Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@GrWayfarer: The deadline for Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) submissions this round is April 12th, 2016. To submit your proposal, you must (1) complete the proposal entirely, filling in all empty fields, and (2) change the status from "draft" to "proposed." As soon as you’re ready, you should begin to invite any communities affected by your project to provide feedback on your proposal talkpage. If you have any questions about finishing up or would like to brainstorm with us about your proposal, we're hosting an IEG proposal help session tomorrow on April 12th from 16:00 - 17:00 UTC on Google Hangouts.
I'm also happy to set up an individual session tomorrow if needed.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!
We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for review and scoring. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period (through 2 May 2016).
The committee's formal review begins on 3 May 2016, and grants will be announced 17 June 2016. See the round 1 2016 schedule for more details.
Questions? Contact us at iegrantswikimedia · org .
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?
2.9
(B) Community engagement
Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
Does it have community support?
2.9
(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?
4.0
(D) Measures of success
Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
Are they realistic?
Can they be measured?
2.0
Additional comments from the Committee:
This proposal applies only among readers, not contributors.
The proposal does not explain how the proposed tool would increase participation or result in any measurable impact to the Wikimedia community or projects.
Interesting idea but I suppose that Magnus Manske has already developed something similar.
While a cool and fun project, I am unsure how this would benefit Wikimedia projects directly. Magnus' Wikidata game takes a similar approach but contributed data back into Wikidata, which this proposal does not propose.
A game would have a lower impact for a reason. They are not always the focus of editors which would be more important to consider in the long-run.
While I do think gamification is an important concept in developing online communities, especially outside of the very 'active' editors, I'm not sure that this project fulfills that need.
It could be useful, but I do not see its usefulness in the community at this time.
The proposal does not explain why the problem to be solved should be of interest to the Wikimedia movement. The measures of success are not quantified, and do not correspond to impact to the Wikimedia projects.
The measures of success are particularly vague in this instance. I would like the applicant to speak more to the learning potential of this proposal and how it might affect the greater Wikipedia community, beyond being a research project.
The proposal has little explanation on how they are going to accomplish this project, making it very difficult to grade on this criteria.
Clearly the participants have the skills necessary and are likely to be able to complete the project.
I see almost no community notifications or engagement inside Wikimedia communities, planned or proposed. I am also unsure which community would be directly interested.
Wikidata is the target, which is good, but with no discussion of previous projects. Nothing really happened on community communication.
The proposal has little in the way of a plan for community outreach and engagement. I would ask that the participants do some specific research on what community this might benefit.
I would vote if the game resulted in edits. For example, "is this town in Santa Clara County?" could add the category "towns in Santa Clara country" and if it doesn’t exist yet, create the category. Tying the quiz to data ingestion on Wikipedia, the way Magnus' tools tie quiz information to Wikidata data ingestion (e.g. gender information) would have my support.
This would be an interesting project for a company building quiz software, but I do not see its relevance to the Wikimedia movement.
The project is a simple idea with poor planning to evaluate if there is a tool that can be reused. There is already a set of similar tools http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/ in my opinion and it needs to be reviewed.
Seems aimed at educators who use Wikipedia, but not Wikimedians. The budget is too sparsely specified, and has no endorsements.
There are sites that achieve something similar such as Answers.com. However, I do not see the benefit of this proposal for Wikimedia projects.
This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant at this time.
We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!
Next steps:
Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.
wikimedia · org .
