Grants talk:PEG/ITOCA/Train-the-trainer South Africa workshop

Measures of success

Thanks for the submission. In the measures of success you mention something that is vague and not entirely related to benefit for the Wikimedia movement. Feedback surveys are good for the event, but it's completely strange for me to use them to deduce any concrete benefit for any of the Wikimedia projects. Furthermore, it is said that another measure is the feedback that you will get from those trained during the training. It's good for the event indeed, but again does not indicate anything specific. Last, the main measure relates to a number that is not directly relevant for the positive results from the initiative. My suggestion is to focus on something that makes direct impact on the Wikimedia projects and is presented as a clear benefit (ex. enlarged number of page views, active users, edits, involvement in similar programs, interested members of Wikimedia South Africa, etc.). Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Kiril. We had listed measures of success specific to the project and it seems we had not articulated the greater impact/benefit/contribution to Wikimedia adequately. The suggestions you make are true and good and we will take them into account and revise the measures of success accordingly. ITOCA-SA (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Budget

In the budget you have $1,021 for project management, where the remark is that it has also a contribution from ITOCA. Could you explain the items included in this cost and the reason why it weights this much? All the costs for trainers are separated for one person only, that apparently will have to travel from Cape Town to Johannesburg. I'd like to know more about the affiliation of the trainer and the possibility to find anyone else that resides much closer to Johannesburg. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kiril for the feedback. The note provided (i.e.*See contribution from ITOCA) is a reference to look at what else ITOCA will contribute to the project. As this note seems to be confusing - we have removed it from the notes section. The cost for project management is based on time spent on the project by the lead coordinator of the project from ITOCA. The trainer is to be David Richfield, a Wikipedian and board member of Wikimedia South Africa, based in Cape Town. He was recommended by the Wikimedia Foundation and has expressed enthusiasm for this project and a willingness to deliver the training, as a volunteer. ITOCA-SA (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Trainer

I am not quite sure if a single trainer would be able to conduct all the workshop session. My personal experience with wikiworkshops is that one can provide up to 4-5 hrs. of training and if it is going to be effective he/she must be changed by someone else. As looking for the program I would suggest that it requires at least 3 trainers which replace each other every 2 hours, or one is leading the 2 others are directly helping students and they rotate in their roles. Except this I suppor the idea Polimerek (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with this comment. Do the organisers have any experience in edting Wikimedia projects, i.e. would they be able to answer simple questions about software and community? I presume that the training will be in English. Does the prospective Wikipedian know any local languages, so he can talk about different language projects?--Victoria (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Polimerek and Victoria for the feedback. We have provided for one lead experienced trainer (recommended by Wikimedia Foundation) and two co-trainers (from ITOCA) who have basic, working knowledge of Wikis and are well experienced trainers in e-resources. These co-trainers will provide support to the main trainer with the participants. The language of training will be English and other language options will be discussed. We were advised by the Wikimedia Foundation to focus on English for this pilot project, and to consider other local languages once results are available from this project. ITOCA-SA (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I can imagine how you might be successful with the workshop :-) Polimerek (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation

Reading the comments above, I've seen the "We have been advised by the Wikimedia Foundation to do X" quite a number of times which has left me assuming that there's been some relationship or back-and-forth communication going on between WMF and ITOCA prior to this grant application. Assuming that's true, isn't Wikimedia South Africa better suited at handling this, since they are more geographically/culturally suited? I expected to see more of a WMZA-ITOCA partnership as compared to a WMF-ITOCA one. Abbasjnr (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I have been in touch with ITOCA for a number of months now. As mentioned in the grant proposal itself, Wikimedia South Africa is fully informed of this proposal, and is interested in collaborating with ITOCA. I'm not sure what you mean by WMZA being better suited "to handle this" -- WMZA does not have a grants program, and the WMF does. :) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What I meant is that I expected WMZA to be more involved than WMF in this project. WMZA could have had physical meetings with ITOCA and assessed their capability; discuss potential partnerships, etc. In other words, I think that WMZA is in a better position to understand ITOCA's strengths and weaknesses and possibly come up with a (partnership) project that they are confident enough that ITOCA can carry out. 62.24.111.243 15:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

We are in touch with WMZA as one ITOCA staff is a member and there is a planned WMZA meeting in a few weeks. We will bring to the agenda what ITOCA is doing and how it can add value to Wikimedia. ITOCA-SA (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Request changes to project budget and reallocation of funds

ITOCA is making a request to WMF to use the remaining funds from the grant received to ensure that the outputs of the grant are attained to the best of our ability. The total grant budget awarded was USD$ 11, 233 and the savings made was a total of USD$ 2068. In order for us to meet some of the outputs and measures of achievements there was need to carry out an evaluation of the participants trained. However, the follow up evaluation done revealed that a larger portion of the participants did not respond or did not have much to feedback as it was during the period of November to January where most of them were on holiday for the year end and the ones from tertiary institutions had a longer holiday as these normally start opening mid-end of January. As a result we have had a need to do another round of the survey after submitting the report. This need was not budgeted for in the initial grant budget. We will be able to submit the final and updated report by the 15th of August 2013.

Our request is to use the remaining grant fund savings of USD$2068 for the needed follow up evaluation, phone follow ups and reporting as follows: (Exchange Rate $1=R10)

	Expense Item	No. of Days	Rate	Total in Rand	Total in USD	Remarks
1	Survey Distribution	2	220	4400	440
2	Data Analysis	3	250	7500	750
3	Report update	2	250	5000	500
4	Communications	2	200	4000	400
	Total			20900	2090