Grants talk:IEG/Ghana Editor Study

i would recommend to change the focus completely from old editors to new editors. ask 20 existing editors is not worth 7'000 usd. but ask 500 persons to register a user and do one edit is worthwile. take a camera and film these poor persons suffering with the currently terrible mobile device user experience and it will really change the mind of the software development at WMF. if the user experience is good enough we have 10% of the persons sticking around for some time, also a nice result. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Although we will be asking old editors, they are not our only focus. We will be looking generally at the different types of editors per their activity in the last year, that includes old and new editors. Also, we intend to ask beneficiaries of our outreach programs, these people only have accounts with no edits or no account at all.→Masssly^✉ 21:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Rupert's point makes sense, and we will refine the focus to include them. Although everyone understands how intimidating editing wikipedia for first time editors might be, I think those fixes won't better be handled by us. Its not as if the WMF doesn't know their editing experience is worse, so I'll just be repeating words they likely know, and have heard of several times over and over. One of our focus for this project is to consider other factors involved in editor retention.

Editing experience is horrible worldwide, however other continents (and countries) record high active editors as compared to Africa. So there's more involved in the 'bad editing experience' situation. --Nkansahrexford (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

9/29/15 Proposal Deadline: Change status to 'proposed

Hi Masssly,

This draft is looking like it's well on its way. I'm writing to remind you to make sure to change the status of your proposal from 'draft' to 'proposed' by the September 29, 2015 deadline in order to submit it for review by the committee in the current round of IEG. If you have any questions or would like to discuss your proposal, let me know. We're hosting a few IEG proposal help sessions this month in Google Hangouts. I'm also happy to set up an individual session. Warm regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Masssly

1. I am particularly concerned about the number of hours allocated to each section of job to be done. eg: 20 hours for producing Ghanaian contributors list in my opinion is outrageous, this can be pulled by any administrator in a few minutes.
2. The mode of your research is also not the best in my opinion and is not cost effective. For a very small community like Ghana where editor lists will not exceed a few 10's, i don't think it will take 80 hours of data collated. Also interview in this day and era for a research, particularly in a community like ours where almost everybody is comfortable with using the web. You may resort to questionnaires via qualtrics, google forms, etc. which will save time and money. A dozen of these platforms even allow you to port data collected easily to statistical tools that will save your time and the foundation's money (that would have been spent on activities such as contact and arrange meeting with study subjects, prepare and rehears interview material, transcribe interview, travel, data analysis, etc.)
3. Not forgetting that all these people you intend to study can easily be reached via the Wikimedia Ghana mailing list and will reduce the need for other extra costs. I think i agree with ThurnerRupert on his earlier comment "ask 20 existing editors is not worth 7'000 usd. but ask 500 persons to register a user and do one edit is worthwile".
4. Lastly it will be great to know how you intend to use the findings from this project to actually effect a change in the Ghanaian community? Dominickb4 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "ask 500 persons to register a user and do one edit is worthwhile"? (italics mine). What is that exactly supposed to mean? If my understanding of that is correct, you mean, its better asking 500 persons (e.g get 500 students from a university) to create an account and make a single edit, than gaining insights from existing editors? After getting 500 persons to do one edit with 7'000 usd, then what? Only less than 2 becomes active editors. Then another 7'000 usd for 2 active editors?
• I think our project scope isn't clear, perhaps, to Dominickb4 or Rupert. What we are trying to do with this project is NOT to invite people to create user accounts or get people to edit. Rather, its about more of learning about what keeps active editors going, and what hinders/stops previously-active users from editing. Unless the wmf enjoys seeing mere user accounts created, with a mere user page edit or so, the community in Ghana is concerned and inclined more about getting users to be active, and this project is aimed at giving us insights into what works and what doesn't, from the perspective of those already in the editing field.
• We have reached out to many already, from different educational/cultural/occupational backgrounds. We started these outreaches a couple of years ago. And we've come a long way, yet ask me about how many active editors are there today. The many we met, some made just one or two edits (some not even on an article, but just on user pages), but never continued. We aim to reach out to some of these individuals, and learn from their experiences. Unless I'm misunderstanding that expression, I find "ask 500 persons to register a user and do one edit is worthwhile" not that encouraging! --Nkansahrexford (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dominickb4, thanks for your observations!

1. Are Administrators able to pull such data? I don't think so. If we can get help on that and reduce several man-hours to 3-hours that’ll be great.
2. It is difficult to place a figure on the size of the community and one of the objective of this research is to accomplish that, beyond that we will be able to know the nature of their involvement which comes useful when we are planning future activities. The mailing list alone has close to 100 recipients. There are a lot more Ghanaian editors who are not yet aware or associated with us. I wouldn't estimate that their figure is in the 10's. Personal interviews are known to have higher impact than questionnaires especially with our kind of qualitative research where we want to open up conversation and probe the answers of the respondents to see where it leads us to. Moreover unlike the many similar questionnaire research out there on the same topic, we are avoiding the situation where we merely provide them with (predefined) options that will influence their thoughts before they even begin. Not to mention that our people find it difficult expressing themselves in writing I'm English. We are presenting a rare opportunity where they can talk to us in person possibly in their native tongue.
3. Actually our mailing list is not that comprehensive. Infact majority of edits that are obviously Ghanaian user accounts (by name) as can be seen at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Directory/Description/WikiProject_Ghana> are not yet associated with us. these are mostly new editors we would love to hear from. Another population the research seeks to reach are initiates of our outreach projects. These people are mostly not on our mailing list.
4. Basically, we are seeking to understand the motivations of Ghanaian contributors to enable us conduct better outreach. There more we Know their needs, Why they want to get more involved, Why they would drop off, Why their activity/enthusiasm would wane, etc they better we are in a position to engage them in ways that would increase participation overall.→Masssly^✉ 14:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Thanks for reducing the time allocated for retrieving member details as suggested in my earlier comments. I still find it confusing though, for you to allocate hours for that if you fully took my advice, as this could easily be gotten by asking an admin to query the system on your behalf.
2. How do you mean here, because in your comment you clearly stated that it is difficult to place your hand on the figures. If I may ask what informed you decision on the total numbers you may be dealing with?
3. I still stand by the fact that this research could be easily done in a cost effective and efficient way that may last not more than a week. You may best resort to survey websites that allow the same quality of work you intend to do via interviews. These same questions that you intend to ask, could be in text formats that yield same results.
4. Finally I think it will be best if such an amount is used to gain more contents especially in a country like Ghana were contents do not come in regularly. Rather than focus resources on volunteers that are not willing to edit, remember wikimedians are born and not made. Particularly in a country where similar people in similar conditions ( not giving any special support) are motivated to still edit.Dominickb4 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Concerns

→Masssly^✉ I don't know why you want to ct interviews and then transcribe them again whereas you can use simple tools like qualtrics and google forms. I believe there are not so many active editors within your country. Why don't you rather send these online questionnaires to mailing lists and get the responses? I think it would have been better if you have used these to conduct a pilot to show the need for this whole study. In as much as it is good I believe you can save a lot of time and money. And how come the hourly rates are also uneven?Again there is nothing showing the duration of this entire project.--41.242.137.35 13:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Masssly: I am sorta supportive of this project as written. Could this project interview more users and editors? Could this project be duplicated in other Global South countries? Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Geraldshields11:, thanks for your support. This project could interview more users and editors, but we are trying to begin with not so much of interviews to do. However, the number of editors and users we will interview are enough to offer much insight into the primary goal of the project. And yes, the project can be duplicated in other Global South countries. Re-usability of the project is of primary concern as well. --Nkansahrexford (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

COI declaration

I have recently been closely affiliated with WMF and edits made with User:Masssly account do not reflect the views of the Foundation but are entirely my own. I shall remain involved with the Grants:IEG/Ghana_Editor_Study only in an informal advisory capacity and keep my work with WMF and participants involved in this proposal separated. —M@sssly^✉ 11:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2015

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2015 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2015 begins on 20 October 2015, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Marti (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this not part of chapter activities?

In the Netherlands we conducted a study as part of our chapter budget. Why are you requesting extra budget for this? --Jane023 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Jane023, we are not a chapter. We are a recognized User Group. Plus we do not have a budget for the entire User Group on a yearly basis, thus, funds are requested as per project basis. --Nkansahrexford (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I thought you were a chapter. --Jane023 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Ghana Editor Study

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background)	Score 1=weak alignment 10=strong alignment
(A) Impact potential Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities? Does it have potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	7.8
(B) Innovation and learning Does it take an Innovative approach to solving a key problem? Is the potential impact greater than the risks? Can we measure success?	6.4
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in 6 months? How realistic/efficient is the budget? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	4.6
(D) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support? Does it support diversity?	6.2
Comments from the committee: May create new ways to contribute to local communities. Online impact potential depends on follow-up action from WUG. Yes, editor studies are important for editor retention but also as ways to judge a community’s satisfaction with its editor base. The outcome and the approach could be adapted elsewhere, if research proves to be useful This project fits with the priority to Increase participation; it will also help the WMF to contextualize some of its work related to the priority to increase reach. Because of the relationship between this project and future outreach activities by the Wikimedia Ghana User Group, there is potential for online impact and for the work to be sustained after the grant ends. The project has clear and well defined metrics. Yes, most editor studies are conducted by third parties; this is the first to be held by insiders Surveys aren't innovative but using an interview form (rather than a questionnaire) is an interesting approach, as is the focus on insights beyond the internet connectivity problem. Risks are low and there are good measures of success. I see a well prepared team. Some budget items are unclear (for example: transcribing interview). Budget only focuses on work hours - what are the costs for travel and other equipment? It’s not that this team has the expertise needed for this research. The list of questions for the survey seem superficial and could use further development.. Scope seems reasonable. Budget is ok but focuses entirely on salaries. Not sure whether members of the project team have worked in these areas before (interviewing, research and analysis) but the lead (a WiR) seems experienced in the movement. Not a lot of engagement but that may correspond with being a small community Has a clear target community that will be engaged, but has only little community support. Supports diversity, but only on a global scale. Good plan for community engagement, despite not much community support or opposition. In terms of diversity, the project seeks to contribute to work of amplifying "missing important voices from low participating geographies." If this project is not funded through IEG, it could possibly be included in a PEG in the WUG. Though the project is expensive, I am curious! I'd like to see more in-depth description of the planned interviews and research. I would like to know more about the the participants’ expertise. $5,000 is very expensive to run a survey in Ghana, where the average hourly wage is about $2. Calculating $25 per hour at 160 hours, I get a monthly salary of $4,000 dollars. Based on hourly cost, a survey we conducted in Switzerland, where the cost of living is much higher, was less expensive than this one.

Round 2 2015 decision

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!

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee sees significant value in a locally-initiated survey of potential editors in Ghana. We warmly encourage the team to re-submit this application again once the critical points of concern have been addressed. WMF staff are available to provide guidance and support as needed.

Next steps:

1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Questions? Contact us.