Grants talk:Project/John Cummings/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2017-2018

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2017

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2017 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through 4 April 2017.

The committee's formal review for round 1 2017 begins on 5 April 2017, and grants will be announced 19 May. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Late notification on Wikidata

This grant obviously covers much more than Wikidata. From a Wikidata POV, it would have been good to see what this has brought of so far in terms of data. Personally, I think this is mainly limited to not so much used documentation pages. There was also a notable improvement on (mostly existing) items about heritage sites. --Jura1 (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Question from Ruslik0

I can see that the main goal of the project is the incorporation into publication workflows (of UNESCO and possibly other IGOs) of sharing open license content on Wikimedia projects. How sustainable is this goal? Does it mean that once incorporated the sharing will continue even without a Wikimedian in Residence? Ruslik (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik, thanks for the question, yes it does mean that content would continue to flow to Wikimedia after this residency period has finished. This would happen in one of two ways:

1. Through UNESCO's Mediabank platform which is able to push content to Commons. This will happen with almost all UNESCO content that isn't data.
2. By using GLAMpipe to scrape websites with open license content. This would be for other agencies which have made content available under a Wikimedia compatible license but haven't adopted the Mediabank platform and don't have the technical expertise to use the API.

I'm also aiming to get further funding from external sources to continue working with UN agencies once this grant period has finished.

Hope that's clear, let me know if you have any more questions.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The project duration is 12 months? Ruslik (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik, this funding application covers the project for 12 months, however I have been working at UNESCO for the past 18 months and have funding to continue to work there until September 2017 when this funding would begin.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wish to advise

I want to support this with an adviser capacity. I have experience dealing with international organizations. Would you be interested in this? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 19:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much とある白い猫, can you email me? --John Cummings (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Round 1 2017 decision

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

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, €64,000

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is glad to continue to support this partnership with UNESCO. We appreciate the service of an experienced Wikipedian in Residence in this role, along with new contributions of Navino Evans, whom Lydia Pintscher has endorsed as one of Wikidata’s most important allies.

Prior to finalizing a contract, we ask that you provide a job description specifically outlining the activities of the WiR role (we are now making this request of all WiRs).

Please note that we consider grant funding for WiR activities to be short-term, though we recognize that a partnership with an organization of the scale of UNESCO may necessitate multiple rounds of funding. Grant funding for WiRs is not intended to support ongoing workflows in an organization, but to leverage the partnership to build a sustainable platform that ensures outcomes long after the WiR has completed their service. Your work will be to ensure that every action is taken to secure long-term outcomes that do not depend on ongoing grant funding.

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 are also currently seeking candidates to serve on regional grants committees and we'd appreciate it if you could help us spread the word to strong candidates--you can find out more here. 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.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2017-2018

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?	7.3
(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?	7.2
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	7.7
Additional comments from the Committee: Adding openly licensed text and media from external sources is a great way to increase content coverage and I see a lot of potential in supporting these type of contributions through more robust documentation, tools, and workflows. It's also exciting to see this collaboration continue as UNESCO is uniquely positioned to further the movement with its many partnerships, high-quality content, and global reach. In order for this important work to be sustainable, I think it's key to focus on the aspects of the proposal that enable and support adoption of processes by other organizations (outside of UNESCO). The project nicely fits with the Wikimedia's strategic priorities and has a high potential online impact. It can be sustained after the grant ends, even without a Wikimedian in residence working in UNESCO. Sustainable, has online impact and could get nice promotion in the media. I see minimal risks here; while the grantee has not been able to meet all targets set in previous grants, he seems very flexible and resourceful so progress is still made in the face of change or unexpected challenges. However, I would still encourage the grantees to focus activities and refine goals, and perhaps scale back what is proposed here in order to deliver on the most important aspects of the project. The project is both innovative and iterative. The risks are relatively modest, mainly related to other IGOs. The success can be reliably measured. Clear targets, long-term project and replicative tools and docs are expected to be produced. Experienced WiR who has made good progress and established working relationships with UNESCO and partner organizations. I would prefer to see the level of activity scaled back (at this time, the proposal seems very ambitious). While I recognize the importance of Wikidata activities/integration, I think it might be outside the scope. I think it would be helpful for the grantees to prioritize proposed activities/deliverables (as was done in the 1st PEG proposal). I believe both grantees have ability, experience and skills necessary to execute the project based on their previous experience. The budget appears to be realistic. Certainly, based on the prior experience. Working with UNESCO is very important and desirable. However, wages for two workers is too high. Many opportunities for partnerships and for engaging communities, but I think it will still be time-consuming to achieve adoption of processes by other organizations and to encourage groups to reuse UNESCO content. It might be a good idea to focus on 2-3 partners and/or groups rather than attempting to engage as many different communities as possible. The project both supports diversity as well as has significant community engagement and support though a specific target community is difficult to pin down. during prior grant requests John asked for support of other affiliates and I saw that letter as member of WMRU. But I saw no other communication to us or invitation to be involved later, that's why I decreased my mark here. Willing to support full funding. I am excited about this project (although I think the proposal could still be improved and refined). Would like to see more focus on sustainability and documentation of challenges/lessons learned (as this work will be relevant to many partners and GLAMs). Personally I disagree with renewal of WiR. In this case the outcome is interesting but limited to 6 languages. I would like to keep neutral. I have found no reason to say no. The cost is high but UNESCO itself is a great resource for Wikimedia and we need to finish this project.

Visibility

From [1]: «3,700 users clicked on the “UNESCO” link to enter the competition, this was most popular in the US, France and Italy». Very nice! I hope that some of the @WikimediaItalia retweets and reposts have helped. :) --Nemo 16:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Co-financing

The figures of the UNESCO investment may be precise or not (I've not looked into them), but I appreciate the effort to highlight the co-financing by the host institution (and the involved persons themselves!). It's extremely important, for the continuation of a WIR effort, to show real buy-in from the host institution. Without any financial investment at all, I tend to think that the institution doesn't really care nor want to contribute to Wikimedia projects.

More specifically, the software development part is significant, because without some innerand/or technological help it would be impossible for the WIR to disseminate large amounts of materials. --Nemo 16:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Notification of continuation grant application

@Shangkuanlc:, @African Hope:, @Kippelboy:, @Aliaretiree:, @Mbrinkerink:, @VIGNERON:, @Spinster:, @A ri gi bod:, @Susannaanas:, @Marta Malina Moraczewska:, @Jason.nlw:, @Claudia.Garad:, @MartinPoulter:, @NickK:, @BrillLyle:, @Stinglehammer:, @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, @Richard Nevell (WMUK):, @Fadirra:, @LornaMCampbell:, @Daniel Mietchen:, @Mr impossible:

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 future.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)