Grants talk:Project/UG GLAM Macedonia/Wikipedian in Residence

Questions from Superzerocool

Hi Violetova, Gordi and GjorgjiP: thanks for your nice project presentation. I have some questions:

• I see lack of communication and endorsement, has you tell something about the project to someone in the macedonian community?
• I don't see completed the section "Community engagement", How the macedonian community (not UG-members) will use the new information?, Is anyway to access to information during the project execution?

Superzerocool (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Superzerocool,

Everyone has access to the files which WiR is uploading on commons, because they are in the specific category, as we did it in 2016. The files are useful in other wikis, and we know that by using GLAMorgan tool: at the moment, 1,417 pages on 34 wikis use the files uploaded by WiR in 2016. As far as we can count, more than 120 new articles are created in many languages and more than 70 are improved. Those numbers show importance of WiR work not only for Macedonian community, but for other Wikipedian communities also.

It is a practice to notify the community about the progress of WiR during his/her term in many ways. One way is by notification in the Village Pump and with the Site notice, Facebook pages, mailing lists: about the event WiR is organizing, about the theme and date of edit-a-thons, about the Wikipedian tours in the institution, about the DARM challenge, etc. Many times we have information and news announced in the media. Oh, I forgot to mention short reports in the newsletter 'This Month in GLAM'. Regards, -Violetova (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Violetova, thanks for your kindly answers: I didn't know how you kept updated to local community about your advances (I must say it, I don't read the GLAM newsletter *sad face*). In this proposal, I don't see the endorsements: do you have the local (macedonian users) support?. I saw many good projects but without endorsements here (in Meta). Do you have any idea why no one has signed? Superzerocool (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Superzerocool, I think that no one has signed to endorse here in Meta at the moment, because the grant request is proposed yesterday. I expect Wikipedians to come and endorse in the course of the next several days. Regards, Violetova (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Violetova, ooopppssss... I'm deeply sorry: I'm a bit confused with other project. Thanks for your answers. Regards Superzerocool (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Community opinion

Hi, as one of the most active editors on Macedonian Wikipedia, I`m concerned about the quality of this arrangement. As I can see proposed members that supposedly should teach editing and educate employees of these cultural institutions, are two users that has less than 300 edits in total and they did not upload any photographs on Commons ever. How one newbie know licencing on Commons, educating others when they write only several article and Gjorgji just one (with template for quality improving). Their articles on Macedonian Wikipedia are marked with templates that needs improving of quality, so I doubt in their skills to help others to edit on Wikipedia. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ehrlich91, thank you for your comments. I am advisor in this project, active Wikipedian, sysop on mk.wiki and experienced with the duty of WiR as past Wikipedian in Residence at DARM, which means that you don't have to worry about licencing on commons, editing etc. I will be available for any questions and concerns they could face with. About your concerns of chosen persons, I have to say that user Gordi has more than 300 edits, and she has uploaded files on commons. User GjorjiP is IT person, and his skills are on very high level. I am sure that they will fit right into the WiR duty. Oh, and we do not have to forget that creating articles is not part of WiR duty. Regards - Violetova (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the submission. My view as an active contributor to the Macedonian Wikipedia is that Violetova's tenure as a Wikipedian in residence at the State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia (DARM) had a positive impact on the Macedonian Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement in general mostly as a result of the valuable materials liberated and digitised that are now used in articles on historical topics as well as of the two DARM challenges that resulted in adding the uploaded images to articles. That said, it is reasonable and highly recommendable for me to extend Violetova's tenure as a Wikipedian in residence because of her past success and experience in the movement.

My concerns regarding the arrangement are about the eligibility, the current employment status and the communication with the nominated candidates.

• First, the engagement of inexperienced Wikipedians who are not well established as active users even among the Macedonian Wikipedia community substantially increases the risk of the quality of this arrangement. Gordi has made 338 edits on all Wikimedia projects with much of them consisting of articles without citing any sources for verifying the content (e.g. example 1, example 2, example 3 and example 4), while GjorgjiP has made only 33 edits with his only written article being tagged with a template requiring clean-up to meet the quality standards. I do not deny that these people are specialists in their own fields, but their contributions to the Wikimedia movement so far are far from enough to make them eligible for holding the position of a Wikipedian in residence.

• Second, the current employment status may also be a cause for concern. On the application page, GjorgjiP is introduced as an IT specialist who works in the DARM. If a person has a permanent employment with a fixed work time, it is difficult or nearly impossible to hold two positions at the same time due to the overlap of work time and commitments. Therefore, it is recommended to check the current employment status of the nominated candidates in order to find out how available they will be before signing any contracts.

• Third, it is also recommended the candidates to join the discussion and respond to the concerns raised about their engagement. Since they are the potential Wikipedians in residence and the people who will have to establish a smooth communication between the communities and the GLAM institutions, having them on the back burner while the discussion about the proposal is underway does not seem to be very appropriate.

In sum, the proposal to extend the tenure of the Wikipedian in residence at DARM may be beneficial, but my recommendation is that Violetova should carry on with it because of her experience and past success, unless other experienced and well established Wikipedians are nominated. The nominated candidates may be knowledgeable and competent in their own fields, but the experience and skillfulness they have developed from their involvement in the Wikimedia movement so far does not seem to make them eligible for the position of a Wikipedian in residence. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kiril Simeonovski, and thank you for your comments, because due to your second comment, I found one little, but fundamental gramatical mistake I made while writing this proposal. Namely, user GjorgjiP worked / helped several months in the Archives in 2016 as an IT person. He is not employee in the Archives. About you concerns over candidate's ability to carry out this task, I am sure that with my help as advisor, they will come out as experienced WiR. About your third concern and suggestion the candidates to join the discussion and respond to the concerns, I can say that their English is not advanced. My propose on that matter is skype or google hangout call between the persons from Foundation and the candidates, who will be able in that call to use a translator. Regards, - Violetova (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Violetova. The lack of English skills of the nominated candidates is another very serious concern about their eligibility, because the reporting and the communication with the global community that the Wikipedians in residence will be committed to is done in English. If their English is not at a level that would allow them to join a simple discussion about the project proposal, I really do not know how are they going to meet the reporting requirements and extend communication with other communities. My opinion is now even firmer that these candidates are not eligible to be appointed as Wikipedians in residence and my advice for you is to re-consider their selection. Please also give a damn about the suggestion from my previous comment to extend your tenure as a Wikipedian in residence. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As this is grant proposal of organization GLAM Macedonia, not individual one, the reports are in competency of the UG GLAM Macedonia. Regards - Violetova (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to thank you for your suggestion to re-consider myself as WiR, but I have to admit that due to other activities I have in UG GLAM Macedonia, I don't have time to commit myself as WiR, but only to help and advise when needed. Regards, -Violetova (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence

This project so far is proved to be very helpful. As editor in Bulgarian Wikipedia I use numerous images from the project to illustrate articles. From historical standpoint there is of course very interesting letters about IMRO and the foreign propagandas in Macedonia which is one of the best assets of this project.--Ilikeliljon (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2017

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2017 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through April 4.

The committee's formal review for round 1 2017 begins on 5 April 2017, and grants will be announced 19 May. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Round 1 2017 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, 4665 EUR

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee shared concerns expressed on the talkpage about the inexperience of the proposed Wikipedians in Residence (WiR). However, they elected to support the project because of the active team involvement supporting the WiRs, and because of a desire to prevent the loss of momentum generated by the previous Wikipedian in Residence at the State Archives, who will be actively supervising this project.

Prior to finalizing a contract, we ask that you provide a job description specifically outlining the activities of the WiR role for each partner organization.

Please note that we consider funding for WiR activities to be short-term. Grant funding for WiRs is not intended to support ongoing workflows in an organization, but to leverage the partnership to build a sustainable platform that ensures outcomes long after the WiR has completed their service. Because this project includes inexperienced candidates serving as WiRs, the onus will be on the advisory team to ensure that every action is taken to secure long-term outcomes that do not depend on ongoing funding.

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.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for UG GLAM Macedonia/Wikipedian in Residence

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?	5.9
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	4.9
(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?	5.1
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	5.5
Additional comments from the Committee: WiR generally are a rather good fit with strategic priorities if done properly. Low expectations on the number of measurements, so not very cost effective. The project does not include a sustainability plan. Reasonably good iterative project. Measures of success are on the low side however, especially for the Library (one edit-a-thon and two people trained is way too low for a WiR in what looks like a rather big library). The listed applicants that will commit to the actual work (User:Gordi & User:GjorgjiP) have nearly no experience on Wikimedia projects. Some of the participants lack medium/advanced skills required. I have very significant concerns regarding the level of participants chosen: the two potential WiRs have very low experience. The budget is probably not efficient for the Library, more or less OK for Archives given the goals. Project needs to work more in engaging the local community, besides any efforts are not listed in the Grant page. Organization of events in GLAM institution is something that should be very well prepared. Community support is much appreciated and a big part of work can be done by volunteers. If there is a such support? GLAM Macedonia is a small group which is a breakaway of Shared Knowledge which is in turn a breakaway of Wikimedia Macedonia, which is already too complex. This does not help much to get good community engagement, as it looks like there is a significant conflict in a rather small Macedonian community. Nice to see that this project builds on work completed previously and achieved through collaboration between GLAM Macedonia and the State Archives. However, I think it might be wise to fund only one WiR (my preference would be to continue with the Archives and grow capacity rather than start from scratch with the Library). I recommend this approach in light of concerns on the talk page related to the relative inexperience of the two elected WiR. Then the advisor can fully focus on supporting the work of one person. I also think the focus should be on getting Archives staff to a place of competence where they don't need a WiR to support wiki efforts. In my opinion this should be the priority before working with staff at the Library. The project is clear with plans but who can say for a fact how the grantees will execute this as their contributions so far are quite little. I worry about institutions that are not ready to fund, at least partially, the Wikimedian in Residence. If they don't have the resources to compensate, how will they have resources (staff time etc) to participate ? I am most worried about the budget -- in fact about the number of people/months who/it will be paid -- and a description of their duties. Do we need several people to be paid for organizing 2-3 events and uploading 500 images and 100 references? Can’t someone from community support that work for free? WiR lacks experience, impact too low especially regarding the library, thus probably not.

Best practices

Compared to the previous experience, I hope you'll manage to adopt some of the best practices generally followed by wikimedians in residence, as explained at Wikimedian in residence and outreach:Wikipedian in Residence. I'm surprised to see that there doesn't seem to be a project page at all, nor an entry in the list of WIRs, nor separate accounts: in short, no way at all to follow the activities of the WIR. I've now found the link from the list, Wikipedian in residence, Violetova, Diary, and I'll eagerly read more. :)

Now that you plan to have two persons instead of one, it will be even more important to coordinate and summarise their work in some way. I suppose you'll also try to get the employees of the institution to work on the wikis, since that's generally the ultimate goal of any WIR project to make the impact long-lasting and self-sustainable. --Nemo 15:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nemo, I was going to create two pages on meta for the two WiR as a diary pages, where WiRs will write their progress weekly. I just noticed that the Timeline page is created with monthly reports. What do you think will be better: two separate pages, (as one WiR is in the Library, and one is in the Archives), or one common Timeline page with monthly reports of the two of them? Regards, --Violetova (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but if their work is related enough (i.e. you expect the audience to be similar) then maybe a single page is better. It could be organised more as a summary than a diary (or individual diaries could be in the subpages), e.g. to list todos which the editors (and staffers!) can help with. --Nemo 11:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Nemo. -- Violetova (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)