate content, engage as many community members as possible. We need to operate on new level and need new systems and processes, so that with adding new WikiClubs and involving more people in WikiCamps we can also work on new initiatives and ideas. We also want to develop systematic approaches allowing Wikimedia projects to penetrate in schools and universities.

Keeping in mind all these challenges, after six months of looking for ED, we finally found a candidate that we believe will be able to implement and scale up all our projects, create new ways of fundraising.

The biggest share of the increase in the proposal is due to ED compensation.:

I am happy to introduce our ED, Artur Khalatyan, with whom I hope you will enjoy working both on local and international projects.--SusikMkr (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Laurentius

Thank you for your proposal. I have a few questions and comments for you:

• Hello Laurentius, thank you for your questions and request for comments. We are posting our answers after each question.

1. You have just hired an executive director. This is an important and complex step for many chapters: you may already be doing so, but I suggest you to talk with other chapters who have a similar organizational profile and learn from their experience in order to have a smoother transition.
   • I was worried about it before, but Artur's approach to staff dispelled all my doubts․--SusikMkr (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
   • Thank you for your suggestion. We will study experiences of other chapters, and we will talk to EDs of other chapters to be aware of risks and challenges associated with hiring inaugural ED. We will greatly appreciate it, if you have any specific case in mind that you think is worth sharing with a chapter in our situation? --ArturKhalatyan (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
2. According to [1] and to the organizational chart you have provided, there are two employees who are also board members (Mher Bekaryan, board secretary and employee working on the western armenian program; Lilit Tarkhanyan, board member and employee working on the education program). This is an unusual arrangement, is this temporary (I see that you will have board elections in late April) or meant to be a long-term arrangement?
   • Mher Bekaryan and Lilit Tarkhanyan have already filed application to resign from the WMAM Board to avoid any potential conflict of interest. The application has been accepted by remaining board members and changes will be made to our website and other communications after election of new board members at WMAM General Meeting on April 22.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
3. One of the employees, Yurik Mkrtchyan, has the same surname as Susanna, the chair. Are the two related?
   • Mkrtich in Armenian means Baptist. Mkrtchyan is rather a common Armenian last name and Yurik Mkrtchyan doesn’t have any family relationship with me.--SusikMkr (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Do you have a conflict of interest policy in place? If you do, could you please link it from Code of conduct and conflict of interest policies?
   • WMAM is undergoing a serious institutionalization process. Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest policies both for Board and Non-Board members are being developed using Conflict of interest guide for Wikimedia movement organizations and examples of similar policies employed by other chapters. WMAM will have mentioned policies and publish them in Code of conduct and conflict of interest policies by April 25.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Another clarification on the organizational chart, since the "western armenian program" block is horizontally on the same level as the ED: the two employees report to the ED or directly to the board/president?
   • Thank you for your request for clarification. Although the Western Armenian Program is on the same level visually, the connection line points to the ED, to whom the Western Armenian program employees report directly.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
6. In table 4 you are saying that by the end of the current funding period (30 June 2017) you will have 0 FTEs for the executive director, but you already hired your ED, right?
   • Hiring ED was strongly suggested by FDC and per WMF Grants Administration office approval, with reallocation of current funds. However, given the big change in the amount, WMAM is looking for other alternatives to involve our future ED in current institutionalization program on contractual basis and have him to start his full-tim ED 1 FTE position starting July 1, 2017. --ArturKhalatyan (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
7. Could you please clarify how many WikiClubs are currently active, how many are planned by the end of the upcoming funding period (30 June 2018) and in total how many are planned to be active at that point? The pieces of information I read seem inconsistent to me ("Establish 10 new WikiClubs by July 1, 2018"; "Maintain activity of 14 running WikiClubs"; "Currently WMAM operates 8 WikiClubs"; "aim to increase total number of WikiClubs to 20 by the end of current APG period").
   • Thank you for request to clarify. Here is the explanation to WikiClub numbers.
     As I am new to the organization, I had some confusion with numbers and status of our WikiClubs, apologies. Essentially, we have sponsored and non-sponsored, volunteering WikiClubs. I have clarified the numbers with the Chair of the WMAM board and the numbers should be as follow.
     By the end of current funding period we will have 8 sponsored clubs, 2 of which will be opened in April and May. We also have 2 WikiClubs without any sponsorship, whom we have not mentioned. Our aim for the upcoming funding period is to establish 10 new Wikiclubs, which will bring total number to 20, of which we estimate at least 14 will be sponsored and for which we can take responsibility to maintain their activity. --ArturKhalatyan (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
8. "WMAM will introduce new membership fee towards each WikiClub": in this case, who are the paying members (individuals attending the WikiClub, sponsors, WikiClubs, ...), and who gets the money (WMAM, the WikiClub, ...)?
   • Currently sponsors are covering monthly expenses that provide a small compensation for resident WikiClub coordinators who spend at least 20 hours a week working with students in WikiClubs and some office on-going expenses, utilities, stationary etc. Because WMAM is upgrading the program of WikiClubs to make them more attractive for students and youth, WMAM will need new staff members to build community and coordinate overall the implementation of educational programs in WikiClubs. WMAM will apply to its current and future sponsors to add a monthly membership fee payable to WMAM directly to take care of the abovementioned costs. --ArturKhalatyan (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
9. Those membership fees "will allow WMAM to hire staff members who will coordinate the work of WikiClubs": however, this is not present in you staffing plan for the upcoming period. Is it because it's meant to take place later? - Laurentius (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
   • Correct. We will start upgrading the WikiClub program with current staff and will bring in new staff as soon as we have funding, which is enough to hire one 0.5 FTE staff member. --ArturKhalatyan (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wittylama

• Dear Wittylama, thank you for interesting and insightful questions and sorry for short delay with reply. Answers are under each question.

Dear WM-AM, thank you for this application. I know that you have done a lot of work this year in simultaneously trying to reshape the organisation and also host the international CEE Meeting. congratulations. With this proposal now, I nevertheless have a few questions:

1. The crucial component of program area 1 - Education - seems to be the formal partnership with the Ministry of Education. It appears that this is the thing upon which all the other activities (notably the recognition of teacher-training as a professional development course) is based. The proposal says that "In April-May 2017 WMAM plans to sign Memorandum of Collaboration" - which is now. Has this happened yet, or is it still expected to happen within the next couple of weeks? Wittylama (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
   • WMAM has been very active in educational projects since its establishment, and our achievements in teacher training and impact of educational projects is recognized by the Ministry of Education on high level, which is one of the main reasons MoE is considering more coordinated and deeper collaboration that will allow to scale up our projects on national level. As of the moment the WMAM team works on the draft of the Memorandum of Collaboration, with the Deputy Minister of Education. The approved draft will then need to be reviewed by the legal department of the Ministry and a separate meeting will be required with the minister of education where we will be able to explain our programs and underline the importance of collaboration with the ministry. Although, the main points of memorandum on collaboration have been agreed with the Deputy minister of education and the major areas of collaboration (including the recognition of teacher-training as a professional development course) emerged as a result of mutual discussions of activities that both MoE and WMAM are planning for the coming year. This process, based on the previous experience takes 2-3 months. This means that we will have the memorandum signed by the end of July, the latest.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
2. I note from the Progress report from the last year's work that the Office Renovation cost (valued at $14,688 in last year's budget) has been delayed until spring - which is now. Has this work begun (or will begin soon)? Wittylama (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
   • As you probably know WMAM intends to develop the biggest WikiClub in Armenia on the same area where WMAM office is located. We currently use our office for community weekly gatherings and already experience limitations in space. Our goal is to drastically increase number of periodic events, workshops, editathon, and turn it into everyday working space for active wikipedians. Also, the office space is provided by the Government of 15 years lease, with no charges for rent, but only service of the building which is insignificant amount. The renovation work will begin late May, early June. One of the reasons for delay is that WMAM has applied to the Government of Armenia for taking over three more rooms with total area of 60 square meters, in addition to the area that we want to renovate. The agreement for providing the rooms has already been negotiated and is waiting for paperwork and approval process through the department of state property management, adjacent to the Government of Armenia. We talked to renovation service providers and they recommended to make the renovation of all areas together, which will drastically decrease the cost per square meter. We are also in negotiations with building material suppliers for discounts and in-kind donation.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Following Risker's question (above), and asking for clarification on that same point: The budget for this year [2] states that the total amount being requested from the WMF is increasing by $112k compared to that amount received last year (from $194k received in 2016 to $302k requested in 2017). And, that $104k of this increase is within the "staff" budget area - specifically, for hiring of an ED (something which the FDC's comments last year recommended WM-AM should investigate doing). Now, if we further note that the office renovation cost of ~$15k (see my previous question) was a "one time only" expense and not to be seen as part of "a new grant baseline", then the baseline APG request is actually increasing from ~$179k. Therefore, is it a fair/accurate summary of your budget changes to say that: you're requesting an increased grant from ~$179k to $302k (that is ~169% growth), and that $104k of the the $302k (that is ~34%) is accounted for in Executive salary? Or, have I misread, miscalculated, or missed-out something? [note: I realise this question might look 'harsh', but please take it as a genuine attempt to get clarity on your budget changes between two years. I, and the FDC in general, do not wish to 'pry' into private issues of personal salaries which is why I'm working only from numbers provided in your own public budgets. As a relevant side point - if you could link to any public documentation about standard of remuneration practices in Armenia for international non-profit organisations, that would be excellent contextual information :-) Wittylama (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
   • Dear Wittylama, your calculation is correct. The positive difference between the current and upcoming grant baseline amounts is $123K, which is 69% increase. And yes, the biggest portion of increase is due to WMAM hiring an ED. We were able to locate a public source for the salaries of the American University of Armenia where our ED has also taught. Also financial reports for international organizations such as Armenian General Benevolent Union are available online but do not provide details for ED remuneration, however the numbers of total operating budgets and assets can give basic understanding on the options a manager can have in non-governmental sector, as will do Children of Armenia fund financial statements. In addition, there are also other NGO’s operating as private funds such as IDEA foundation , Simonian Educational foundation (founder of TUMO center for creative technologies) and Luys foundation are predominantly private foundations who are not required to make detailed financial statements public. We talked to several managers from these and other NGOs and found out that our ED’s salary is in the range of average. Another thing that everyone agrees on, is that ED salaries are based on the individual and for the same position can differ greatly. One of the main performance measures for WMAM ED will be to attract new funding sources and decrease WMAM dependence on WMF. This will also allow in the future to request less amount for ED. However, we also believe that ED’s salary, at least in the beginning phase, should stand independent from any local donors, until we reach critical mass of constantly contributing donors, where no organization can have any impact on ED’s and WMAM’s general decisions. --ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
4. I am very interested in your efforts to "rebrand" and expand the WikiCamp model - I wish you success in this and look forward to reading reports on whether it has worked. I note that one of your "grantee defined metrics" is "Editors survived after 6 months the registration", which is a very useful goal (and relates also to the FDC's comment last year that we were concerned to know more about "the long-term retention rate of the volunteers" in the WikiCamp program. But I was wondering if it is possible for you to say something about the success-rate of participant retention of this program over the past few years? If you don't have quantitative data, perhaps some qualitative/anecdotal information about whether the participants in past years have gone onwards to become administrators on AM wikipedia? Wittylama (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
   • Dear Wittylama, thank you for the question and this is also important aspect of our 2016-2017 APG proposal. The question of retention was previously discussed and questioned by FDC and WMF Program Officer. For the period of August 27, 2014 - March 9, 2015 retention rate was - 75 out of 135, which is 55% , more details are on meta
   • Also in our discussion page to APG proposals 2015-2016, to answer question on WikiCamp project participants retention raised by Itzike we calculated retention rate for the period of 2015 - January, 2016 which was - 52.4%. This is described in [Comments and discussion for APG 2015-2016]
   • In addition, we made a retention metrics of 2016 2 Summer Camps. From August 7 - May 1 (9 months) 50 participants out of 107 individual wikicampers have done at least 1 edit each month which is 47 %.
   • For anecdotal information please also take a look at Education Newsletter stories and Stories included in our APG Impact report
   • Unfortunately, we have no evidence of any of the WikiCamp participants to become administrators, considering also the fact that majority of them are secondary and high school students. This year was the first year when we invited participants from university students, most of whom are newcomers. It is worth mentioning that increasing the number of administrators is one of our priorities in the area of the work with community. Under the objective to diversify and increase the activities through which community can get involved more actively in Wikimedia movement, administration is definitely one of the possibilities. That said, we will also need to develop a “professional development” program for people willing to become administrators that will train on various technical and policy related issues that administrators may face in their role.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
5. I love that a "Wikipedia logo sinking ceremony" is something that exists! Not a question, just something I was amused to read :-) Let's hope it does indeed become an internationally famous SCUBA-tourism site. Wittylama (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
   • Thank you, our current plan is to organize big community gathering for the ceremony of “Sinking the biggest Wikipedia Logo” and invite many broadcasters and online media to the event, and get through messages that predominantly promote Wikipedia and Wikimedia Movement.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
6. Program area 5 - about the Western Armenian language - and in particular SMART goal 1 "Establish Western Armenian as a separate language on Wikimedia projects" - is heavily dependent on "getting a separate ISO code for the Western Armenian language" (quoting from your 2016 progress report). But the ISO code is not mentioned in your current annual plan. Obviously you can still run activities and upload content etc relating to this language without such a code, but could you explain how your annual plan will adapt depending on the different outcomes of the ISO language code process? And, how long is that process currently expected to take? Wittylama (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
   • Dear Wittylama, during Wikimedia Conference 2017, WMAM had meeting with Michael Everson and discussed the main language differences and challenges that getting separate ISO code for Western Armenian will resolve. Following Michael Everson’s recommendation we have also implemented a comparative study of both Western and Eastern Armenian languages along with listing all the publications, books, newspapers currently written in Western Armenian. The decision on getting separate ISO code will be made in December 2017 by Language Committee. The discussion on getting separate ISO code has developed and action plan developed after WMAM submitted the APG 2016-2017 grant proposal. Also, all the costs related to getting separate ISO code will be made by Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. In addition CGF is sponsoring other projects to translate tools of many other widely used platforms, such as Google, into Western Armenian, also digitizing entire literature in Western Armenian and other interventions aimed to preserve Western Armenian.
   • Getting separate ISO code for Western Armenian is a necessity that needs to be resolved sooner or later, hence, in case of negative outcome we will continue populating hy.wikipedia.org with articles written in Western Armenian and will work closely with Language Committee to develop new course of action towards getting a separate ISO code.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
7. This is a relatively minor point, but, you mention "2 people to participate in GLAM coordinators conference" and have a budget item for this. I was the coordinator of the 2015 and 2017 editions of a conference by that name, and do not [yet] have any plans to run an equivalent event. That doesn't mean there isn't anything planned - I've just not heard of it :-) There is some talk of a general "glam-wiki" conference in 2018 but nothing yet official. Are you referring to an event in particular, or should we understand this point in your planning to be about ensuring there is budget for Armenian participation at international GLAMwiki events if-and-when they should occur? Wittylama (talk)
   • Dear Wittylama thank you for the question. Last year we received an invitation to participate in GLAM conference but did not have funds allocated for funding participation from WMAM community. During upcoming funding period, WMAM will strengthen it’s initiatives and establish new collaborations with GLAM institutions. We thought of participaiton in GLAM-Wiki conference as a motivation for volunteers from GLAM institutions to engage in WMAM projects. We are not referring to any officially announced conference, however thought to budget for one, in anticipation of GLAM-Wiki conference, as rightly phrased by you “if-and-when they should occur”.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Mike Peel

Thanks also from me for submitting this proposal! I also have a few questions:

Dear Mike Peel thank you for questions and apologies for delay with reply. Answers are under each question.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• How will you handle the difference between paid and supported attendees for Wikicamps in terms of identifying who goes on the wikicamps? Are there differences in application process/eligibility/acceptance probability/course offering/etc. between the two?

  Dear Mike Peel, thank you for the question. WikiCamps attract both experienced and greatly contributing Wikipedians and new-comers. Paying wikicamp participants will be predominantly newcomers. The application process will be quite similar with the only difference of Parents mentioning the readiness to pay for the participation of the student. WMAM will then review the applications of all paying participants and select the ones with the strongest profile and motivation to participate in the WikiCamp. WMAM will also receive applications from newcomers who cannot afford to pay for the participation and will consider them as a separate cohort and will select the X number (we are yet to decide on the exact number) of non-paying new-comers that have the strongest profiles in their cohort.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I know this is just a translation issue, but talking about "surviving participants" is rather worrying - how many don't survive? ;-) "Continuing" might have been a better word to use here.

  Well, "survival" is actually used in similar circumstances - see for instance in w:en:Churn rate for survival rate of customers and average customer life. - Laurentius (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  “How many don’t survive?” is a good question, that need to be communicated carefully to parents in advance:o). I am pretty much OK with both terms, and thank you Laurentius for clarifying the use of term for me as well.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• The impression I've had in previous years is that the Western Armenia work was entirely funded by Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Is that accurate, and is that still the case in this proposal?

  Dear Mike Peel, Thank you for the question. During 2014 Armenia received great number of refugees from Syria, most of whom are Armenians speaking Western Armenian and we made our best to involve Western Armenian speaking refugees in our projects. We applied to local companies for funding and received grant from one of them, as the Syrian Armenian refugee relief programs were high on the agenda that year. This initiative was widely welcomed and voiced, after which we received an invitation from Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation to collaborate and starting 2015 all the projects related to Western Armenian are funded by the CGF, which is also the case in current proposal.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

An additional question: If your ED is successful in the coming year with fundraising activities, will that translate into further growth of Wikimedia Armenia, or will the amount you are asking from the FDC be decreasing next year? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mike Peel, thank you for the question. This will translate a little in both, growth of WMAM and decreasing amount we ask from FDC. Obviously, our strategic goal here is to become less dependent on single big funding, hence, decreasing amount we ask from FDC year by year, and starting with the portion of ED’s salary funded through APG. One of ED’s major objectives is to diversify and increase funding for WMAM projects through direct fundraising, as well as, creating sustainable financial and operational model for its current projects, including WikiCamps and WikiClubs. WMAM will also collaborate with institutional partners, such as EU and AGBU towards implementation of joint projects with funding from the these organizations.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Itzik

I can't find item 5 breakdown budget, it's mentioned on the proposal, but there is no breakdown on the budget file. There is a reason? ArturKhalatyan --Itzike (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Dear Itzike thank you for the question. Item 5 is Western Armenian Project which is completely funded by Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, that is why we decided not to overload the detailed budget it's details. Their total sponsorship amount is provided in the Total's part of the budget. We can provide details if required.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments and questions from the community consultation

Encouragements

Every time I check out something to do with Wikimedia Armenia, I am amazed at how creative you are, and how you do many things differently than the "usual Wikimedia chapter." I'd like to encourage you to continue your development and experimentation.

Risker's question on the increase in budget is a very good one, but it looks like you have a good answer. Development of leadership for the chapter is very important, and should continue. It's a good thing that this is not a "1 person show". A "2 person show" has it's limits as well, but you can continue leadership development at a lower growth rate now :-)

One comment about the Western Armenian project. On first reading this I thought "just what Wikipedia needs - another language version!" but after reading the English-language article about it I can see why it would be a priority. Others who aren't familiar with Armenian history might have a similar reaction, so please be prepared for that. Since this is mainly aimed at the diaspora, perhaps this project can help you reach out to the diaspora for support. Perhaps a Wikipedian in Los Angeles or elsewhere might help make contact with Armenian-Wikipedians in those areas.

I'm sorry I don't have much time to really dig into your application, but I do want to encourage Wikimedia Armenia. People really do sit up and notice what you are doing.

Smallbones (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Smallbones, thank you so much for your encouragement. Also we will take into account all your suggestions.--SusikMkr (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Paid WikiCamps

This sentence confused me: «Each WikiCamp will host 70 percent of best contributors and 30 percent of paid newcomers, which is a valuable aspect for all parents who are very interested in their students making friends with other like-minded students». Do you really mean that newcomers are going to be paid for their editing work, or do you mean that newcomers will be paying attendees? I agree that attending such camps is a valuable experience and that parents should theoretically be happy to cover at least part of the costs for it, as the second sentence seems to imply. If however you are going to pay some attendees, I would be curious to learn more about the scheme and I have some suggestions for topics to cover in case you don't know what I might be curious about: the selection method; the legal form of the payment (e.g. is it a reimbursement or wage, does it come with a work contract, is it a payment in money or other valuables, are there restrictions for such activities with minors); the value for money; the incentive structure you envisage (for instance, are the experienced editors happy to be treated "worse" than inexperienced editors). --Nemo 11:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dear Nemo, thank you for the question, and please forgive my English that caused such confusion. “Paid newcomers” should be “paying newcomers”. We are not paying to any camp participant regardless of level of their experience.--ArturKhalatyan (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. Nemo 16:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)