User talk:Ijon/Archive 2

I wanted to give you a Barnstar

FDC special barnstar

This is to recognize your great support in making the first round of the FDC a success!

Thanks!

Jan-Bart (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Global dev charts

Hi Asaf,

Just out of curiosity and to double check at [1] and [2], the data does refer to Kenya and not Kazakhstan (as the legend says when you mouse over it)? (Might be a bug to file with the people behind the tool...). –Bence (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this was a mistake in preparing the graphs (a mouse slip - Kazakhstan is right above Kenya in the country list) that went unnoticed (because the data is similar, I guess). The graphs are correct now (same links). Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 05:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Targeted invitations to contribute

I'm interested in Haitham's work on Geo-targeted Editors Participation... let me know how I can help. –SJ talk  19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC) (I want to see this happen on all languages...)

So do I. :) We'll see how this first pilot goes. I'll keep you in the loop. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

bankrolling

Moin Asaf, I find your idea that "bankrolling" implies some sort of normative/exclusivity claim quite fascinating (if I got your position right). Looking over material I have at hand, its use across these pieces (in English) only suggests sufficiency but not exclusive necessity (as would be required to say co-financing would meaningfully contrast with bankrolling). Example: If Reuters says whereby richer northern European nations bankroll southern ones they consider indisciplined, the news agencies text does not imply that these southern countries don't raise any revenue whatsoever on their own. If you enjoy semantic arguments - in a strictly free time capacity - I would be delighted to look at your material suggesting otherwise :), best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, bankroll does not necessarily mean "wholly fund". It just means "fund". And when you say WMF bankrolls something without acknowledging there are other sources as well (as would be indeed obvious to the point of not needing mention in the example you give above), one could get the impression WMF is wholly funding it. That was the impression I wanted to prevent, and you are correct that I should not have said we don't bankroll it but merely that we co-fund it. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Helping WebCite

WebCite – WebCite is attempting to raise money for in order to continue providing services that Wikipedians use. Many Wikimedia users are concerned: WebCite. Some believe that its best to provide WebCite with a large grant rather than having the WMF take it over completely: WebCite#WebCite_can_apply_for_a_grant. Philippe recommended speaking to you. WebCite seeks to raise $50,000 by the year. I don't believe that they could raise over $5,000 without publicity or aid from major donors. Is it possible for WebCite to apply for a grant of about $45,000? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(this was answered months ago at the Webcite talk page.) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 15:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Asaf. I've tried to keep the conversation going at the bottom of WebCite with a question/request for you please contact the tech staff about a particular related issue. You might have seen the notification already, but I'm not sure if they work here on Meta or not. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I did notice. Someone from Tech will be responding soon. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Video Tutorials

Mr. Bartov, I just wanted to let you know that the discussion page for my proposed flow funding project has been updated, and I'd really appreciate if you could take another look at it. I really feel like I have a lot to contribute to Wikimedia. Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Pinging in here as well, I made some comments on the talk page. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Input

Asaf, thanks for all of your hard work on the flow funding initiative. Now, I'm not trying to canvass (hence putting this in public; the last thing I need is someone to think that I'm not being transparent), but my WMF Grant Discussion is stagnating, and I was hoping that you could throw in some comments of your own, if you'd be interested.

Thanks, and I hope all is well! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sochi 2014 Paralympic Games submission

Hi Asaf. I have created a submission. I have never created a participation proposal before, so I am very unsure about how to go about it and how the process works. Any advice or assistance that you can give me would be gratefully appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Hawkeye7! Just like it says in the instructions (step 4), the next thing you need to do is e-mail participation AT wikimedia DOT org with a link to your new proposal. This would reach the person running the Participation Support Program, which indeed used to be me, but has recently changed to be Siko Bouterse. See the rest of those instructions for what happens then. Our Grants Administrator, Ms. Winifred Olliff, will support you through the process as needed. Beside that e-mail, just be sure to watch the proposal's talk page and response if/as necessary. Cheers! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Xhosa Wikipedia Challenge?

Is it possible that we would have a Xhosa version of the Wikipedia Challenge, like Setswana Wikipedia Challenge 2011? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible, but unlikely. The Setswana Wikipedia Challenge was not a success in terms of bootstrapping a Setswana editing community; TNWP today has less than one active editor. Even the winner of the Challenge is not an active editor. We therefore very much doubt the model can work, as done previously.

It is conceivable that with some changes and slightly better starting conditions, a Wikipedia Challenge may produce better results. For example, one thing we've learned from the Setswana challenge is that it would require at least one Xhosa editor to do some preparatory work on the Xhosa Wikipedia -- importing templates, setting up some categories, etc. -- and to interact with the contestants as they contribute content. If such an editor, with sufficient motivation, can be found (and we don't seem to have one at the moment), we might consider running another Wikipedia Challenge. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Xhosa Wikipedia Challenge vs Setswana Wikipedia Challenge

Thank you for raising such a good question PiRSquared17 more so that there are some folks out there since that end of Wikimedia Conference 2013 in Milan who where proposing that the Xhosa Wikipedia must be shutdown due to certain reasons they stated to the podium.I like it that the Head of South Global Relations Mr Bartov is totaly against the idea of which i beleive he stands firm to his thoughts to support African Wikipedians at all times.I solemly want to emphasise that indeed it's possible to host such a challenge with the Xhosa Wikipedians as Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) has stated.However adding more on Asaf's comment on a well said matter,its an absolute truth that indeed Setswana Wikipedia was not a successful project due to the poor results as highlited http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryTN.html, with relation to the stated results,i want to bring it to your attention that there are many reasons why we have such poor readings within the Tswana Wikipedia Page of which are:

• Poor understanding of the Translation Toolkit.
• Lack of interest in Wikipedia projects from Volunteers.
• Lack of Funds to support a group of active volunteers to run their community outreaches.
• Poor work ethics as a volunteers on Wikipedia.
• There is great need to encourage and motivate current active Volunteers so they understand their purpose as Wikipedians.

Above is just a few list i can highlight as some of the entities that make our page to have such poor results.The very person who is active in the page currently is also the very same person who won the Setswana Wikipedia Challenge Asaf point of correction.Allow me to say Wikipedia volunteerism is a demanding task because you find that most of the time Wikipedians here dont work on Wikipedia as Full time volunteers,infact most of the volunteers are students and workers therefore it need someone who is focused and eager to contribute to Wikipedia projects no matter the circumstances thats why some members are so inactive.I believe when Oscar came to mentor us before the challenege there was a huge turnup of contestants,i have tried to bring callings to each one of them from the malling group but none of them turned up for my seminars,only a few for that matter.Futhermore volunterism also is a choice as some state hence some folks may decide quit contributing to Wikipedia as i have seen it hapening here.Basing much on my efforts i want to believe that i am honestly trying to keep up well with my contribution to Wikipedia,it is through my hardwork and i have ran many community outreaches and recruted volunteers but now the choice lies upon them even though some decide not to contribute if they are no longer intrested there is nothing we can do because the choice lies within them.Futhermore it also gives me so much presure because of the many projects that i currently work on as an active wikipedian such as the current Wikimedia_Botswana project, http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_Impact_of_GLAM_Institutions_Outreach_Educational_Programmes_in_Botswana and also having to work on our many stubs,templates and categories etc on our wikipedia page becomes a huge workload for me alone.Thats exactly why service delivery is delayed because they are so many things to do and am just alone to do them without anyone whilling to assit me from the same language.Wikipedia challenges are vital in helping to grow Wikipedia for instance Orange Botswana has now enabled free access of Wikipedia on mobiles to every user with a smartphone or supporting model,i mean these are great improvemnet strategies which the intending chapter (Wikimedia Botswana) is trying to implement as a way of trying to show people the importance of Wikipedia in their lifes.Now to the foundation,if atleast you could draw better strategies of running such challenges,i will be so greatfull to see Wikipedia growing in some parts of the wolrd.Personaly i like working for Wikipedia as an active editor therefore am going to continue contributing and working for Wikimedia Foundation regardles of the number of volunteers who are whilling to work with me,my interest can not be deteriorated by folks who are not serious about this movements unless they dont belong to it CORRECT ME IF AM WRONG.That is why i was able to make it to this years Wikimania 2013 again,it is also through my hard work and deligence on working for the foundation as a volunteer campus Ambassador right in Botswana. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oarabile Mudongo (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please check your email

Asaf, I sent you an email directly on May 6. I'm still waiting for a reply on Wikimedia-l to the question that I first asked on April 29. Would you or someone in Grants please respond to that? See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125555.html and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125575.html. Thanks. --Pine^✉ 18:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I do check my e-mail. Your questions are not quite the most important thing we need to get done right now, so they will be answered as soon as time permits. We have not forgotten. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Start a newsletter subpage :-)

... and turn on email notifications for it!

Happy summer. I left a note on Grants talk:Start. –SJ talk  17:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! And thanks for the comment; Siko has addressed it now, and we are indeed about to announce some renaming. Stay tuned! :) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 15:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group

Hi! Thanks for your interest in the Wikisource User Group, to get things moving, Aubrey and me we were thinking of doing these tasks and hopefully you can give us a hand too :)

• Translate this WsUG invitation (thanks to Aarti for writing it!) into the languages you know
• The invitation is meant to be delivered to this list of wikisourcerors, check if we should add someone else!
• Read the new version of the WsUG page, and, if you feel like, add your thoughts about what should we do as a group on the talk page.

What do you think it's the first priority as a group of wikisource users, and what would you like to see accomplished? We'd very much like to understand what wikisourcerors want :-) --Micru (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Scale down needed

(no reason to discuss this here; moved to the grant discussion page) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 17:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Updating the WEF board member list

Asaf, I noticed there have been a couple of edits to the WEF grant since it was approved; the main purpose of the edits was to get the board member list accurate (Jami Mathewson had left the board some time before the grant was approved). However, technically the rubric at the top of the page says we should get your agreement before making the edits. I assume you're fine with correcting the board member list? I see jbmurray and Pjthepiano are disagreeing about how to characterize Annie Lin as a board member (e.g. "Annie Lin -- ex-WMF employee"). I'd prefer to see her listed without qualification, since we're not characterizing any other board member by prior experience. Can you just formally let me know that it is OK to edit the version you approved to change

• Jami Mathewson, Wikimedia Foundation appointee currently supporting the Wikipedia Education Program in the United States and Canada

to

• Annie Lin

Thanks. I'll post a note at the grant talk page too, so Jon Murray and PJ can chime in here if they want to. Mike Christie (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Vague budget approved

The WLM debacle, which you've just approved, sends a signal to all applicants to build in 10% for "unforeseen expenses". Is this now to be normalised? It's not transparent, as the Board's objectives require. I'll be suggesting it to all applicants.

What does €10,000 in "technical support" amount to?

The calendars are charged at €9,000. How many? What proportion of the total cost of calendars is this subsidising?

Tony (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony, your sensible commentary would be ever so much easier to benefit from if you refrained from sensationalism and emotive language. The WLM grant is not a "debacle", and your disagreement with the applicants, or with my decision, is not a good reason to use inflamed language. I ask you again to please refrain from this in the future. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

To your questions:

Yes, we encourage grantees to build a buffer (of not more than 10% usually) for unforeseen and miscellaneous expenses. It is in everyone's interest that this amount be available to the grantees should the need arise (as it often does), rather than requiring urgent communications and additional wires from the US (involving a significant bureaucratic burden in some jurisdictions). Please remember this is not "money you can do whatever you want with" -- the grantee is accountable for every last cent of the reserve/buffer, just like the other budget line items, and has to keep receipts etc., again just like every other item. Unused buffers are then either remitted or retained for approved use, or, in the case of repeat grantees, deducted from a future grant. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The 10,000 Euros in technical support are explained on the grant (e.g. they are payment for a contractor to migrate and maintain the Erfgoedbot necessary for the competition). Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that we were not given details about the amount of calendars and the degree of subsidy. This might have been a good thing to be concerned about in a grant proposal to a less experienced group, but in the context of this group, I was far more concerned about the total expenditure than about frugality in specific items. I trust this team to have calculated this line item frugally. The value of printing and shipping calendars at all, mind you, is far from obvious to me, and I would welcome looking into that as well, as part of the general evaluation of WLM's impact that I'm looking forward to; alas, that evaluation will not be available before next year. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

WikIftar needs quick response

Hi Asaf, I made a grant request Grants:Belayet Hossain/WikIftar Dhaka 2013. The event based on Muslim Ramandan month and there only 10 days left of this month before Wikimania. So I have very short time to arrange that event which is depends on this grant. Could you help me to get a quick grant for my event?--Bellayet (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have initiate this issue at WMBD mailing list as well at Bangla Wikipedia village pump for the community discussion. Though google translation tool is not perfect, you can use the tool to read the Bangla Wikipedia discussions in English.--Bellayet (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

A2K

Hi Asaf, As you said, you are in charge of the grant you may look into this matter. I hope A2K/CIS has already informed you/WMF about this. I don't know who keeps track of the work and progress of A2K. May be CIS has the full authority over this, and there is no point telling you, i don't know. I don't have any question to you but you may have a look at these discussions, this, this (if possible go through other discussions on that page) and this, and if you are the consent person you may pitch in, if required. Also you may see this, this. I was involved in few discussions and I am sorry if you too find my tone rhetoric. I just wanted wmf to know this. I do not intend to take part in this anymore. So if you have any question ask me here instead. But seriously i don't have time for this, and I'll be busy for a long while. Thanks. -- ɑηsuмaη «Talk» 14:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT / User Group

Please see this discussion regarding User Group status. Thank you! --Another Believer (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

your title

Your title's inconsistent across your user pages. (at least between meta and wmfwiki)

Also, I was wondering what happened to coming up with a new title? :-) (someone just mentioned global south in #wikimedia-tech and I immediately thought of you!) --Jeremyb (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've edited both a little to better reflect reality. A new title may be in the cards in a little while. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Participation Support Program survey

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on the Participation Support Program! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you submitted or commented on Participation Support requests in the past.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the Participation Support Program again soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Haitham, Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group and Community Poll

Hi ljon. You receive this message because you signed the Wikisource User Group page: the User Group, as you probably know, is being evaluated by the AffCom, and they asked some questions that involve all interested users (as you are :-). Could you please take a moment to read these questions and answers for yourself? It is very important. Moreover, make sure you read and review the Wikisource community poll: we would like it to be filled in by as many users as possible, and we need really your help for that. If you want and can translate it, please write it here. Please contact us if you want to help: Wikisource is an amazing project, and it can be much more amazing if we all work together :-) Thanks! --Aubrey (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ni!

Just felt like saying hi ;)

Too bad it's been so hard for me to keep in touch and help with the grants this year.

Cheers, ale.

--Solstag (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ale! Great to hear from you. It's too bad indeed -- your warm and thoughtful voice is surely missed! I hope you can find some time to engage soon. Abraços! :) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 03:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WMCZ Community Grant and GAC eligibility criteria

Hi there,

after further elaboration of Aktron et al on their usage of the office I am pretty convinced that the office is a part of their programmatic activity.

Unfortunately, current WMF grants policy remains unchanged with the wording as follows: Starting fiscal year 2012-2013, Grants through this program do not fund full-time permanent staff salaries and other recurring operating expenses, such as the rent of an office. Full-time staff and recurring operating expenses will now only be funded via the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) process.

Present wording seems to be saying that a recurring expense like an office is automatically excluded from GAC. As this seems not to be the case, even in a 2 yr programme, I would kindly suggest rephrasing this part to avoid confusion in the future. :)

Kind Regards,
aegis maelstrom δ 18:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've updated the policy page to reflect the actual policy more accurately. While I was at it, I re-organized it to make it more readable, and the new version has already been localized into several languages. But not Polish yet... Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) And yes, I get the message. :) Please let my finish my RL obligations Work! Concert in Philharmonia! X-mas preps! and a WMPL activity report for WMF :), and I will see what I can do. ;)

Best Wishes, aegis maelstrom δ 10:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics

Idea Lab

Idea Lab

Hello, Ijon! We've added Events to IdeaLab, and you're invited :)

Upcoming events focus on turning ideas into Individual Engagement Grant proposals before the March 31 deadline. Need help or have questions about IEG? Join us at a Hangout:

• Thursday, 13 March 2014, 1600 UTC
• Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 1700 UTC
• Saturday, 29 March 2014, 1700 UTC

Hope to see you there!

This message was delivered automatically to IEG and IdeaLab participants. To unsubscribe from any future IEG reminders, remove your name from this list

Email?

Asaf, did you receive my email of 25 March? Tony (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I will respond as soon as time permits. I have had to prioritize rather aggressively in the past two weeks. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Asaf. And I understand that things must be hectic on a number of fronts—so just when you're able. Tony (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

group help

hello; on a recommendation from Siko Bouterse we wanted permission to use the name of wikimedia-dz.com website

she told me that it is not possible for authorized grouppes except nousne sum not an authorized group

my question: can you help us make our group; a group Oflicial greeting --Bachounda (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(responded by e-mail) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about one of your statements

You might be interested to join this discussion [3] unfortunately it is in German but if you answer in english it will be understood or translate for those who don't.--Saehrimnir (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up! I'm happy to discuss this further, if the German community is interested in actually debating the point. A quick look with my very weak German, however, suggests it's mostly fuming and ranting, with little substance countering the arguments I used. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I’m sorry to say, your German might really be too weak. You might try Google Translate. Rgds _{• • hugarheimur} 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see a lot has been added in the past 24 hours. I'll take another look. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Asaf, as I am the author of the Kurier article I would like to suggest you leave your post as Head of WMF Grants and Global South Partnerships immediately. It just will not do to tell volunteers that no one is in need of their work. Also, by putting hobbyist's projects next to other projects you favour the opposite of a hobbyist's project over that one. But what is the opposite to this? I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that the opposite should be paid editing, as we are all working as volunteers here. This was a slam in the face of all Wikimedia volunteers, and I think it would be best you leave your post and give it free for someone who is more apt to fill the position. I personally do not feel easy with someone like you being in charge of the Grants programme. In case you just handed on a statement of the whole committee, my suggestion holds true for the committee as a whole. I also would like to ask you to apologise for your statement to all volunteers. This would be the least you could do now. And you may do that in English, if you prefer.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood my statement, and I invite you to reconsider your position after you've definitely understood what I was and wasn't saying: Of course all Wikipedias are hobbyist projects. I have clarified here what I meant by "hobbyist". I'm afraid you (and others) have been a bit to quick to perceive a "slam in the face" here. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Asaf, this is about hitting the right tone in a discussion. Your statement did not only deal with the question of whether Esperanto Wikipedia should be using a translation tool and whether the WMF could afford to spend 1300 Euros on that (peanuts, really). It also was contemptious of all volunteers. You still do not see the point. And I have the impression that different people are needed in a position like this which is all about supporting and understanding what volunteers are doing. It is a question of trust and understanding. And I think that all those who supported your statement at the time (I gather it was not only your opinion, then) should not be in this position. I for one could not imagine to ask for a grant from someone like you knowing what you think about volunteers' work and reading that you still do not understand that your statement one year ago was a scandal in indeed.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

First, please let go of the strawman: no one (certainly not I) has said WMF "can't afford" the grant amount. You will have seen by now that I am making an argument from principle here, not a budgetary one.

I remain puzzled by your insistence to read "contempt of all volunteers" in my comment. In fact, you clearly don't know "what I think about volunteers' work" if you think I am contemptuous of it. (Do I need to showcase my own long (and ongoing, outside WMF) volunteering record?) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Very sorry to read that you stick to your chair and that you put your personal career over the movement. So, it's EOD from my side.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel the need to export the fuming and ranting I saw both on the Kurier page itself and the talkpage. Asaf does an excellent job and is appreciated by the vast majority of the community. May I suggest that you return to doing something useful rather than implicitly demanding that donors' funds—given in good faith—be spent on hobby sites. What is next? Volapuk? Klingon? Old English? Should we plough money into a Latin Wikivoyage? Tell me why we should bother discussing this while most modern scripts in the world (for example, Arabic, Chinese) are not properly supported on WMF sites? Tony (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Tony, I think that neither Aschmidt's outraged style nor your not very fitting comparisons and exaggerations are helpful in this discussion. There is absolutely no indication that anyone would consider to "plough money into a Latin Wikivoyage", the Volapük Wikipedia is taken seriously by maybe two or three people, and Klingon has been exiled from Wikimedia years ago. Esperanto is a totally different case: It's not a dead language like Old English, not a forgotten attempt at a world language like Volapük, and not part of a fictional universe like Klingon or Quenya. It is a language that is currently actively spoken by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world; people who like to read and write encyclopedic articles just like speakers of any other natural language. That is a simple fact. So, I really don't understand this bashing of Esperanto. From your contribution in the German Kurier discussion, I see that you view it as "a failed pre-Versailles attempt at international brotherhood" and criticize it for not being a "true" world language, as it is too much based upon European languages. Well, what can I say... Marcoscramer has already asked the questions I would have asked you in response there. The active speaker base of Esperanto doesn't quite look like a failure to me - yes, it hasn't become the widely used world language it was meant to be, but a means of communication between people all over the world nevertheless. What has become a widely used world language? English, the language we communicate in here right now (my first language is Swiss German). And if you want to criticize Esperanto as "too European", English is extremely European as well, I'd say. We may regret that languages originating on other continents haven't been that successful globally as yet (e.g. Kiswahili would be a good candidate - from what I heard about it, it's easy to pronounce and has simple grammar), but that is not a good reason to harshly denounce a language that currently serves as a means of communication for not countless, but still many people. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Several people there, myself included, don't necessarily disagree with the decision of not funding this particular grant request as such (personally, I'm not convinced that using machine translation is a good idea), but thoroughly disagree with the rationale ""An Esperanto Wikipedia does not advance our mission". Esperanto is the wrong object to make a point about "lost causes". I'm not even a speaker of Esperanto, but to me it's clear that Esperanto has a thriving, world-wide community of speakers larger than that of many smaller natural languages. An Esperanto Wikipedia is not less worthwile than one in Welsh or in Romansh, though with a very different focus: Whilst e.g. the Romansh or the Sorbian Wikipedia focus on a small language community in a geographically limited area (and therefore have most potential for content on the respective area, which may sometimes be more thorough than in a "big" language Wikipedia), the Esperanto Wikipedia gives us the opportunity to reach people all over the world by a different approach to "world language" than just using English. Yes, it's "only" a few hundred thousand people, but people with all kinds of native languages - not all of them speaking English. You quite strongly stated "the existence, cultivation, and growth of the Esperanto Wikipedia does not advance our educational mission" - I think exactly the opposite is the case. It does. If your statement were about e.g. Volapük, I would fully agree with you - Volapük has long dwindled into obscurity and is spoken at best by a handful of people. There are many constructed languages that never were much more than an experiment (Volapük in fact was more, but only for a short time long ago), but Esperanto isn't one of them. Also, the Esperanto Wikipedia is in fact one of the more popular ones, as was pointed out in the German discussion - usage statistics show that it has a bit more views than Hindi (with 550 million speakers) and only a bit less than Serbo-Croatian, also clearly more than languages such as Albanian or Mongolian. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. I agree Esperanto is on a different level than Volapük, certainly. I sympathize with its mission and its devotees. But I also think it is my job to ensure our funds are kept strictly on our mission, and in my opinion, the Esperanto Wikipedia does not serve our mission, but a different mission. It should therefore continue to grow with only its editing community's participation, but without active investment from WMF. I am open to changing my mind if the actual utility of Esperanto Wikipedia for readers is compellingly shown, or if my superiors at WMF make an explicit policy decision. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You have no right to decide what is the mission. The Foundation has to serve the contributors and is in no managing position at all. I would agree with the decision, because botgenerated articles and automatical translations create no valauable articles in my opion, but your words about "mission" are worthless and show you see yourself much more important than you actually should be. But it is a general problem about the Foundation and all the many commitees that under Sue got established overestimate their position a lot. You should reality check what actually your position in the movement is. You have to serve the volunteers. You have no right to decide what is the "mission" or feel yourself in any position to have a managing influence on that. Change your view, change it soon. Or step down from your chair, because you are not the right one for it. Very, very disappointing. And you actually fuel the distance between the communities and the Foundation. --Julius1990 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well... as I see it, this is a multilingual project, isn't it? An article in Esperanto has the same potential as articles in other languages of comparable size - there are some hundred thousands of people out there who might be interested in reading articles in each particular language. Esperanto even is said to have a few thousand true native speakers in addition to those who learned it as a second language (by the way, one participant in the German discussion said that he's using Esperanto in everyday life and that his son is currently learning Esperanto as one of two native languages, along with German). And the case of a language where all speakers also speak a more widely used language isn't unique; you could argue that a Welsh Wikipedia is meaningless and should get no support whatsoever, as the Welsh speakers all speak English as well. But I think we should check for this: Is there an active community of speakers? Does a language live? That's where the difference lies: Volapük, Lojban, or Gothic aren't living languages. The Gothic Wikipedia with its 460 articles or the Volapük Wikipedia with its large number of bot-generated stubs can be seen as experiments, more or less funny, but indeed: Creating an article about Facebook in Gothic will maybe amuse some scholars, but no - it doesn't serve our mission. Esperanto is an entirely different case and I just think you pigeonholed this one wrongly when making your decision. You put it into the "funny experiment" drawer where Esperanto doesn't belong. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As a teacher I have knowledge I am supposed to teach, but of course I do listen to my pupils and try to figure out a way of teaching they might like. Because it is not important for me, that they learn the way I want them to, but that they learn and get the knowledge they need. The mission of Wikimedia is free knowledge and the statistics show that there are people, who consult the esperanto wikipedia to find knowledge. So I cannot understand your statement "the Esperanto Wikipedia does not serve our mission", because it obviously does, otherwise no one would use it? Or how do you explain the statistics? I am not interested in your specific decision, I just want to know, if "we" are working on the same mission. Catfisheye (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC) (Please excuse my English, it is late her.)

Especially as a respond to Aschmidt (thanks for the article, it has very helped to ELiSo!) and my message to Asaf's supervisor I would like to clearly say that me, as an original grant's proposer, consider the suggestion to "leave your post as Head of WMF Grants and Global South Partnerships immediately" as too scandalous and hasty. I know Asaf as responsible, well-oriented and open-minded man and very valuable part of organized wikimedia movement. Yes, the Asaf's wording wasn't the best possible. But who use best possible wording all the time? I don't. And Asaf has clarified his former wording yet. In addition, I am not aware (inform me if someone know!) about previous whole-community/movement-wide discussion about funding (in contrary to only hosting) wiki projects in constructed language. I believe that Asaf made his most honest decision (although I don't like it and don't agree with it) possible in that time with full respect to (very low) movement's experience in this field. Many opinions was raised and I hope to discuss them in constructive way for making situation of constructed language wikis clearer. --KuboF (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Asaf can be a nice guy, but his statement means more than a personal - maybe unhappily formulated - opinion. It stands for a rupture between the Foundation and the communities. It is all in all about the question who is the cook and who is the waiter in the Wikimedia universe. The Foundation claims to be the cook, what caused many, many discussions and fights in the past (i think you know the milestones in that process). But actually the cook are the contributers, the communities who with their work actually raise the money that the Foundation can spend. And that is why such statements are totally dishonorable for any member of teh Foundation staff and commitees, it lacks the respect that is necessary. --Julius1990 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record: I am seconding Aschmidt. The critizised statement is a blatant violation of several of Wikipedia's main principles, most of all about no personal attacks (in diffaming Esperanto Wikipedianas and/or speakers as "hobbyists") and on no personal point of view. Indeed, if Asaf was a member of the German WP community I would certainly start a "Benutzersperrverfahren" (as is called the rfc for banning users in DE:WP). --Matthiasb (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Update

I have posted some news on the grant talk page where most of this discussion was taking place. I encourage everyone watching this space to read it. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your statement "Esperanto Wikipedia does not advance our mission"

Dear Asaf, yes I was really misled, as I at the first moment did read only the title of your statement. But here we are already in the middle of the problem: Your native language is evidently English. For me English is only my 4th foreign language after my native languages German and Alemannic, my quasi-native language Esperanto, and the other official languages of my country Italian and French. And English (despite of the fact that I understand it as professional translator at a much higher level than most of people who indicated on their babel-field in the Wikipedia a high English level) will always remain for me a foreign language. When I read a book of 60 standard pages in German or Esperanto I need about half an hour to understand it. To read and understand the same book in English it takes me almost 4 to 6 hours, i.e. 10 times more than in my native language. I do not know if you speak any foreign language. But if you do, please tell me how it is for you to read a professional manual in such a language! I was in 2008 in Yokahama, Japan, for the Universal Congress of Esperanto. I met there several Japanese people who learned only during one month Esperanto and could speak with me in Esperanto fluently on a very high level about philosophy and politics. In the same time at the railway station and in the touristic office the communications in English with ordinary people, who all learned English on high school during years, was nearly impossible, their language level was totally insufficient. Similar experience I made everywhere around the world, there English was not the official local language! There is a fact, that the knowledge granted in English is for not native speakers not in the same way freely accessible as it would be in a logical, clear and easy language as Esperanto (of course under the condition they really learned this language!). It is a fact that if knowledge is accessible for me both in Esperanto and in English than I can it understand much easier and better in Esperanto! Also when I want to discuss with you and I have to express me in English I am suffering the linguistic restrictions. I cannot express everything I want, I misunderstand some of your statements and answers (as I did of course in exactly this case!) - and if this is the case for my person, who as a linguist invested a lot of time to learn English, you can imagine that for 99% of all other not native speakers of English (and this is the great majority of the humanity - as native language English [350 million native speaker] is after Mandarin [1200 million native speaker], Hindi [with Urdu (which is phonetically the same language) 800 million native speaker], Spanish [500 million native speaker] and Arabic [450 million native speaker] only on position 5 of all languages!) the situation in reality is much more difficult, even if a lot of them are not really aware about their problem, as they do not know, that it could exist a moor just solution. Of course if you think only about the actual situation there are very few person around the world who really make use of the knowledge granted in Esperanto on the one hand and the level of al lot of the articles in the Esperanto-Wikipedia is unfortunately on a very low level actually it is a fact, that Esperanto by ordinary people can be learned about 10 times faster than English and that on a much higher level of understanding. - I hope I could express my arguments despite the language obstacle. It is clear, if you would be able to speak fluently in Esperanto, we could discuss with less misunderstanding on a much higher level. Allow me a last interesting fact: Esperanto was persecuted by the totalitarian regimes under Hitler and Stalin (one of the reason, why the Esperanto Movement after World War II had to start at 0). Ask you why such regimes were afraid of Esperanto? Of course, if the people around the world can communicate without linguistic obstacles there would be free access to knowledge. The goal of the Esperanto Movement and the goal of Wikipedia in this point are absolutely identic! Behind Esperanto there is exactly the idea to give free access to knowledge and communication also to those people who are not capable to study difficult foreign languages like English!DidiWeidmann (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @DidiWeidmann:. You do not need to convince me of the value of the Esperantist mission, or of the fact most of the world population does not speak English (it is my second language too, by the way). I am well aware of both of these. As you may have noticed by now, I have also been convinced of the intersection of an Esperanto Wikipedia with our mission, and am no longer opposed to funding projects related to it. So it seems to me there is nothing to add. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you changed your mind and that is something you deserve respect for. But i think you have to understand that your words caused effects that won't disappear just right after you announced your new position. --Julius1990 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I do understand that, @Julius1990:. But there's still nothing more to say, I think. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You can say it's my lost trust in everything Foundation related, but i'm not so sure about this understanding. Comments like the one by DidiWeidmann illustrate that your words have hurt many people, and telling this to you is part of the process of healing. When i would be an editor of the Esperanto Wikipedia i also would feel the need to state my position even after your annoucement. Even if you think taht there actually is nothing to add anymore and everything could now be already calmed down again ... --Julius1990 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, Julius, but: get over it and act like an adult. No one's going to respect people who cry and moan in public, especially post-hoc. Resubmit what you think is a good application and GAC will reconsider it on its merits. Tony (talk)

Must be hard to simply respect other contributers, their feelings and statements, huh? --Julius1990 (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Julius, I don't mean to be personally difficult, but I've found the tirade of negative emotion directed towards Asaf inappropriate. Loud lobbying puts the grantmaking system in an awkward position, given the need to assess and recommend without fear or favour.

Now, I think we should wipe the slate clean and start over. When you present again at GAC, it will be interesting to work with you on the generalisable impact and potential for lessons learned of your proposal. Please note also that I'm not a technical person; nor are most GAC members. So clear explanations would be good. Tony (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)