Grants talk:IEG/Piłsudski Institute of America GLAM-Wiki Scalable Archive Project

Need help finishing this proposal?

Hi Lukasz Chelminski, thanks for starting this proposal. I just wanted to let you know that we're hosting a few more IEG proposal help sessions in Google Hangouts and IRC next week, so please join if you'd like to get some extra help finishing your proposal. Once you've filled in all sections and are ready to submit it for review, please update its status (in your page's Probox markup) from DRAFT to PROPOSED.

I'm glad to see that you're thinking globally but starting from a local pilot perspective! I'm pinging Wittylama, as I imagine he may be interested in providing some input or advice from a global GLAM tools perspective. Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually - I think the person you need to talk to about categories, especially as they related to GLAM, on Commons is User:Multichill. Wittylama (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. The person with the most Wikimedia experience on the team is User:jarekt but I am enjoying having dived into the deep end. I do wish I could have attended a session! Lukasz Chelminski (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am very interested in this proposal. As a person that so far did all the uploads and initial categorization of Piłsudski Institute of America documents, I can definitely use some help with improving categorization of those files and with preparation of new uploads (especially since new uploads is one of the measures of success). Also I personally find the task of linking authors of the documents to wikipedia articles and Commons categories, to be the most time consuming part of the process and I imagine that it is the same for other GLAM uploads. Any tools that might help with this process would be very appriciated. I made some specific comments about earlier versions of this proposal here, but in general I am still having hard time figuring out what is being proposed and how is it going to help with Piłsudski Institute documents. I also would be interested in understanding Lukasz background and experience. --Jarekt (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting clarification

Thank you for submitting this proposal, Lukasz Chelminski. Can you please provide some clarification surrounding your role as a Wikipedian-in-residence for the Piłsudski Institute of America. Is your role a paid position? Is there a reason why the institute is not funding your time on this project? -- Thanks! Jtud (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jtud (WMF), The Wikipedian-in-residence at the Piłsudski Institute is an unpaid volunteer position. I hope to use this project to define clear roles for future Wikipedians at the Institute and help other GLAM projects with the workflow issues that I am going to encounter as we add more files to the Wikimedia Commons. As times goes on I hope that grant funding from a variety of sources can help me spend more time on this project in lieu of the teaching obligations I have in my other capacity. Lukasz Chelminski (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, Lukasz Chelminski. Based on the information you provided, your submission is eligible for review. I have updated the status on your submission page to "under review" and confirmed your eligibility on this page. -- Cheers, Jtud (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2014

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2014 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 2014 begins on 21 October 2014, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Jtud (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Structured data for Wikimedia Commons

Hey :)

Are you aware of the effort of the Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team and the Wikidata team to bring structured data support to Wikimedia Commons? Have you thought about how that'd play together with your proposal? commons:Commons:Structured data --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lukasz Chelminski: I would also wish this project will be well aligned to the Structured data project at Commons. I presume the institute has the metadata in a structured form, and the plan is to convert it to Commons categories which are unstructured. I don't know what the timeline of the SD project is (it might come after this project), but I believe their plan is to host structured metadata on Commons and show human-readable information automatically. I wish, when it is made possible, the original metadata will be hosted on Commons. whym (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Piłsudski Institute of America GLAM-Wiki Scalable Archive Project

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?	5.5
(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?	5.2
(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?	5.3
(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?	4.7
Comments from the committee: While innovative elements might be limited (some serious Commons contributors already do mass uploads on a scale of 500 files), a well-documented practice for other GLAMs could have value. The idea of improving the categorization system on Wikimedia Commons is one with high potential impact, both because there have been frequent complaints that the existing system is inadequate and results in a poor experience for readers and editors who need to locate media, and the relationship between the flaws of the current system and much of the intra-community friction on Commons. However, it is unclear that replacing the existing system with a category system defined by a single institution is a scalable solution, particularly given the relatively narrow scope of the Piłsudski Institute's collections. Whether this is truly scalable is unclear. If scalable, would be great. There is a significant disconnect between the quantitative measures of success defined for the project and its stated goal. The project is framed as an effort to improve the categorization system on Commons, but the measures of success are all related to establishing a collaborative relationship with the Piłsudski Institute and importing their content into various Wikimedia projects. There is no evidence that the online communities that would be affected by a new categorization system--particularly the contributor community on Wikimedia Commons--have been engaged. Given that the value of a project of this type would be in the potential scalability of the proposed system across all of Commons, it is critical that core contributors on that project be engaged early on in the process to minimize the risk of future resistance to a new system. Proposer may be missing sufficient Wikipedia or Commons experience to have scalable impact on category systems, and seems to have not sufficiently considered Wikidata. Good to see that one volunteer signed up to this project is highly experienced on Commons, and is already doing template work for the project. When the Structured Commons project comes into play (which is far from ready), possible collaboration would be more promising and innovative.

Thank you for submitting this proposal. The committee is now deliberating based on these scoring results, and WMF is proceeding with its due-diligence. You are welcome to continue making updates to your proposal pages during this period. Funding decisions will be announced by early December. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Round 2 2014 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:
Before funding an idea like this, we’d appreciate seeing greater discussion and endorsement from others in the GLAM-wiki community that show potential of greater impact beyond your institution - we encourage you to deepen those conversations and relationships as your ideas develop, and wish you best of luck with the rest of your Wikipedian-in-Residence.

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.