Grants talk:Project/SmallProjects

Questions from Superzerocool

Hi Galahad, thanks for sharing us your proposal. I have some questions after a few reviews (you can answer following the numbers or just in one idea or short sentences)

Round 1

1. How do you keep shining the project after the grant ends?. I mean, you will organize some events in Spanish projects (aimed to Spanish-speakers), but how do you encourage the new editors to continue in the projects?. I'm not tniking about editors retention, because this kind of metric doesn't depend on you.
2. The KPI to be measured could be grouped by editor and content. Can you group by these items to be more easily measured?
3. How do you will measure the numbers about KPI?
4. About roles and responsibilities, how will conduct the training? what is the role of Project manager?
5. About budget, How will ownership the laptop after the grant ends?
6. Do you will work with local chapters or Iberocoop to reach more editors or just leave a message in Café and other spaces?

Thanks in advance! Superzerocool (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Superzerocool, I'll answer following the numbers:

1. This question can only be answered by assumptions, since the problems of the project must first be known before even saying "the project will shine". Editors will feel included if they are invited to participate within the existing community - either through spaces for such purposes -. All the projects that I have considered that my grant was successful, I will try to include the new editors to the communities, making them understand that there are different ways to feel comfortable.
2. I'll try to adequate the KPI.
3. Through the tools that are available for such purposes (ex: eventmetrics). Some projects cannot be measured and therefore the Project Manager must be in charge of measuring them manually.
4. The Project Manager will be in charge of the trainings. Regarding the functions, although stipulated in the wiki of the group, I will pass them to the Meta page. You can view the draft here (in spanish).
5. As long as the group is not recognized, it'll be retained by me and only delivered through a series of requirements - thus we make sure that the laptop will be in good hands and that it will be to contribute to the projects -. A page for such purposes was created on the group's wiki, but I must also pass it to Meta, so it's a draft (spanish, again).
6. One of the actions to be carried out through this grant is that we can work together with other affiliates to make this possible. In the case of unable to contact them or they are reluctant to collaborate, it will be through messages in the respective community spaces. Regarding Iberocoop, although the fundamental text of WikiSP prevents any contact because there was little support from them in previous events, it is expected to contact the members of Iberocoop individually. The procedures that Iberocoop may operate are too heavy.

Hope in answer your questions. Regards, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 19:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Round 2

Hi Galahad thanks for your answers, it was very useful. Some questions to clarify another issues:

1. About PM payment and the draft version, The amount to be paid, are including local taxes or something else?, Is there any labour law to allow a 90 hours/week work? (diff on your wiki)
2. About the phases, it seems a little empty and I don't know about the estimated time to develop all tasks or activities, Can you clarify this point? (update your project with estimated time)
3. About contests, how it will be awarded the winners?. I see it in the budget, but there is not sufficient explanation about the number of contests and how to determine the winners. 6 prizes of 600 USD seems a lot even in the First World.

Please, remember update or improve your proposal. Superzerocool (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC) (ps: don't presume bad faith, I'm pointing out some weaknesses or similar issues in the proposal)

Hi again Superzerocool sorry for the delayed response. I'm not presuming bad faith, your feedback is very useful:

1. The amount to be paid corresponds to an amount greater than the minimum wage, but less than the average wage. No labour law allow 90 h/w, just a random work hour and the draft is only a reference for PM responsibilities (the work hour will be modified in the final version). However, I updated the draft version.
2. I updated with a schedule. Please review.
3. The amount is for prizes in five or six contests held and not one prize for each contest. In example: 600 USD is equivalent to 150 USD first prize, 100$ second prize, 50$ third prize and 300$ for challenges. You can take as reference the SpanishWikivoyageContest Points System.

Hope in answer your questions. Regards, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 19:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Round 3

Hi Galahad, thanks for updating your proposal. And yeah, more questions and improvements

1. About the budget, you specified cost per unit, but no how many units are in PM wage (12 units, 6, 9....)
2. How will be the labour relationship? Is there any contract or just paying as you go? In many places there are laws to pay healthcare or retirement, but I can't see it in the grant. I don't know where is based the PM (maybe Peru, due Peruvian Sol?) and the local regulation to pay taxes. If there is any tax to pay, you could add as a new line in the budget.
3. I suggest to add a 1% - 5% of your grant request to pay unforeseen events (pay a new laptop charger, bank costs, etc.).
4. About the terminology: when you said new Wikimedians, are you thinking new accounts from Global Accounts or just new in the project? If I never edited in Wikiversity and I will participate in the project, what will my category be?
5. About your previous grant, what are your key learnings from the past grant and how is represented in this grant?. Write it in the proposal ;)
6. Have you identified some risks to be avoided during the grant execution?

Kindly, Superzerocool (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC) (ps: and yes, I'm being a naggy about somethings, sorry for that)

Hi Superzerocool, thanks for your feedback. And yep, I'll answer again:

1. I updated the PM wage, please review.
2. After the PM report, will be paid. No contract, just paying as I go, because the PM may have another job (unrelated to the grant) and we don't want to harm PM's situation.
3. Added a 2%. I guess it has to be enough.
4. In terms of the grant, new wikimedian relates new accounts from global accounts and/or participate in any group. You meet one of the two criteria, so you would be considered a new wikimedian.
5. This question made me a bit hesitant as I didn't know where to put it. I placed it at the beginning of the proposal, along with the other approved grant.
6. There is a chance that the communities from which we expect to receive feedback don't exist. Even if we talk about them in training sessions and encourage participation, they would be excluded from the contests. A personal risk existed during the execution of the first grant and although it's still latent, it will not affect the executions of the second grant and of this if it's approved.

Hoping to have answered your questions and looking forward to more of them. Regards, --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 03:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal Clinics

Thanks for posting your draft proposal for the Project Grants open call! I wanted to make sure you are aware that we are hosting proposal clinics for applicants to discuss, ask questions and get feedback about their proposals. Participation is optional. If you would like to attend, you can find the dates, times and videoconference links posted at this link. Let me know if you have any questions! Good luck finishing and submitting your proposal for the February 10 deadline!

Warm regards,

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions from Ruslik0

I have a few questions/comments:

1. How were the participating communities selected? They include mainly Spanish projects with a few projects in other languages.
2. I think your plan is too complicated for such a small project. I suggest that you simplify it. All these terms: Phobus, Deimos, Ganymede, Greek letters look confusing.
3. You listed among the risks a possibility that a local community might not exist in some participating projects. But could not you identify such dead projects beforehand using some formal criteria, e.g. low editing activity or lack thereof? Would not this save you significant time and effort?
4. Similarly, dead affiliates can be identified as well.
5. What activities will editing contests include?

Thank you. Ruslik (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ruslik0::

1. We'd like to start with spanish projects. Because we noticed that there is low participation in them. The other projects, although small, have a considerable participation.
2. "Small projects" mean "Non-developed projects". However, I changed greek letters to numbers. The names and phases are not complicated. The more detailed, explained and with enough time to carry them out, the success of a project (in this case the grant) is possible.
3. We need to observe them at the time of execution. May be inactive before the grant but during it their activity flourishes, they would be discarded by assumptions and we would not make any progress.
4. Same as the previous point. Also, affiliate time is difficult to control due to heavy procedures.
5. It is always based on creating new content or improving the existing one. Sometimes we can include taking pictures or other things that we think are convenient on the go.

Hope in answer your questions. Regards, --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 02:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, Round 1 2021 - Community Organizing proposal

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for review in Round 1 2021 for Community Organizing projects. This decision is contingent upon compliance with our COVID-19 guidelines. Proposals that include travel and/or offline events must ensure that all of the following are true:

• You must review and can comply with the guidelines linked above.
• If necessary because of COVID-19 safety risks, you must be able to complete the core components of your proposed work plan _without_ offline events or travel.
• You must be able to postpone any planned offline events or travel until the Wikimedia Foundation’s guidelines allow for them, without significant harm to the goals of your project.
• You must include a COVID-19 planning section in your activities plan. In this section, you should provide a brief summary of how your project plan will meet COVID-19 guidelines, and how it would impact your project if travel and offline events prove unfeasible throughout the entire life of your project. If you have not already included this in your proposal, you have until March 3rd to add it.

The Community review period is now underway, from February 20-March 4. We encourage you to make sure that stakeholders, volunteers, and/or communities impacted by your proposed project are aware of your proposal and invite them to give feedback on your talkpage. This is a great way to make sure that you are meeting the needs of the people you plan to work with and it can help you improve your project.

• If you are applying for funds in a region where there is a Wikimedia Affiliate working, we encourage you to let them know about your project, too.
• If you _are_ a Wikimedia Affiliate applying for a Project Grant: A special reminder that our guidelines and criteria require you to announce your Project Grant requests on your official user group page on Meta and a local language forum that is recognized by your group, to allow adequate space for objections and support to be voiced).

Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community review period. By March 4, make sure that your proposal has incorporated any revisions you want to make and complies with all of our guidelines. If you have not already done so, you can make use of our project planning resources to improve your proposal further, too.

The Project Grant committee's formal review for round 1 2020 will occur March 5 through March 20, 2021. We ask that you refrain from making any further changes to your proposal during the committee review period, so we can be sure that all committee members are scoring the same version of the proposal.

Grantees will be announced Friday, April 22, 2021. Sometimes we have to make some changes to the round schedule. If that happens, it will be reflected on the round schedule on the Project Grants start page.

We look forward to engaging with you in this Round!

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia  · org.

--Mercedes Caso (platícame) 17:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Questions from Joalpe

Hello and thank you for taking the time for and making the effort of writing a proposal related to neglected projects. I have six questions about the proposal (and sorry if they were answered elsewhere, please refer me to places where they might have been addressed if this has happened):

• Is this need of revival coming from the shrinking community you want to work with or is the proposal based on your exogenous assessment that projects you have identified could benefit from a catalyst program?
• I would like to present an alternative approach about what might be happening with some of the small projects you have listed. What if these projects should be dropped? I am not convinced at this points after ten years as a Wikimedia we gain much with Wikinews and Wikivoyage. In 2017 and 2018, I have myself tried to bring more editors in these two projects in Portuguese, connecting the local communities with students of mine. There was a peak of edits and then... everything stopped. More importantly: content we had contributed to both projects was easily transported to Wikipedia and Wikidata. I understand we have thought of real boundaries between projects in our ecosystem, but what if these boundaries should be revisited and eventually we should let some wikivoyages and wikinews just go. How do you know this is not the case?
• Wouldn't it be easier to just focus on a specific kind of project and come up with research and guidelines for a specific project? It might be just too big for a kickoff. Why not focus specifically on --for instance-- small wikisources? Or small wikiversities? You might be able to work on cross-affiliate engagement more easily and create a more sustainable approach. Or alternatedly why not focus on just one language? Spanish here I would say comes up as a natural pick.
• Could you please provide some context on the situation of Wikimedia Small Projects: was it already recognized as a Wikimedia affiliate? I saw you are listed on the category of Wikimedia User Group Applicants Working to Satisfy Criteria, but I am not sure how updated this information is. How is the governance of the group? Have you as a group worked on previous rapid grants? If yes, could you please link them?
• On the different phases, could you please explain what the research methodology will be? What are the hypotheses you want to focus on? How will data be gathered? What is the research background of the project manager?
• Why do you think contests might be a good option to cope with the crisis of small projects? Moreover, I would say we might want to come up with a solution after we have a good diagnosis of the problem. Since we don't have research results yet, why do contests are seen as a solution for the problem of the small projects? My suggestion here would be you disaggregate research --you should pursue and hopefully the grants team is able to support-- and the community organization piece. This means: only focus in this project grant on research and eventually apply for community activities once we have good data and a better sense of what we should do.

I hope my comments make sense. Thanks for your time and your service to the movement. --Joalpe (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Joalpe:

• Not only revive, but imply that projects can have collaborations with each other Grants:Project/Rapid/Galahad/NewsVoyage made possible a collaboration between two projects with positive preliminary results.

• Precisely this grant is to evaluate which projects can continue to exist, which cannot, and in what way we can promote their revitalization. If the conclusion is that one of the projects should disappear, it has been after a review of the project for the duration of the grant and beyond.

• We started with Spanish and some projects in other languages that we consider appropriate to include in this preliminary grant. We want to see how the actions initially planned towards the Spanish side can work with other projects.
• The group has not yet been recognized due to delays on the part of the affcom support associate based on the group's name. Although we are not yet recognized as a group, we want to take actions to favor the projects on which it is focused. Grants:Project/Rapid/Galahad/NewsVoyage and Grants:Project/Rapid/Galahad/SpanishWikivoyageContest are the rapid grants in which members of the group are organizers of the same.
• We will evaluate participation in the affected project before, during and after the grant, through the research process and the revitalization process (contests). Based on the hypothesis that with a small boost the project can float.

Understanding that the project grant process is quite tedious, if it is approved, we want both processes to be included in the same grant. In the event that a project is not eligible to hold an event, the amount for such event will be reserved and returned or used for another grant if applicable. The grant is under the assumption that all projects it focuses on will have positive results.

I hope my comments can answer your questions. Greetings,.--Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 20:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Project/SmallProjects

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?	5.7
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	5.5
(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?	6.5
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	6.3
Additional comments from the Committee: It has an unique approach to local online communities. The vision of the project is clear but the realization is not clear enough. The data analysis could be improved. The project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities. However I do not think that it can be sustained or scaled after completion of the grant. In the best case after a small uptick the activity could drop to the initial levels (~zero) after the project ends. A general plan of how small projects fit the strategic vision of the movement is missing still from our movement general perspective for 2030. Hopefully proponents can contribute to this plan, as this has somehow been a neglected aspect of our discussions on knowledge equity. Moreover, the diagnosis upon which this proposal rests might not be sufficiently substantiated: the idea that "small projects" are losing vitality because of our lack of capacity to attract contributors. Alternative perspectives are not discussed, and this could be organized as a movement-wide discussion. It has a lot of risks underestimated by the applicant. I didn't see the previous experiences to reduce the risks in the projects and the grantee assumes there is enough local community to develop the project. There are few responsibilities for other participants. The project is a mixture of some research and of a few editing contests and training sessions. It is of iterative nature. The potential impact of the project is quite limited in my opinion. It is unlikely that any of these small projects will be really revived. A positive aspect about the project is its inclination towards research. Normally, interventions on neglected projects might have a simply voluntaristic, henceforth ephemeral, approach. This is not the case, and the inclination is a strength of the proposal. The idea of a contest is at least to me not sufficiently justified, as it is unclear how this kind of activity could contribute to catalyzing a sustained engagement in the small projects of interest. The main core participant has enough experience to develop the project due past Rapid Grant requests. The budget seems a little high, but so low if we compare with other projects in this round. The scope can be accomplished in 12 months. The budget is clear and the participants probably have necessary skills. Proponent is an experienced Wikimedian and is part of a group that has organized with the mission of supporting small projects. Yet, it is unclear whether any of the participants have any research background. This could be supported by the WMF, but might not be aligned to the priorities of the team. Applicants are apparently all involved in Wikimedia projects that run in Spanish or English; it is unclear whether or not participants have language skills for supporting projects in which interactions are not in Spanish and English. I would suggest they only focus on projects in which they can interact fluently. There is a modest community engagement. There is community engagement, yet it is unclear whether or not existing communities on the small projects of interest are interested in what is proposed. The project is not clear. Basically the group seems to look in the page of statistics and to identify (manually?) the areas to support. Anyways if the data are not reliable because there is a manual process to do, the results can drive to an inefficient solution. I am not sure that this project will result in revival of any of those small Wikipedia projects. The proposed research aims at identification of problems in the chosen projects and presenting possible solutions to their editing communities. However the main problem (as with any failed project) is just lack of people interested in the participation. It is highly doubtful that any external intervention can solve this problem. The research element of this proposal is interesting, as it can provide a better sense of how projects succeed and fail. Yet, its scope needs to be reviewed --comments on the talk page address interesting points that should be incorporated. The idea of a contest as a means of shifting the downturn of projects is not necessarily sound and could be dropped and eventually presented in an eventual follow-up project. This could then become a six-month project with an exclusive focus on research. Budget should be reviewed accordingly.

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 Friday, April 22, 2021.

Questions? Contact us.

Mercedes Caso (platícame) 01:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

[Favor de responder a la brevedad] Solicitud de correo electrónico

Hola Galahad,

Su proyecto ha sido seleccionado por el Comité de Subvenciones de Proyectos para pasar a la siguiente fase de revisión. Por ello, nos gustaría reunirnos con ustedes durante una hora para conversar sobre su propuesta de subvención.

Por favor envía un correo electrónico a projectgrants [@] wikimedia . org para que podamos contactarte para programar una llamada la semana entrante.

Muchos saludos,

--Mercedes Caso (platícame) 00:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Responses to Project Grant Committee Feedback

Hi @MCasoValdes (WMF): and Project Grant Committee, I'll put some highlights about the comments raised above and on the meeting:

1. This project actually hasn't reliable data and are based on data in statswikimedia and our own experience. However, we'll happy if reliable data from Wikimedia Foundation can be shared with us and give more perspective about the investigation focus.
2. The investigation process have four months of only investigation and two months of observation (how the projects and communities behave in the face of our actions). The part of revitalization ideas (training sessions and edit contests) maybe executed after the complete investigation. However, if the thoughts of the committee is focus only on investigation and no observation, no training sessions and no edit contests, the project team can adapt the grant project in compliance with the Committee.
3. Initially, after the grant was approved, our plan is request Wikimedia Foundation to store half of the budget. Whenever our investigation give positive data, we will request the delivery of the remaining money. This is due to the tedious process involved in approving a project grant. And although there will be changes in how they will be carried out from now on, the idea is to ensure that the project can continue without interruptions.
4. The idea of this grant is to investigate the viability of small projects and their possibility of contributing to other large projects.

Greetings, --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 21:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes to Project Grant

Hi @MCasoValdes (WMF):

I'll request some changes to the project budget and plan, listed below:

Project plan

Reduced from twelve months to six months.

Phases and groups

Phase	Details	Projects affected (groups)	Timeframe
Preliminary Research	Preliminary Research, applicable criteria: No community or less than ten volunteers Without new content Existing content is with poor quality Expected in this phase: Clear feedback from affected communities about the problem. Feedback from Wikimedia Foundation about the affected projects. Brainstorming about suitable proposals from the communities.	eswikivoyage, eswikinews, eswikiquote, eswikibooks, eswiktionary, eswikiversity	June-July 2021
Data revision	Revision of phase one. Communities' feedback will be synthesized with Wikimedia Foundation feedback and Project Team feedback - Internal phase Classification of no-response communities in other group ("Out-of-time communities" if they answer out of the time expected or "Non-responsive communities" if they not answer).	N/A	August 1 - 15, 2021
Communications with Wikimedia affiliates (Round one)	Communication with Wikimedia affiliates about our initial data. Meeting with them and recognize potencial reasons at the moment of provide support to affected communities.	N/A	August 16 - 30 2021
Training sessions	Training sessions	eswikivoyage, eswikinews, eswikiquote, eswikibooks, eswiktionary, eswikiversity	Sep 1-15, 2021
Data revision about training sessions	Data revision about our training sessions	All groups	Sep 16 - Oct 1, 2021
Communications with Wikimedia affiliates (round two)	Communication with Wikimedia affiliates about data obtained from training sessions. Expected communication with Wikimedia Foundation	N/A	October 2021
Preliminary data	Each data provided in every phase will be synthesized in preliminary data. We'll investigate evolution of affected communities and Wikimedia affiliates	N/A	November 1, 2021 - December 15, 2021
Holidays	Christmas season	N/A	December 16, 2021 - January 7, 2021
Final data	Final data about the project with recommendations to Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia affiliates and communities affected	N/A	January 15, 2021

Project budget

Lowered from $8374,20 to $5775

Budget

Description	Quantity	Amount per unit	Total amount
Project Manager revenue	6	$350	$2100
Support project manager	6	$350	$2100
Laptops	2	$650	$1300
5% of grant request	1	$275	$275
Total	-	-	$5775

Please, provide feedback if Project Committee allows this change. Regards, --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @MCasoValdes (WMF):

Just confirm my request above. I'd like to center our effors on investigation and training sessions. After our conclusion, will be requested another project including what recommendation our team consider. --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 19:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Round 1 2021 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, $5,757

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support research to learn more about the potential of small wiki projects in Spanish, and to guide decision making around how to promote their growth.

NOTE: Funding of any offline activities (e.g. travel and in-person events) is contingent upon compliance with the Wikimedia Foundation's COVID-19 guidelines. We require that you complete the Risk Assessment Tool:

• 14 days before any travel and/or gathering event
• 24 hours before any travel and/or gathering event

Offline events may only proceed if the tool results continue to be green or yellow.

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.

Marti (WMF) (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)