Grants talk:Project/Rapid/Francesc Fort/Spanish Interpretation 12-13 June
Latest comment: 3 years ago by I JethroBT (WMF) in topic Comments from User:Xavier Dengra
Comments from User:Xavier Dengra
edit
Strong oppose The WMF is at high risk to be seen (even more) as a "mini-job" company for some users. On the other hand, if at this point of maturity the Movement is not able to find any volunteer to translate a conference about the Global Strategy, that is by default a wrong indicator about its success. Nonetheless, in case that there is no other choice than having an interpret, the WMF should be exemplary in labour conditions and avoid unqualified practice (i.e. hire a professional interpreter with a wage from the collective bargaining agreement). Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 20:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Xavier Dengra: Hi Xavier, I'm Chris Schilling, a program officer supporting Rapid Grants and grants related to movement strategy activities. Thanks for your suggestions around how the Wikimedia Foundation should support translation needs in the movement, and I am happy to pass it along to relevant teams, as I have offered similar feedback for teams needing ongoing and regular translation services. I would like to point out that the translation need here is live translation and interpretation, which is demanding and requires a level of work and preparation that we do not expect people to do voluntarily. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, I find it a lack of transparency (and partially a Conflict of Interest) that the WMF staff removes parts of comments in which the context on continuous background of Grants' requests by a specific user is questionned. All requests for Grants (and the users who sign them) are public and the budgets rely mostly in altruist donations and a commitment of good practice. Therefore I consider a dangerous drift to censor someone who points out -in the corresponding place, Meta- that reiterative or cumulative economical proposals by the same participants may not be a good practice for the community health. The context and the big picture should not be denied. Kind regards. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 22:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Xavier Dengra: Noted. It is important for us to balance the need for transparency with the need to support a productive discussion space around Wikimedia Foundation grants. Because grant proposals are highly transparent in our movement, we have high expectations for the quality of discussion that happens around them. Personal attacks on applicants are not acceptable conduct in this space, nor are they on Meta generally. That behavior is disruptive to the applicant, to our team, and to the communities the grant is supporting, and we will continue to remove such personal commentary because it is unconstructive and drives people away from our grant programs. Criticism on the general practices of providing grants is welcome, however, and we have often made changes to our practices as a result of it. You can contact us at rapidgrants
wikimedia.org and strategy2030 wikimedia.org with suggested changes or concerns about our funding policies, guidelines, and practices. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC) - Alternatively, using the talk page for the grant program in general is another option. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Xavier Dengra: Noted. It is important for us to balance the need for transparency with the need to support a productive discussion space around Wikimedia Foundation grants. Because grant proposals are highly transparent in our movement, we have high expectations for the quality of discussion that happens around them. Personal attacks on applicants are not acceptable conduct in this space, nor are they on Meta generally. That behavior is disruptive to the applicant, to our team, and to the communities the grant is supporting, and we will continue to remove such personal commentary because it is unconstructive and drives people away from our grant programs. Criticism on the general practices of providing grants is welcome, however, and we have often made changes to our practices as a result of it. You can contact us at rapidgrants
- Thank you. However, I find it a lack of transparency (and partially a Conflict of Interest) that the WMF staff removes parts of comments in which the context on continuous background of Grants' requests by a specific user is questionned. All requests for Grants (and the users who sign them) are public and the budgets rely mostly in altruist donations and a commitment of good practice. Therefore I consider a dangerous drift to censor someone who points out -in the corresponding place, Meta- that reiterative or cumulative economical proposals by the same participants may not be a good practice for the community health. The context and the big picture should not be denied. Kind regards. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 22:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
