Grants talk:IdeaLab/Involve young women to improve coverage of campus rape

Budget Concerns

• Comment Under Budget, it says, "30,000 USD 0.5 FTE Project Manager". $30,000 for this project, all spent by one person, part-time, is rather costly. Why is this necessary? Please clarify.--FeralOink (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If wikipedia wants to support women, then I think providing a working wage is important. This is a contract position, so benefits are not included. It is likely that it will morph into more than half time. Beauxlieux (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point about one person. @FeralOink: I've cut down on the project manager and added student interns. I am generally surprised at how little many of the grant proposals are asking for. I can't help but think of the gender disparity in pay. One of the reasons posited is that women don't negotiate and ask for more while men do.

Is the gender pay disparity related to one of the reasons posited for the gender disparity in wikipedia editors: men have more leisure time? Perhaps, if women got paid what men do, they'd have more leisure time to edit.

@Messerjokke79: about your comment in the endorsements: "good ideas, but I can‘t see, why WP should realize this instead of College/Uni"

The idea is to create a consortium of universities addressing the issue, so I think WP could appropriately fund it. In addition, at the moment WikiMedia is looking for ways to increase women's participation and the project seeks to fulfill that. I'd also love to get college/university support for the project but I don't see it as an either/or. Beauxlieux (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, dealing with the project itself, 60% of funds for project management is, imho, an overkill, Wikipedia is by definition self-organised by volunteers so I'd instead use money for edit-a-thons, interns and maybe scholarship. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I do think project management is required, but I can see that in this culture it would be considered a lot. What do you think would be realistic? Also, I didn't realize that scholarship could be funded. What were you thinking on that?

Beauxlieux (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is (and imho should be) driven by volunteering. I must admit using any project management for such these initiatives is almost not understandable by my perspective.

I remember some scholarships (most for taking part to WMF's events, afair) were founded in the past, you should have a look at previous successful grants.

Another good way to spend money would be funding some kind of prize, for example some kind of prize (or a scholarship for Wikimania) for students writing or improving an article till "featured article" status.

Another good expenditure would be funding an ambassador program targeting specific courses.

The overall guiding idea of grants should (imho again) involving people in our "core business": writing an encyclopedia.

--Vituzzu (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Vituzzu: Those are all interesting ideas and may indeed work. Thank you for sharing. While the goal of wikipedia being driven by volunteering is noble, that model hasn't been working for women. Beauxlieux (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to see gender gap in contributors as a consequence of gender gap in social participation, so I believe it can be hardly solved here until unsolved out of here. Notwithstanding this is worth the same a try which cannot overlook the basics of Wikipedia. Imho a Wikipedia which doesn't lie upon volunteering is not "worse" or "better", it's simply not Wikipedia. So, still imho, any try should turn to strengthening our ways to engage people specifically for women.--Vituzzu (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this WMF funded POV pushing?

I don't know why nobody else has raised this issue yet, but correct me if I'm wrong, is what you are proposing that we should recruit editors to make edits to articles to push an anti victim blaming attitude? This proposal mainly focuses on specific content issues, and the wording that states that the women will reach a "critical mass" to "successfully defend edits" sounds a lot like meat puppetry to me. Please inform me if this is the case. Chess (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The current state of wikipedia sexual assault pages does not reflect current scholarship. I took out the reference to victim-blaming.
One of the techniques being used to encourage more women to participate is edit-a-thons for various topics: is that meat puppetry? Beauxlieux (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's really more the idea in the proposal that we'd be specifically pushing a particular viewpoint that bothers me. Not the topic area, but the tone of the proposal that we need to correct alleged wrongs in the article. The part about false accusations being emphasized really concerns me - are you suggesting that these editors would try to remove information about false allegations?

Also, if the scholarly consensus is on your side, could you explain why you don't make the edits yourself? Chess (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually have some concerns about fitting the scope of Wikipedia rather than neutrality (there cannot be "different views" about rape), though it might become meatpuppetry. Will giving this kind of coverage fit Wikipedia's scope (being an encyclopedia)? Also, dealing with the project itself, 60% of funds for project management is, imho, an overkill, Wikipedia is by definition self-organised by volunteers so I'd instead use money for edit-a-thons, interns and maybe scholarship. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chess: I can see your concern, but that's not what I had in mind. I will clarify. I'm not suggesting that references to false accusations be removed at all, but that they be balanced with examples of true allegations in better proportion to the reality. Men, for example, are more likely to be raped themselves than be falsely accused. We all live in our silos today so I, for one, welcome the opportunity to dialogue with people across the divide but it needs to be in a forum where there's some structure. My hope is that wikipedia could provide that for students.

I have done some editing but this is 1)a huge area: more than I could do myself and 2) while I am knowledgeable, it would be better to get people who are actually studying the area involved. 3) given the contentious issues surrounding the topic, it would be good to have support

@Vituzzu: Thank you for agreeing that there can't be different views of rape. That's actually not what the Arbitration Committee determined when they decided that Campus Rape was a "gender-related controversy" and so fell under the GamerGate ban. And, that just speaks to the need for this project.

I just looked up encyclopedia in wikipedia, and it's a "compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from all branches of knowledge." So, I don't see this project being anything other than that. What is your concern? There is so much information that is not currently covered on the topic: Wikipedia couldn't now be accurately called providing a "comprehensive summary."

I moved your budget concerns to the budget section above and address it there. Beauxlieux (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an en.wiki regular so I don't know most of its controversies (ie dunno any about "GamerGate").

I believe there cannot be different view about major crimes while exposition must be neutral anyway. Going a bit faraway neutrality doesn't mean summing different point of views but summing different point of views weighted by their relevance in scientific literature which gives about no weight to victim blaming.

Notwithstanding this canvassing cannot be a way to force Wikipedia's internal mechanisms, so you should pay attention to the risk of making canvassing out of the proposed project.

Dealing with Wikipedia's scope I expect to find an encyclopedia relying upon books rather than newspapers, so I expect to read an article about victim blaming rather than an article about a recent case of rape (which I expect to find on Wikinews instead).

--Vituzzu (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Vituzzu: I totally agree that NPOV should be "summing different point of views weighted by their relevance in scientific literature which gives about no weight to victim blaming." but at the moment the coverage of rape is not at all summing different point of views weighted by their relevance in scientific literature and that is most distressing. The current coverage cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be considered NPOV. Beauxlieux (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, Inspire Campaign

This Inspire Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for the Inspire Campaign 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 begins on 6 April 2015, and grants will be announced at the end of April. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us at grants(at)wikimedia.org.

feedback and comments from Thepwnco

@Beauxlieux: hello and congratulations on having your grant proposal confirmed as eligible for review! I have a few comments & questions for you:

• I notice that you've changed your budget in response to initial feedback on this talk page - but can you please provide further details on the role of the college student interns? How many will there be? What will they be responsible for?
• Do you think it's possible to provide more details about participants? Right now there is just a list including various individuals/organizations, from current editors and students, to sexual assault prevention centers and programs. More information about possible numbers and/or scope of outreach - with respect to what might be feasible, sustainable, and appropriate for a pilot program like this - would be appreciated. Also, have you been in contact with any organizations or centers and had any expressions of interest in participating in this project?
• On a similar note, the inclusion of "schools outside the United States" is a bit vague without any further qualifiers. I'd love to hear more about how you intend to reach out to higher education institutions too.
• I like the idea of using resources and infrastructure from the Wikipedia Education Program! However, I am not that familiar with the program and unsure whether an August/September timeframe will give professors enough time to develop class assignments. Maybe you have previous experience on this that you can share?

cheers. -Thepwnco (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thepwnco: You ask very good questions and I don't have good answers. I pulled this proposal together rather quickly. I learned a lot in the process. I have had a hard time getting support. People, including myself, feel ambivalent about participating in Wikipedia given its power imbalance. I don't know that Wikipedia is capable of taking a neutral point of view on an issue that is as power-embedded as rape with its current commitment to volunteer editors. While the goal of better and more accurate information on rape in wikipedia is a serious matter of public health that I'd like to address, I haven't found the support to make it happen in this forum at this moment. Beauxlieux (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I'm confused

Sorry, can I ask? Who got raped here?--AldNonymous^Bicara? 14:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Aldnonymous: I'm confused, too. I don't understand what you are asking or why. Many students are getting raped on college campuses. Beauxlieux (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

My god... Is that really true? Why so many rape? Why are campus in America sounds like a zoo for animal in Heat? Don't you think it's abnormal?--AldNonymous^Bicara? 00:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi AldNonymous. One of the issues with addressing the gender issues on Wikipedia is that many discussions are sidetracked when women are asked to educate the community about the topic. It should not be put on the women involved to educate the community when other resources are available. I encourage you to read about the topic using online references. Thanks,Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk)`22:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Aldnonymous: On US campuses, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, around 4.3/1000 of female students at a post secondary institution reported being raped in 2013. Chess (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup that's what I'm trying to do/said, you don't fix such things using Wikis, you fix such social problems IRL.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

When people IRL consult wikis and get biased information, that's a problem for this public health crisis. Beauxlieux (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So people rape because of allegedly biased information about rape? Chess (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

People rape when a society accepts rape and blames victims rather than hold rapists accountable.Beauxlieux (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Beauxlieux: I know. Society is disgusting with its treatment of rape victims. Chess (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Involve young women to improve coverage of campus rape

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?	5.6
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	6.3
(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?	6.2
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	4.0
Additional comments from the Committee: This would have a direct impact on addressing the gender gap. The ideas in the proposal could be adapted for other topic areas that make a strong connection between content on Wikipedia and the people who are the readers. Interesting proposal, but since the scope is so narrow, it will have limited impact. This one is "high risk, high reward" and definitely worthy of consideration, but may need some changes. It has a potential of expanding knowledge on a particular topic. I'm less convinced about decreasing the gender gap. It's unclear whether the project is adaptable beyond English language Wikipedia. Don't see evidence that they have engaged with editors currently working in this subject area on Wikipedia, which would be the most important thing to do. The proposal has a very specific target audience for a topic area, and good general ideas. But the methods for outreach on campuses needs to better spelled out. The project does appear to have a specific target community and engagement from that target community (including a high number of new editors, which is a good sign). Budget seems very high for the projected number of articles. The timeframe is realistic, but timeline and budget need to be much more detailed for this level of funding. Wikipedia is still primarily a volunteer lead movement, so there needs to be strong justification for funding work that can be done by volunteers. I would prefer to recruit campus student volunteers for part of the labor or drastically reduce the number of student interns used. I would like to see a more detailed breakdown of the hours needed for different types of work and match the funding to it. Also more money probably could be used for promoting the project on campuses and online which could justify funding. The topic area is very volatile and will be very difficult to edit, especially by new editors. Some of the content will fall under areas that are under content dispute resolution sanctions and require special care when editing them. Would be good to have a thoughtful strategy for bringing inexperienced students into disputes. I'm very concerned about the emotional health of anyone who would be involved in this kind of editing. They would need a lot of support. The measures of success are underdetermined as of yet.

Inspire funding decision

This project has not been selected for an Inspire 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 Individual Engagement Grant schedule for the next open call to submit proposals or the Project and Event Grant pages if your idea is to support expenses for offline events - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in the future.

Questions? Contact us at grantswikimedia.org