Grants talk:IEG/Wiki Mesh Network Community

April 12 Proposal Deadline: Reminder to change status to 'proposed'

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 a few IEG proposal help sessions this month in Google Hangouts:

• April 5th, 16:00 - 17:00 UTC
• April 8th 1:00 - 2:00 UTC
• April 12th 16:00 - 17:00 UTC

I'm also happy to set up an individual session.

Warm regards,
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see more technical details

• Is the plan to allow people to access the live sites, or just a cached copy. Your proposal logic image appears to suggest a cached copy based on a dump, but then your measures of success include Atleast 5% Editors/Contributors from over all users of mesh network. and Atleast 500 Wikimedia user accounts with English Wikimedia projects, Tamil Wikimedia projects, MediaWiki and Commons which seem to suggest accessing the live copy. So which is it? If its the former, how do you plan to keep the copy of the Wikipedia dump up to date, and can you explain you success criteria in that light? If its the latter, then how do you plan to keep your mesh network connected to the larger internet? Will there be distinguished nodes with access to the larger internet? Will some nodes cache things (If yes, how does cache invalidation work? If no, how will you prevent bottlenecks, since presumably if low bandwidth wasn't a problem then one wouldn't need mesh networks in the first place). etc
• Protocols, etc - I would expect the routing protocols, etc to either be specifically named, or if they are not yet decided on, for there to be specific time in the schedule for deciding such implementation details.

Bawolff (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bawolff

Thank you for your interest, I have added a section called Technical Aspects, please have a look at it.

--Alagunambi (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed

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 .

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wiki Mesh Network Community

Scoring rubric	Score
(A) Impact potential 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?	6.1
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	5.4
(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?	6.0
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	5.6
Additional comments from the Committee: Wikipedia brings knowledge, not network hardware. This proposal aligns with Wikimedia's strategic priority to better understand and respond to the needs of global users so that more people can share in free knowledge. Assuming the technical aspects in this proposal are reliable, I think the proposal has potential for online impact, at least in terms of providing access to Wikimedia projects and engaging new readers. But I am less sure about whether the applicant will be able to support new contributors. There are plans for sustaining the mesh network by creating localized documentation and training community members. It seems like this specific approach may not be easily adapted elsewhere without support or funding, but the project could still provide a good model for providing access outside of Wikipedia Zero. Wikimesh is an innovative solution to distribute connectivity, but it is important to consider its planning, such as how it would engage local governments, the geographical context, and so on. Providing mesh networking that makes Wikipedia a "home page" for the network would be interesting. This project would hold the same position as Wikipedia Zero which offers free content delivery. Moreover, offering content to potential audiences is always a good thing. Even mesh technology is essentially fun and promising to censorship. Nevertheless, as the proposal states, it would be difficult to set up. How would it be possible to replicate those projects if it runs into legal challenges? Or how could a potential reader preload articles if he or she owns a free computer but can’t find a medium such as Kiwix or the Wikipedia app? Prioritizing the work above of the project’s targets would be a challenge to engage with new readers. It is unclear to me whether the applicants have sufficient technical skills to develop the project. This project would only serve a local community, and is hardware-based. The approach is interesting and empowering--as far as I know it has not been done before through any of WMF funding programs. Outside of technical challenges, I think the main risk is whether the project doesn't actually result in any new editors from the mesh network. Even if this were the case, I still think the project would have achieved an important outcome in line with Wikimedia’s vision by providing access to Wikipedia content. Measures of success are provided, although personally I think the goal of 500 new user accounts may be unrealistic. The mesh is not an innovative approach, as it could be easily done. It is innovative and my idealism says that the risk for failure is low while the payout in a success is high. Given its technical challenges, this proposal expects an understanding of mesh technology. It's not easy to set up and requires constant maintenance. The technology could help address censorship, but the cost would be sky high if a larger audience embraces this internet connection, compared to other Ethernet setups. Besides, access points can could also extend the range of wireless connection. In that case, it would require a single router to put users on a LAN. With the challenges of manual maintenance, or formalizing an agreement with a third party and other technical barriers, this project would unlikely be a general fix for accessing an encyclopaedia without Internet. I see a lack of expertise about the implementation: it's a great idea but with some problems to be investigated or mitigated beforehand. I don't know the reality about hardware prices, but 20 routers and 2 hard drives would be insufficient to have all of English Wikipedia in cache copies. I would support this project, but this proposal seems out of scope for Wikimedia. I think the work of setting up the mesh network can be achieved in 6 months, and the plan provides some good detail. It sounds like the applicant has relevant expertise with this type of work and FOSS, although less so with WMF projects. I'm sure all of this is possible except I have concerns about the necessary skills. The applicants point to another mesh networking project, but will its success be transferred to Wikipedia? The scope is possible to complete in 6 months in terms of technology. But the human component should be a factor too. Without any proof of concepts to be accepted by an institution, I assume it will be difficult to ask for an open door policy with them. Beyond that, I could find no information regarding the Chennai Mesh Network Community. I doubt its operation status. There is some support, but mostly from people who don't understand the implications of this project. I'd like more details, specifically on the offline community the applicant has in mind to work with, whether there an identified need for community support, and any local institutions that have been contacted or would likely partner with this. The proposal seems very general but that may be fine according to the properties of this proposal. I do not see community engagement with the Wikimedia communities. There is risk of on-wiki backlash if there are problems stemming from this. For example, there have entire schools banned from editing Wikipedia due to vandalism. I'd like to see more information about plans to engage the community and encourage people to contribute to WMF projects. Without assistance from an experienced contributor, I have my doubts this can be done successfully. However, even if this project is not done successfully, it may still be worth funding. I'd be interested to know more about the status of Wikipedia Zero in India--is it likely the ban will be removed? I think it would be very positive and empowering to have communities take ownership and control of their own wifi networks, but this could also be question of whether it might be more worthwhile to focus efforts on advocacy for Wikipedia Zero. The applicant writes that "the plan is the allow only Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects." Does this mean the mesh network will only provide access to Wikimedia projects? The proposal’s budget expects a high cost to build a mesh that could be done in less time. The project could also be financed without project management as the tasks here as small, as it would be simple rollout. My idealism wants this to succeed and I want the WMF to be involved. I would recommend access to sources relevant to the local community that would be cited on Wikipedia, such as libraries. This is a very interesting idea to bring Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects to the audience we have great difficulty reaching. Will there be filtering of content? This is the case with ‘One Laptop Per Child,’ for example, where some content isn't included.

-- MJue (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the IEG Committee

@MJue (WMF) hi, thank you for sharing this review, can I answer the concerns raised in the review here in discussion page? or should I update in the proposal directly? please clarify. -- Alagunambi (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Alagunambi, here in the discussion page of your proposal is an ideal place to respond to the concerns raised by the committee. Before you do, I want to let you know that this proposal did not receive a majority recommendation from the committee for funding in the current round, so it will not be awarded a grant at this time. You are welcome to continue to work on your idea and resubmit it again in the future. If you choose to do so, you should do so through the soon-to-be-launched Project Grants program, which will replace Individual Engagement Grants. If you do decide to submit a grant through Project Grants, it will be especially important that you address the committee comments posted on this page. If you make any improvements to your proposal based on the comments, it's a good idea to summarize the improvements in your response on the talk page.

Thank you for your submission!

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Round 1 2016 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!

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.