Grants talk:Simple/Applications/Shared Knowledge/2017

Application from

Thank you for starting your application form! You should be using the form for returning applicants now, and so I've updated the form for you. Please note there is one question in the new form that you will need to go back and complete:

• Please complete the field "programchanges", to answer the first question in the programs section "Please describe any changes to your programs for the upcoming funding period, including the addition of new programs or any programs you are no longer doing. Include your rationale for any major changes to your programs here." This will give the committee a high level overview of any major changes made between your current year's plan and next year's, and I think it would be useful to include.

We recommend you wait for WMF staff to set up your application form to avoid confusion with forms and templates. I realize I did not do this soon enough for you after our recent call, so this mistake is my fault. Basically, the form for returning applicants is designed to be easier and save you work, so you may not have gotten the benefits you should have this round. In the future, just ping me if something like this seems amiss, so that I can help out right away.

I'm working on confirming your eligibility by next week. Thanks for your good work on the application so far.

Thank you! Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 19:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility

Thank you for submitting your eligibility form on 4 October 2016. We've determined that you are eligible to apply for a Simple Process Annual Plan Grant based on your eligibility evaluation for your most recent grant application that reviews your past work, as well as the midpoint report for your current grant.

There are some relevant updates from the current grant period that affect this eligibility assessment.

Shared Knowledge has reported impressive achievements in global metrics across its programs, including a total of 2100 images in use and 1747 articles created or improved at the midpoint. We have some concerns that some of the metrics reported are relying on the work of the paid Wikipedian in Residence, rather than resulting from the contributions of a larger group of volunteer contributors. Accordingly, we have asked Shared Knowledge to restructure the role of the Wikipedian in Residence to better support contributions from a larger group of contributors. It has been a challenge for Shared Knowledge to engage more volunteers in their small community, which raises some concerns about the sustainability of their programs, especially their GLAM and education programs. In many cases, it may not make sense to expand where a base of engaged volunteers is not already present to support their program work.

Shared Knowledge’s Chief Programme Manager has recently left the organization. The loss of a key employee means that Shared Knowledge is managing a period of transition. The board of Shared Knowledge remains stable and committed, and is managing this transition. At the same time, the process of hiring and onboarding a new Chief Programme Manager is likely to put a strain on the organization’s capacity and may cause some instability during the transition, due to that position’s critical role in planning, implementing, and reporting on the organization’s program activities.

With two part-time staff, Shared Knowledge has a relatively large staff with respect to the size of their small volunteer community. They are not requesting to increase staff in the upcoming funding period, although they are seeking to hire somebody for the vacant the part-time Chief Programme Manager position in order to maintain their staff at its current level.

Throughout the current grant period, Shared Knowledge has produced detailed financial and activity reports on a quarterly basis, and has remained in contact with WMF staff to discuss their work. During the early stages of this grant, we had some issues with requests for changes to the budget that were made only after funds were already spent on unapproved expenses, but this issue has since been corrected, and Shared Knowledge has been diligent about requesting approval for budget changes in advance since this incident. A quality midpoint report was submitted on time, which should provide good insight into the organization’s progress on the current grant.

Thank you for submitting your application by the requested date of 1 November. We are looking forward to reviewing your progress and your plans for next year!

Best regards, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 01:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from committee members

From Nikola

Hello :). I know a lot about your work as someone from a neighbouring country and I especially like your photohunts and all kinds of expeditions. I think this content is extremely useful and qualitatively high. I have always wished to learn more about your editing contests. Would you please provide a comparison between the number of articles created during such contests to the number of articles created during the year (if it is not too hard I'd be glad to see the ration in bytes, too). Would you also provide a comparison of the images uploaded by your Wikimedian in Residence compared to the images uploaded by employees of your partner institutions and volunteers? Thank you in advance, --Nikola (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Committee assessment and decision

Committee recommendations

Funding recommendations: The committee recommends 29,000 Euro, or an amount equal to 2016 funding.

Strengths identified by the committee: This diverse program plan includes an interesting mix of activities, in areas where Shared Knowledge has been effective in getting results. Wikiexpeditions are producing good results, and content-focused programs like WikiWine are a good way to increase content in a specific topic area. We appreciate that this new plan includes focus on reaching out to people beyond their group of core contributors, as involving more contributors and volunteers is an important area for Shared Knowledge.

Concerns identified by the committee: The committee is concerned about large budget items related to prize money and a paid Wikipedian in Residence. Although past results have been impressive, the committee has concerns that some program activities focus on rewards for contributors (such as contests, travel reimbursements) in order to motivate them to create more content, which may not be a sustainable strategy for growing activity on the projects. Similarly, the committee had concerns about the past work of the Wikipedian-in-Residence, who appears to have been contributing significant amounts of content rather than involving a large group of contributors in content creation. While the committee appreciates the diverse collection of activities in this plan, the committee is concerned that some activities grouped into certain programs do not seem strongly linked to other activities in these program areas. One example, is the inclusion of Wiki Loves Monuments in the GLAM program, although this work is not related to partnerships with GLAM institutions. The committee is glad to see targets included for each program, but was concerned to see that these targets seem similar across all programs and are not always relevant to each program. One example of this, is the metrics for the Research program. The committee is concerned about the high number of paid staff with respect to the number of volunteers involved with this organization’s work; staff resources are focused in administration and do not seem to be resulting in sufficient program outcomes. This organization is proposing to grow during a period in which they are managing a significant staff transition, after the departure of their Chief Program Officer. The committee also has concerns about the past effectiveness of the relationship between staff and the board. This organization has had several issues remaining compliant with the rules governing their use of grant funds, and so this area should be closely monitored moving forward. The organization has a history of conflict within the board, and with other groups and community members, which may be barrier to achieving more effective results.

--Nikola (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Decision from WMF

Funding decision: WMF approves this grant in the amount of 29,000 Euro for 12 months. Thanks to the committee for this recommendation, and thanks to the Shared Knowledge team for your work on this application, and your engagement during the application process. We realize that significant revisions to your planned budget are required, and that this will require some discussions among your staff and board. Please submit a revised budget to WMF by January, so that we may approve your revised budget once it is ready. Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 23:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Opinion by the Executive Board of Shared Knowledge

Dear members of the Simple Annual Plan Grants Committee,

The Executive Board of Shared Knowledge gladly accepts the recommendations regarding the annual plan request and we are already working on making the necessary organisational and programmatic adjustments in order to reach a level of activities that can be supported with the recommended budget.

However, the Executive Board of Shared Knowledge is highly confused that this decision by the Simple Annual Plan Grants Committee was made in a haste with no actual communication to take place in beforehand. Moreover, we also find it too bureaucratic that the whole communication between our board of volunteers and the committee of volunteers was mediated by a WMF staff person, raising a serious concern on the freedom of the Simple Annual Plan Grants Committee to serve its purpose on bridging the relations between the WMF and the affiliate organisations rather than operating as a 'WMF slave'.

As a consequence, some of the conclusions included in the recommendations present abstract and superficial statements, to some degree also contradictory, opening questions that had to normally been answered before posting the final decision. For example, the concern regarding rewards for travel reimbursement is too vague (How can travel reimbursement be reward? How does it relate to any sustainable model? Does this mean that our volunteers have to cover the costs for the expeditions themselves despite the time they spend voluntarily? Does this mean that the WMF plans to cease granting funds for travel reimbursement because of the same reason?). Another example is the concern entailing the targets and the metrics on the Research programme (Why this is concerning when there are clearly specified global metrics that should be used for all programmes?).

For that reason, we kindly ask for better future communication regarding the key issues before making any decisions that might look unexplained and difficult to convert into practical solutions.

Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

As one of the members of the SAPGcommitee my perception is that while we had broad agreement of the recomemnded sum, your critisim of the detailed feedabck and the lack of communication before is quite valid, but that your comment that we are only WMF-slaves is incorrect and rather insulting. The SAPG process is in many ways inferious to the FDC process as we never meeting face-to-face and the time we spend of each applicant can, as in your case, be too short. We hade seven applicants to handle i 2-3 weeks and as yours was in many way resembling last years we did not elaborate on it as much as could be wanted. För myself I actually had rather hard to actually grasp/understand the application, so much that I was not even able to ask for clarifications. With the short discussion we hade I did though felt I could state as a recomended that your funding should be kept on the same level as last year, as the professionalsim expected to be funded on a higher level was missing (I know that a more detailed fedback why so is wanted, but after reading some 50 application, i get a feeling of (im)matureness and my feeling was not contradicted when we had a general discussion of your application). For the detailed comment they come from us memebers comments of strengtht and weakness in our internal indivdual assesments we all do. The text you see is then a compliation of our individual comments, to some parts compiled by Winnifred. And as already said, I am very open we as indivuals misundersood some facts and also that we as individuals could have contradictory comments, as you give examaples of. Anders Wennersten (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anders. The opinion of our Executive Board is clear and the tone is deliberately tempered to address serious concerns that should be raised; it is not meant to insult someone, no matter how one can get it. If we start delving with the nature of the comments and analyse how they can be interpreted, a much bigger insult and disparagement for me is to read that SAPGC members did not have enough time to review the applications and therefore they did not ask for clarifications. In case the SAPGC members opine that the time is short to properly evaluate all applications given its capacities, then you definitely need to advertise the problem elsewhere instead of elaborating the reasons (e.g. ask for enlargement or extend the review process). From my five-year long experience as a member of the GAC and brief spell as member of the SAPGC, I have complete understanding how these committees are subordinated to the FDC and how the time may seem insufficient for making committal decisions. However, it has never given me the freedom to put someone else's volunteer efforts on the back burner just because everything needs to be on time. One of the reasons for ceasing my activity (and later membership) in the SAPGC was that I did not have enough time to pay attention on all details in the review process.

My comment has nothing to do with your recommendations that we have gladly accepted. It is only a criticism to the way the applications are being handled. The least thing we expect from the SAPGC is more attention to our volunteer efforts. Thanks for the understanding. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kiril,

concerning the apparent lack of actual communication between the committee and Shared Knowledge - as you remember we had a meeting of more than an hour, which we did not have with every organisation. Moreover, I tried to clear some of the concerns of the committee by asking two questions on 11 November, which were never answered. Therefore I do not feel that there was no actual communication.

Concerning the "WMF Slave", every committee member writes their own review of the applications and thereafter the committee meets and discusses the answers and a funding sum is being chosen, which all committee members are fine with. There is no way that the WMF manipulates this, because the commitee members recognise their answers in the joint statement, prepared by Winifred, which can be changed, if necessary, by every committee member. There are straightforward decisions and such, where the committee discusses even single words, depending on the difference in opinions of the committee members. In my experience, which is of course very short, the WMF has always granted the sum the committee decided on.

--Nikola (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nikola. Our Executive Board does not complain entirely that there was no actual communication (Note: The video conversation we had with you was before the grant request was officially submitted. None of our members were pinged or informed that there are comments on the talk page and what is the deadline for answering them and making the decision. If you really think that the answers would have helped in getting the right information, you definitely needed to communicate about them by other means.) but that the recommendations made require more information from us in order to be clear enough and comprehensive. Yesterday members of our Executive Board had a video conversation with Winifred in order to further clarify the recommendations that we got. My main point here is that the input of the SAPGC presents a raw judgement of the current state based on the information available without any proposals on how the things can be improved, i.e. what are the best practices of the other affiliates, what are the most useful learning patterns, what are the other available resources that may help, what are the groups that may help in that process, etc.

This whole thing closely reminds me on the abrasive comments on the discussion pages of Wikipedia articles in which editors judge the article's quality without proposing any course of action to improve it.

Finally, the opinion of the Executive Board of Shared Knowledge is not meant to decrease the relevance of the SAPGC's work or to protest against the decision made. What we as volunteer board members expect from a volunteer-driven committee is to get practical recommendations with clear suggestions that can be easily converted into strategic decisions. It is something that the WMF staff cannot and is not intended to do given the volunteer experience of the committee members in the movement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Approval of revised budget for 2017

Noting here that Shared Knowledge submitted a revised budget for 2017 during the month of December, which has been approved. You may find a copy of the approved version here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Knowledge/Budget_plan_2017&oldid=16175181. Many thanks to the Shared Knowledge team for submitting these revisions in such a timely manner. Best, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 00:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)