Grants talk:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Wikimedia Awareness in Nafada (ID: 22280836)

Endorsement

I am aware of the project and I look forward to offering my contribution as a facilitator. Usmanagm (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Endorsement

This project will promote and popularise the activities of Wikipedia and it's sisters' projects to the diverse set of people who will also popularise and promote it in the community. Bembety (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Endorsment from —🖤Gwanki🖤^📬

I wholeheartedly endorse this project to promote Wikipedia in Nafada. The clear vision, well-structured approaches, and experienced team show great promise. Engaging local youth, ensuring safety, and fostering inclusivity are key strengths. I believe the initiative will make a meaningful impact and wish success.

Sincerely, [Your Name] --—🖤Gwanki🖤^📬 10:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Partially Funded

Hello @SadiqY56 thank you for applying for the rapid fund grant. We reviewed and approved the grant in the amount of 1,168,090 NGN ($1,517 USD) with the following comments:

Commendations to the team for a well thought out project. The team composition is well-defined, with experienced Wikimedia editors and trainers. Their roles are clear, and their expertise appears relevant for facilitating the training sessions. Additionally, the project's metrics are specific, measurable, and aligned with the project's objectives detailed in the application.

• It is important to immediately create a user page for the username attached to this application.
• It is not clear from the application if this already exists, but the team should consider creating a project page on Meta, to document the project's activities, outcomes, and learnings. This documentation will be valuable for future reference and for sharing the project's impact with the broader Hausa communities
• Consider having a long-term sustainability plan for Wikimedia community in Nafada beyond the project duration. This could be in the form of organizing periodic follow-up sessions, or workshops to keep the community engaged and active.

Best of luck with your project!

Best regards, (On behalf of the Middle East and Africa regional funds team) ~~~~ YPam (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for you finding my application worthy of approval and I sincerely appreciate your commendations on the application and the implementation team.

All your suggestions have been noted and I made necessary adjustments, confirmed my details and submitted.

While assuring you of a very good delivery, accept my highest my highest esteemed regards, please.

SadiqY56 SadiqY56 (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

w:en:Wikipedia:OABOT

I see you plan to make new users edit Wikipedia. Have you considered making them start with some assisted editing? For example OAbot is a tool to quickly edit references. It's educational on multiple fronts (templates, reliable sources, systemic bias, copyright) and can make the participants feel some sense of accomplishment quite quickly. Nemo 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Problems caused on Wikidata

It has been suggested that this grant may be involved in some ongoing disruption at Wikidata, where many new users are creating items that are either empty, or do not follow project guidelines and do not establish notability. None of these new editors respond to talk page messages. This is creating a lot of work for Wikidata administrators to clean up, and it's also forcing us to discard the work put in by many new editors. This does not improve the project, and it does not serve the community. See wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Recent_crop_of_new_Nigerian_items (permalink). CC @YPam (WMF) Bovlb (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Within the last year, applicants have not been repeatedly blocked or flagged for the same issue and/or have not been banned on the Wikimedia Projects.

I note that SadiqY56 has been repeatedly flagged on Wikidata for the creation of non-notable entities, in particular in February of 2023 (and continuing to this month). A glance at their user talk page there would have revealed that. This is the same problematic behaviour that is now being exhibited by many new editors from that region. Was this failure to met the grant criteria considered during this grant application? CC @YPam (WMF), @DSaroyan (WMF) Bovlb (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I note that another participant, Bembety, was also subject to a bulk deletion back in February, as can be seen from their user talk page. Inasmuch as this grant application specifically mentions Wikidata, how was their claim to be experienced and in good standing on Wikidata evaluated? Bovlb (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Bovlb

We are actively working to resolve these issues and maintain close communication with the participants. I have already provided explanations regarding the reasons on the discussion page (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Recent_crop_of_new_Nigerian_items), and we are actively addressing the disruptive issues on Wikidata.

Furthermore, I will be in touch with @YPam (WMF) to request an extension to thoroughly address these issues.

Thank you for your efforts, and I assure you that everything necessary will be done to ensure the successful rectification of these problems. I will keep you updated! SadiqY56 (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@VThamaini (WMF) I'd appreciate a response to my question about how these grant proposals are evaluated against this criterion. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

CC @Jtud (WMF), @MJue (WMF), @AGary-WMF, @IPrice-WMF Bovlb (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF) Can you help with this? You're the eighth member of the grants team that I've contacted. Bovlb (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Bovlb

I am unsure about what you're seeking, but I believe it's crucial to emphasize this point: when questioning the allocation of grants due to inadequate contribution checks, it highlights the responsibility of admins, reviewers, and others who should ensure the quality of contributions. Given the high volume of proposals each cycle, it's challenging for grant officers to conduct thorough checks. Ideally, this responsibility falls on admins who voluntarily undertake this task. If admins fail in their duties, it's assumed that one is competent enough to execute a project. People like you should aid them in fulfilling their responsibilities rather than openly challenging them.

For instance, I've noticed your constructive comments on proposals within the current Rapid Grant Circle, such as the "Review of Experience on Wikidata." This exemplifies how you can assist grant officers without confrontations. In my project, I'm putting in maximum effort, and participants are benefiting. I've gone as far as sharing high-quality guidance YouTube videos, and even this evening Gwanki will be leading a session on Notability. I'm going the extra mile to rectify the 'disruptive' Wikidata edits, and we're witnessing positive outcomes, even beyond what was proposed. I've fully delivered my project fully engaging my community and I have glaring videos and images as evidence. Even with that, I am going extra miles to rectify issues you raised. But you seem to deviate from the issues to something entirely parallel.

Rather than pulling issues and challenging grant officers, especially when it's not entirely their fault, I urge you to allow effective rectification and resolution. This way we learn and improve. Thank you! SadiqY56 (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly the point that I'm trying to elucidate. The default assumption has been that administrators handle things on their respective projects and don't have to chase down what's happening elsewhere. Are the paid employees of the WMF doing due diligence to ensure that grant criteria are met, or are they relying on volunteers to provide reviews? It seems important to know. The review I recently provided were not a normal activity for me, and they took away from time I could have spent on my home project. So far as I'm aware, I'm the first person in my position ever to offer this information unsolicited. I have no idea whether anyone in the grants department is going to read my reviews and pay attention to them, hence my desire to get some response from the paid employees of the WMF as to what the process is here. The fact that the entire grants department have no comment to offer is not an encouraging sign. I'm going to give them a few more days to respond, and then I will raise my concerns with Lisa Seitz-Gruwell and Megan Hernandez. Bovlb (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It is sad that you are not getting any updates. @BilledMammal may be interested. And @Jayen466 Piotrus (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Bovlb I am currently the Program Officer for Rapid grants in the MEA region. Just returning to office and trying to catch up to the complaints regarding the activities related to this granted project. First I would need clarity from you regarding what you would like to happen as it is unclear to me from this thread what specific action it is that you seek. There are several layers of checks and balances which each application goes through, including a prescreening to determine the viability of the project and the team, as well as the eligibility of the team applying for a grant (you'll find these here). Additionally, is this point about this specific application, or is there a bigger issue that you think we should be looking to address? I ask this based on the your observation that "This is the same problematic behaviour that is now being exhibited by many new editors from that region." In the last year or so, about a hundred applications have been reviewed and approved, many of them with wikidata as a target project, and until you raised the issue with this one granted project, we have not received complaints previously.

If this is a larger issue, perhaps this grant applicant's talk page is not the ideal location for that conversation. I am more than happy to reassess our processes to better understand what might be slipping through the cracks. I would like to discuss further over a call, if you are available, or read through any specific list of challenges or recommendations that you might be willing to share to help address this so there is no future recurrence of such issues. In the meantime, we will be setting up a meeting with this project team to assess the work to date and decide on the next best steps.

Thanks to everyone for the passionate contributions to this discussion, I believe we are all working towards what is best for our movement and collective work and can find amicable ways to resolve our challenges moving forward. Thank you, YPam (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@YPam (WMF) Thanks for getting back to me. I'm an administrator on Wikidata, and a large part of a Wikidata admin's job is in dealing with the flood of new items that don't meet our notability criteria, most of which end up having to be deleted.

This is very frustrating for us, because we want to welcome new editors to the community, we want to see better coverage of traditionally under-documented regions, and we want to help editors to grow and improve. We don't want to just throw away items that people have obviously worked hard on but, if they don't do it right when they create an item, and they don't fix it when they receive feedback, then we have no choice but to do so. This is an enormous waste not only of our time, but also of theirs. I have to imagine that this does not leave community members with a good impression of Wikidata and the foundation if they are encouraged to contribute, and then everything is deleted.

A particularly frustrating aspect of this is that we often see patterns in the creation of non-notable items by new users, typically associated with a specific geographical region. We usually suspect that this is the result of some misconceived educational program or community outreach where the instructors themselves fail to understand how to use Wikidata, and are therefore unable to train participants effectively. In effect, the program magnifies the errors of the trainer by reproducing them in the participants.

Any effective Wikidata training program must cover the basics of establishing notability and responding to feedback. Editors who neither appreciate our notability criteria nor the need for communication should not, in my view, play any role in training others to contribute to Wikidata, at least until they have fixed those issues for themselves.

We do our best at our end to educate new users. When you click on "Create a new item", the very first line says "Please make sure that the item you want to create complies with our notability policy and that it doesn't already exist." I've written an essay that attempts to guide people towards creating items that establish notability. I also created a special user warning template that we use to give people a chance to tidy up their own items. Nevertheless, we still have a steady stream of new users creating items for non-notable entities, and some long-term users who continue on that path, never learning, and never responding to feedback.

It seems that our on-project efforts to educate new users are dust in the wind compared to the effect that poor training has. I believe that the foundation has a key role to play here, in ensuring that we do not encourage people to train others unless we have some reason to believe they will do so correctly. In the context of the rapid grants, this is at least partly enshrined in the criteria, which include "Within the last year, applicants have not been repeatedly blocked or flagged for the same issue and/or have not been banned on the Wikimedia Projects."

I'm aware that there are a lot of grants, and probably even more ungranted community outreach projects. This specific project was brought to my attention as a potential culprit for a recent wave of non-notable items. It is important to note that I cannot know for certain that it was the cause of any specific problematic contributions. When I reviewed the Wikidata experience of the four proposers, I found that two of them had been flagged multiple times for this very issue but never responded to feedback, a third also had similar issues but had never been flagged, and the fourth now denies any involvement in the project. In my view, this suggests that this project is very likely to be the source of such disruption.

I was able to observe from a simple glance at the Wikidata user talk pages for the two editors that they had been repeatedly flagged for these problems within the last year, so it is unclear to me what the WMF is doing to enforce the grant criteria. I'm sure all the team members are well-intentioned and want to do something useful here, but good intentions are not enough to produce good results. The foundation has a clear responsibility to be a gatekeeper in this respect.

I then undertook a review of some other grant applications that mention Wikidata, specifically evaluating editors as suitable Wikidata trainers. I found many that were not suitable, some of whom had already been flagged, and some of whom had not. (I would be glad to give more information about how I did this evaluation and what factors I considered.) Several grant proposers have contacted me about my reviews, thanking me for my efforts, and seeking ways to improve their Wikidata editing. Given their lack of response to communication, I am still uncertain that any WMF employee will take my comments into account when assessing whether to approve these grants.

I do appreciate that this issue is bigger than this individual grant, and I see there are some much larger grants that have the potential to cause much greater disruption. I'd be happier to find a better place to have this wider discussion, but obviously it would be best if it took place on-wiki to allow broader participation. I'm not the only voice who should be heard here.

The specific issues I would like to see resolved are:

• What does the WMF do to ensure that grants are not simply funding disruption and making extra work for volunteers?
• How did this specific grant get approved when it obviously did not meet the criteria?
• Why is the grants department so unresponsive when contacted about potential problems with grants?
• How can we improve the grant review process going forward?

Thanks,

Bovlb Bovlb (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Bovlb, I really appreciate the detailed response! It helps me better understand the initial frustrations raised. Perhaps we can continue the more constructive pieces of this conversation on the rapid funds discussion page?

To close the loop here however, and in response to some of the issues you raised, I'd note that in the last three years at least, grants processes have been updated regularly, often based on issues raised by communities, volunteers and subject matter experts like yourself. As with any system and process we are consistently learning, adapting and updating as you will see from the history of the grants page itself.

I forgot to mention in my previous message that most colleagues on the Community Resources team have been away - on a well deserved and much needed break - in the time that this issue surfaced and perhaps in the coming weeks as we begin to return you might hear from other folks, if you would still like to hear from them. I myself am not back at work until the week of the 15th, so please bear with us as we work to get the wheels turning to begin the calendar year.

You raise an excellent question, when you ask "How can we improve the grant review process going forward?". Perhaps this would be a great juncture to move this conversation to the rapid funds discussion page? We can fully interrogate the processes to approval, find the issues/blind spots, and make sure to update the processes moving forward. Noting that I personally reviewed this application and have no qualms querying the process. Thank you again, YPam (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bovlb, Yael Weissburg here, VP of Community Growth. Thank you for raising the concerns and flagging them for our team. I do want to ask you for some grace in response times - you started the conversation shortly before WMF shut down for the end of year holidays, and many people are still returning to work. Your comments have been seen and if you have any further concerns we're happy to engage with you here, but please consider the timing of your ask when raising frustrations about the slower than usual response time. Everyone deserves a break from time to time, and that's true of our Foundation staff as well. RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@RWeissburg (WMF): Thanks for following up. At YPam's suggestion, I have restarted this discussion at Grants_talk:Project/Rapid#Assessing_grant_proposers_as_Wikidata_trainers. I dropped the point about response times there, partly in response to the new information about office closures, partly because I have now started getting some responses, and partly because it's an unnecessary distraction from my main point. It would have been helpful if I could have found somewhere that stated that entire foundation (or just the grants department?) was closed for several weeks. That would have set my expectations for response time. Bovlb (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Noted. The WMF closure (entire organization) between December 25th to January 1st has been policy for several years now (at least since my tenure which is 5+ years). Thanks for restarting the thread! RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. You should probably document that somewhere. Just curious, does that include Trust & Safety? Bovlb (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@BovlbWhile the majority of the Foundation is off for the end of year holiday, some core infrastructure always needs to be maintained. Fundraising works during that week, since it's in the middle of the English banner campaign, and there are contingencies / escalation procedures for other core work like SRE and Trust & Safety. RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@RWeissburg (WMF) For obvious reasons, I have re-added my complaint about WMF staff being slow to respond. Bovlb (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bovlb Sigh. Why should they reply? What can we do if they ignore us? Piotrus (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@BovlbI didn't see you had moved the conversation over as requested. Feel free to tag me next time. Replied over there. Thanks! RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)