Grants talk:IEG/Bot Development for Azerbaijani Wikipedia

9/29/15 Proposal Deadline: Reminder to change status to 'proposed'

Hi Verman1,

This draft is looking like it's well on its way. I'm writing to remind you to make sure to change the status of your proposal from 'draft' to 'proposed' by the September 29, 2015 deadline in order to submit it for review by the committee in the current round of IEG. If you have any questions or would like to discuss your proposal, let me know. We're hosting a few IEG proposal help sessions this month in Google Hangouts. I'm also happy to set up an individual session. Warm regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for late editing. I hope my proposal will be taken into consideration. Thanks, --Verman1 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2015

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2015 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2015 begins on 20 October 2015, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Marti (WMF) (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

machine translation aint great

AFAIK, high quality machine trasnlation is an open problem in computer science. Unaided mass machine translation seems like a bad idea. Bawolff (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Bot Development for Azerbaijani Wikipedia

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background)	Score 1=weak alignment 10=strong alignment
(A) Impact potential Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities? Does it have potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	5.6
(B) Innovation and learning Does it take an Innovative approach to solving a key problem? Is the potential impact greater than the risks? Can we measure success?	3.4
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in 6 months? How realistic/efficient is the budget? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	5.6
(D) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support? Does it support diversity?	4.4
Comments from the committee: Anything that contributes content in a major way to a Wikimedia project will have a high impact. I do not think autogenerated bot content originating from a Closed Source is a good direction for the Wikimedia movement. Not innovative, and certainly risky if the quality of the translations is low. Machine translations have been problematic on Wikimedia projects for years. If this project is successful, it will be well worth the risk of failure as it can be copied on other projects that have access to high quality translation tools This has been tried before with far more resources without good effect - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-24/Special_report. This proposal makes no reference to this or other studies and doesn't seem to have incorporated any of their learnings into this. Execution seems straightforward and measurement by article count seems doable As Bawolff says, machine translation is iffy and without a previous work product to point to, I'm concerned this won’t be successful. There are several supporters for this proposal to create bot generated content Would like to see more community engagement I see notices on the Azerbaijani wikipedia but am sadly unable to read them :( Budget too high with no specific breakdown Bot articles don't really help the communities’ growth This is an opportunity to measure a few other cultural metrics, such as the number of edits after translation. Presumably the choice of adding articles is culturally influenced and I would like to see this tracked (especially because machine translation is so problematic in the larger projects, it would be nice to measure the positive/negative reception of such articles in small projects willing to do this) Bot generated content is acceptable for structured content on projects like Wiktionary of WIkisource, but not on Wikipedia projects. High cost. Proposal lacks critical information (for example, about how budget was calculated).

Round 2 2015 decision

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:
This is an opportunity to measure a few other cultural metrics, such as the number of edits after translation. However, we hope to see more community engagement for this idea to develop in a more innovative approach for improving Azerbaijani Wikipedia translations. The committee cautions the use of bot-translated content with respect to their cost and community involvement, and would have appreciated seeing how the sustainability and budget of this project reflected that. We look forward seeing your plans develop for Azerbaijani Wikipedia, and welcome your future ideas in consideration of our feedback in this round.

Next steps:

1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
3. 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.
4. 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.