Grants talk:Simple/Applications/Wikimedia New York City/2018-2019

Application not ready for review

This application is currently not yet ready for review, as it is not yet compliant with the eligibility guidelines expressed by WMF. We will notify the committee once this application is open for review, and open the application then. Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 22:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please complete the metrics worksheet for 2018-2019

Hello, WMUSNYC colleagues! Please complete the metrics worksheet here. It is a required part of your application.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_qZxJ7B9U_Eo6pMG55ox-zCHppM9-lubQm0jKI2tn6g/edit#gid=28229858

Thank you! Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 00:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for alerting us to this. The metrics worksheet is now complete. Megs (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Megs: are you sure? The NYC tab in the GoogleDoc is still empty. Philip Kopetzky (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Megs: it's not complete yet. I can see only two blanks in one table were filled. --Liang(WMTW) (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize I misunderstood this area when submitting the application. Two of our board members are working on this now and will submit it shortly. Megs (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Question from SAPG members

Questions from Siarus1074/ Kai

• I am continually impressed with the work WNYC does. Your outreach to the outer borough and continued partnerships are great. Keep up the phenomenal work. I have a few questions I was hoping you could help me with.

Support and Design Lead

• • I am really happy to see the chapter's dedication to Support and Safety with the Support and Safety Design lead. Is this person going to work in collaboration with the [Trust and Safety team]?
  • In the report and budget $5,000 is being requested to revise friendly-space policy. How many hours would be dedicated to this project?
  • When do you expect the revised friendly-space policy to be completed?
  • How will you share and promote this to the rest of the Wikipedia community?

Metrics

• I see Megs replied that the metrics are up. However, I don't see them. I'd love to see more details regarding the work you do. Can you update your metrics?

I look forward to hearing from you. Siarus1074 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and your questions! I'll answer your questions in the order they were asked:

• We expect that Wiki NYC's support and safety consultant will work with the WMF. At this point Wiki NYC has accepted all support which the WMF offers and there is mutual agreement that Wiki NYC's needs go beyond what the WMF provides. Whenever it makes sense to work together then that will happen, but probably the WMF operates at a higher and abstract level and Wiki NYC needs practical results immediately for volunteers. WMF typically cannot provide that kind of support to all the individuals in the world who request it.
• In order to generate a revised friendly space policy, the consultant will need to do extensive background research such as interviews with Chapter membership and leadership, a review of harassment cases, and a literature review of existing policies and research on the topic. We anticipate this will take at least fifty hours.
• We project a revised friendly space policy by September 2019.
• Great question! Sharing the results of this work with the Wikimedia community is a key component to our vision. All training materials will be made available under a CC-BY-SA license, and the consultant will generate a final report that will be shared widely with the community. If resources allow, we would also like the consultant to create a brief video describing the work. Megs (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Philip

Hi WMNYC, thanks for submitting this proposal - I'm always very impressed by the GLAM partnerships you manage to establish! :-)

Adding to Kai's questions, here are a few more:

• Financial / staff
  • You've budgeted 10 scholarships for the WikiConference North Ameria - what is your aim for that many attendees? Unfortunately it's not mentioned in your proposal at all.
  • You've budgeted 5000 USD accounting costs, but AfroCROWD has budgeted to pay a fifth of that, which makes it a bit confusing as to why you still budget the total costs yourselves.
  • Adding to Kai's question on Support & Safety, what caused you to go in this direction that strongly and how will you make sure that your efforts aren't redundant or contradictory to what WMF's SuSa team are doing?
• Metrics
  • More questions on metrics here as soon as they've been published.

Hope to hear from you soon! Best, Philip Kopetzky (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I'll also answer your questions in the order they were asked:

• Wikimedia NYC supports its local membership through connecting them with the larger Wikimedia movement via conference attendance. Historically, this has been used to send some of our more active members, including newer members working in areas directly aligned with the vision and goals of the Chapter (i.e. members addressing content gaps). The scholarships do not cover the entire cost of attendance, but make it possible for more people to attend, contribute, and bring the conversation back to the Chapter.
• The amounts are the correct request but the explanation was an error. Wiki NYC is requesting $5000 and AfroCROWD is requesting an additional $1000.. Wikimedia NYC looks forward to serving as a fiscal sponsor for AfroCROWD. Doing so increases our accounting costs, and the amount budgeted by AfroCROWD is intended to cover this.
• I am unable to provide details, but Wikimedia NYC has lost members and partners due to harassment and abuse following multiple unrelated incidents from 2013-2018. We are grateful to SuSa for the work that they do. However, Wikimedia NYC events are not directly supported by the Foundation and fall outside the scope of this work. Moreover, in our experience, one of the greatest barriers to addressing harassment is identifying and recognizing it. These issues are best dealt with on a local level, in conversation with WMF as appropriate.

Please let me know if I missed anything! Megs (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Megs: Thanks for your answers and clarifying a few points in the process! :-) Too bad we couldn't discuss the metrics, but I think that's something we need to talk about in general anyway in the next few months (because this doesn't only affect WMNYC). Best, Philip Kopetzky (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Philip Kopetzky: Agreed. Looking forward to the conversation! Megs (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Liang

Hello there, thank you for the annual plan. Your proposal has its reputation of caring the internationalization and diversity, so I am glad to read your new proposal.

Adding to Kai & Philip's questions, I have a little more:

Chapter Membership & Community

• I am wondering what are the cases of harrassment off wiki? It seems very broad in the proposal, I am wondering how long has it happened? Does this affect membership (ie, make members leave the chapter or become inactive due to harrassment.) What is the consultant should fit in the role "Support & Safety Design Lead", is it a sexual harrassment thing or racism thing (Or maybe this is not how to categorize the consultant in this topic?) I apologize that I have only very shallow idea regarding this matter, but I do want to know more context for better understanding your situation and how does the grant may help you to solve the issue.

Partnership

• Since you are starting a collaboration with New York Public Radio, I can't help but to ask you have you seen the New Zealand's recent case sharing "Critter of the Week" in ESEAPCon18? Mike has done many wonderful collaborations with the local radio to raise the awareness of endangered spicies in New Zealand and I guess you might find inspiration by reading the slides.

Outreach & Education

• You mentioned that you want to post news in "This month in GLAM", are you aware of the existence of "This month in Education" in outreach wiki? Why you decide to write for the GLAM newsletter instead of the Education newsletter?

Also, please do complete your metrics as soon as you can, thank you. --Liang(WMTW) (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions as well!

• This is clearly an important issue, and we’ve revised the annual plan to more adequately address it there. I respect that the proposal may seem broad. However, this is purposeful so that we (1) do not breach confidentiality and (2) do not limit the scope of the project to harassment we have experienced instead of the broader range of harassment we might experience. I can say that it has been bad enough to require legal consultation and counseling, and it has affected membership and partnerships at a time when we are otherwise positioned to strengthen both. We intend to work with a consultant who has expertise in harassment in online and offline communities, as well as experience with the Wikimedia community.
• I have not! Thank you for suggesting this. We will definitely take a look.
• Yes! Great suggestion. I used GLAM as an example because the majority of our partnerships are with GLAM institutions. However, we would certainly want to communicate our work via This Month in Education as well.

Thanks again for your feedback. Megs (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

We urgently need some objectives & targets to assess this application

Hello, WMUS-NYC colleagues. Thank you for this application. I see your organization is making efforts to improve its program structure year over year, and we greatly appreciate that you have a new strategic plan. I encourage you to take some time to respond to the committee members' questions here on the discussion page, as I have many of the same questions for you.

But mainly, the current application does not include objectives or sufficient descriptions of your activities in each one of your programs. From the information here, it is difficult to tell exactly what you plan to do in each area, what you want to achieve, and how you will know if you are achieving it. Each of your programs should at minimum include specific objectives. We are also missing information from the grants metrics worksheet, making it impossible to know what you plan to achieve.

Here is some specific feedback about what's still needed in each program area:

Chapter Membership & Community - This area is more or less clear in terms of what you want to achieve and how. I believe that adding some context about why this safety work is important to your community (how you have identified that need) will strengthen your case, given the amount of funding you are requesting.

Partnerships - I understand the concept well and why it is important, but it is not clear what (and how much) you will be doing. There are no objectives or targets included here.

Outreach and Education - I do not understand what this program area is. Perhaps this is an operational area and not a program area? As such, it does not need to have objectives, but should also not be included in the programs section.

Content Contributions - I think I understand this area well, as with partnerships work, but there are no objectives or targets included here.

If you have questions about what is still required, please let me know and I am happy to get on a call with you. We will need this information in the next few days because the committee is discussing their decisions now. This is all with an eye to improving your application so you have the best chance of securing your funding.

Best, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 15:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Simple APG committee recommendation

Committee recommendations

Funding recommendations: Wikimedia New York City is a returning applicant, and they are requesting 71,814 USD for 12 months. We recommend funding Wikimedia New York City in the amount of 41,814 USD to support their core program activities, and an additional amount of 30,000 USD to cover the costs of the Support & Safety Designer. This will be a total of $71,814 + a 10% contingency to address unforeseen opportunities or expenses, or a total of $79,000. We believe WMNYC’s proposal to create a support and safety toolkit is made in response to a long-identified need in their community, and we believe this one-time investment will be worthwhile. We think it is an interesting experiment in funding specific capacity-building work and we look forward to the results being shared with the community as a model for other affiliates. We hope that WMNYC can come up with a plan with how they will sustain the use and adoption of this work over time. WMNYC and AfroCROWD are submitting separate proposals this year. This is probably a good step for both organizations, as it will afford the AfroCROWD team greater autonomy and help them define a path for growth, and it will open up more space within WMNYC’s programs to incubate new initiatives. WMNYC has a strong track record of incubating innovative diversity-focused initiatives, offering early support to AfroCROWD and Art+Feminism. The values of diversity and inclusion have been part of this organization’s DNA long before this concept was strongly embraced by most affiliates in the movement. After years of being focused on implementation and running many, many, many events, WMNYC is moving in a more strategic direction. They spent time this year on a strategic planning process, which has resulted in a clear strategic plan with goals that sets a roadmap for the next several years. This strategic plan was created with the Wikimedia strategic direction in mind, and is well-aligned. It is clear that this plan as informed the structure of their current proposal, and this has resulted in an improved program structure. It was a big challenge to get WMNYC to define their specific objectives and targets for each program, but now that they have done so, they have shifted to providing some meaningful goals that reflect each program’s purpose. WMNYC has shifted away from an approach that groups activities by theme (e.g. Editathons & AfroCROWD) and is now looking at the theory of change behind each program (e.g. partnerships to advance free knowledge in the long term, and content-focused events are now in separate programs). As in past years, WMNYC is planning to engage an impressive array of partners. They are also deepening their approach to events, focusing on holding events in all 5 boroughs (which allows them to reach communities they are not currently serving) and a greater focus on languages other than English. These aspects of diversity are emphasized in their program-specific objectives and grantee-defined metrics. Furthermore, they are seeking to partner with organizations focusing on LGBTQIA topics, enriching content in underrepresented areas. We see that this work goes beyond the number of people participating and the number of pages created, but WMNYC needs to improve at articulating this impact. Given WMNYC’s focus on diversity in their events and communities, we hope they will partner with others in the movement to develop meaningful metrics that better show the value of the work they are doing. This is especially important as WMNYC’s targets are some of the lowest in the APG portfolio, while their grant amount is increasing significantly (when adjusted for the separation of the AfroCROWD initiative), and WMNYC has struggled to define metrics and measure results in the past. We recognize that grants metrics do not tell the whole story — but we need other ways to understand what WMNYC is achieving. We like that WMNYC is taking concrete steps in this direction through the grantee-defined metrics and objectives included in this proposal. WMNYC’s proposed plan includes a greater emphasis on external communications. We believe this is an important area where the chapter can build capacity at this time, and WMNYC is targeting specific gaps in this area in this plan (for example, their goal to increase web presence). WMNYC has a history of underspending and inaccurate budgeting, as well as a spotty history of staff management, including the disastrous “metrics position”. This does raise some concerns about their ability to hire and manage the communications contractor, although the current board is committed to doing so more effectively. This aspect of the grant may need to be closely monitored by the chapter and the committee. Finally, WMNYC will need to focus on fundraising outside of the movement if they need to grow. Based on the type of work that they are interested in doing, we believe opportunities may exist. WMNYC has always been very successful at securing in-kind donations and partnering with prestigious institutions. We hope they can leverage their strengths in this area over time, and will consider building their capacity in fundraising. Alongside this, WMNYC needs to focus on improving their financial systems, budgeting, and budget monitoring practices. We welcome their shift to a professional accountant and accounting system. We hope WMNYC works toward a robust governance model with clear roles, so that the organization is not overly dependent on single individuals performing specific tasks. This has been a bottleneck several times leading up to the current application, and it is important to address this as WMNYC’s grant amount and responsibilities increase.

Strengths identified by the committee: See recommendations above.

Concerns identified by the committee: See recommendations above.

On behalf of the committee -- Chinmayisk (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Due to the size of this grant request, WMF may take a few days or as long as a week to post the final decision. Thank you for your patience! Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 18:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WMF decision

Approved. $71,814 + a 10% contingency to address unforeseen opportunities or expenses, or a total of $79,000. Congratulations! Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 19:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)