Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2017-2018 round 1/Wikimedia Israel/Proposal form

Hello, לסטר and the WMIL team: thank you for submitting your proposal for Round 1. We'll be reviewing it in the coming days/weeks. All the best, Morgan Jue (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Questions/remarks from WMF

Dear לסטר! Table 2 seems to be not used correctly. This is what it says now:

Table 2

Financials for the current funding period
Revenues or expenses	Planned (budgeted)		Actual, until one month before the proposal due date		Projected
	Currency requested	US dollars	Currency requested	US dollars	Currency requested	US dollars
Revenues (from all sources)	1,328,400	350,605	1,252,784	330,647	177,600	46,874
Expenses	1,347,100	355,540	818,246	215,960	528,854	139,580

This is what it should be saying: Table 2

Financials for the current funding period
Revenues or expenses	Planned (budgeted)		Actual, until one month before the proposal due date		Projected
	Currency requested	US dollars	Currency requested	US dollars	Currency requested	US dollars
Revenues (from all sources)	1,328,400	350,605	1,252,784	330,647	1,430,384	377,521
Expenses	1,347,100	355,540	818,246	215,960	1,347,100	355,540

I suppose you mean that you still have 177600 to receive as revenue until the end of the year, but that is not how this table should be filled. In short the projected number cannot be smaller than the actual (since it includes it). Thank you for first changing the numbers here and when we're good we can change the numbers on the proposal with strike through. Thanks! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Delphine (WMF), Done. Michal

Questions

Dear WM-IL (ping לסטר), thank you for this detailed and precise grant application. I have a couple of questions about it, if you could please answer when it is convenient.

• This is the most elaborate grantee defined metrics of any in this round of APG applications, possibly ever. I say elaborate to mean in both a the positive sense ‘detailed’ and also the [possibly] negative sense of ‘complex’. I appreciate that with a diversity of programs it makes less sense to try to measure their success all with the ruler - and I am pleased to see you did not try to force a “total for all programs” from your metrics by arbitrarily combining different things. However, this also greatly increases the amount of work you are creating for yourselves: to define several different methodologies, to collect different kinds of data, and to create reports based on that information. Are you confident that you are not over-promising on your ability to monitor and report such diverse metrics for so many different programs? Wittylama (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Wittylama for your thoughtful question. Each of the project managers built their metrics for his or her programs with me, in a way that is effective for each program and show its uniqueness. When we chose the metrics, we took into consideration our ability to monitor them. לסטר (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding your "tool for evaluation of article quality”, are you also familiar with the methodology used by the WikiEdFoundation (the "ORES wp10" scoring of “structoral completeness” system - as described in their application for this round of the APG process) - which is an automated system. For your "90% successful retention” metric - what is your actual method for checking this? Wittylama (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the methodology used by the WikiEdFoundation to our attention. We will look it over and see what we can gain from it.

In order to check the "90% successful retention” metric, we review the data by hand. But since we have a very good relationship with the wiki-hb community, we know in advance if there might be issues with the articles that are related to WMILs’ programs. לסטר (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the he-wiktionary activities: as a Chapter proactively involved in Wiktionary support, are you also liaising with the Lexicographical integration project underway within Wikidata? This will become a major development for that sister-project and would be a pity if your software development work were not also aligned with theirs. Wittylama (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wittylama. In our planned activity for 2018 in the the hebrew wiktionary, and based on consultations and close ties with active editors in the Hebrew Wiktionary community, we wish to focus on rearrange and redistribute the he-wd articles, based on the rules of the professional grammar used in the Hebrew language. As such, our activity is directed, in the first stage, to the compatibility between the division and arrangement of articles in the Hebrew Wiktionary, with other known dictionaries in the Hebrew language

In order to enable closer connection between the Hebrew Wiktionary community and other Wiktionary communities around the world, we believe that it is imperative first to ensure that the articles ​​in the he-wd would be compatible with the rules of the grammar in Hebrew. after consulting with main editors within the he-wd, we think that it is also the best way to encourage an effective and productive use of he-wd, as well as to revive the Hebrew Wiktionary community, and to attract new writers and editors among linguists and Hebrew-speaking artists in Israel and abroad, which as of today, due to the existing defects in the structure of the Hebrew Wiktionary, refrain from taking part in the project.

This is why we believe that at this stage, the first task we must focus on is to redesign the structure of articles ​​in he-wd, in accordance with the rules of Hebrew grammar.

However, in the next stage, we will certainly examine further on how to integrate the activity at the local scale with the global Wikidata project, in order to make the lexicographical data available in a more structured and machine-readable way.

Thanks, Ranl-WMIL (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Within the context of “Table 5 notes: If your organization has significant funding other than FDC funds, please note how those funds will be used” , WM-IL is intending to host the next international GLAM-Wiki conference in October 2018 with an externally provided grant and also a WMF event grant. Could you briefly describe the intended scope of the external grant for that event, and if it has any interaction/impact on programs listed in your annual plan? That is: would it include support for ongoing programmatic activities with GLAMs, not just for the one-off event. Wittylama (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Wittylama. The budget for the GLAM conference, which will take place in October 2018, is indeed based on both a WMF event grant as well as external resources, in particular a large grant from an Israeli foundation, and as such is independent from the current proposal. The external grant is specific to hosting the GLAM-WIKI conference, in which we intend, among other things, to encourage and stimulate the activities of the Israeli GLAM-Wiki community, and collaborations with Israeli GLAM professional, at all levels. We do not, however, at this time have any specific, budgeted plans for ongoing programmatic GLAM activities related to hosting the conference, and as the conference will only take place late in the year we cannot commit to making plans based on the achievements of the conference. Keren - WMIL (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Arabic

I'm glad to see what seems an expansion and intensification of the work towards Arabic speaker and Arab Israelis. Do they also contribute to the Hebrew Wikipedia, thereby improving its contributor diversity? The goal of a "local wiki-arabic group" where 20 % of the attendees eventually become very active editors/chapter volunteers is very ambitious, I'm curious to see how it turns out. --Nemo 14:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)