Grants talk:IEG/Curation of courses and resources on Wikiversity

Eligibility confirmed

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for review and scoring. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period (through 2 May 2016).

The committee's formal review begins on 3 May 2016, and grants will be announced 17 June 2016. See the round 1 2016 schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us at iegrantswikimedia · org .

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Curation of courses and resources on Wikiversity

Scoring rubric	Score
(A) Impact potential Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both? Does it have the potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	5.3
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	4.3
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe? Is the budget realistic/efficient ? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	4.0
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	3.7
Additional comments from the Committee: Wikiversity is worth trying ideas with. I think only English Wikiversity is within scope, but if successful could be used in more projects. Depends on the target audience and the applicant’s methods of persuasion/engagement In my opinion this is critical: A banned user probably cannot have a big success in an online activity like this considering his history. I think the applicant needs to get unblocked on English Wikipedia first, and then I think it may work. An individual banned for systemic copyright violation is not someone we should be paying to "recruit, train, guide and monitor volunteers." As per the admin notes, I think we as a committee should ask the applicant to take action to remove their ban before we consider their proposal and awarding them funding. Additionally, the proposal is very short on detail and, as I understand it, the activities outlined (essentially on-wiki outreach/communications) could be done with minimal effort and without funding. I have nothing against the block. The project is interesting but the reputation of the user is mandatory in this case. This proposal feels incomplete. It is unclear where the budget would be spent or when the project would be considered a success.

-- MJue (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the IEG Committee

Responses of proposer

Thank you for reviewing my proposal!

I assume each of the comments comes only from one person unique to the review committee.

Those comments unconcerned about the block are

1. Wikiversity is worth trying ideas with.

Comment I agree and assume this statement includes me!

2. I think only English Wikiversity is within scope, but if successful could be used in more projects.

Comment Wikiversity is the starting place!

3. This proposal feels incomplete. It is unclear where the budget would be spent or when the project would be considered a success.

Comment The budget is to pay me for intellectual effort that interrupts my on-going projects to help the WMF curate resources starting with Wikiversity. By the rule of diminishing returns, everything should be free, but having food to eat is not. So if you are unwilling to endorse the giving of grants then don't ask for proposals. Each project that is successfully curated as v:Upper Limb Orthotics, is considered a success.

4. Depends on the target audience and the applicant’s methods of persuasion/engagement.

Comment The target audience depends on the project: for example v:North Carolina World War I would be North Carolinans or historians.

Wikipedia ban on editing

Those comments concerned with the block are

1. In my opinion this is critical: A banned user probably cannot have a big success in an online activity like this considering his history.
2. I think the applicant needs to get unblocked on English Wikipedia first, and then I think it may work.
3. An individual banned for systemic copyright violation is not someone we should be paying to "recruit, train, guide and monitor volunteers."
4. As per the admin notes, I think we as a committee should ask the applicant to take action to remove their ban before we consider their proposal and awarding them funding. Additionally, the proposal is very short on detail and, as I understand it, the activities outlined (essentially on-wiki outreach/communications) could be done with minimal effort and without funding.
5. I have nothing against the block. The project is interesting but the reputation of the user is mandatory in this case.

Thank you for your interest in the ban imposed by Wikipedia admins! I have communicated with users on Wikipedia through email so the proposal, or its execution is not interfered with by the ban.

Then as now I edit WMF projects per United States of America copyright law including Section 107. On Wikipedia my conformity with this copyright law was at 95 % or better (determined by counting sentences, including cited ones). My efforts on Wikipedia are described by the Wikiversity resource v:attribution and copyright. The copyright policy at that time and probably still now on Wikipedia is not in agreement with U.S. copyright law. Attribution on Wikipedia can be by hyperlink, such as {{main|Attribution and copyright}}, or by reference (citation). I used both. I also quoted sources. I created some 250 articles and contributed to some 100 more. Both were made per above. The contributions to those some 100 already existing articles still exist on Wikipedia, were prepared in the same way, and continue to exist on Wikipedia, and are not considered copyright violations. This suggests that it was not my method of contributing that was the issue but that I chose to create articles, even requesting feedback, perhaps against some group's wishes.

I made one and one only effort to be unbanned on Wikipedia and was rebuked. I will not do so again. If you wish to remove the ban for your own reasons as you've indicated with your comments you are free to do so.

Further comments on this matter from v:Wikiversity:Initial experiences#Marshallsumter: "When I began editing and contributing to Wikipedia, I wrote some test articles, asked for review that I was writing them per Wikipedia instructions, but received nothing. My interest there was to bring some of their articles to the state of the art or science per US copyright law. I had contributed to, written and contributed original research for half a century and wanted to prepare PD-type articles so that I could continue to submit proposals for funding. The fighting I read about and watched first-hand in the beginning there suggested caution. Instead of using my real name I chose Marshallsumter. Looking back that was a wise choice. The resulting attacks, after creating ~ 270 some articles and contributing to a similar number of others, regarding copyright violations and original research appeared to be irrational. A user there and here [Wikiversity] was apparently spearheading that effort. When someone would point out a good article, he/she would try to find at least one apparent copyright mistake and emphasize it. The fact that I used hyperlinks and cited ≥ 95 % of all statements (I counted to be sure) that were not mine meant nothing. I began preparing to take the WMF (Wikipedia) to US Federal District court for potentially libelous comments and fiscal damage to my reputation. I'd potentially lost an enormous amount of effort and had lost some 3 years. But two things prevented fiscal damage: I'd used a pseudonym and colleagues found what was happening to me from users on Wikipedia to be laughable. Whew!"

What I need from this committee is proof that 5 of 9 (55 %) comments accurately reflect the committee's view that the ban on Wikipedia is the reason by preponderance (≥51 %) that this proposal was not accepted. This when submitted and sworn to under oath as an affidavit by the committee members constitutes proof that I have suffered fiscal harm due to this ban on Wikipedia.

My preferred course of action is to bring Wikipedia into US Federal District Court to have the ban removed. It's the only way to guarantee a fair hearing. The committee's affidavit is proof that Wikipedia's effort to keep me from contributing per US copyright law has caused me fiscal harm.

If you are unwilling to do this, then the ban on Wikipedia is not the reason by preponderance (≥51 %) that this proposal was not accepted. As such you must remove these potentially libelous comments from your review. To leave them in and portray the unacceptance for something it is not, constitutes a US federal crime of duress for which I can prosecute you. The resources on duress I have directed you to will answer any questions you may have.

I would be happy to submit a sworn statement to the Court that I contributed to Wikipedia in conformance at or above the 95 % level (even though only preponderance, ≥ 51 % is sufficient) with US copyright law. The burden of proof then shifts to Wikipedia to prove their libelous claim is true. They will not succeed as I attributed by hyperlink and by appropriate references (citations). --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Round 1 2016 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!

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.