Grants talk:Project/Wiki In Africa/Wiki Loves Women 2018

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2018

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2018 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through March 12, 2018.

The committee's formal review for round 1 2018 will occur March 13-March 26, 2018. New grants will be announced April 27, 2018. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Question from Ruslik0

Thanks for you proposal although I have a number of questions:

1. How did you select these two countries? Why not Kenya, for instance?
2. The lead of the Ugandian team is a man. I find this a bit strange for a Wiki Loves Women project, do not you?
3. You mentioned two WiRs (one per country). In which organizations will they work?
4. You previous grant request was not supported. What lessons did you learn from that setback?

Ruslik (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

First set of answers from Anthere

Hello Ruslik0

Why those two countries ?
Because those teams participated with us to Wiki Loves Africa this year (and previous years; as well as on Kumusha in the past). That helped us get to know them a bit more, and give us a measure of how many active members they were, how reactive, how efficient in online communication etc. [1]. That is not the case with Kenya... In short, rather than starting from scratch, we start in countries where we already have a small but active local teams and people who are already wikipedians and already a little part of the international community. We believe that is a very important factor of success. Anthere

man lead
This is not an issue to me. I do not believe in positive discrimination. A man can be just as powerful and great than a women when it comes to gender issues. I believe more in the team and in the choice of the leader and his skills than in the gender he happened to born in. I am strongly against restricting activity within Wiki Loves Women to female only. In my view, gender issues is everyone concern.

Organisation
Just like in the first phase of Wiki Loves Women, the teams will be in charge of identifying partners. We do not start with one specific partner, nor will limit ourselves to a specific partner. We believe that the teams should seek which organizations they can and should work in (we will of course help them on this path). I understand this is a different definition of WiR than the community usually rely on (one person in one organization). In the past, we also used the term Wikipedian in Community (WiC). But essentially, that's empowering a group of people, coordinated by a leader, to look for opportunities and engage a conversation with potential partners, and engage in active projects with those partners that have values. This is what has been done in the previous phase of Wiki Loves Women, and overall, it worked very well.

Lessons

• first lesson was that proposing two projects at the same time was too much and clearly annoyed some committee members (a risk could be their relative small capacity (particularly because many on the project team are also involved with Wiki Loves Africa). Accordingly, we did not submit any project for Wiki Loves Africa this year which removes that risk...
• second lesson is that budget was not clear enough last year (there were two versions. A summary on the wiki page and a very detailed on a google doc. It confused people and allocations were unclear). We clarified budget and allocation.
• last year, we got rather low figures on community engagement. So we took more time this year to get some feedbacks for community members already involved or interested or knowledgeable about the project
• last year, some committee members doubted that the project could be self sustainable beyond GI funding (Aimed at diversity but seems unsustainable: the request itself shows that the work won't be continued after cut off of the funding from Goethe-Institut.). We gave it more time to see what happened and found out (with great pleasure I must say) that the Wiki Loves Women project continued in the 4 initial target countries, with only minor funding from WMF (rapid grants in Nigeria and Cameroun for example). Belatedly, I am happy we were given the opportunity to see that the balls kept rolling without the bridge money. This is the reason why we decided this year to propose to seed the project in two new countries where there is already a small but active group. I note that some committee members suggested last year that Excellent fit with strategic priorities (increases reach, participation and improves quality), huge potential for impact (I heard a lot how this project boosted African communities). It can be adapted in other countries as well.. So this is what we did... adapted to other countries.
• there were some comments last year that budget was too large. It may not appear so... but we actually lowered the budget. But the result is similar in dollars than last year because the euro/dollars went crazy the past 12 months. Projet run on 8 months instead of 6.

Anthere (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Answers from Islahaddow

Dear Ruslik, thank you for your questions! It is great to begin engaging on this project proposal. My answers are below in the same order in which you posed yours - Anthere has already answered separately:

1. The countries were chosen based on the amount of activity the group has done in the last few years. Despite starting out well, the community in Kenya (for a number of reasons) has completely disbanded. We have recently been involved in supporting the WikiGap event there and have had to involve people from other aligned groups to get this happening. In contrast, the groups in Uganda and Tanzania have been active in Wikipedia-based projects - and not just the ones that we have been involved in (such as Wiki Loves Africa). We know they are ready for this project, and rather than assume their readiness, they have been consulted on the project plan. You can see their support on the grant page.
2. Not really. We asked the group to choose who should lead, and they chose him. The work that we did in three of the previous countries were led by men. We don't have a problem with this. Primarily because they were truly the best people for the job, given that they had the most experience, confidence and understanding at that time. What we did expect (and was achieved) was a marked upswing of women not only involved in the project, but becoming actively involved in the usergroup. To me, it is as much a goal to gender-sensitise men to the issues surrounding women (especially in some African societies), as it is to empower women. The project is not exclusionary - but inclusionary.
3. For lack of a better term, we use the words WiR in the way we have with our other projects - as facilitators rather than faux employees. The model we use is for one knowledgable Wikipedian to work with several knowledge content holders (i.e. Civil Society, Gender-focused, Medical, Legal, Academic, Heritage or Cultural organisations) to draw their members to the project to contribute their knowledge in whatever way they can - images, text, events, visibility, media engagement, etc.. In this way, the contribution ranges from organisation to organisation and is not limited just to the knowledge that they hold.
4. We learned not to submit two projects at the same time ;-). We learned to reduce our expectations - and we realised that the goal of quality content is reliant on too many elements that we could not control, and that this should rather be a nice to have, rather than the main goals - which are visibility of the issue, developing the skills and supporting the engagement of the local usergroups and empowering the voices and leadership of women.

Let us know if you have any other questions? Islahaddow (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Question from Aotfs2013

Hi, I am a member of the Project Grants Committee, I want to ask some questions to you:

1. This project is expected to cost 46,305 Euros. Does your team have experienced financial personnel to help you use the grant?
2. How did you plan your budget and could you please tell us their unit price?
3. What is your KPI about the news?

Thank you. Aotfs2013 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aotfs2013. We'll be answering your questions shortly. Sorry, WikiIndaba took a tool on our time :) Anthere (talk)

This project is expected to cost 46,305 Euros. Does your team have experienced financial personnel to help you use the grant?

No we do not. But, we have quite a bit of experience on the matter... by and large, this is I (Anthere) who does most of it at the moment. I sometimes ask help from Elisabeth Coye, who is an administrative assistant, has supported Wikimedia France in its fundraising operations for many years and has worked with me on the past 2 Wiki Loves Africa. I also own a small individual company and have worked there for 10 years now. Initially I had an accountant, now I take care of my accounting, social and fiscal reports all by myself and the French system is not exactly easy going one !

We know how to do a budget (we have done many budgets... ). Past personal experience... Wikimedia Foundation budget. Wikimedia France budget. Wiki in Africa budget. Over 30 project budgets.

Isla and I have run about a dozen projects together, ranging from 10k to slightly over 100k euros.

We have recently created a small association in South Africa. Whilst the association has yet little experience, it managed directly a 25k grant the first year.

Challenges that we KNOW we will meet are

1) sending money to the teams (but we did that without any specific issues for Tanzania and Uganda this year for WLA)

2) surviving the very fluctuating currency rates. We need a second bank account (that would be in euros) to help us here

3) not getting too mixed up between the different currencies in the reporting (that would be... 5 different currencies... dollars, euros, rands, Ug currency and Tz currency)

4) getting receipts from the local teams to document their expenses. This is actually likely to be the most difficult point.... We need clear contractual agreements with the local teams, but we know that getting receipts will be a challenge anyway :(

How did you plan your budget and could you please tell us their unit price?
The budget has been planned based on the experiences of Wiki Loves Women actions during 2016 and 2017. The unit prices are as follows:
1. Project management and global operations

• 1.1. en. PM 1 €1000/m for 8 months
• 1.2. fr. PM 2 €1500/m for 8 months
• 1.3 Financial administration €500/m for 3 months

2. Operations

• 2.1 Equipment once off
• 2.2 Financial transfer costs in total
• 2.4. Promotional materials: t-shirts, badges, etc. in total
• 2.5. Public relations, marketing and social media in total

3. Country 1

• 3.1 WIR/team stipend (include local travel) €800/m for 8 months
• 3.2 Local communication materials in total
• 3.3 Events (Catering + venue hire) €250/event / min1 event per month

4. Country 2

• 4.1 WIR/team stipend (include local travel) €800/m for 8 months
• 4.2 Local communication materials in total
• 4.3 Events (Catering + venue hire) €250/event / 1 event per month

5. Contingency 5% of the subtotal
6. Project administration 5% of the subtotal

Although the line items above are in Euros, the budget is detailed in both Euros and USD as there are significant fluctuations between both the dollar and the Euro and the Rand and all other currencies. From experience – with Wiki Loves Africa and a recent Rapid Grant - we have had problems with the budgets being devalued in Euro or Rand terms almost before they are even dispatched. Islahaddow (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If the project is accepted, we actually plan to ask 1.2. and 1.3 to be paid in euros, whilst the rest of the budget would be paid in dollars.

Last year, we asked the WLA budget in January 2017, by the time the first half of the money was sent (summer 2017), euro had lost nearly 20% of its value in front of dollar. By the time the second half was send (early 2018), another 5% more were gone. Budgets are planned tight. We can not afford to see budget evaporate by 25% between the moment a project is accepted and the moment the money is actually sent. In the case of Wiki Loves Africa, the financial loss will be absorbed by the tiny Wiki in Africa association and our fiscal host Ynternet.org. This can be done once. We will not be able to handle a second similar situation. Anthere (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What is your KPI about the news?

Key Performance Indicators about... the media ? Is that what you mean ? Such as articles in the written press, interviews in radio stations, or being a participant to a television series ? Well... let's face it... we have no formalized KPI on that matter. Journalism is a tough call in Africa. When one organise a press conference, journalists expect a stipend to attend the press conference... and that stipend is not a small one... and we do not want to budget this.

Social media indicators might be easier to deal with. At the moment, the WLW facebook has 2363 friends. We'll be happy to have it at 3500 friends :)

Thank you. In Taiwan, there are online platforms like CNA which allow people to upload press release by simply paying USD 100~150 so that the press releases are exposed to the journalist. The journalist may write a news article from the press release if they found it newsworthy. I wonder if it is possible in Africa. Aotfs2013 (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Never heard, but worth exploring indeed. Anthere (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments and questions from LMiranda (WMF)

Hello Anthere and Islahaddow, my name is Lauren and I am a Project Coordinator within the Community Engagement department at the Wikimedia Foundation. I have enjoyed reviewing your proposal for this project extension and look forward to reading some of your project reports. In the meantime, I have a few questions about your current proposal. I am curious to hear if there are any lessons learned from the previous project that you will be applying to this extension? Is there any reason for focusing on two countries instead of four this time? Regarding your project outputs, how will an active participant be measured? Will your project impacts be measured in intervals or at the end of the project? Thanks in advance for your responses. I look forward to learning more about this proposal! LMiranda (WMF)

Hello LMiranda

We actually learn from every single project we run :) The very first we did in 2013 (Kumusha Takes Wiki), we learned in particular two things. That project run in Uganda and Ivory Coast. At that time, there was no community at all in Uganda, and we thought there was no one in Ivory Coast either (found out later that there were a couple of people, but so discreet we knew nothing about them). So in both cases, we had to run a recruitment process. I am happy to say that in Uganda, the person we hired (Erina Mukuta), who was not at all a wikipedian, is actually still active and was at the WikiIndaba meeting in Tunis this month ! In Ivory Coast, our first hire did not turn out to be the best option, and we later turned ourselves toward Samuel Guebo. It was quite challenging to start from scratch... The first lesson we got out of this is that ideally, it was a better idea to start with a little group of people, if only because a group has complementary skills and can assign tasks to one another rather than having one person do it all. Accordingly, when we launched the first Wiki Loves Women, we decided to start working with groups as much as we could. During the first WLW, we worked with 3 groups, and 1 individual (Georges in Cameroun). But Georges quickly gathered people around him. Still, we think it is best to start with a small group of already introduced people rather than complete newcomers. And when we looked at options... we immediately thought that Tanzania and Uganda are now in this situation. Little group rather than individuals. But not yet a big group or a group well organized such as in Ghana or Nigeria.

The other lesson we learned from Kumusha is that having a local partner to support is super important. During Kumusha, Erina struggled simply to get spaces to host her events. And communication on the ground was tough. So... we got in contact with the Goethe Institute, not only because they could fund WLW, but also because they had local offices in some countries. They were clear that one of the GI goals was to bond with the Wikipedia community, to become frequent partners, and wikipedians to be an active part of the programming of GI centers. For us, that was a perfect fit. Wikipedians were getting friends and allies locally, that could host them, support them, communicate with them. And that worked. 2 years later, the 4 communities who worked on the first WLW are now partners with GI on a regular basis. They created that bond. For the second WLW, we wanted the teams to be able to also bond with GI, for mutual benefit. However, this is only feasible in countries where... GI have an office. In some countries, they have a full center. In some countries, they just have a desk somewhere. In some countries... they have no presence at all. The partnership can only reasonably take place in countries where the GI have a full center. So we also considered in which countries the GI had a full center... that was the case of Tanzania and Uganda. That was not the case for other countries we would also love to work. Note as well that in the case of Uganda, I also got in touch with the local Alliance Française. They are very keen to work with us as well, and actually are in the SAME building than GI. So... double the opportunities.

But roughly, that is the explanation of why 2 countries instead of 4. I would have loved Algeria... no GI there...

An element we found challenging in the first WLW was setting up the partnerships. Whilst I had originally in mind that the teams rather go and partner with GLAM-type of institutions (such as museums), it turned out that this is actually super difficult to do (there are limited institutions, they are often closed, they have very limited resources, and it takes forever to partner with public institutions because wikipedia is little known locally and there are very very few examples to show as successful GLAM projects in Africa. Usually, we are left with showing examples of such partnerships with huge museums in Europe, and that's really not suitable). Instead, local NGOs turned out to be very interested to work with the teams ! And many of them actually also seeked training. So whilst it was not initially planned in first WLW, the teams turned out to organize way more events and training sessions than we thought they would. Budget had not been originally planned for that so it was a bit challenging. Accordingly... we thought that given that this happened in the 4 initial countries... chance is that we would be facing similar situation in the 2 new ones considered. Accordingly, we changed slightly the output suggestions so as to acknowledge that events were more likely to happen than trying to spend huge amounts of energy to set up partnerships... in 6-8 months...
Rather... we hope that this time period will be the opportunity to increase visibility, train new people and kickstart partnerships.

Tracking articles was quite difficult in the first WLW. We decided to made it mandatory to use the outreach dashboard for participatory events (training, edit-a-thons). I actually really saw that one used during massive edit-a-thons quite recently and I thought... my my my... we've got to use that ! Given that we noticed the writing was mostly happening during events... (not at home), I guess the dashboard should be a good solution and naturally will make it possible to follow production in real time.
The other impacts will be tracked at regular intervals. For example, we would like that the teams and us worked at setting up a "list of contacts" (media, partners, friends...) to whom it is possible to send a newsletter or announcements. It is easy enough to check out that the list is growing over time. Regular skype meetings and use of collaborative tools (google docs... sorry :)) allow to check and follow identified partners, contacted partners, status etc. Isla and I have been working together and with others for 5 years now, only using online tools. There are many options. So I guess that means that measuring will be a regular activity. And can be reported here on in a quick mode on a "every 2 months basis".

Anthere (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments and Questions

Hi Friends, So glad you are taking the time to submit a proposal and continue your important work! I am encouraged by the success you have had with your events and work in the past. I wonder if you have considered asking volunteers who have been involved with your project for a while to advise on your project. This is a way to get information from people who have the experience with your project, and also get some of them more involved as they try their ideas!

Best of luck about GLAM initiatives. I know how challenging it can be to get into GLAM organizations. I do hope sometime in the future you find someone who can focus on GLAM institutions. Once one GLAM gets involved, you’ll have an example, and other GLAMs will want to be involved too! Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jackiekoerner - thank you for your comment and your wishes. We fully intend to introduce the teams to the original four country members once the project is confirmed and ask them to assist and support the new country teams. I like the idea of official mentors from previous teams and we will definitely be incorporating this into the project ;-). GLAM is pretty challenging everywhere, but in Africa with most GLAM institutions relying on what little Government funding they can get, it becomes extra so. The problem is never lack of enthusiasm by the GLAMS, but lack of resources, staff time and processes, such as digitisation, etc. Islahaddow (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wiki In Africa/Wiki Loves Women 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?	7.6
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	6.8
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe? Is the budget realistic/efficient ? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	6.7
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	6.9
Additional comments from the Committee: I like this approach to don't create simply content but also to build a local community The project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities. It has a potential for online impact and is probably sustainable as their experience from the first phase showed. This project generally has impact as it has been proven from previous events. However, I am indifferent about the model for running this event, using a person or two from a community without partnering with the entire group or community distorts group progress and community building. This project fits with the strategic priority of increasing diverse content and participation. Since African women are heavily underrepresented on Wikimedia projects, this project shall hopefully fix a part of the problem by increasing content about them. I am unsure about sustainability because there is not sufficient clarity in volunteer involvement from the Wikimedia communities in the two countries. It is possible that this project can be adapted in other countries in Africa if/when this project is successful. the African continent is certainly one of the top priorities. For this reason, initiatives in this part of the world are always welcomed. the applicant confuses the "problem" with the "activities". in the future, a clear picture should be made of what the problem is, how you want it to be resolved and how you will evaluate the success The impact of getting more people involved with and aware of Wikipedia outside of established communities is highly important to the Strategic Direction for the Movement. This project has been successful in the past, so they have the experience to continue moving forward with larger impact. The project is more iterative. The risks appear to be modest. The success can be measured - measures of success are provided in a marked improvement from the situation a year ago. The organizers haven't seemed to learn from previous pieces of advice from their grants, and this I fear may stall the scalability of the project. This is an iterative project that involves recruiting new volunteers and creating content related to underrepresented groups. The measures of success are a little ambitious, considering that the project is handled mainly by the leads in each country. In order to conduct meetups, maintain an fb page with good visibility etc, there has to be several people involved in the project at present. It could be hard to make the new recruits do the work, so I would be cautious while expecting the newer converts to do a lot of work. Measures of success are not in the cohesion with the sections "Success is achieved if local teams have" and "The project team will be successful if it has". it is necessary to provide clear and concrete measures of success The outcomes can be measured, by number of events, new editors, etc. But I think it is important to not just focus on the quantifiable aspects of this project. The social impact is great. This project focuses on developing a broader understanding and user base in some regions in Africa. This in itself is innovative because Wikipedia is not widely known there. This project team has been successful before and I am eager to hear about their successes, and hopefully success with GLAM institutions in Africa in the future. I think this project doesn't have clear targets for evaluating impact. Experienced users Th participants have ability to execute the project and necessary skills and experience. The timeline (8 months) and the budget are realistic. I think the countries in the grant have proven their ability to run campaigns and deserve a chance to seize this opportunity to sharpen their capabilities to grow. I am not in agreement with the current project plan due to past experiences, the contact persons for this projects have nothing to do with the budding Wikimedia Communities in the selected countries. This sends other messages around and invites questions to the starting group, I don't think its a good use of volunteer time have to explain to people why there is a project in the name of Wikimedia organised or led by somebody they don't know. If the project has to be completed in stipulated time, the project leaders will have to work beyond the usual 9-5 clock hours and be willing to tackle challenges in a time bound manner as and when they are faced at. The participants appear to have necessary skills and experience, and I think they are motivated mostly by their passion to the Wikimedia mission than with financial motives. The budget is a bit on the higher side, so I would suggest to cut down the part about online campaign etc, and focus more on Wikipedia-centric stuff. I would suggest working with a small group of Wikimedians at a time, mentoring them with follow up events rather than conducting large events where participants end up attending because of the freebies. the budget does not provide enough detail. for example, how many months of work are paid. whether taxes are included, what is their amount, how did this figure come about? Is the expensive administration necessary for the successful implementation of this project? how is the selection of paid workers done? how the institution for WiR was selected I think the budget is thorough and clear. This project team has experience doing this type of outreach and project planning, and I trust they have the skills and experience to increase the scale of the project. This team will spend 46,305 Euros, but they don't have any leaders who have many financial experiences. I worry about that. There is evidence of the community engagement. The project does support diversity. Projects like these often breaks communities or waste a lot of time in trying to resolve conflicts, the best opportunity here is for these communities to apply for and manage their grants while learning to delegate and empower their communities. The target community is well defined, and plans of engagement are well-defined. There is sufficient community support, and the project supports diversity of participation. I'm glad to see that the project supports diversity and works to increase the representation. It is necessary to ensure continuity even after the project is completed. there is a stable community support The proposal has very clear ways the organizers have engaged with the community before. They know what has worked for the communities they previously established, and what has failed. This shows they are flexible and willing to diversify their methods to fit the community, in order to benefit the goal of the project: to bring in more people in Africa to the Wikipedia community. As per other projects, I would appreciate how the budget is calculated, mainly about the cost of project management. Ho much time? How much is the cost per hours? This is mandatory for any project management. The project is much better now than what was proposed a year ago. The project goals changed from maintaining the status quo to expanding WLW activities to new countries, which is a better use of the WMF money. So, I can support it now. I will only approve if the communities or countries in question will apply for and manage their resources towards the project and fall on the organisers or other countries who have hosted this before for advice. I recommend funding with revised budget involving less of marketing expenses. It might be good to revisit the timeline and break it down to smaller steps. The measures of success should be more objective than casual mentions like "more participants", "more support", "more training" etc. The possibility of bringing in additional volunteers for leading the events should be considered. I generally support the project. what worries me and what I would like to see that it has changed is that the definition of the measure of success has changed, the explanation in the part of the budget related to administrative costs (including management) as well as their justification. If I only had $100,000 to fund projects, this one would be one I would fund. This group has a proven track record and this is a part of the world where we need to get more people involved with Wikipedia. I would love to see them add intentional directed focus on getting GLAM institutions involved instead of just getting contacts established. I know how hard organizing and making paths are where there are none can be, but once GLAMs are involved, the efforts and costs could potentially decrease for overall project (as GLAMs may help plan and host events and recruit people). I think this project needs: More creative. List of unit price in the budget. Many clear KPIs. Leaders who have many financial experiences.

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.

Round 1 2018 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, 46305 Euros / $56,964 USD

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support Wiki Loves Women 2018. The committee has requested that funding be made contingent on three conditions:

• The candidates listed as leads for both Uganda and Tanzania are both very experienced with editing Wikipedia. In most cases, the success of WiRs in the movement has depended on their pre-existing expertise in writing articles on Wikipedia, and conversely, previous reporting submitted by the grantees has indicated that it can be problematic to place inexperienced editors in WiR roles. Consequently, funding is contingent on making sure that appropriate training is provided for WiRs to ensure proper understanding of licensing, NPOV and other core skills on which success on Wikipedia depends.
• Because the coaching and mentorship aspects of this project have been highlighted as a key aspect of its impact potential, the committee would like you to set and report on learning targets for these activities, with reporting to include direct feedback from participants
• Project Grant funding for the components of the budget specific to Uganda and Tanzania are contingent upon final confirmation in each country that this project plan is preferable to them as compared to seeking independent Rapid Grants.

Prior to finalizing a contract, we also 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 funding for WiR activities to be short-term. Grant funding that the Wikimedia Foundation provides for WiRs is not intended to support ongoing workflows, but to leverage the partnership to build a sustainable platform that ensures outcomes long after the WiR has completed their service. Their work should secure long-term outcomes that do not depend on ongoing grant funding.

New grantees are invited to participate in a Storytelling Workshop on June 5 and a publicly streamed Project Showcase on June 14. You can learn more and sign up to participate here: Telling your story.

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.