Grants talk:PEG/MrjohnCummings/UNESCO Wikimedian in Residence

A decision has been made on this grant. Comments are still welcome on this page.

Note: The discussion that took place whilst the proposal was in draft is available HERE.

GAC members who support this request

• I don't want to consider it as an one-off non-scalable event: that is the good start in dealing with a worldwide organization which can bring a lot to the world of free knowledge, so, it's definitely in scope as a real PEG. I do support this request and I hope that the grantee will be able to cope with this request. Ask for help when it is needed :) rubin16 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks rubin16

I’m working with Katherine Bavage, Fundraising Manager at Wikimedia UK to find continuation funding and to expand activities e.g attend conferences.

The following Wikimedia chapters and user groups agreed to work on the project and many have offered their help and support when needed:

• Wikimedia UK
• Wikimedia France
• Wikimedia Switzerland
• Wikimedia Belgium
• Wikimedia Botswana
• Wikimedia Tunisia
• Amical Wikimedia
• Wikimedia Spain
• Wikimedia Russia
• Wikimedia Bolivia
• Wikimedia India
• Wikimedia Deutschland
• Wikimedia Nepal

Thanks again

Mrjohncummings (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The project has been introduced well within the community and within the PEG. I have appreciated the kind of communication used here and before. Let's say: you win my feeling of "good reputation" because I suppose that the same level of good communication will be done also after and during. --Ilario (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Violetova (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Béria L. de Rodríguez ^msg 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations on the great work in providing all the details. Having partnership with UNESCO is of very large importance for our movement and therefore I strongly support this request. My only remark is that some of your measures of success are missing quantitative thresholds. So, please consider quantifying them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• I support this project. --Hasive • talk • 11:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just one big wow and good luck :-) Polimerek (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)bhp

• John, first of all I do think itś a worthwile project, that merits my support, so I will vote in favour of it, however ... I also understand MADe comments below, and I see why he thinks it should be an individual grant rather then a PEG , my suggestion to you would be to expand the project and make it into an umbrella project such that different chapters/ other volunteers could hook up to it and generate their own local project, moreover it would be an opportunity for you to disseminate the format and train people to plan, propose, manage and excute their own "wikimedian in residence" projects --109.131.119.16 13:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC) --DerekvG (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DerekvG

Many thanks for your endorsement. I do hope this is how it will work, provide people with the connections and help them run their own projects with local organisations. I now have 17 chapters who have agreed to take part in the project which will be key in connecting Wikimedia volunteers with UNESCO offices and partner organisations. Rather than Wikimedian in Residence perhaps I should call this Wikimedia partnership project coordinator instead? Pat Hadley does this at at York Museums Trust.

Thanks again

Mrjohncummings (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is a great project I think. It can attract an attention of people who never edited wiki-projects and promote Wikipedia. It can open new pathways for development of Wikipedia.--Wertuose (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is a very important project, which is shown in the significant engagement with the grant and the need to get all positive and negative aspects of the project ironed out from the beginning. I do think it is very important to have the local usergroups and regional UNESCO offices involved, but still not sure how easy this is to achieve this over one year. Perhaps the first year could work towards forming the institutional and community framework for the umbrella project that DerekvG talks about above. That having been said, I think it does need to be supported. Islahaddow (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Isla

Thanks very much for your endorsement. During the year I will be researching and applying for further funding from other sources to continue the project. I think that a year should be sufficient to build evidence of impact to approach other funders to continue the project.

Much of the framework for the process of connecting local organisations with Wikimedia organisation will be included within the how-to guide, it will hopefully be able to be used fairly universally and help anyone wanting to work with an external organisation. I think there is a lot of experience within the chapters and other community groups that can be drawn upon to contribute to it and help form the framework.

Thanks again

Mrjohncummings (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations on the great work and good luck. Looking forward to see the results.--MikyM (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• I wish all grant submissions were at least as half detailed, carefully, thoroughly and neatly written as this one. I know John and his work from past and I am convinced he'll do great job and I am looking forward it.
  — Danny B. 23:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

GAC members who abstain from voting/comment

1. MADe (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC), see below

GAC comments

AlleyCat80's comments

I read the proposal, and it is very impressive and well thought about. However, despite my very deep respect to John Cummings, I wonder if this is a good model for WiR for the following reasons:

• Even with thousands of hours of engagement, how can the actual contribution of UNESCO and partners' staff? From my experience, it is very hard to "manufacture" this kind of intrinsic motivation.
• I find it alarming that UNESCO is not providing anything to the table, save a desk and "introductions". With a danger of sounding narrow-minded, why should the WMF fund another organization? I would like to see more effort on the other side to allocate funding / secure external sources of funding for this.
• There is also one more risk: being a one-man show - - from what it seems to me - the sustainability of the actions of UNESCO is totally dependent on John Cummings being there. It seems problematic to me. Why not focus on local chapters and their respective offices?

Anyway - since this grant is very large, I would start with a pilot in 3-5 countries, with 10-15% from the budget, and test the approach, before granting the whole amount. I still find it extremely problematic that no other source of funding (except for "in-kind" donations) could be secured for this.

Also, it's important to note: stripped of the photographs and quotes and endorsements, we are basically asked to approve a salary here, to an individual (albeit a very respectable and talented one) who will not a formal part of any Wiki organization. This is something that is rarely done. Question: why is shouldn't this be a project of WMUK or WMF? This is just me thinking out loud...

I hope I don't sound too harsh; I'm generally in favor of the idea, but I think that for this amount of money, there should be more effort to provide some proof that things are working, as well as some formal checks and balances. Alleycat80 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Alleycat80

Many thanks for your comments, I will answer them in order, some of the replies I’m giving are copied from the archived discussion page.

I read the proposal, and it is very impressive and well thought about. However, despite my very deep respect to John Cummings, I wonder if this is a good model for WiR for the following reasons:

Even with thousands of hours of engagement, how can the actual contribution of UNESCO and partners' staff? From my experience, it is very hard to "manufacture" this kind of intrinsic motivation.

I agree that intrinsic motivation is difficult to manufacture, in my experience working with educational organisations in the past I’ve found that the intrinsic motivation already exists for many people, that’s why they are working there. However I don't think intrinsic motivation it is a requirement for UNESCO, working with the Wikimedia movement matches very well with UNESCO's goals as outlined in the Shared Goals section. Wikimedia provides a very large audience for their information, especially considering projects like Wikipedia Zero that may reach people that have no other access to online information.

I find it alarming that UNESCO is not providing anything to the table, save a desk and "introductions". With a danger of sounding narrow-minded, why should the WMF fund another organization? I would like to see more effort on the other side to allocate funding / secure external sources of funding for this.

As I mention in the Budget Narrative section UNESCO has lost 22% of their budget caused by the US and Israel cutting all funding in response to UNESCO granting Palestine full membership. There's more information here 1, 2, 3.

In my experience as Wikimedian in Residence in large organisations the most valuable resource the host institutions made available was the knowledge of the organisation and introductions to other members of staff and external organisations, this was based on years of experience and social connections that is not possible to learn quickly.

WMF do fund residencies at external organisations both themselves and through chapters, several Wikimedian in Residence positions have been fully and partially funded by chapters.

Wholly funded by the Wikimedia Foundation

• Institutional Growth and Community Fellow

Wholly funded by a Wikimedia Chapter

• Museums Galleries Scotland

Part funded by the organisation part by a Wikimedia Chapter

• Natural History Museum and Science Museum
• Monmouthpedia
• Cancer Research UK
• Wikimedia UK offering partial funding for organisations

Part funded by the organisation, Wikimedia chapter and external funding

• Cancer Research UK
• Jisc Wikimedian Ambassador

I am working with Katherine Bavage, Fundraising Manager at Wikimedia UK to secure additional funding for continuation of the project and to find additional resources during the period of the WMF funded residency.

Without being able to go into detail publicly, now is the time to be able to influence UNESCO's licensing policy. External funding takes months to achieve, funding the project now would also allow time to prepare ahead of the 2015 Wiki Loves Monuments and Wiki Loves Earth campaigns - two of the more significant mechanisms I see for chapter engagement across the year and which fit directly with UNESCO World Heritage Sites and Biodiversity Reserves.

Thwere is also one more risk: being a one-man show - - from what it seems to me - the sustainability of the actions of UNESCO is totally dependent on John Cummings being there. It seems problematic to me. Why not focus on local chapters and their respective offices?

In my experience this is the nature of the beginning of Wikimedian in residence projects, that the person is a central hub for the activities between the two communities and works to find ways to make collaboration between the two communities sustainable after the end of the residency. I can say that I’m much further along this process than when I was employed at the Natural History Museum and Science Museum.

The project will focus on connecting UNESCO offices and their partner organisation with Wikimedia chapters to create sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships lasting hopefully indefinitely. Several chapters and other Wikimedia organisations have already agreed to work on the project including offering logistical support and advice:

• Wikimedia UK
• Wikimedia France
• Wikimedia Switzerland
• Wikimedia Belgium
• Wikimedia Botswana
• Wikimedia Tunisia
• Amical Wikimedia
• Wikimedia Spain
• Wikimedia Russia
• Wikimedia Bolivia
• Wikimedia India
• Wikimedia Chile
• Wikimedia Deutschland
• Wikimedia Nepal

I have a large social network within the Wikimedia movement that will help, I know many staff and volunteers due to my work including coordinating the Community Village at Wikimania 2014 with Charles Andres from Wikimedia CH.

Some of the benefit of the project will be independent of long term relationships, for example the change in content licensing at UNESCO would make available 24,000 images from their archive. I would suggest that by being able to build up a body of evidence of the impact of that content release would influence other UN organisations to adopt open licenses which has the potential to release over 1,000,000 images as outlined in the Goals section.

Anyway - since this grant is very large, I would start with a pilot in 3-5 countries, with 10-15% from the budget, and test the approach, before granting the whole amount. I still find it extremely problematic that no other source of funding (except for "in-kind" donations) could be secured for this.

Also, it's important to note: stripped of the photographs and quotes and endorsements, we are basically asked to approve a salary here, to an individual (albeit a very respectable and talented one) who will not a formal part of any Wiki organization. This is something that is rarely done. Question: why is shouldn't this be a project of WMUK or WMF? This is just me thinking out loud…

Being paid 10 - 15% of the amount asked for but still needing to be in Paris doesn’t sound workable.

This is the most community endorsed grant application (currently 90 endorsements) that has been submitted for either a PEG or IEG grant, it seems a reasonable assumption that people endorsing the project who are from a wide range of projects, languages and topic areas will be interested in contributing to it. The next most endorsed projects are the Wiki Education Programme (40 endorsements) and GLAMwiki 2015 (29 endorsements).

A year full time project will provide the time to:

• Build up a large body of work to build up evidence of work done to make it much easier to get follow on funding from an external funder.
• Find funding from an external source before the end of this funding which will provide an uninterrupted project.
• Develop longer term projects with UNESCO and it’s partners rather than short term projects with potentially less impact.
• Give UNESCO and it’s partner organisation time to plan and budget for long term commitments to contributing to Wikimedia projects.
• Connect to seasonal events in both organisation's calendars.

Grants have previously been accepted that fund a salary which are at a higher hourly rate than I have requested:

• Wiki Education Foundation (PEG)
• Institutional Growth and Community Fellow (PEG)
• Wikidata Toolkit (IEG)

Wikimedia UK is unable to provide funding for this project due to the 22.5% FDC funding reduction for 2015 - 2016.

I hope I don't sound too harsh; I'm generally in favor of the idea, but I think that for this amount of money, there should be more effort to provide some proof that things are working, as well as some formal checks and balances.

Questions make the project better and help other people understand what we are trying to do.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mrjohncummings, thank you for providing additional data. I apologize that I didn't have time to review all the discussions before the grant itself. I do support the proposal in the broad sense, it is bold and well thought out, and I am confident in your abilities. I am not satisfied with the grant still being focused on the work of a single person, and without proof that the activities and relationships that you create are endurable or sustainable beyond the grant's timeframe, I also would've liked to see other stakeholders pitching in for funds, but I understand the situation.

I guess it's a "chicken and egg" situation, where we can't have proof things are working or not, before you actually start doing. I wish that there were more detailed milestones in the grant so we could compare them to the end results. I also think (still) that going from 50 images to 30,000 images, and keeping around ~50% (or even 25%) usage statistics is a very ambitious goal. But I like ambitious...

So, I hope that you understand my concerns, but I do hope this grant is actually going to be approved (maybe with slight modifications) and bears fruit.

I would like to see what my other peers @ GAC and what Alex Wang has to say about this grant. Again, thank you for submitting and good luck! Alleycat80 (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alleycat80

I will discuss with Alex and others about measuring progress during the project and proposing milestones.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Béria's comments

My question is another: If the grant is funded, what will be done with the camera when the program ends? and more important, since WMFR, WMDE, WMAT, WMSE and WMNL all have a photographic "rental" (for lack of better word) service for its members, why not use their equipment when needed? I dont know if they do a full year alocation of the equipment, but if not, they could do 2- six months with diferent chapters. Béria L. de Rodríguez ^msg 10:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Béria L. de Rodríguez

The camera is a resource I already own, I will certainly approach chapters if I need extra equipment during the project.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok, in this case I have a new question: Could you please show me some of your images? I tried to find in commons, but since there is a ton of uploads of the UNESCO photos, I could not find it. Béria L. de Rodríguez ^msg 16:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Béria L. de Rodríguez

Do you mean images I have taken? If so yes it is a little hard to find in my Commons uploads, I tend to upload a lot of images from Flickr. Here are a few examples

• St Fagans images on my user upload list
• Almost all images in the category for Evergreen Plantation, Louisiana
• All images of the Royal Veterinary College anatomy museum

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK lack of financing

Hi and thanks for the submission. You said that Wikimedia UK is unable to provide funding for this project due to the 22.5% FDC funding reduction for 2015 - 2016. What I read is Wikimedia UK choosed not to fund this project on its 77.5% of requested budget, which represents 89% of previous request and while the FDC expressed doubts regarding technique and fundrasing programms while supporting GLAM and policy advocacy ? Léna 10:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Léna

I've asked Wikimedia UK to reply to this directly.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Léna, thank you for your question. Wikimedia UK is in full support of this project and we would love to be in a position to fund it. It is a project that offers significant benefit to the Wikimedia projects in terms of both content and reputation. It presents a great opportunity for scalability and engagement with other significant global partners. However, we cannot fund this for a few reasons.

Firstly, we have to plan our programme and our budget in advance of the start of our year to fit within the FDC cycle. This work was completed, our plans budgeted and grant received, before this opportunity arose. Therefore it is not budgeted for and we are unable to show financial support.

Secondly, Wikimedia UK, like other chapters, did not receive the full amount of funding we applied for and so we had to revise our programme and budget downwards, significantly. Sadly, this does not allow us the flexibility in operations that is required to fund excellent projects of this nature.

Thirdly, this project is ideally suited to support from the PEG programme. The chance to engage with a significant global, cultural, and educational organisation – and perhaps none is more significant than UNESCO – is something that the Wikimedia Foundation is perfectly placed to support. Wikimedia UK is one of a number of chapters that can help in other, practical ways but I urge the WMF to have the vision to support this project with what is a small amount of money in terms of their annual budget. It is perfectly aligned with our movement's mission and this is a rare shot at developing a heavyweight global partnership with one of the world's foremost institutions.

I hope this explains, but of course I am happy to answer any subsequent questions you may have. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer :) Léna (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please do let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments MADe

Hey John, thanks for your very elaborate grant request and your efforts to involve the different communities.

It was not easy to understand. To summarize your request (you might have added a "in a nutshell" remark), the proposal includes a 1 year salary (42k$), paid by the Foundation, about 14k$ non-financial support (eg. travel tickets, access to office space) by other organisations, and 2k$ by yourself (camera).

I have the following starting comments:

• I consider this in essence a Individual Engagement Grant, can you clarify why you submitted this request through the PEG grant system?
• I cannot determine exactly with what organisation/departement you will work. Clearly, you will be at the UNESCO, the exact team you will work with is not clear. Thousands of people and organisations work with them in Paris, it is not clear to me what an individual with no prior knowledge of their way of working will be able to achieve.
• The UNESCO is big, important, with a very good link with the goal of Foundation (collecting he world's knowledge, etc). In what way could we build on the extensive support from several chapters and organisations you gathered at this time? I want to do more than just putting a single WiR at the UNESCO MADe (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Hi MADe

First I'm sorry for the delay in replying, I have been travelling back from the US, thanks very much for your comments and questions, I've answered in line so it's easier to follow.

Hey John, thanks for your very elaborate grant request and your efforts to involve the different communities.

'It was not easy to understand. To summarize your request (you might have added a "in a nutshell" remark), the proposal includes a 1 year salary (42k$), paid by the Foundation, about 14k$ non-financial support (eg. travel tickets, access to office space) by other organisations, and 2k$ by yourself (camera).

Yes this is correct

I have the following starting comments:

• I consider this in essence a Individual Engagement Grant, can you clarify why you submitted this request through the PEG grant system?

The main reasons are that the project is time sensitive and there are currently no IEG funding rounds for 2015 available.

• I cannot determine exactly with what organisation/departement you will work. Clearly, you will be at the UNESCO, the exact team you will work with is not clear.

I will work with Ian Denison in the Publications Unit in the Sector for External Relations and Public Information but plan to work with many different departments within UNESCO and the wider UN system.

• Thousands of people and organisations work with them in Paris, it is not clear to me what an individual with no prior knowledge of their way of working will be able to achieve.

This is where the knowledge and experience of the people I'm working with at UNESCO will come in, in my experience residencies are a conversation about what is possible on Wikimedia projects and how it fits in with what (in this case) UNESCO is trying to achieve. UNESCO and its partners can make significant contributions to Wikimedia projects who's audience and reach through initiatives like Wikipedia Zero is unique.

• The UNESCO is big, important, with a very good link with the goal of Foundation (collecting he world's knowledge, etc). In what way could we build on the extensive support from several chapters and organisations you gathered at this time? I want to do more than just putting a single WiR at the UNESCO.

I want this project to be the start of a wider number of relationships between Wikimedia and the UN, I will facilitate local UNECO offices to form partnerships with their country's Wikimedia chapter and to work with topic specific user groups. This will be done by building project pages to guide people from both communities how to make connections with each other, this could possibly be rolled into existing pages depending on feedback and utility. It will also be done through using my existing knowledge and social network on Wikimedia projects.

The project report can be used as evidence to show that partnerships with UN organisations can be effective, it should act as a concrete example for others to use and will make it easier to apply for external funding.

The aim with the how-to handbook will be to make it easier for all external organisations not just UNESCO to interact with Wikimedia,Having several chapters support I hope to be able make this a very useful and comprehensive resource and have it translated into many languages.

I will be flexible in the activities during the residency to be able to capture opportunities as they arise. My feeling is that there will be many currently unforeseen opportunities and to be able to work with chapters and user groups to run projects will be best use of the limited time.

I plan to attend a number of conferences to workshop ideas for possible activities with other chapters and to share outcomes, the first of which will be GLAMwiki.

I hope this has been helpful, please let me know if you would like more information.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey John, thanks for clarifying. My first concern on the project is your approach of this grant request. As clarified above, it is an individual grant, where about 100% of the money invested by the Foundation goes to reimbursing your time and effort. As such it is an outlier in this PEG-system (we also fund wages but these 'management costs' stay relatively low, eg 20%). In your reply above you defend your decision "because it is urgent", however, I see no urgency in the proposal.

Secondly, I still have concerns about your potential to penetrate the "UN world" in this one year assignment. It does not help to be a "consultant from Wikimedia UK working in Paris on an international project funded by the WMF". I think we need to approach them in a more gentle/diplomatic way, eg. by using a third party to get us in contact with all the required people. You refer to Ian Denison as contact person, a director at the UN and probably a too high person to be of practical help. Feel free to contact me if you have more practical

Lastly, although your request contains a list of well defined activities, in your reply to me you say: "I will be flexible in the activities during the residency to be able to capture opportunities as they arise. " This is ok as volunteer, somewhat more tricky as paid consultant.

Sorry to be the difficult one here, I just do not feel ok with your proposal. Out of respect for the work you have done on this grant request, including getting the support from the different chapter organisations, I will refrain from voting on this grant request. MADe (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Community comments

Note: Community discussion that took place whilst the proposal was in draft is available here.

Tony1

1. Can the results of your discussions with Alex on her concerns be summarised on this page, please? In particular, I'm concerned about how many willing takers you'll get from these organisations, and whether training will be sufficiently sustained, and focused on the individuals' roles/tasks, to make an impact. There are multiple uses of processes such as "educate", "train", and "motivate", but little detail as to methods. Your list of alreadies is impressive, but what would be the mix of approaches for UNESCO and partners? What would the breakdown be of anticipated one-to-one, class training, formal vs informal; will forums be properly organised in overseas points of contact? What forms will your training take (slide exposés, hand-on editathons ... which I have my doubts about unless carefully conducted ... see what Asaf Barov said about them)? How much will be face-to-face vs audio vs video online?
2. Some of the numbers in measures of success look ambitious.
3. While there is mention of knowledge diversity and editor diversity (by training UNESCO and partner staff), would this program support the WMF's priority concerning the gender gap in editorial communities and thematic content?
4. To what extent might WMUK's in-kind support be threatened by its current financial crisis? Would WMUK help to publicise it on their site, and if you're planning press releases and other forms of public dissemination (are you?), will they assist with that?
5. Your own projected salary is on the low side for talent, expertise, application, no matter what WMUK's standard rates are. This is a problem, for me.
6. As usual, I rile about trinkets, badges, etc. Is this for the adult world? How do these things seriously increase motivation? If people aren't motivated without them, I doubt they would be with them. I'd have thought you were the selling point, not trinkets. (A trainer's interpersonal skills and projection as a personality are a key factor, as I'm sure you already know, givenyour track-record.)

From me it's a guarded, provisional yes. Tony (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tony, re trinkets, badges, stickers etc. Don't underestimate these for they are the lifeblood of volunteer movements! If someone spends hours of their free time on their laptop coding free, Open Source software or organising GLAM events etc, they are proud to be able to show this and be recognised by others with the same interests.--StuartPrior (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tony. With regards to 4, the question of in-kind support, Wikimedia UK will continue to make available its in-house expertise, particularly around communications and promotion. This is a very high profile partnership for the Wikimedia movement and we will continue to provide non-financial support for John's efforts. I hope this helps but do feel free to ask any follow-up question you might have. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tony

Please find answers in line, I've broken the points down into individual questions.

• Can the results of your discussions with Alex on her concerns be summarised on this page, please?

I will talk to Alex about this.

• In particular, I'm concerned about how many willing takers you'll get from these organisations, and whether training will be sufficiently sustained, and focused on the individuals' roles/tasks, to make an impact. There are multiple uses of processes such as "educate", "train", and "motivate", but little detail as to methods. Your list of alreadies is impressive, but what would be the mix of approaches for UNESCO and partners?

Ian from UNESCO has made clear that interest will not be a problem. What will be done with the organisations will be based on their interests and needs e.g an organisation who are interested in releasing content under a Wikipedia compatible license would be provided with a wider understanding of how Wikimedia projects work and be trained to use Flickr2Commons, BaGLAMa, GLAMorous and how to talk to people on talk pages to engage with WIkiprojects.

• What would the breakdown be of anticipated one-to-one, class training, formal vs informal;

This really depends on the ability for local Wikipedians to provide training which would be the preferred option. I have had 18 chapters confirm interest in working with me to source people to train UNESCO offices and partner organisations in person so I would project that a high proportion of the workshops will be done locally rather than online.

• will forums be properly organised in overseas points of contact?

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what this means.

• What forms will your training take (slide exposés, hand-on editathons ... which I have my doubts about unless carefully conducted ... see what Asaf Barov said about them)?

Again it depends on what people need and are interested in, one option that I often use is presentations followed by hands on editathon workshops, followed up with further editathons and support. I haven’t seen Asaf Barov has said about them.

• How much will be face-to-face vs audio vs video online?

This depends on how much local engagement can be achieved

• While there is mention of knowledge diversity and editor diversity (by training UNESCO and partner staff), would this program support the WMF's priority concerning the gender gap in editorial communities and thematic content?

WMF are considering this application outside the Inspire program, having said that I’m aiming for 50% of new editors to be women. I also think there is a great opportunity for people working in NGOs to bring their experience to help address the gender gap.

• As usual, I rile about trinkets, badges, etc. Is this for the adult world? How do these things seriously increase motivation? If people aren't motivated without them, I doubt they would be with them. I'd have thought you were the selling point, not trinkets. (A trainer's interpersonal skills and projection as a personality are a key factor, as I'm sure you already know, givenyour track-record.)

Some people really like them, especially laptop stickers and metal badges, they like to show their support and involvement with Wikipedia :)

Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

SMART

Could you please define for all the goals when they should be reached? Especially for the 'usage' and page views, they don't have to be per se by the end of the project. Actually, it would make more sense to measure it 6 months later. Effeietsanders (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Effeietsanders

Thanks very much for highlighting this, it's now been added in, the project report needs to be completed 60 days after the project finishes so I'm defining the goals for the last three months before that point. E.g for the 100,000,000 page views for content contributed during the project the 3 month target will be 25,000,000 page view for the 12th month of the project and the 60 days afterwards before the project report is submitted. I think this will give a fair assessment of the impact of the project. Tools like BaGLAMa 2 will keep tracking the metrics of the project after the end date, I also hope to continue working on the project with other funding.

Thanks again

Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not set goals that can't be measured when delivering the report? :) It's the aim that counts first! Because it shows that you're working towards long term impact. Effeietsanders (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WMF comments

Hi Mrjohncummings. Thank you for this ambitious grant proposal! A partnership with UNESCO has huge potential and we are excited by the prospect. While we don't generally fund fully-paid positions in PEG, especially for Wikipedian-in-Residences, we are prepared to consider funding a project like this pending more extensive due diligence. We need to have a better understanding of the level of commitment from both the the host institution and the 200 other partner organizations that you aim to engage. We'll need to understand their commitments to releasing content and providing their staff with the time and resources to engage in the project. We will contact you directly to first set up a conversation with Ian Denison. Our main focus is making sure the proposed scope is realistic and the partnership with UNESCO is able to yield the impact you envision.

Generally, we would also expect to see more financial commitment from a host institution as a WiR is a benefit to the host. However, in this circumstance we do feel that UNESCO's position as a highly-networked global institution can be leveraged for significant impact on the Wikimedia projects. For this reason, we are willing to consider the proposal without additional investment from UNESCO.

Looking forward to further discussions. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Alex, speak soon Mrjohncummings (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

About that camera and lens, and travel insurance

• Camera and lens line item: $4,198.49
• Travel insurance line item: $194.55

By my math, the total of the above is $4,393.04. But you say that your contribution, which includes the above, is $4,399.43. What is the difference? I know it's small, I just stumbled on it when I was looking at the camera and lens which I now see that you already own.

Also, have you considered budgeting camera insurance? It's your own camera, and I would insure the camera and lens if I was in your position. (:

--Pine^✉ 07:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pine

Thanks for spotting this, I think it's due to the slight change in exchange rates between the time I converted the euros into dollars for the two items, I've corrected it in the budget and in the overview box at the top. My travel insurance covers the camera for the whole year which is very helpful.

Cheers

Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Notes on Approval

We are very excited to support this ambitious proposal! We have appreciated the numerous on-wiki and off-wiki discussions regarding the proposal, and thoughtful engagement of the GAC, community members, grantee, UNESCO representative, WMUK, and participants at the recent GLAM Wiki conference. We have agreed to fund 6 months of the project as a start. 4 months into the project we'll see how successful John has been in networking with the UN organizations and WMF affiliates and if mapping has been completed to connect those two groups. Additionally, we'll want to see significant progress made towards the other goals laid out in the 6-month plan in order to consider further funding.

Our main concern was around the level of commitment from UNESCO and the host department's ability to connect John with and influence the appropriate partner organizations. Through conversations with John's host (Ian Denison) at UNESCO's Publishing and Branding department (within the Public Information/External Relations sector), we are relatively confident in their connections with the 54 field offices and close network of partner organizations. While formal buy-in from these offices has not yet been sought, Ian assured us of his ability to put together a core project team who will be able to support John in creating successful partnerships. He believes the easiest folks to work with will be in the World Heritage Center and those working on water/biodiversity/oceans issues.

Another concern was around the engagement of Wikimedia affiliates, which this project relies on to work with UN partner organizations in different countries. John has been in touch with some of the more active communities in the Global South that have expressed interest in the project. Actual plans for partnership will only come once John has mapped interested and available UN partner organizations with interested and available WMF affiliates. This mapping will be the focus of the first few months of the project. Once that mapping is done, we'll have a better sense of the topics/content to be covered and type of activities appropriate for each partner organization. The goal is to have 5 organizations in the first 6 months who are committed to actively engage -- whether through training sessions, content release, expert content review, etc.

We will be working closely with John as he develops this project and are excited about its potential! Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for extension

I would like to request an extension to the project deadline.

A clear description of the special circumstances that require this change.

The grant request was submitted on the 6th of February but I did not receive the funding until the 9th of June which meant that I missed the World Education Forum (19-22 May). There were additional delays with contracts with UNESCO because of the way that I was funded and the summer break in July and August in Paris.

The new proposed start date or new proposed completion date for your grant. Your dates must include a day, a month and a year.

Start 20 Aug 2015

End 1 Mar 2016

A clear description of how this change will affect other aspects of your project, including your project budget and your project's goals and activities.

No goals or activities or goals will be affected accept the need to reallocate funds for travel to World Education Forum, outlined in budget lines 5-8 ($4561.74 USD in total). I will research possible other useful opportunities for travel and discuss with the grant team.

Mrjohncummings (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mrjohncummings. This is fine. Thanks for the details. The final report will now be due 30 April 2016. However, if you plan on requesting funds for an additional 6 months and don't want to have an interruption in the project, we will need the report earlier in order to review the report and proposal in time. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Alex. Mrjohncummings (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for travel budget change

I would like to request a reallocation of $300 USD of the travel budget (budget line 5-8) to attend the Wikipedia Science Conference in London on the 2nd and 3rd of September, costs incurred will be traveling to the conference from Paris by train and the conference ticket price of $45.50, no accommodation costs will be incurred.

Note: Bus tickets would be cheaper but would mean adding accommodation costs making it more expensive overall and very time consuming (10+ hours each way).

Currently budget lines 5,6,7 and 8 are not allocated to a specific event because of not attending the World Education Forum as proposed.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mrjohncummings. Thanks for the update. Can you please let us know why you would like to attend the conference and what you are hoping to get out of it? Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alex

The science conference will help me understand more deeply the overlap between what the science community, Wikimedia and the UNESCO science division are doing in terms of science education online. Additionally how scientists and science communities interact with and view Wikimedia and help me to build contacts within the science sector.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mrjohncummings. This is approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for travel budget change

I would like to request a reallocation of $300 USD of the travel budget (budget line 5-8) to attend Mozfest in London on the 5th to the 8th of November, costs incurred will be traveling to the conference from Paris by train, local travel within London and the conference ticket price of $70, no accommodation costs will be incurred.

Currently budget lines 5,6,7 and 8 are not allocated to a specific event because of not attending the World Education Forum as proposed.

I have submitted a proposal to co-run a workshop on how to improve UNESCO programme (e.g World Heritage Site) data on Wikidata and the visualisation of that data using Histropedia and present work done. Additionally Mozfest will be a very worthwhile opportunity to get outside input on the possibilities of open licensing at UNESCO from a very wide range of organisations within the open movement.

John Cummings (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi John Cummings, Your request for a budget reallocation to travel to Mozfest is approved. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi KHarold (WMF), thanks very much. John Cummings (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for travel budget change

I would like to request a reallocation of $200 USD of the travel budget (budget line 5-8) to meet with staff from Wikimedia UK in London on the 4th and 7th of December, costs incurred will be traveling to from Paris by train and local travel within London, no accommodation costs will be incurred. Currently budget lines 5,6,7 and 8 are not allocated to a specific event because of not attending the World Education Forum as proposed.

The meetings with WMUK staff will be to discuss the development of courses for trainers and facilitators running Wikimedia training. Both myself and WMUK are developing these resources, myself for people working with UNESCO and WMUK more broadly. Additionally we plan to discuss joint digitisation projects with outside partners.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi John Cummings, your request for a change in travel budget is approved. Please note that $900 of the $1,981.80 originally budget for travel to the WEF has been spent on travel to date. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for project extension to 1st September 2016

I would like to request a 6 month extension to the project so that it would finish on the 1st September 2016. I have secured funding to continue working at UNESCO through a Wikimedia Sweden project for 6 months that will start this month so would like extend the finish date of this grant to accommodate it. I think that the extension will be of benefit to the project outcomes as it will allow time for a number of technical issues for mass upload of content to be resolved.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi John Cummings, congratulations on the grant with Wikimedia Sweden. Your request for extension is approved. Because the grant period now extends beyond one year, you will need to submit an interim report by February 20th, 2016. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks John Cummings (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for travel budget change

I would like to request using the remained of my grant travel budget to attend the 4th World Congress of Biosphere Reserves.

I would like to spend the remainder of my budget on this conference because:

• There are no other suitable UNESCO conferences to attend that I would need a travel budget for, the main relevant conferences have either passed e.g World Education Forum or are at Headquarters in Paris e.g Mobile Learning Week.

• The most Wikidata and GLAM focussed Wikimedia conferences are generally in Europe so will be minimal cost, especially if I plan ahead. Additionally I would have the time to apply for scholarships to attend to create additional travel budget (something I don't have time to do with this conference).

I plan to do the following activities whilst at the conference:

• Apply to run a training workshop in one of the breakout events on open licensing of content for Biosphere Reserves and how to share content through Wikimedia.

• Take and share notes on what the Biosphere Program is and how local chapters and volunteers can get involved. This will for the basis of a booklet specifically written for Biosphere Reserves interested in engaging with Wikimedia

• Network with Biosphere and UNESCO staff and meet representatives from Biospheres from as many countries as possible, focussing on the 20 countries that have agreed to run training with UNESCO and partner staff, especially the 50% of which ran Wiki Loves Earth in 2015.

• Learn more about the programme and the work that is being done, one of the issues that they have had is very limited documentation on the programme and the activities, the last published book on the programme was in 2010 for children and there are no publications giving an overall picture of the programme. To spend several days learning about the programme from experts seems like the best way of doing this.

• Identify resources available from Biosphere Reserves for Wiki Loves Earth and other activities e.g spaces, tours etc.

--John Cummings (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi John Cummings, your request to use the remaining travel budget to attend the UNESCO biosphere conference is approved. It would be good to include links to documentation that you create after the event regarding the program here. Also, please give estimates for how the funds will be spent (i.e. cost of flight, lodging, per diem). --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Request to change the project end date to 1st May 2016

I would like to request a change in the end date of the first section of funding for this project to the 1st May 2016. This because of changes in the arrangement with the grant from Wikimedia Sweden. I will be able to submit my request for the project extension funding within the next 7 days to allow time for assessment before the 1st of May.

John Cummings (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi John Cummings, The current end date for this request is September 1, 2016, so I am not sure what the May 1st date refers to. We have discussed 'pausing' your PEG funding while you are working on the WM SE grant project at UNESCO, but the timelines for how/when you will alternate between grant projects is not clear. Can you share a timeline for how you would like to start and stop the PEG and WM SE grants? Thanks, --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi KHarold (WMF)

Sorry for the confusion. What I am requesting is that I move the end of the first part of this WMF funding to 1st May 2016. I have been working on this project 50% of my time for the past 2 months because of the funding I received from Wikimedia Sweden for the Connected Open Heritage project. I would like to continue working on this and the Swedish project 50% each until January 2017. Providing my application for an extension to this grant is successful this would be the breakdown of funding during this period:

• Sept-Dec 2015 = 100% WMF funding
• Jan-Dec 2016 = 50% WMF funding / 50% Wikimedia Sweden funding (with the WMF funding extension starting 1st May)
• Jan - Feb 2017 = 100% WMF funding

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

outreach:Wikipedian in Residence

Why is UNESCO not mentioned on the list of WIRs? I was looking for a page explaining the project. Nemo 08:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Plan for the next grant period

List of the projects I will be focusing on that can be accomplished in the remaining grant period

• Refine the process for releasing and reusing content, text and data from UNESCO on Wikimedia projects with a large volume of content released and create a plan for future releases from UNESCO archives.
  • Images: continue to encourage reuse and explore running special events on international days.
  • Text: Refine process for adding open license text to Wikimedia projects and work with subject matter experts at UNESCO to identify most useful text and articles.
  • Data: Continue to explore reuse of UNESCO data within Wikimedia projects including through Wikidata fed infoboxes across multiple language Wikipedias.

• Continue refining documentation on Wikimedia projects that will benefit the project.

• Work on a project to promote open licensing and sharing of best practice between organisations.

Progress made toward original goals and new goals and success measures

• Progress towards these goals is documented here

• In addition Wiki Loves Earth Biospheres was run in June which had over 660 entries and significant social media coverage.

Goal 1 will largely be replaced with different approaches that achieve similar outcomes, this is due to the very low retention rate of new editors recorded by many past training programmes.

Indicators to demonstrate that the current strategies are working to meeting the goals

I have chosen to focus on finding ways of using as much content from UNESCO across Wikimedia as possible rather than training staff. This is because of the very low retention rate of new editors and the volume of excellent quality content UNESCO produces.

• The number of articles using open license text has grown from 10 to 78 in June, this shows that the process I have created for using open license text from external sources is useful and usable, I have now generalised part of it for use across English Wikipedia but it has only been adopted by one other Wikipedia (Polish) so far.

• The number of images available from UNESCO available has increased and their reuse has increased. Currently this is a manual process however this will be automated once Mediabank is populated and begins to push content to Wikimedia Commons using the API.

• Several data sets from UNESCO have been imported into Wikidata and are being used for projects including the map for Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves and mapping the missing Biosphere Reserve English Wikipedia articles that can be created with the open license descriptions, this can be very easily adapted to other UNESCO inscription programmes and beyond.

• In June over 80% of social media exposure of Wiki Loves Earth was generated by UNESCO, 9 of the top 10 most popular posts were from UNESCO.

• UNESCO has developed Mediabank, a platform to make all content possible available under a Wikimedia compatible license that will be freely reusable by other organisations.

Risks and concerns that may impact the goals of the project

• Potential visa issues in relation to Brexit, however this appears unlikely to happen within the timeframe of the project.

• Measuring the outcomes of some the activities of the project may be diffiult e.g I have collated a list of Reference materials on UNESCO's areas of expertise using existing UNESCO reference material portals which should be very useful for people wanting to find quality reference materials in this area. However reuse of this information as reference material may be difficult to measure. I will investigate further through the Wikimedia Research mailing list.

• Lack of technical skills: have so far prevented me from creating an easy generic process for importing open license text from external sources into Wikipedia. This is indicative of a wider issue that some tasks needed to run projects are very technical and the time investment needed to learn the skills to do the tasks is very high even the tasks take a very short amount of time to do. I have created a proposal on Idealab to share the idea and encourage participation. I will try to collaborate with the wider Wikimedia community and make more contacts within the Wikimedia programming and technical community.

• Volume of poor documentation: much of the documentation available that could be used by partner organisations and processes of importing content is missing, unclear, not linked to each other or overly complicated. Developing documentation has taken a great deal of my time up to now and may continue to do so slowing down other work.

• Time needed to import data into Wikidata is very high for a small volume of data, whilst Wikidata is very useful in my work, importing data may need to be delayed until the processes for importing data become more clear and the tools become easier and quicker to use.

WMF comments on plan for next grant period

Hi Mrjohncummings, Thank you for all of the hard work you have done in your time as a WiR at UNESCO. From reading your interim report, and in our regular phone calls we have learned that the scope of your work has changed in some very interesting ways as a result of some of the challenges you faced getting access to organized materials and effective training resources. We look forward to seeing the long term outcomes of your work with UNESCO engineers to develop a process to push images from Mediabank to Commons, and understand that progress in that area has taken more time than expected. We are inclined to renew funding for this project for an additional six months, however we would like to set up a phone call with you, Alex and I to set more specific goals for the projects you have proposed for the extension of the project.

• Are you able to share a timeline for when files in Mediabank will be pushed to Commons? Is this something that you expect will happen in the next 5 months?
• Please elaborate on the projects or campaigns you plan to do to encourage people to use the images, free licensed text and UNESCO resource guides that have been released as part of your work.
• We are both impressed with all of the great documentation that you have created so far. It seems like a lot of the documentation you have created would be useful for the wider community of folks working on GLAM projects. We recommend that instead of creating new documentation, you focus on building up awareness and use of the materials among Wikimedia communities.
• Since we no longer have a committee to review PEG grants, we would like to hear from some community members you have worked with on this project to get feedback and endorsement of your request for an additional six months of funding. Can you ask someone who is working with you at WMSE on your other grant, someone from WMDE who has worked with you on Wikidata, and one or two other community members who are familiar with the work you are doing and ask them to comment on this request?

Thank you very much for your patience so far in working on this renewal. Let us know when you are available to do a phone call so that we can work on your project goals and discuss any questions you have about these comments. Cheers, --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

As additional followup, I want to endorse several things:

• First I am really impressed by the number of organizations that have been encouraged to change their licensing to match our Wikimedia standards for openness -- that victory alone, allows greater collaboration and cooperation going forward.
• The implementation of the mediabank tool to fufill this need is important. I think the project, still has some kinks/flaws in its design, in terms of still putting very specific copyright claims on the with the (c) logo, but also allowing reuse under CC-BY-IGO -- these are certainly compatible statements, but are confusing for the lay person without the context in copyright. Additionally, I would really like to see the pathway between the tool and Commons in action, and would love a link to the outcomes of such a transfer on Commons, etc.
• The documentation is super useful, and will have a cascade effect once it gets socialized: however, socializing it and prolifically integrating links to it, into existing other documentation is super important. I would love to see the pages linked in more places on ENWiki, Commons, Wikidata, Outreach and Meta, so that we aren't dependent on search or Google to find it, but its meaningfully discover-able through serendipity. For example, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Simple_media_reuse_guide needs to be connected in places where the people that need simple find it.
• The approach to work in general is important, and I think one we should encourage more in affiliates. By not neccessarily getting individuals excited first, but in fact building the tools and infrastructure, you are effecting long term change that will be meaningful in UNESCO, its partners, and the movement. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't anticipate how funding cycles, and reporting cycles. Once you have finished the project, I would love some documentation (a learning pattern or blog post) of the advice you would give to someone who wants to do similar work in setting goals, and defining outcomes.

In general though, I am positive about the work that has been happening, and think the questions above from Kacie elaborate similar questions to what I have.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Response from grantee

Many thanks KHarold (WMF)

• Are you able to share a timeline for when files in Mediabank will be pushed to Commons? Is this something that you expect will happen in the next 5 months?

Mediabank will start to push content to Commons in the next 2 months with much more content being released over time, there is both content coming from the existing repositories including Photobank, Multimedia Archives, Audio Archive, Flickr accounts and also smaller repositories held by different sectors. In response to Astinson (WMF) comment the link between Mediabank and Commons has been tested by uploading images from the World Heritage collection through the Wikimedia API by a permanent UNESCO staff member.

The main issue causing delays is poorly formatted metadata which is important to address before uploading to Commons so the media can be correctly categorised. This issue comes from the previous UNESCO media platforms allowing unstructured metadata. An intern has been recruited to work 2.5 days per week on restructuring the metadata for the next several months giving ample time to overcome this barrier.

In addition we will be documenting the process of creating the Mediabank and release all software and documentation on UNESCO’s Github repository with the aim of the application being adopted by other UN agencies. This will allow them to easily and quickly implement an open access policy that will feed Wikimedia Commons content.

• Please elaborate on the projects or campaigns you plan to do to encourage people to use the images, free licensed text and UNESCO resource guides that have been released as part of your work.

The pages to encourage reuse of content have been set up on Wikiproject UNESCO and category structures and teplates on Wikimedia Commons. The structured metadata will mean it will be easy to identify which Wikiprojects will find specific content useful. In addition there will be both descriptions of the content and surrounding contextual information available to increase the usefulness of the content. The descriptions and the contextual information will often be available in between one and eight languages e.g files from World Heritage Centre have descriptions in 6-8 languages.

I will create documentation on easy reuse of sections of the of audio and video files without manually editing the files. This has been a significant hurdle to reuse of audio and video files previous and is particularly important for UNESCO audio and video because it includes a large amount of 30 minutes and above content e.g longform interviews with world leaders and video documentaries.

We will promote the release of the files on both the Wikimedia blog and the UNESCO blog, on wiki and various Wikimedia social media groups to ensure that the files are well known. The current promotion of Wiki Loves Monuments by UNESCO and subsequently the UN Twitter account shows that a very wide audience can be reached through our channels.

I have created a Visual Editor compatible template to properly attribute open license text from UNESCO publications and a simple guide to reuse the text.

For text from publications I am working with UNESCO staff who are subject specialists to identify which text is suitable for reuse on Wikimedia projects and both documenting which sections are reusable on the Wikiproject and working directly with staff to add the text. Many of these publications in multiple languages, for major publications 6 languages are usually available.

For text from the descriptions of programme inscriptions e.g Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites I have worked with Wikidata community members to catalogue the programmes on Wikidata to create live lists and maps of which articles have yet to be created in which languages.

• We recommend that instead of creating new documentation, you focus on building up awareness and use of the materials among Wikimedia communities.

I will work with Alex Stinson and Wikimedia community members to identify where documentation needs to be more widely linked and publicised so that it is well used. I’m especially interested in getting the open license text template and documentation well used and translated into other languages.

I am also refining existing documentation I have created through feedback from UNESCO staff using the documentation e.g the Simple Media Reuse guide.

• we would like to hear from some community members you have worked with on this project to get feedback and endorsement of your request for an additional six months of funding.

Yes I will do this in the next week.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Goals

Hi John Cummings, thank you for taking time to talk with us today. Below are the notes from our conversation about the work you will be focusing on during the 6 months that additional funding will cover. Please review the goals below to ensure they reflect your priorities. You are welcome to edit the list as needed. Once you are comfortable with the list, please ask a few people familiar with your project to endorse or comment on these priorities. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Work at UNESCO, technical development, capacity building

1. Get documentation and software for MediaBank up on GitHub
2. Mediabank-to-Commons automation is complete and working. There is sufficient documentation for someone else to begin using it at their org.
3. Work out some of the technical challenges around tools to measure file use for GLAMs who have donated large collections.
4. Evaluate how UNESCO social media coverage of WLM impacted contest (# of people who clicked links and from where).

Socialization of documentation, tools and donated content:

1. Work with Alex Stinson and members of the GLAM community to share documentation and tools, and make it easier for people to find them.
2. Translate the text reuse guide and media reuse guide into French, Spanish and German.
3. Share text reuse tools and documentation with editing communities who would find it useful, such as 100 Wiki Days, people organizing contests relating to WLM, or user groups in regions with content gaps that could be filled using UNESCO media and text. At the end of the grant period, you can measure how many times the template has been used.

Hi KHarold (WMF), yes this is an accurate summary of the goals for the next 6 months, many thanks for writing them up. --John Cummings (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Community comments on plan for next grant period

• Hi! This is just to let you know that Mrjohncummings has been extremely helpful and proactive and helped us organize a UNESCO press sponsorship for WLM. I guess this is our small way of saying that without him this wouldn't've materialized. He connected us to the right people and did a lot of "behind the scenes" work to make that possible, exactly the kind of things that a good WiR should. So, this is just a humble (but public) thank you with an endorsement for the good work that you're doing. Alleycat80 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• As a fellow WiR at a GLAM I'd like to say how helpful Mrjohncummings and his tools have been. He's been particularly helpful in advising on working with a very large GLAM and with very large collections of material on Commons. He guided me step-by-step through adaptation of his tool to make it easy for people to find unused images (something we have a lot of at the Wellcome!). Now, at training sessions, it's often the first place newly trained people turn, which gives them a great place to start practising their new skills without having to think too hard, and makes images more visible and findable. In addition specific tools, I also find his engagement with the mailing lists really helpful and his guidance on general WiR-ing invaluable! A big thank you and hurrah for the new grant period, I'm excited to see what handy new things come of it! Zeromonk (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've been working closely with John on the import of UNESCO data into Wikidata. So far, his work has led to over 7500 Wikidata statements being added to Wikidata, covering globally significant cultural heritage and conservation initiatives like World Heritage, Man and the Biospheres program, and Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. Of course, all of the data added can now be, queried, visualised and re-used inside and outside Wikimedia projects (e.g. this visualisation, or this Catalan Wikipedia infobox for buildings which can automatically pull heritage status, criteria, and coordinate locations from the data that’s been added via the import work).

John has also been at the forefront of developing a desperately needed unified strategy for data imports/partneships with Wikidata, with the UNESCO import providing an essential framework for understanding the requirements and challenges.

Keep up the amazing work John, long may it continue! :) NavinoEvans (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• John has been excellent at sharing information on the (currently developmental) process of a data partnership with a large and prestigious GLAM with complex datasets, in a style accessible for people without some of the deeper technical skills that only some parts of our community have. Work like this takes time: navigating an organisation, building internal partnerships, advocating for further content releases and researching areas where a GLAM's content matches up with a Wikimedia demand. But as we've seen with other WiRs such as the National Library of Wales, over the time a resident gains a better understanding of the opportunities available, and extensions of residencies have led to more ambitious projects and valuable activity. I am pleased to see that there is a second period to this project. Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Grant renewal approved

Hi Mrjohncummings, thank you for all of your hard work both on this project, and on this request for renewal. We are pleased to approve 20,792.87 EUR in funding to pay for 6 months of full time work at 18.81 EUR per hour, which is the rate you were paid during the first grant period. The period of this grant renewal will run from October 1, 2016 though March 31, 2017. Although the current grant ended on September 1, 2016, you can wait until the end of this renewal period to submit a final report on the project. You have done great work on this project so far, and we look forward to learning about your accomplishments in the next six months. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you very much. --John Cummings (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Grant report urls

Noting here that the grant reports related to this WiR PEG are at Grants:PEG/MrjohnCummings/UNESCO Wikimedian in Residence/Report/Interim report for the original grant and Grants:PEG/MrjohnCummings/UNESCO Wikimedian in Residence/Report for the renewal grant. -- JTud (WMF), Grants Administrator (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Notification of continuation grant application

@Netha Hussain:, @Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry:, @Smirkybec:, @Dominikmatus:, @Herahussain:, @Pigsonthewing:, @AbhiSuryawanshi:, @Tigerlilygirl:, @The Land:, @Leela0808:, @PatHadley:, @Yann:, @SuperHamster:, @Einstein2:, @Gaurav:, @Mbrinkerink:, @Like tears in rain:, @Llywelyn2000:, @KTC:, @Lionel Allorge:, @Tagishsimon:, @HolidayInGibraltar:, @EdSaperia:, @Kmccook:, @Johnbod:, @Mariekeguy:, @Pchlondon:, @Masssly:, @Upotrebi klikere:, @ACrockford:, @Leutha:, @ZoeTropesaurus:, @BekkaKahn:, @Yveszieba:, @Cvillum:, @OlafJanssen:, @Axl:, @Aldnonymous:, @Bonaditya:, @Maragm:, @Nikesh balami:, @MartinPoulter:, @Fauzan:, @StuartPrior:, @Andy king50:, @AminouT:, @GastelEtzwane:, @Tybo2:, @JuliasTravels:, @Inkey:, @Doostdar:, @فلورانس:, @AlessioMela:, @Gianfranco:, @Digr:, @Geugeor:, @Slowking4:, @Flixtey:, @Leptictidium:, @Ranveig:, @Л.П. Джепко:, @Atsirlin:, @Romaine:, @Lspiste:, @Le sourcier de la colline:, @Dyolf77:, @Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick:, @Rberchie:, @Ikan Kekek:, @علیرضا:, @Rsteen:, @Nev1:, @Palnatoke:, @Ramyakr:, @Bobrayner:, @Alexmar983:, @Ravidreams (WMIN):, @PierreSelim:, @Ganesh Paudel:, @Rselby1:, @Jonny - OSCE Editor:, @Godzzzilica:, @Millosh:, @Hansmuller:, @Darrennorthfield:, @Bazonka:, @Battleofalma:, @Rodrigo Padula:, @Kikuyu3:, @Victorgrigas:, @Oaktree b:, @Balajijagadesh:, @Mahdimoqri:

To let you know that we are applying for a continuation grant for this project at Grants:Project/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020, we would really appreciate your support. This will be the last grant we will be applying for from the Wikimedia Foundation and will be applying for external grant funding in the future.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)