Grants talk:Project/OCLC/A Wikipedian-in-Residence to Engage 500 Librarians and their Communities

Additional comments and questions

1. Merrilee, through her work with OCLC, has a proven track record of successfully working with a Wikipedian-in-Residence, Maximilian Klein/OCLC

• This work produced the VIAFbot, which successfully integrated the Authority Control template into the English Wikipedia
  • "VIAFbot and the Integration of Library Data on Wikipedia," Code4Lib Journal. Issue 22, 2013-10-14
  • "RFC," "Authority control integration proposal"
  • "VIAFbot Edits 250,000 Wikipedia Articles to Reciprocate All Links from VIAF into Wikipedia"
  • "VIAFbot Debriefing"
  • Linking Library Data to Wikipedia videos: Part I (introduction), Part II (midpoint report), Part III (results)

2. WebJunction

• WebJunction is the stated method of delivery for outreach to public librarians in a seminar type setting
  • Examples of successful pedagogic experiences of WebJunction would be helpful, to see instances of this in action, even in a general sense
  • Is this the most effective method of delivery and engagement? Is this the only method of delivery and engagement? Is this putting all eggs in one basket?
  • What do the listed advisors think of this approach? Do they have any recommendations as to structure, benefits, risks, advantages, etc.?
  • It sounds like a curriculum will be established and is to come; however, there is a lot of existing materials that could either be used or slightly modified (see WikiEdu, Art+Feminism, etc. below). Please comment in more detail as to how the curriculum is envisioned.

3. Public libraries

• The Wiki-GLAM movement has not done a good job of outreach with public libraries. This is clear. OCLC has the connections and resources to use existing relationships to connect with this underserved part of the library community as it relates to Wikipedia, which is one of the strongest arguments for this grant!
  • See GLAM case studies which does not have a section for public libraries
  • Are there any details about OCLC's relationships with the various public library communities that might be helpful in support of this Grant? i.e., are there previous and/or existing projects OCLC has participated in, in a like manner, that illustrates this type of outreach, its successes and challenges?

4. Outreach within public library communities

• How is this geographic outreach organized? Is it state-by-state, or structured based on some other principle? Where is audience coming from, and how is that decision of audience made? Are larger cities the focus, or are rural areas with less access to libraries the focus?
• How will the interactions be structured? Will there be consistent, monthly outreach, or is it a course (or courses) where completion is the goal?
• Are there existing library organizations and/or communities that would be good partner organizations for engagement opportunities?
• Would this include going to conferences and doing hands-on training with public library stakeholders?

5. Outreach within Wikipedia community

• Would this program incorporate the structure of Wikimedia United States Coalition to connect geographic locales with regional Wikipedians and groups?

6. Case studies

• Are case studies the output method of this project?
• If so, or even if they are only one method of this project, how will case studies be structured as far as the overarching goal and meeting that goal?

7. Measures of success

• What is the measure of success? This seems a bit fuzzy and non-specific. Librarian editor retention? Librarians teaching Wikipedia to their patrons? Regular Wikipedia events at public libraries tied to different initiatives (youth culture, Black History Month, LGBT outreach, etc. -- see also Women in Red ongoing editathon initiatives)?
• What are the risks or pain points?

8. Integration with other successful ongoing Wiki-based initiatives and programs -- use and/or repurpose and/or piggy-back upon existing efforts

• WikiEdu
  • Could the librarians go through Student Training as students to learn first, then go through Instructor Training to learn how to teach Wikipedia?
    • Student Training
    • Instructor Training
  • Handouts for Instructors
  • Interface as method to gather metrics. Would this be something that might work well for the project?
  • Dashboard that is de-WikiEdu'd (or not) which could provide automated method of capturing metrics
  • Conversely, creating a Wikipedia/Meetup space that is on-wiki and holding editathons there (see Art+Feminism, WM DC, WM NYC, etc.)
• Art+Feminism, to address the gender gap, LGBT, Art History; training videos exist from this effort; might any of these be adapted to this effort?
• AfroCROWD, especially for those with roots in the African diaspora and who are interested in contributing and translating non-English articles and encyclopedias
  • A bit concerned that this effort seems exclusively English language based. Would there be options to do outreach to non-English speaking and/or focused communities?
• Women in Red ongoing virtual editathons, for ongoing editathon community and engagement
• Other Wikipedia Meetup entities

9. Technical initiatives and opportunities

• Teaching using Wikidata projects that involve programming, the semantic web, and other data-based SPARQL tools via Wikidata Query Service for public librarians interested in advanced engagement. Is this advanced outreach going to be addressed if a community of interested folks is available, or is the assumption that most public librarians in public libraries need to have basic Wikipedia editing skills taught as the primary effort?

-- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Catalonia's Network of Public Library initiative

• There is a Wikipedia Catalonia's Network of Public Libraries initiative that would provide both a framework and model for this proposal. At minimum it might provide feedback on risks and challenges. It would be a worthwhile resource. Pasting this info, which was posted to GLAM mailing list, for collocation purposes. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Erika thanks for your excellent comments -- I'm going to try to address in chunks.

WebJunction - scale and previous success

WebJunction has been delivering online, in-person, and blended-format training programs to library staff across the U.S. and beyond for more than a decade. More than 70% of U.S. public libraries have used WebJunction to build their knowledge and skills on library, technology, and business topics. In 2015, we engaged 45,000 library professionals in WebJunction programming; for example, our bimonthly webinars attracted an average of more than 200 attendees. We reach and engage libraries from all different community sizes – from fewer than 5,000 people to more than 100,000 – and locations – from rural outposts and American territories to small cities and suburban communities to large urban centers. In keeping with our track record, we expect to attract a broad range of participation in our KNC project in terms of both community size, locale, and region. We also have strong relationships with library organizations that can help spread the word, including the Public Library Association, Association for Rural and Small Libraries, and Chief Officers of State Library Agencies.

WebJunction has trained learning cohorts of sizes ranging from 12 to 500+, within specific states, across the nation and the globe. The most recent example of a training program that is styled similarly to how we’ll approach our KNC project is “Supercharged Storytimes.” For that program, we taught 550 librarians across 6 states on how to maximize the impact of storytime programs on the development of essential literacy skills in young children. We held live web sessions interspersed over 8 weeks, in which all participants attended together as a learning cohort. They practiced at their library what they learned during each session, and discussed their experience in an online space that we actively facilitated on WebJunction.org. The sessions were recorded and archived for rewatching – these are now available for any library staff to view. We also captured the knowledge and resources shared by the participants themselves, in chat or on the discussions, and updated the training materials with this new information.

Online training is more accessible, flexible, and affordable to library staff than in-person training. Interactive online training (e.g., a course one goes through on one’s own) benefits from peer interaction, knowledge sharing, and mutual support. Facilitated online training helps to guide and focus participants, and makes them feel more supported. This training does not preclude – and in fact encourages – participants to share their learning and the related resources with colleagues. The disadvantage of in-person training or training that is happens at a conference is that it puts smaller, more remote and/or underfunded libraries at a distinct disadvantage: we are keenly aware that many library professionals are unable to leave their library to attend a conference or workshop because of staffing or budget shortfalls. Web-based training is far more accessible and inclusive by this measure.

Establishing a curriculum

We are actively working with our advisory group to develop learning objectives -- we've had two phone calls so far and I think we've made a lot of progress in developing a starter list of what we can accomplish together. Once we've built out what we want the students to come away with, we will definitely draw on what is already out there; this will be a big part of the materials-gathering phase of the project and the work of the Wikipedian-in-Residence. Our approach has always been “Don’t reinvent the wheel!”

Outreach

WebJunction has established networks with state libraries and an extensive contact list of librarians who have participated in WebJunction course offerings in the past. Additionally, we will be using OCLC’s broad reach using social media, email blasts, and other means to get the word out and build excitement about the course. We will also be leveraging relationships with ALA, COSLA, PLA and other allied library organizations. We will be pulling out all the stops but we can always use more help, particularly where Wikipedians have already established relationships – this is an opportunity to build on what already exists.

How will the interactions be structured?

This is a course that students would take in real time with each other. There is an emphasis not just on learning but having opportunities to implement what they learn and come back and discuss with one another. Sharing successes and challenges with one another is a key aspect of our learning environment.

Would this include going to conferences and doing hands-on training with public library stakeholders?

No, this does not. The course as conceived of is quite a bit broader than the mechanics of editing Wikipedia and we do not have funding to attend conferences or resources to build content for hands on training. Again, we are trying to avoid scope creep.

Outreach within Wikipedia community

Great idea!

Measures of success

Will be fleshed out as part of the evaluation design phase of the project, and in discussion with the Knight Foundation and our project advisors. We agree these are squishy and we are in development. What would you measure? There is certainly a lot we could measure but what are key metrics?

Dashboard that is de-WikiEdu'd

Yes, yes, yes. We want to be able to use existing tools to capture metrics.

Case studies

We are using the term “case studies” to indicate that we will observe and learn from libraries that conduct new activities and enhance services as a result of the training program, and document and share that emergent learning.

Conversely, creating a Wikipedia/Meetup space that is on-wiki and holding editathons there (see WM DC, WM NYC, etc.)

I think one of the strengths of our model is that we are meeting librarians where they are most comfortable. We want to get them to a place where on-Wiki interactions are normal and natural but don’t think that is the place to start. We definitely want to point people to Art+Feminism, AfroCROWD, Women in Red, and other projects (local, topical) that will resonant with particular patron communities, and also give trainees the capacity to develop their own programs. Also, WM DC already has more editathons than about any other place on the planet and I think WM NYC is not far behind. This program will help us reach geographies that are not the usual suspects in the US.

Concern about English language focus ... options to do outreach to non-English speaking and/or focused communities?

This proposal is tied to our KNC project, which is US based. Training will of course point to the multi lingual nature of Wikipedia and public libraries do serve diverse, multi lingual communities. We will point to translation tools, which can be of tremendous value for those who serve multilingual communities. I think all of our librarians would speak English but their communities may not.

Technical initiatives

I think given that our audience is public libraries, where there is little technical services infrastructure and where the emphasis is more on public service / outreach, this is largely out of scope. We do want to introduce Wikidata, and Wikisource, and will probably spend some more time on Commons, but this is mostly Wikipedia oriented.

Catalonia's Network of Public Library initiative

We are definitely on the same page! This project is a huge inspiration to us. We want to arrange some phone calls with Alex soon to talk about lessons learned and to get feedback on what we are developing.

Whew! I hope that covers most of it. Merrilee (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Merrilee -- I apologize that I didn't see the answers you wrote here until now. I'm very happy with this additional information. I see this grant as a matching-funding to the Knight Foundation Grant and a truly complementary and constructive project for Wikimedia -- so I believe this would benefit all entities concerned, and the cost is very low for the potential outreach and effectiveness. I think this is a great project and wish you the best success! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Paid Wikimedian in residence?

To me, it seems problematic if WMF starts paying organizations to host Wikimedians-in-Residence. --Jura1 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jura1: Disagree vehemently. Wikimedians-in-Residence are never paid very well -- if at all -- and almost without exception are contributing significantly to specific projects and are involved in massive amounts of outreach. The impact of the prior WiR program OCLC did was major for English Wikipedia. This current project has the potential to impact the national public library infrastructure in a way that very few companies are leveraged to do. Also I don't believe if free digital labor beyond the hobbyist realm. See Labor and the New Encyclopedia by Dorothy Howard. There should be funded, regular Wikipedian-in-Residence programs throughout the world. There is no downside and people should be remunerated for their excellent work. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that WMF pays for it, not the organisation hosting the resident. --Jura1 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions about effectiveness and sustainability

I like the idea of engaging librarians. While this program looks well suited to help librarians understand Wikipedia better, I am uncertain that this is a cost-effective way to encourage librarians to add new content to Wikipedia either themselves or by organizing edit-a-thons. In Seattle, we were successful in getting librarians interested in Wikipedia, but attendance by students at edit-a-thons with librarians was low. Based on that experience, I am concerned that educating librarians about Wikipedia wouldn't necessarily result in a significant amount of new content being added to Wikipedia.

Also, I would like to understand better why it's necessary to have a full-time contractor for 12 months to achieve the most important benefits of this project. There are numerous online resources available for Wikipedia training, and more are in development such as an instructional video series about Wikipedia that is already being funded by a WMF grant. Also, Wikimedia affiliates in several parts of the US already conduct events with libraries. I am uncertain what benefit would be achieved from this project that couldn't be achieved with a smaller use of resources that is designed to package existing resources in a way that is useful for librarians.

I wonder if it would be prudent to let the 4 months of this project funded by the Knight Foundation happen, and evaluate the outcome of those 4 months, before committing $70,000 of WMF funds to this project. If WMF funding is approved, evaluating the progress of the proposal on a monthly basis and appropriating funds on a monthly basis, rather than committing a full 12 months of funding, might be wise.

If the outcomes of the Seattle editathons had been more positive then I would feel more supportive of this project, but based on our experience, I believe that this is a risky project, and I am uncomfortable with the proposal to expend $70,000 of funds in this way until there is evidence that this approach is likely to have successful long-term outcomes. --Pine^✉ 19:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)ur

Thanks for that and I appreciate your notes of caution -- however, this is not a series of editathons, it's a designed-for-librarians course where we seek to empower librarians to do a really deep dive. Because of the broad reach of our online programs, we can reach people across the entire US. Your proposal that we carry out 4 months of the project and then push the pause button and evaluate I don't think is practical -- once we've built up some steam we'd like to continue to roll forward (the first few months with our Wikipedian we will still be partly in an awareness building phase and also finalizing our curriculum). I really appreciate all that you have done in the PNW and would love to have you come to our WebJunction offices (which are in Seattle) for a session with my colleagues there -- this would be very beneficial for us. Merrilee (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Merrilee, let me respond with a few questions.

• You say "this is not a series of editathons, it's a designed-for-librarians course where we seek to empower librarians to do a really deep dive." Improved Wikipedia literacy for librarians, while a noble goal, can be pursued through less expensive means, so I'm not understanding why this expense is necessary. Can you explain what Wikimedia would achieve from this method of outreach that couldn't be achieved through other means that are less costly?
• I understand the attraction of wanting to continue straight through for 16 months, but I am uncomfortable with funding a $70,000 expense on an outreach model where we don't have evidence that it will achieve long-term meaningful impact toward Wikimedia's mission, and I'm even more uncomfortable with this given our experience in Seattle actually provides us some evidence that this outreach method is ineffective. For me to be persuaded to support this, I would like to see evidence that your model is significantly different than the model we attempted to use in Seattle. At the moment this looks like a scaled-up version of some aspects of what we tried and failed to achieve in Seattle, so I would like to understand what about your model makes it more likely to achieve sustainable, long-term impact for the Wikimedia mission.
• I would be more comfortable with this request if we were discussing an amount like $700 or maybe $7,000. For $70,000, I feel that there should be substantial evidence that the model that is being proposed has been proven effective. As far as I can tell, there isn't evidence which supports that hypothesis. Is that incorrect? If we're going to test a hypothesis, I would say that it should be tested at a smaller scale, and the initial four months of funding from Knight is a good way to do that before risking $70,000 of WMF funds on a model which lacks evidence of effectiveness.
• I would be glad to meet with you at some point. Please understand that I like the idea of outreach to and through librarians; my concern here is that the model being proposed lacks evidence to support it, and the amount of funding being requested is much larger than I feel WMF should fund in the absence of evidence of effectiveness. I wish that there was evidence to support the model being proposed here, but I don't think that evidence exists yet. I would be glad to discuss alternative models, and/or ways to lower the risk of some experiments with the model that is being proposed here. You are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page so that we can set up a meeting to try to devise a way to make an initiative like this be lower risk and/or more likely to succeed.

--Pine^✉ 19:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions by NickK

Hi @Merrilee: and thank you for your proposal. Your idea of a Wikimedian-in-Residence in Online Computer Library Center is interesting, but I have several questions regarding this project:

• What is the timeline for the project? You state on this talk page that the WiR will spend the first four months in an awareness building phase and finalizing the curriculum, can you please provide the full timeline, ideally on the grant page?
• What is the total budget of the project? It would be helpful to see what other expenses are covered by the project, such as trainings or materials.
• Who else will be involved in the project? How many volunteers or staff members of OCLC are involved, how many of them are Wikimedians?
• What will be the exact role of the Wikimedian-in-Residence after developing the curriculum? As far as I understand, the course will be entirely online, thus will the WiR focus entirely on helping local libraries to create new programmes once the curriculum is online?
• Why will the materials be available only under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 license? Can you choose a Wikimedia Commons-compatible license, such as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0?

Thanks in advance for your answers — NickK (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @NickK:, I am responding for the OCLC project while Merrilee is on vacation. Thank you for your questions. Here are some answers; I've also made some updates to the grant page.

Timeline? I have added the full timeline as pulled from our KNC grant proposal. We are planning to start the project on December 1 2016 and end May 31, 2018. The timeline is:

1. Awareness building: Dec. 2016- Sept. 2017
2. Training program: Mar. 2017-Nov. 2017
3. Guide/observe/document library programming: Dec. 2017-Mar. 2018
4. Revise, package, publish resources: Jan. 2018-May 2018

Budget? With the funding from WMF, the total budget would be $367,000, which covers all other expenses related to our project. Staff time is the primary expense. There are some travel and materials costs.

Staffing? Portions of 6 staff members from our WebJunction team will be applied to the project, to provide the training, public library engagement, communications, and project management expertise; Merrilee will provide Wikipedia expertise. Volunteers from the Wikimedia community who are serving as project advisors are listed on the grant page.

Role of WiR? The activities of the WiR are listed under Activities. The WiR will be a resource for libraries during the online training program, and while they are planning and conducting local programs. They will serve as a connector to Wikipedians, and a consultant/advisor to the OCLC project team during all phases and outputs of the project. They will also help document the experience of a sampling of public libraries that do local activities and programs as a result of the training.

Licensing? The default license for content published to WebJunction.org is the license referenced in our proposal. The grant language has been updated to allow for a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 license to be applied to the shareable resources generated by the project.--Thinktower (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2016

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2016 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 1 2016 begins on 24 August 2016, and grants will be announced in October. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments of Ruslik0

This is a well written proposal, although I have some concerns:

1. What does OCLC stand for? In this long application you have never spelled out this abbreviate!
2. You say "0.001% of all Wikipedians and 0.2% of U.S. librarians ...". This is no that bad taking into account that just about 10⁻⁵ of the general population actively participate in Wikipedia.
3. A more serious concern is that there is no specific goals, plans and measures of success for the Wikipedia-in-Residence. This grant application seems to be inseparable from the Knight's grant. By this reason it is difficult to evaluate this proposal and it will be difficult to evaluate its results. Can you write something about plans and measures of success specifically for this grant?
4. Is it possible to see the Knight's grant application somewhere?

Ruslik (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Some answers:

1. Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC): About OCLC Research and Merrilee Proffitt, Senior Program Officer profile

4. Knight grant application: Improve access to knowledge and empower citizens: Amplify libraries and communities through Wikipedia

- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for A Wikipedian-in-Residence to Engage 500 Librarians and their Communities

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?	6.8
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	6.4
(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?	7.3
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	8.1
Additional comments from the Committee: Engaging librarians and steering them towards Wikimedia projects is a worthwhile goal, which has potential for a significant online impact and fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities. The results of the project are likely to be sustained after the grant ends. I find that #1lib1ref was a successful project, and therefore similar results could be iterated in this project as well. I see a lot of potential and it could be replicated in other communities around the world. Sustainability for the project depends on continued outside funding. It has moderate potential for online impact. This project is rather similar to projects already organised in other regions (e.g. Catalan library project) and it is not clear that this approach will provide the expected result. However if this project succeeds it will have significant impact. I see a new initiative joining of two worlds that naturally fit together -- Librarians and Wikipedia editors -- if the librarians can understand Wikipedia and spread the word in their world, it may be a great way to engage new users. The goals and measures of success are sufficiently clear and position the project for a long-term impact. However, they are also indistinguishable from the main Knight Foundation grant. It’s a brilliant idea but a bit ambitious. I would recommend doing the project in phases to lessen the risk of failure and provide opportunities to course correct. The mode of action of the project appears to be iterative, but the collaboration with OCLC to engage the network of librarians is an innovative idea. At the end of the project, we will hopefully learn about the impact of online training programs on a motivated group of participants. The outreach tools may be reused for similar projects in future. I would have enjoyed the indication of a pre-survey, that could become a parameter to measure success. The project budget and plan are realistic, the participants have necessary skills and the scope can be finished within 12 months (if the main Knight's grant is successful). This is highly executable but I suggest a phased project. Also, the grantee should provide a breakdown of the budget. Grant is requested for over 16 months. Budget seems ok, though it would represent a big chunk of what the grant committee would be able to offer this round. Eventually, a way to solve this equation would be to establish this project as a step-by-step process, in which smaller grants (of around 20,000) would be given for smaller scale activities, that would make us able to identify progressively how this goes. OCLC and Knight Foundation involvement gives credibility about the ability to execute. I like the fact that the community is enthused about it, yet am worried that about the magnitude of the project. Great endorsement rate. Strong partnerships. Strong community engagement, with many people working with libraries supporting and helping the project. This project (goals, plan, measures of success and even staff) is really inseparable from the Knight Foundation grant and should be evaluated together with it. The project seems to be a great opportunity to introduce librarians to Wikipedia, however it would have been great to try this out on much smaller scale, say with 50 librarians and extend organically if it works. It looks quite impossible to do that as this project is part of another that seems to have funding. I recommend this project for funding as it is both innovative and iterative, with realistic expectations and well-defined measures of success. However, I would like to see the progress of this project tracked separately from the Knight Grant. Reduced funding for the WiR: either switching to part-time or reducing length of the contract: this project can bring some impact but I would expect more from this level of funding. All the talk page concerns about paid WiR model for 12 months are valid. Scope and duration can be reduced. Can decide phased funding following the results of 4 months long Knight grant. If the project could be completed in 6 months or funded for period of 6 months, we will be able to track the work of the WiR and see if it's successful and useful. The budget seems quite high. I would ask the grantee to change the position from full-time to part-time (as it is for all WiR paid by WMF).

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:

1. 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. We recommend that you review all the feedback and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page.
2. Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on Thursday, May 27, 2021.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia  · org.

Merrilee, our interview with you was part of the due diligence process (I'm getting these comments posted late). You are still welcome to record any response you have to committee comments on your talkpage to make your feedback publicly accessible, but I think we gathered the information we needed for the committee during our talk with you. Best regards, Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Round 1 2016 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, $70,000 USD

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support your work to develop an online Wikipedia training for librarians at scale and understand how critical it is to have a Wikipedian-in-Residence that can be bridge between librarians the Wikimedia community. We recognize OCLC’s strong history of developing successful trainings for librarians and look forward to seeing what impact can be made with such a large partnership.

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.