Grants talk:Project/Fjjulien/Modelling and Populating Performing Arts Data in Wikidata

Wikidata link

Please see d:Wikidata:WikiProject Performing arts. A lot has already been done. Notably by @Beat Estermann: and people working with him. --Jura1 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: Thanks for the nudge. We are well aware of the Wikiproject and of the work done by Beat Estermann. Beat_Estermann will actually be part of the core working group (you can now find a list of working group members in the project page). And our activities involve enhancing and translating the WikiProject Performing Arts. Let us know if you are interested in being involved one way or another.-- Fjjulien (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

When I first looked at the page again, I wondered how I could have missed that, but yes, actually it was re-written. I will try to provide some feedback later.

• The nice thing about the field is that it probably wont overlap too much with what volunteers are already doing (other than Beat Estermann and users contributing with him). This was a problem with another grant funded project which essential drove away volunteers (maybe detailed statics could counterdict that) and rendered the database less useful for Wikipedias (at least according to me and few others).
• In the work already done, I think Beat Estermann and the people working with him successfully implemented a scheme that didn't exactly do that in the field it was originally implemented and we keep getting advocates lecturing us about it there while struggling with it in practice (or not actually contributing). There is some risk of over-engineering it and generating too many items that are hard to differentiate and lack much practical use.
• In terms of what WMF would fund, maybe it could be moved to the training and documentation part instead of the ontological work or data injection. Ideally (IMHO) that last part would exclusively be funded by institution(s) providing the data. Maybe you can change that by moving it up/down a line.

I will try to look into the proposal later. Excellent news to see that we move beyond P1362. Jura1 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Cofinancing

Good to see that the vast majority of the funding comes from cofinancing. Nemo 13:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Outputs

I'm rather skeptical about the proposed outputs: creating 300 items is not something worth 30 k$ for Wikimedia, even though it might be worth as much for the other funders. If we had to spend 30 k$ for every kind of data structure on Wikidata which is shared by over 300 items, we'd probably be talking about billions of dollars of expenses. If you have to create just 300 items, I would suggest to just proceed to create them without spending too much time on the ontology, and then figure out later if there is a need for a more structured work. You might find along the way that the existing structures work fine, or vice versa that the ontology you had in mind would not scale to thousands of items. Nemo 13:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, Round 1 2020

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for Round 1 2020 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through March 16, 2020.

The Project Grant committee's formal review for Round 1 2020 will occur March 17 - April 8, 2020. We ask that you refrain from making changes to your proposal during the committee review period, so we can be sure that all committee members are seeing the same version of the proposal.

Grantees will be announced Friday, May 15, 2020.

Any changes to the review calendar will be posted on the Round 1 2020 schedule.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia  · org.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Modelling and Populating Performing Arts Data in Wikidata

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?	6.4
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	6.2
(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?	7.6
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	5.4
Additional comments from the Committee: The project is basically injection of data and modelization. The risk of paid editing is high. In light of the service and equity aims of the "Wikimedia 2030" strategic direction and considering there are partners in Canada and Australia it would have been useful to know how the project would take into account issues around equity especially for indigenous/first nations performing arts. Value for money is relatively low considering the main outputs. It would have been useful to have a clearer indication of how the project would impact how linked data is used and collected by performing arts sector and how the sector would continue to contribute to Wikidata after the project is completed. I consider it relevant project and has the potential to have a considerable impact on Wikidata but would have been useful if the application was clearer about potential outcomes and their impact. Refers to an outcome of "performing arts institutions have an increased capacity" but not how the project will meaningfully support that outcome. How can the learning from this project be applied outside performing arts? The project will certainly have the impact of laying the grounds for similar works to be done with regards to modeling data structures in the Performing Arts. My reservations surround the potential scenario of having to fund the development of every kind of data structure on Wikidata. This is also noted by one commenter on the proposal's talk page that "If we had to spend 30k$ for every kind of data structure on Wikidata which is shared by over 300 items, we'd probably be talking about billions of dollars of expenses." A slightly innovation about modelization but it's not clear how big will be this aspect in the project. It's not clear from the proposal how they plan to measure impact. Having 190 people participating in online training with 40 account creation is not sufficient to measure impact. We do need to know the number of participants that will continue to contribute after the training. I also can't see from the proposal how the grantee plan to follow up with participants after the training. Great to see a non-GLAM project tackle data-modelling. Limited indication of an evaluation plan. Considering the big team, this is definitely a strong point but inflating of costs. Good working team with past record of doing something similar. COVID-19 planning mentions the potential to"deliver a larger number of web conferences" and that this would "increase our knowledge transfer fees". Does this mean they'd be charging to attend conferences/training they deliver as part of the project? The project list some participants that are well noted within the community to be doing great work around Wikidata, including Beat Estermann. I think that they have an excellent team that is capable of seeing it through within 1 year. Injection of data without community involvement and the paid knowledge transfer to the community drives me to give a lower rate. It supports diversity and there are supports from the target community. COVID-19 planning mentions the potential to"deliver a larger number of web conferences" and that this would "increase our knowledge transfer fees". Does this mean they'd be charging to attend conferences/training they deliver as part of the project? In my opinion, some budget lines can be canceled. Travel costs and what can be associated with the paid modification should be eliminated, while training costs and knowledge transfer are acceptable aspects, but also in this case there are commissions to pay to transfer this knowledge and this seems to me somewhat outside the logic of "knowledge sharing" based on the concepts of free knowledge. Let's say that in general the project does not follow the basic logic of the Wikimedia movement and this makes me lean towards neutrality. $14,000.00 for Knowledge transfer: documentation and development of training materials are quite expensive. It isn't clear what they meant by "Knowledge transfer". Could this mean the addition of new data about performing art (this could amount to paid editing) or the quality of training the trainers would give the participants? In any case, I think we need to have a break down of this budget. What type of material do they want to design? Well, 14,000USD is too much for this. I do think the budget should be reduced by at least 50%. 11,500USD are budgeted as a fee for the working group. How many hours of work are they putting on the project? This should be broken down. 3000 USD was budgeted for travel. WMF would not fund travel in light of the recent restrictions placed on it in response to COVID-19. That should be removed from the budget. The budget should be reduced. Supporting working group meetings is a valuable use of the grant, with the additional provision increasing the diversity of the working group membership and project activities. But application is unclear whether the travel expenses in the budget line are to support the working group to meet. Has this changed in light of expected travel restrictions for the rest of 2020? What opportunities are there to involve/consult with Wikimedia community members and performing arts sector in that development process? Would support the reallocation of costs towards more online activity considering the restrictions of social distancing and the opportunity for outreach in performing arts sector. How will this impact travel expenses budget line? Needs clarity around "knowledge transfer" in budget. Needs more consideration towards equity and diversity. Yes, with changes to the "Fees for working group members".

This proposal has been recommended for due diligence review.

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal and recommended it for due diligence review. This means that a majority of the committee reviewers favorably assessed this proposal and have requested further investigation by Wikimedia Foundation staff.

Next steps:

• Aggregated committee comments from the committee are posted above. Note that these comments may vary, or even contradict each other, since they reflect the conclusions of multiple individual committee members who independently reviewed this proposal.
• If you have had an interview with a Program Officer, you may have orally responded to some of the committee comments already. Your interview comments will be relayed to the committee during the deliberations call.
• You are welcome to respond to aggregated comments here on the talkpage to publicly share any feedback, clarifications or questions you have.
• Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on May 29, 2020.

If you have any questions, please contact us at projectgrants wikimedia  · org.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Round 1 2020 decision

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for a Project Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, $33,500 CAD

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support full funding for your team to resolve known modeling issues, develop training, and improve Wikidata content in relation to the performing arts. The committee appreciates the level of training and expertise represented with the proposed working group, as well as a commitment to reducing systemic bias through the inclusion of working group members and advisors from underrepresented backgrounds in the performing arts.

One point of committee feedback involved a proposition to limit the number of partners you conduct more effortful and sustained training with, and to develop training videos for other institutions as an alternative resource. After further consideration, the committee does not support this suggestion, and supports the proposal as written, without the development of new video content specific for this grant.

Next steps:

1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
2. Review the information for grantees.
3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
4. Start work on your project!

Upcoming changes to Wikimedia Foundation Grants

Over the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has been undergoing a community consultation process to launch a new grants strategy. Our proposed programs are posted on Meta here: Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021. If you have suggestions about how we can improve our programs in the future, you can find information about how to give feedback here: Get involved. We are also currently seeking candidates to serve on regional grants committees and we'd appreciate it if you could help us spread the word to strong candidates--you can find out more here. We will launch our new programs in July 2021. If you are interested in submitting future proposals for funding, stay tuned to learn more about our future programs.

-- On behalf of the Project Grants Committee, Morgan Jue (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)