Grants talk:IEG/WikiNarratives

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:
Thanks for participating in this pilot round, we're wishing you best of luck and look forward to seeing more of your ideas in the future!

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.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for WikiNarratives

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background)	Score 1=weakest 5=strongest
Potential for impact
(A) The project fits with the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities	3
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact.	3
(C) The impact of the project can be sustained after the grant ends.	2
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects.	4
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve.	2
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds.	4
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds.	4
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it.	4
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement.	3
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact.	3
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful.	3
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement.	3
Comments from the committee: Great job with the budgeting. An expedition can help bring a lot of pictures about the tradition, culture and rituals of Europe as they have in India and elsewhere. "WikiExpeditions" have been run by Chapters before successfully, but their primary aim is to foster collegiality amongst the local community - not outreach as this is proposing to be. The proposers have not made significant edit contributions to Wikipedia in the past. Lack of endorsements suggests a lack of community interest. Difficult to scale without further funding. More than 3 people visiting the same places significantly increases the expenses, but does not increase the output proportionately. The measures of success are vague.

Measurement

Thanks for the proposal. Though your project is primarily aimed at improving the content of various wikis, your idea on how the increase in content can be measured is not clear to me. The points given under "Measures of success" are mostly subjective and therefore not measurable. Would you give us a clearer idea on how you are going to measure the content you add to various Wikimedia projects? Which local language wiki(s) would you work on? When you are primarily collecting pictures and videos, would one camera suffice for a team of six members?--Netha Hussain (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Netha. Thank you for the very appropriate question. I realised now that this might not be as clear as it should be. From last to first the answers are:

1. For a six people team we would need to have at least 3-4 camers, best would be if everyone has their own. The two people submitting the project have their own equipment and I am positive to be able to arrange additional equipment from the technology pools of European chapters (as a member of WMAT I have access to theirs). I'd also want to get professional sound recorders (WMSE has bought such a device and they have a technology pool), a video camera and possible a scanner. The idea is to crowd and chapter source the technology. From a global, sustainable perspective we could think about building up a global technology pool for exactly such initiatives.
2. Language wise I assume it will always be English and the language of the country visited, although that naturally depends on the participants and their abilities/interests.
3. The measurement question is somewhat abstract since I am equally aiming at long-term, community goals. But as to immediate, quantifyable results I would propose: Number of multimedia files uploaded to Commomns, number of files uploaded to Wikisource, number of files that made it on an actual article on different projects (Wikipedia and WikiVoyage most likely). We should have a special tag/template to know which files were uploaded as a result of our project. Also, number of GLAM cooperations that started as a result of this project.--Dimi z (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Education

I'm curious if in addition to recording content yourselves you would consider teaching members of the community to go and be ambassadors for continued outreach within their communities. Perhaps if you teach some of the participants about our mission, policies, and procedures you can bring them on as future Wikimedians who can build out the project over time and on their own. Thanks for your neat idea. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ocassi, thanks for the useful quesiton. Strengthening the local community (by providing them with "wiki" know-how) and laying the basis for future projects (developed by that local community) are not only two of the project goals, but to be honest these consideratins were my starting points of inspiration. The initial problem I looked at was - why are there so many projects in some countries and few to none in others? Some communities are just having a tougher time getting starting. So I decided that it would be best to include and motivate them by running a project together with them and letting them experience the Wikimedia movement/organisation potential. Also I think that the internatinal links formed by such a project will provide know-how for an extended period of time. After my first Wikimania I was just so inspired and awed by all the projects, keeping in touch with some of the people really motivated me. Perfectly druing this project we would set the first contact with GLAM organisations that will in the future coopearate with us (i.e. the local volunteers).--Dimi z (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiexpeditions

I would invite you to have a look in the wikiexpedition examples done by Wikimedia PL. They have a valid format to plan this kind of projects. Honestly the name wikiNarratives is a little bit limited because you can collect oral documents also in your town and the initial description doesn't justify the costs. The project is valid but I think that the reference of a consolidated project may help more to understand the aims and the objectives. --Ilario (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I hadn't heard of Wikiekspedicija but will make sure I read up on it. To be honest I got the idea from my home WM chapter, Austria, where other wikimeidans organised a trip to Hungary. The material gathered was awesome and it also led to a lot of new contacts between wikimedians, which in turn led to plenty of new ideas. --Dimi z (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: We can talk about the name :) --Dimi z (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I now see that the scores say «More than 3 people visiting the same places significantly increases the expenses, but does not increase the output proportionately» and I'm very surprised. The WMPL experience proves the opposite, as far as I can see. --Nemo 14:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Oral citation

How does this project compare with Research:Oral Citations? Is there any lesson that can be brought from the research project? My view is that the type of the end product (local and unwritten knowledge put on Wikimedia projects) is the same at large. However, one of the difference is that WikiNarratives will put emphasis more on behaving as a catalyst between local Wikimedians and institutions, rather than directly creating contents. Does this make sense? And any other thoughts? --whym (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)