Grants talk:IEG/Exploratory research: creating 'curated' e-books with Wikimedia content

April 12 Proposal Deadline: Reminder to change status to 'proposed'

@Spinster, Margreetriphagen, and Castroblop: The deadline for Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) submissions this round is April 12th, 2016. To submit your proposal, you must (1) complete the proposal entirely, filling in all empty fields, and (2) change the status from "draft" to "proposed." As soon as you’re ready, you should begin to invite any communities affected by your project to provide feedback on your proposal talkpage. If you have any questions about finishing up or would like to brainstorm with us about your proposal, we're hosting an IEG proposal help session tomorrow on April 12th from 16:00 - 17:00 UTC on Google Hangouts.

I'm also happy to set up an individual session tomorrow if needed.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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) 04:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Exploratory research: creating 'curated' e-books with Wikimedia content

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?	5.4
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	5.1
(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?	4.4
(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: Not sure this is project is within scope, but as an avid reader of e-books online I suppose you can make a case that books are digital nowadays. The idea of generating static versions of Wikipedia content, whether in the form of full copies of the encyclopedia or selected excerpts in book form, has been repeatedly proposed. However, a compelling case for its value to the movement or the broader public has not been made yet. The proposal does not articulate a clear rationale why producing e-books would be an effective way of increasing reach. This project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities to understand users, leading to the development of high-priority curation and creation tools for user needs. However, I am conflicted about the potential impact of this project. While I think it's a good idea to confirm interest in a tool before building or extending it, it's unclear to me how this project will contribute to software development if/when a need is identified, given the current status of the books tool. Wikipedia certainly needs the ability to convert digital content, but it is unclear how this proposal would assist this. Yes, this project attempts to assemble books from multiple projects, such as Commons and Wikipedia, rather than only Wikipedia. A research study focused on defining practical use cases for e-book versions of Wikipedia content would potentially be worthwhile; research into the other proposed topics is premature, especially when no such use cases have been identified. The applicant lays out an interesting use case but I'm not sure if this is a key problem. The major risk here is that the community would be left with a well-researched report but no roadmap or capacity for implementing any findings or recommendations. This project has good research and analysis. The pilot phase looks doable, but I am not sure of its impact. The identity of the apprentice/intern is unknown, which is a challenge in order to evaluate their degree of familiarity with the Wikimedia movement/community, or of their skills to carry out the proposed work. The proposed 50€/hour fees for "mentors" or "advisers" is especially high; further, paying Wikipedians to serve as advisors would be a highly unusual step for an IEG grant. Scope is good and looks feasible. The applicant has lots of experience with various WMF projects, including GLAM partnerships, and seems to have relevant expertise for this type of project (the user is an art historian specializing in new media). It is also nice to see in-kind contributions from PublishingLab. I have concerns about the high expenses for the contracted work. There is minimal evidence of community engagement or interest. Planned and existing community engagement is unclear to me. I like the focus of the project, and it fits well with Wikimedia Foundation’s next steps to understand how the people consume Wikipedia. I see a lot of work after the grant ends, if this study has some new ideas for the future. I am curious whether the plan is feasible. If so, it would open up challenges to publish material available in one language but not another (artist catalogs, for example). I like this idea and it sounds like an interesting concept to explore, but I have a few concerns. First, there is the issue of the current status of the books tool. On this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Books/FAQ), the warning message has not been updated or addressed since 2014. There just does not seem to be anyone currently contributing to or maintaining the tool. Is there a reason in assessing the need for updates or new features under these circumstances? Should we invest the requested amount in researching whether there is demand for a specific tool/feature? It seems likely that the community would signal a demand if there is one. I am also unsure whether the applicant has the necessary technical skills to implement any findings or whether they are planning to help build the software. 50 Euros per hour is simply too steep of a rate. I would suggest half this. The proposal suggests that the existing book creation tool is insufficient. However, it does not demonstrate what is missing or what is not working. Even if those challenges were clearly identified, this project would be better suited to have an experienced developer to develop such a tool.

-- MJue (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the IEG Committee

I would like to thank the IEG committee for their thoughtful comments and for the time they have invested in reviewing my application! I'd like to add a few clarifications and updates:

• Concern is expressed about the high cost of the contracted work. These are very normal fees for freelance teachers and advisors in the Netherlands; please note that we have very high tax rates in our country, and above-average cost of living, so the amount we can eventually use to pay our rent and groceries is approximately half of that. A usual fee for a half-day speaking or workshop commitment, for instance, is 250 euro. I'm a committee member for a national Dutch cultural fund and if people submit applications with budgeted hourly rates of less than 30 euros, we frown upon that; it is severely underpaid. The average hourly rate would indeed be 50 euro; the maximum rate is 65 for the fund I work for. And yes, I do want to pay myself and another Wikimedian; we have families to support. I am a single mother myself.
• In the meanwhile, in the past month Margreet and I have advertised the internship position at the University of Amsterdam and we received no less than 7 great internship applicants who were very eager to work on this project. We have selected two people with prior Wikimedia research and editing experience. I'm applying for other funding outside the Wikimedia movement to make sure I can pay everyone. I do think this is a case of an idea where the need and interest is greater outside of the Wikimedia movement than inside the current community of contributors, which I think is quite refreshing, and which we'll investigate for sure :-)
• To be clear: we don't intend to produce static books, on the contrary, one of the challenges would be to integrate and work with the dynamic nature of Wikimedia content.

To summarize: I have a hunch that this project will not receive IEG support, and I completely understand the reasoning, but I do see its value very clearly and it will happen! ;-) Spinster (talk) 18:32, 5 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.