Grants talk:Project/Global Voices/Strengthening Indigenous-Language Wikipedias in Latin America

Input Needed

While we understand that Wikipedia is very much a volunteer-driven initiative, we feel that providing an honorarium to the lead researcher for the project will help in ensuring that the mapping/documentation will be completed in a timely manner and due to the amount of time necessary for a thorough mapping process. However, we would like some input on how to figure out the appropriate amount for this position. --Barrioflores (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Community notification

Just wondering why those mailing lists you've selected? How will they have the best reach? (I'm not from this part of the world so I don't know their reach)Loztron (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

- Thanks for the question, while we are reaching out to individual editors that we know and other initiatives, we're not sure how to list that on community notifications. Those first two mailing list groups are two groups where I have been subscribed (Wikimedia Bolivia - since I live in Bolivia and where there have been previous activities with Wikipedia in Aymara) and Iberocoop is the collective of chapters, working groups and user groups from Ibero-America, which includes countries with a strong indigenous presence. --Barrioflores (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Project Grant Application Deadline is Aug. 2nd

@Barrioflores: please note that the deadline for the first round of Project Grants is today, August 2nd. If you'd like to be considered in this round, please update the status on your grant from "draft" to "proposed". Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

- Thanks, made the edit to change to 'Proposed' - --Barrioflores (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The same project

This my propose: Grants:IdeaLab/New projects in American Native languages but we need connect ideas. Regards.--Marrovi (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

CLDR

I hope you will contribute to CLDR, which is essential to support those languages properly both in MediaWiki and in all software of the world. In particular, contributing to mw:ULS/FAQ#language-territory will help give more visibility to Wikipedias in regional languages among the users of the relevant countries. Nemo 05:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

- Thank you, @Nemo: for the invitation to contribute. I will take a look at the link. - --Barrioflores (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Research

Sharing stories is nice but it would be great to have some research findings from this effort, such as improved data on number of speakers, usage at home and at school, other context of usage, distribution of the speakers, written language skills, trends, written or oral sources in the language, literature available for Wikisource, dictionaries available for import on Wiktionary, and so on: Ethnologue often has very little, and we are left with random guesses about a language's viability in Wikimedia projects.

- We will definitely be incorporating background information on each of the languages, since it is important to understand the context in which each Wikipedia operates. For comparison purposes, the number of speakers, the percentage of speakers who can also write in the language, internet access, whether or not there is a unified writing system can all be indicators for potential activity for each site. It would important to take these factors into consideration when looking at each site on an individual level and when looking at all of the sites on a collective level.

I think it is still up for consideration whether we limit this project to mapping activity solely in Wikipedia or consider adding other Wikimedia projects in indigenous languages.

--Barrioflores (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Surveying Requests for new languages might provide some of the questions that people have on such languages. Getting the language fully translated in translatewiki.net is one useful step in gauging the difficulties (and it's the first step for creation of a new Wikimedia wiki). Nemo 05:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

comments from Thepwnco

@Barrioflores: Hello and thanks for this proposal.

- Thanks @Thepwnco:, sorry for the delay in responding as I was traveling. I will respond in-line. --Barrioflores (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a few comments and questions for you as outlined below. Thanks for your time and consideration.

• I found the recent thread from the Wikimedia Languages List very informative and so I wanted to share it here on the talk page. In particular, the comments from Alan King really put some of the challenges faced by Indigenous language Wikipedias into perspective for me. As such, I can absolutely see the value of a project like yours that seeks to collect similar successes and challenges of other individuals and communities working in this space.

- Yes, there is a wealth of knowledge and experiences behind each of the active and incubator projects that is often not as apparent just by looking at each site. We had a great experience with outreach and similar inquiry with Wikipedia in Guaraní as part of a different project, and the three editors with whom we spoke were so generous with their team and eager to share their experiences. We learned so much and I think it will be fascinating to see what challenges are unique to each site and what challenges are shared across communities. --Barrioflores (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Can you confirm that one of the intended deliverables of this project is a report that summarizes the overarching themes/challenges common to Indigenous language projects and outlines and shares recommendations, strategies, best practices, etc. for supporting this work? If so, I'd recommend making this more explicit, for example, by including it in your measures of success.

- Yes, the plan is to share ongoing information in story format, but also to compare and contrast the different information gathered and identifying these overarching trends. Thanks, yes, I will make sure to make that more explicit in the proposal. Thanks for the input. --Barrioflores (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• There are some previous Wikimedia-funded projects that you may be interested in looking at particularly when you get to the stage of building a list of resources and subjects for more in-depth study. For example, Grants:IEG/Increase_Awareness_of_and_participation_in_Indic_language_Wikipedias_in_Colorado (a project that targeted scripting/typing as barriers to participation). In terms of long-term planning and the sustainability of a peer-led network, you may also be interested in Grants:IEG/Art+Feminism_Editathon_training_materials_and_network_building (a different focus, but still lots of relevant ideas here)

- Thank you for those links. I had not seen them previously. It is very important to us that we don't start from scratch, but build upon and learn from existing and previous projects. This type of outreach will be one of the first activities in the project. --Barrioflores (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, -Thepwnco (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions by Joalpe

@Barrioflores: thank you for submitting a project grant application. Let me start by emphasizing that I can only applaud the strong commitment of your project, specifically, and your work, in general, to foster diversity within the Wikimedia community. Your work has also a strong commitment to social justice in Latin America I can only be admirative of.

Thank you @Joalpe: for the kind words. I've been inspired by so many great individuals committed to preserving and promoting their native languages and I think Wikipedia is one way to do that. If we can contribute in a small way to helping these communities, then we'll be satisfied. I will answer your questions after each. --Barrioflores (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In order to clarify your proposal, could you please answer the following questions?

Specific questions

• Could you please clarify the format in which your research report will be published? Or will it only be on blog posts? When you mention 25 blog posts on Global Voices and the Wikimedia Blog --are you thinking of 25 posts on each? In what language(s) will these posts occur?

- There will be a summary report based on the blog posts, but it will also include background information on the methodology and details on the process. I will specify that in the proposal. There will be at least 25 blog posts, but hopefully more that will be published on both Global Voices' Activismo Lenguas (our portal that highlights digital initiatives to revitalize native languages in Latin America) site and the Wikimedia Blog. Initially the post will be in Spanish so that editors and groups in the region can immediately access that information for comment and participation. However, we aim to make those stories available in English, as well. Global Voices Lingua is a volunteer translator communities that maintain 41 different sites. We hope that many of them will select these blog posts for translation. --Barrioflores (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Your proposal appears to focus on "success" stories. Wouldn't there be a gain in documenting "failures?"

- While we do want to highlight examples where projects have overcome challenges to move their Wikipedia forward (perhaps 'success stories' was not the correct label to use), we also want to document the real challenges that these communities face. I'm not sure if we would be comfortable labeling any project a failure, but we will be asking whether or not their own expectations were met. I think we hope that we can strike the right balance by presenting the information in an accurate manner without glossing over the serious challenges that these communities face. In addition, understanding what impact/success looks like for each of the communities that we will be engaging is something important to consider, and make sure that it is not defined by an external group not involved with each of the projects. Thank you for that observation, we'll make the adjustment in the proposal to make it more clear that we will also be documenting these challenges as identified by each community. --Barrioflores (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is there any report you could share on the connection between Rising Voices and any Wikimedia chapter or user group? The Flickr gallery you indicate does not bring any description, so I was not sure what I was looking at. References to activity on Wikimedia projects on the piece "A Network of Indigenous Language Digital Activists in Mexico" were not detailed.

- Yes, here are a couple of links of reporting from chapters and user groups regarding their involvement with Global Voices' work in the indigenous language digital activism field. I think we can do a better job of documenting these activities, but here are some mentions about these collaborations:

• A mention from Wikimedia Mexico regarding their participation in the event we co-organized in Oaxaca, Mexico in October 2014: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Mexico/October_2014
• A report from a member of Wikimedians of Colombia who took part in our event in Bogota in June 2015: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Sahaquiel9102/Encuentro_de_Activistas_Digitales_de_Lenguas_Ind%C3%ADgenas/Report
• A Storify summary of the Wikipedia and Blogs workshop we co-organized with Wikimedia Mexico https://storify.com/Wikimedia_mx/taller

--Barrioflores (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Could you please provide a more detailed timeline of activities? You might know that in the assessment of projects (category on the ability to execute), there is a specific mention that realistic projects should be done in six months.

- According to the Guidelines and Criteria page, "Grants can be up to 12 months in length," but the application form mentioned the six-month time period. I hope that we can get further clarification from the Grants Committee. Ideally we would want the full 12 months to carry out a thorough overview of existing and incubator projects, since there is a wealth of information that may be collected. Conducting outreach and making contacts for follow-up interviews can often take more time than anticipated based on schedules and obtaining replies. However, I think a 9 or 10 month project may also be possible.

I can provide this timeline of activities. However, based on the length of the project, the time allotted to the outreach, interviewing, and data collection may vary. For this sample, I am using a 9-month project timeframe:

• Month 1 - Create job description for lead researcher, posting, interviewing candidates and final selection.
• Month 2 - Lead researcher and project coordinator will develop methodology, research questions, and overall research design
• Months 3-6 - Outreach, interviewing, and collecting information and data. The majority of the blog postings will take place during these months, as well as the coordinating of translations. We will also begin to identify participants to invite to the feedback workshop. That will help us determine the location of the workshop.
• Month 7 - Analyze information and data to generate initial conclusions from the mapping project. Workshop planning and agenda creation.
• Month 8 - Feedback workshop will be held. Begin planning on the creation of the network
• Month 9 - Final report written incorporating the feedback and recommendations provided on the initial conclusions during the workshop.

--Barrioflores (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

General questions

• Wouldn't it make more sense as a first "big" step in the process of strengthening indigenous language Wikipedias in Latin America to start with documenting stories from each multilingual countries you plan to work with? Guatemala, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico have different historical and cultural backgrounds, and wouldn't it make sense to start with mapping and documenting indigenous involvement in each of this country instead of going to the transnational scope?

- Yes, we will be taking a look on a language-by-language basis, since many indigenous languages are spoke across borders (i.e. Aymara is spoken in Bolivia, Peru, and parts of Chile and Argentina, not to mention diaspora communities abroad). --Barrioflores (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• How would the project you propose fit into a broader strategic plan of strengthening indigenous communities' engagement with Wikimedia projects? That is, what are expected next "big" steps? As you know, the Wikimedia community has a history of catalyst programs --and I couldn't stop thinking about them when I read your proposal--, and therefore I was wondering how documenting and mapping would help you (or the organizations you mention) engage with future activities.

- Continuing with answers to your questions, @Joalpe::

During this process of community notification and outreach by sharing this proposal with others, it's been fascinating to make connections with like-minded organizations and other bodies interested in this field. I think that during this process even more connections and partnerships will be built. While our primary focus is making this information available for indigenous communities interested in beginning a new project or expanding a current project, we hope that the findings will also benefit chapters, user groups, and other organizations that want to support this work, but maybe not know where to start or what challenges they face. We also think that this will be of interest to the Foundation as they continue to support this important work.

Just earlier this week, we had a great dialogue with the Latin American staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Global Reach department. We found many things in common, and our hope is that our findings and documentation will be a resource for the Foundation, who is also interested in engaging in diverse communities for greater participation. Our hope is that we continue to have these channels of communication open.

So, we imagine that at the end of this first phase, the information collected may provide a body of knowledge that will help different communities have a starting point in terms of better understanding what they may face and what the strategies other communities employed to overcome different challenges. Not only for communities, but chapters and user groups that have made this type of outreach a priority, but may not know where to start or how to best provide support. They may also find ideas to replicate and adapt to their context. However, I think one of the overarching goals is to facilitate the creation of the peer-led network where participants can be a source of support and motivation for one another, but also other communities that come forward with the idea to participate in Wikipedia in their native language. Having that resource will be an important element for present and future participation of these communities. --Barrioflores (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

- I'd like to reflect on these two questions (plus it's getting late over here) and continue tomorrow. Thank you for these thought-provoking questions. --Barrioflores (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Thank you!--Joalpe (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2016

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2016 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 1 2016 begins on 24 August 2016, and grants will be announced in October. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Superzerocool

Hi, thanks for your proposal: it's very detailed and well formatted.

Thanks @Superzerocool: for the feedback, responses below:

Here is my questions:

1. In the outcomes you write: [quote]"When the grant ends, we fully expect a peer-led network comprised of native-speaking editors"[/quote], how do you expect to find these editors?. I have the (ugly) experience of Mapudungun, where we don't have any native-speaker in Wikimedia Chile for cultural and political reasons.

- The aim is to identify and reach out to existing editors in both active and incubator projects. We hope that the majority will be editors whose mother language is the indigenous language of the Wikipedia project. However, we also know that there are many committed editors who may have learned that language as a second language, who we will also reach out to. We hope to identify these editors by reviewing the history data from each Wikipedia and contact them one by one. We also hope to rely on word of mouth, recommendations, and other ways to identify editors for the mapping project and hopefully they will be interested in being a part of the network. A few editors from these indigenous-language Wikipedias have already indicated that the network sounds like something they would like to join, so I think that is a good sign that it will be well-received when there is more promotion. --Barrioflores (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

1. The main problem of minor languages in Wikimedia universe is the Incubator, do you will include a few words about that in your study?

- Yes, from what I understand about the incubator projects that many of them were created before the new guidelines for incubator projects were created, so that there is not the same type of documentation readily available regarding requests and participation. However, the background history of these incubator projects is also very valuable to better understanding why many of them remain as incubator projects and do not become full projects. --Barrioflores (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

1. You want 25 editors to be interviewed, Are they the same people who attend the meeting?

- We hope to interview *at least* 25 editors. Based on their expressed interest in being a part of the network and their active participation in the mapping project, we hope that all participants in the meeting will have been a part of this initial information exchange. --Barrioflores (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Where do you will publish your summary report?

- We will make it available in both as a text format and a downloadable PDF on our Activismo Lenguas portal and Wikimedia meta. The report will be under a Creative Commons license so that anyone can republish following the sharing guidelines. - --Barrioflores (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

1. 1. The budget is not finished, do you have any issue to finish it?

- The budget is still an area of the proposal where we would like some guidance, especially trying to find the balance between Wikipedia's volunteerism culture and providing honoraria for the research team recognizing the intensive nature of the research (time for interviews, blogging, follow-up, etc) in order to meet the objectives. We would like some input from the Wikimedia Grants team and other communities that have implemented similar projects. Since we hope to present an open call for applications for this position, we do not know where this individual will reside, and we imagine that budget items such as staffing and honoraria depend primarily on a person's place of residence taking into account cost of living. If you have any suggestions on how to calculate those costs, we would be happy to receive that feedback. --Barrioflores (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Superzerocool (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Barrioflores, based on the question by Superzerocool, is the difference from the total budget (over 48,000) and the detailed costs you referred on the project what you have considered for the research position? --Joalpe (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Joalpe:, we're thinking that the difference was an estimate for honoraria for 1.) the project/workshop coordinator, 2.) lead researcher 3.) workshop facilitator. As we also mentioned in the proposal, the grant would pay the travel expenses for the 25 active editors. However, since we also would like at least 10 others interested in supporting the movement to attend, we don't know if we need to include their travel expenses in the budget or they can access other travel funds in their budget/other grants. Since the majority of the estimated budget is travel/housing costs for the feedback workshop, adding those additional expenses would push the budget higher.

Comentarios / Preguntas en Español

También quisiera destacar que pueden dejar comentarios o preguntas en español en este mismo espacio (para que sepan que la discusión no solo es en inglés). Pueden acceder a una traducción de la propuesta aqui. --Barrioflores (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks, @Ruslik0:

I also have some comments:

• I think you should be better define the problem that you want to solve. Is it that why projects in majority of native Latin American languages are not active? Please, formulate this in one sentence.
• What exactly solution do you propose? You seems to want to conduct some kind of research about what makes a Wikimedia project successful. This is should be clearly stated.

- Yes, I see your point. I shall try and make it more explicit in the proposal. Thanks for your feedback. --Barrioflores (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Once you did what I asked above you to do above it will be easy to formulate your goals which are not well defined. "Increase participation in sustainably active Wikipedia projects in Latin America indigenous languages" - It is not a realistic goal nor a realistic outcome of your project.

- Perhaps we should clarify that this is the overarching long-term goal, which I do think is a realistic goal. It may take awhile, but the two activities proposed is working towards that 1.) better understand the current state and challenges for indigenous-language Wikipedias and 2.) Build a peer-led network of editors of indigenous-language Wikipedias. I will clarify that in the proposal page. ---Barrioflores (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

-I will return to this (I am in transit at the moment and will reply asap) - --Barrioflores (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with others here that if your goal is scientific research it is important to study unsuccessful projects as well.

- Yes, I added that into the body of the proposal. However, I think we might also want to define the term 'unsuccessful' or 'failure', and I think asking community members to determine how they communicate value and define impact. --Barrioflores (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• The budget, of course, should be completed.

-From my earlier comments and responses, we are seeking input on how to best formulate the rate for honoraria for projects like this. In the meantime, I did add some estimates and we are open to changes following suggestions from the Wikimedia Foundation or other community members that have implemented similar projects.

--Barrioflores (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• - I think for any research projects publications are very important. You should aim at producing a few scholarly publications or may be some proceedings of your workshop. Blogs are insufficient, in my opinion.

- Certainly, the information collected can be the basis of an academic paper, but I think the output that we are aiming for is a mapping to get a broad view coupled with specific case studies that can help a broad segment of the Wikimedia movement better understand the current state of indigenous-language Wikipedia. I think we use mapping and research interchangeably, but I think a comprehensive academic study of all active and incubator projects may require more resources and time (i.e. field visits and more in-depth study). It would be great if we could partner with academic researchers interested in further developing the information mapped. --Barrioflores (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• It also looks (at least to me) that the main aim of this proposal is to fund the workshop in Mexico - this part of the proposal looks like a well defined stand alone project while all other parts are unclear. If this is true you would be better to apply for an Grants:Conference grant.

-The mapping will help identify potential participants and better understand the communities' needs to help formulate the agenda. I think if we held the workshop without this mapping, then it might be difficult to know who to invite. Following the mapping, we will have made initial connections and know who might be interested in being a part of such a network. So I think the two go hand in hand. --Barrioflores (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ruslik (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Traveling

Thank you for all of the comments and feedback, the proposer of this project is currently traveling and will have less access to the internet during this time. It may take a few more days than usual to respond to any questions. --Barrioflores (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Strengthening Indigenous-Language Wikipedias in Latin America

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?	6.3
(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?	7.0
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	7.8
Additional comments from the Committee: This is an ambitious project, that could serve as a catalyst for under-represented communities within the global Wikimedia movement. The only concerns are: the extended timeline that is being considered for the project and the need to insert the particular project within a strategic plan to foster ongoing work with indigenous communities in Latin America. As of today, we know too little about Latin American Wikimedia projects in indigenous languages. Neither research nor outreach occurs frequently here. I anticipate that the findings of this project will give us an overview about the state of Latin American Wikimedia projects. Good fit with Wikimedia strategic priorities on increasing reach in the Global South. This grant is very likely to make an impact on indigenous communities in Latin America, and it can be replicated elsewhere. Diversity is a strategic priority. Less clear about the online impact. See an example of similar work here: India community consultation 2014 . Even after 2 years charting the roadmap, the progress is restrained by lack of editors: Condensed proposed roadmap for Wikimedia work in India. This research is important, but it’s not clear if the research will result in new ways to increase friendliness on the incubator or other Wikimedia projects. I see few objectives aligned with Wikimedia priorities and it’s unclear how the project can be scaled after the grant ends. An interesting project but I am curious to know about the motivation for these groups to contribute. I would like to see more focus in the proposal. The main issue should be finding out what is hindering local or native languages from growing. The proposal lists a number of specific measures of success but they are very conservative considering the large budget: 25 blog posts, 25 people interviewed, etc. This is presented as a research project but I am curious why no journal publications are planned. The plan of action for the outreach measures have been tested during the Individual Engagement Grant program in the past. I expect to see more clarity in the research question once the researcher has been hired. Documenting per se is always relevant in the context of research, yet I have the impression that, given the effort that is being considered, this project could gain from also generating a program of continuing interaction among indigenous communities in Latin America. Innovative project targeting particular projects and looking for solutions of their problems, outcomes are clearly defined. Rather good measures of success, although they could have been better. The project can probably be executed within 12 months, although as of 4 September the budget is still incomplete (only workshop). We also need more details on how they are planning to collect information and conduct interviews, as well as what the role of Global Voices will be in the project. The only big concern is the extended timeline; a six-month project could be feasible, but would be demand more intense activity from the organizers. The grantee is most likely able to execute the project. Global Voices community has a rather good track record, and project involves several advisors/supporters with very relevant experience. The main concern is the budget: salaries seem to be significantly higher than average for Latin American countries. I am happy to see endorsement from Wikimedia Mexico. Community endorsements are high, including from serious Wikimedians. The applicant has been very effective in replying to concerns from the Committee. I would appreciate integration of revisions discussion on the discussion page on to the grant application page. General community support is just excellent: potential grantees already work with WMF, Wikimedia Mexico and people working on similar projects in other countries. It definitely encourages diversity. My main concern is limited engagement of contributors of projects in indigenous languages. I am concerned that the proposed deliverables are not in line with the large budget request. I would like to see the wide scope refined after the team is formed and the researcher is hired. The project is fully in accordance with the principles and strategic goals of the community and the foundation. It is not clear why 12-months are necessary to complete the project. My sense is that after the workshop, the rest of the project can be implemented in 3-6 months. Participant selection for the workshop should be done in such a way diversity is ensured in terms of gender, region, interests, projects and languages.

This proposal has been recommended for due diligence review.

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal and recommended it for due diligence review. This means that a majority of the committee reviewers favorably assessed this proposal and have requested further investigation by Wikimedia Foundation staff.

Next steps:

1. Aggregated committee comments from the committee are posted above. Note that these comments may vary, or even contradict each other, since they reflect the conclusions of multiple individual committee members who independently reviewed this proposal. We recommend that you review all the feedback and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page.
2. Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on Thursday, May 27, 2021.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia  · org.

Barrioflores, our interview with you was part of the due diligence process (I'm getting these comments posted late). You are still welcome to post any response you have to committee comments in the next couple of days, if you choose. Best regards, Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Round 1 2016 decision

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for a Project Grant.

WMF has approved partial funding for this project, in accordance with the committee's recommendation. This project is funded with $10,662 USD

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support your project with partial funding to better understand the successes and challenges indigenous language communities in Latin America have had in developing new Wikipedias. We value the expertise and network you bring in working with digital activists and are excited to see how your partnerships with local Wikimedians and affiliates can lead to better understanding and best practices.

Next steps:

1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
2. Review the information for grantees.
3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
4. Start work on your project!

Upcoming changes to Wikimedia Foundation Grants

Over the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has been undergoing a community consultation process to launch a new grants strategy. Our proposed programs are posted on Meta here: Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021. If you have suggestions about how we can improve our programs in the future, you can find information about how to give feedback here: Get involved. We will launch our new programs in July 2021. If you are interested in submitting future proposals for funding, stay tuned to learn more about our future programs.