[Wikimedia-l] last days to submit your proposals for GLAM Wiki Conference

[Evelin Heidel]

Hello everyone!

This is a reminder that you have till *August 20 *to submit a session
proposal for GLAM Wiki Conference 2023, which will happen November 16-18 in
Montevideo, Uruguay.

You will find more information on how to submit a session here:
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/06/26/call-for-proposals-open-glam-wiki-conference/

We have already started to send out emails to people that applied for a
scholarship communicating our decision. Please we kindly ask everyone to be
patient - this is a process that takes time and you will be hearing from us
in the coming weeks.

Looking forward to your proposals!

-- 
Evelin Heidel
Encargada de Programas
Wikimedistas de Uruguay


*Conocé más >>  *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JF6ESZABNL35TIQDZI2ALXUHC572PLXA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Steven Walling]

Biyanto,

Thanks for your reply on this, very much appreciate the context and more
information.

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:41 AM Biyanto  wrote:


> From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund was designed as an
> experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of knowledge resources on
> underrepresented topics that can then be used to strengthen content on the
> Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project with a limited pool of
> funds, our intention is to experiment with different approaches, and see
> where we can learn what works. The size of the initial Equity Fund, $4.5
> million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year operating budget,
> when the Foundation had a budget underrun
> 
> due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
> Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
> replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
>  for community members and
> Wikimedia groups.
>

This budget context is pretty critical context, and as far as I can tell
isn't clearly communicated on Meta or in the blog posts about the program
anywhere. Is it somewhere already and I have missed it? I would suggest
putting something almost exactly like this in an FAQ, because your
statement here is the clearest thing I've read to date on it.

Ultimately I think to the community of editors and donors it isn't super
convincing to say "we allocated this $4.5 million (which, to the average
person who doesn't read our global movement budget and grant reports,
sounds like an enormous sum of money) and therefore we have to stick to
that plan despite the fact that we can't measure the impact of this work at
all". In any healthy functioning organization, if you couldn't get results
from investing a few million dollars, you'd change the plan and consider
moving the funds elsewhere after a year.


> I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
> to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
> new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
> with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
> stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
> institutions working to create knowledge.
>
> One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
> Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees:
> AMAN  and Project Multatuli
> . I am coming from Indonesia where
> indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
> Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
> enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
> Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
> peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
> toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
> words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
> indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
> By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
> the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
> indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
> journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
> and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
> journalists.
>

It would help if the blog post about learnings from the first year (
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/04/12/what-weve-learned-from-the-equity-funds-first-round/)
and a first year report on Meta acknowledged the major gap in ability to
measure impact.

None of the previous communication really acknowledged this issue in any
serious way. If the folks working on this at the WMF and the committee do
agree it is an area for improvement, we should have said that in the
communication about evaluating the first year and talked openly with the
community (i.e. on wiki ideally) about potential strategies for improving
the measurability of the program. Instead the blog post pretty much ignored
any objections about the effectiveness and impact of the program, and just
talked about visibility into the work.

Examples like the one you gave really help, because it points to a clear
theory of change (we fund investment in potential source material on
underrepresented topics, Wikipedians use those sources eventually) that
could actually be measurable. Today the time horizon might be very long,
but maybe that's okay.

I’m also sharing details about the relationships that we’re building in the
> movement with some of our other new 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Andreas Kolbe]

I confess I am feeling a little conflicted. For example, I find it hard to
begrudge kids in Dominica the chance to develop some digital skills. If the
money were used effectively to that end, I would be very happy to see that.

The US and UK projects I'm struggling more with. You are telling users in
places like South Africa, India and Brazil that their money "keeps
Wikipedia operational" and are then spending well over a million of it on
first-world projects that have absolutely nothing to do with that (not to
mention spending almost a million on just *two* executives' severance).

Almost any charitable educational use in India or South Africa would serve
a more pressing need than the projects the Knowledge Equity Fund has funded
to date
 in
the US.

Of course you can argue that the WMF is a US "citizen", and a good
corporate citizen should do good in its own society. However, given the
difference in living standards, and the urgency with which money is
demanded in countries vastly poorer than the US or UK, I find this argument
inufficient to dispel my concern.

Andreas

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:59 AM The Cunctator  wrote:

> This is all extremely helpful information. I am grateful for the with you
> have done and I think this is an excellent project.
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 6:41 AM Biyanto  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> My name is Biyanto Rebin, and I am one of the community members who is
>> part of the Knowledge Equity Fund Committee. I joined the Equity Fund
>> Committee last year because I believe that our movement needs support from
>> other groups and organizations who are working on free knowledge to make
>> sure that we can address knowledge equity, which is stated in the movement
>> strategy.
>>
>> The grants support those groups that are being left behind or
>> under-resourced, as we believe that supporting those particular entities
>> will increase the quality of knowledge overall and contents on the
>> Wikimedia projects in the future.
>>
>> It is not true that these grants are completely unrelated to Wikimedia
>> or the Wikimedia projects. From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund
>> was designed as an experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of
>> knowledge resources on underrepresented topics that can then be used to
>> strengthen content on the Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project
>> with a limited pool of funds, our intention is to experiment with different
>> approaches, and see where we can learn what works. The size of the initial
>> Equity Fund, $4.5 million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year
>> operating budget, when the Foundation had a budget underrun
>> 
>> due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
>> Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
>> replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
>>  for community members and
>> Wikimedia groups.
>>
>> I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
>> to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
>> new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
>> with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
>> stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
>> institutions working to create knowledge.
>>
>> One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
>> Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees:
>> AMAN  and Project Multatuli
>> . I am coming from Indonesia where
>> indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
>> Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
>> enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
>> Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
>> peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
>> toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
>> words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
>> indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
>> By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
>> the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
>> indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
>> journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
>> and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
>> journalists.
>>
>> I’m also sharing details about the relationships that we’re building in
>> the 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[The Cunctator]

This is all extremely helpful information. I am grateful for the with you
have done and I think this is an excellent project.

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 6:41 AM Biyanto  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> My name is Biyanto Rebin, and I am one of the community members who is
> part of the Knowledge Equity Fund Committee. I joined the Equity Fund
> Committee last year because I believe that our movement needs support from
> other groups and organizations who are working on free knowledge to make
> sure that we can address knowledge equity, which is stated in the movement
> strategy.
>
> The grants support those groups that are being left behind or
> under-resourced, as we believe that supporting those particular entities
> will increase the quality of knowledge overall and contents on the
> Wikimedia projects in the future.
>
> It is not true that these grants are completely unrelated to Wikimedia or
> the Wikimedia projects. From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund was
> designed as an experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of knowledge
> resources on underrepresented topics that can then be used to strengthen
> content on the Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project with a
> limited pool of funds, our intention is to experiment with different
> approaches, and see where we can learn what works. The size of the initial
> Equity Fund, $4.5 million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year
> operating budget, when the Foundation had a budget underrun
> 
> due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
> Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
> replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
>  for community members and
> Wikimedia groups.
>
> I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
> to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
> new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
> with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
> stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
> institutions working to create knowledge.
>
> One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
> Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees:
> AMAN  and Project Multatuli
> . I am coming from Indonesia where
> indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
> Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
> enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
> Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
> peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
> toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
> words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
> indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
> By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
> the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
> indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
> journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
> and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
> journalists.
>
> I’m also sharing details about the relationships that we’re building in
> the movement with some of our other new grantee.
>
> Black Cultural Archives : Given BCA’s
> focus, we have connected them with Wikimedia UK, Wiki Library User Group
> and Whose Knowledge to help them better understand how to connect their
> work and archives with the Wikimedia projects.
>
> Create Caribbean Research Institute :
> As the first digital humanities centre in the Caribbean, Create Caribbean
> has natural alignment with Wiki Cari UG, as well as Noircir, Whose
> Knowledge, Projet:Université de Guyane, and WikiMujeres. We also plan to
> connect them to present or speak at Wiki Con North America.
>
> Criola 
>
> Criola is a civil society organization dedicated to advocating for the
> rights of Black women in Brazilian society. We have connected them with Whose
> Knowledge, WikiMujeres, Mujeres (mulheres) latino americanas in Wikimedia,
> and we will be connecting them with Mais_Teoria_da_Historia Na Brasil.
>
> Data for Black Lives 
>
> Given D4BL’s focus in the US, we have connected them with AfroCROWD and
> Black Lunch Table.
>
> Filipino American National Historical Society
> : FANHS is focused on Filipino American

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Biyanto]

Hi all,

My name is Biyanto Rebin, and I am one of the community members who is part
of the Knowledge Equity Fund Committee. I joined the Equity Fund Committee
last year because I believe that our movement needs support from other
groups and organizations who are working on free knowledge to make sure
that we can address knowledge equity, which is stated in the movement
strategy.

The grants support those groups that are being left behind or
under-resourced, as we believe that supporting those particular entities
will increase the quality of knowledge overall and contents on the
Wikimedia projects in the future.

It is not true that these grants are completely unrelated to Wikimedia or
the Wikimedia projects. From the beginning, the Knowledge Equity Fund was
designed as an experiment: a pilot fund to improve the pool of knowledge
resources on underrepresented topics that can then be used to strengthen
content on the Wikimedia projects. Because it is a pilot project with a
limited pool of funds, our intention is to experiment with different
approaches, and see where we can learn what works. The size of the initial
Equity Fund, $4.5 million, was from the Foundation’s 2019-2020 fiscal year
operating budget, when the Foundation had a budget underrun

due to COVID-19 and set aside funds for this pilot. No new funds from the
Foundation’s revenue have been added to the Fund, and it is not meant to
replace or compete with the other and larger grant programs
 for community members and
Wikimedia groups.

I understand it is frustrating that we cannot yet measure impact directly
to the Wikimedia projects. This is an area that we hope to improve in this
new round, and to do so we are connecting each of our new grantees directly
with groups in the Wikimedia movement. We believe that we cannot build
stronger projects without building and strengthening alliances with other
institutions working to create knowledge.

One example I can explain using my local context is with Indonesian
Wikipedia, and how we are connecting them with two of our new grantees: AMAN
 and Project Multatuli
. I am coming from Indonesia where
indigenous topics are still marginalized issues and they are left behind.
Sure, there has been some improvement for the last decade, but it is not
enough. AMAN has an initiative to build an Indigenous Peoples Glossary, so
Indonesian people in general can benefit from this resource. As indigenous
peoples are marginalized, sometimes we still use some insensitive words
toward them, and even some Indonesian Wikipedia articles still use these
words. We cannot rely solely on resources that are coming from outside of
indigenous people realm to define who they are, what we should call them.
By having this initiative, we firmly believe our community can later use
the Indigenous Peoples Glossary as one of useful resources for Indonesian
indigenous people related topics. Project Multatuli is a non-profit
journalism organization working with indigenous women topics for this grant
and they also can collaborate to empower more indigenous people as citizen
journalists.

I’m also sharing details about the relationships that we’re building in the
movement with some of our other new grantee.

Black Cultural Archives : Given BCA’s
focus, we have connected them with Wikimedia UK, Wiki Library User Group
and Whose Knowledge to help them better understand how to connect their
work and archives with the Wikimedia projects.

Create Caribbean Research Institute :
As the first digital humanities centre in the Caribbean, Create Caribbean
has natural alignment with Wiki Cari UG, as well as Noircir, Whose
Knowledge, Projet:Université de Guyane, and WikiMujeres. We also plan to
connect them to present or speak at Wiki Con North America.

Criola 

Criola is a civil society organization dedicated to advocating for the
rights of Black women in Brazilian society. We have connected them with Whose
Knowledge, WikiMujeres, Mujeres (mulheres) latino americanas in Wikimedia,
and we will be connecting them with Mais_Teoria_da_Historia Na Brasil.

Data for Black Lives 

Given D4BL’s focus in the US, we have connected them with AfroCROWD and
Black Lunch Table.

Filipino American National Historical Society
: FANHS is focused on Filipino American
heritage, and as members of the diaspora we are connecting them with the
PhilWiki Community, Wiki Advocates of Philippines and Wiki Libraries User
Group.

If you have other ideas for how we can improve, please reach out and let us
know. Our email is equityf...@wikimedia.org.

Best,

Biyanto Rebin

(committee member, Knowledge 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania - Korea editathon will happing today's lunch

[Youngjin Ko]

This email is send behalf of user:Trainholic


Hello all,

Our famous JinJinJaRa Guy will host the “welcome to Korea” K-editathon
session in TODAY at 12:45-14:00 at room 309! We'll be chatting casually
about Korea, editing related articles in any language.
We'll have some delicious traditional Korean sweets, gifts, and tourist
information to share.

See you there.
-- 
User:*Youngjin

Korean Wikipedia Administrator/Bureaucrat/Oversight
Member of Wikimedia Korea

https://w.wiki/9aU
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NOYJOC54YI6OJ4VV63DGXFSAMSZSUIVD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Nathan]

Steven,

I've been thinking about your points here and I wonder if it's worth
zooming out a little bit on what Wikimedia is trying to achieve. The
classic slogan of making the sum of all human knowledge accessible to all
is an incredibly broad and ambitious goal. Since the WMF was founded, the
primary implementation of that goal has been the various projects (anchored
by Wikipedia's, the initial innovation). But how convinced are we that this
is and will always remain the best way to achieve WMF's actual mission?

If we're completely sure that any distraction away from the WMF projects,
and the model of collecting and distributing knowledge that they represent,
would be harmful to that goal... then I would agree that the approach
taken by funding these grants is taking us down the wrong road.

If we admit to ourselves instead that Wikimedia's projects represent a
great model now, and hopefully for many years to come, but that more or
better ways of achieving the mission may surface... Then perhaps its
worthwhile to invest persistently in supporting other approaches, to create
opportunities for the same innovation and discovery behind Wikipedia to
uncover what model may best meet future moments in delivering knowledge to
all.

~Nate

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 1:08 PM Steven Walling 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34 AM Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steven,
>>
>> If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a
>> topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as
>> such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any
>> organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.
>>
>> If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges
>> into the project we would actually be missing so much.
>>
>> I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the
>> Movement.
>>
>> As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your
>> point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are
>> supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia
>> Organisations.
>>
>> @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund
>> project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships
>> with us?
>>
>> Thanks a lot :)
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>
> Christophe,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate
> the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the
> boundary of acceptable initiatives end?
>
> For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to
> fight climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the
> stability of the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering
> their time. Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase
> the pool of potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit
> alternative to Starlink, to increase global Internet access to make it
> possible for more people to edit the projects.
>
> The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are
> funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to
> support the projects.
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>> This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog
>> post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has objected
>> to Knowledge Equity Fund. The issue is not community oversight via
>> committees or visibility into the work. It?s that the work had no
>> demonstrable impact on Wikimedia projects whatsoever. We all should want
>> the projects to be more equitable when it comes to representing
>> knowledge?it's perfectly aligned with the Wikimedia mission. This program
>> is doing absolutely nothing to accomplish that.
>>
>> If we want to impact knowledge equity, why not say, let people working on
>> underserved languages and topics apply for expense reimbursement when
>> they've bought access to sources or equipment to create media for Commons?
>> Or fund a huge series of edit-a-thons on BIPOC topics?
>>
>> If we want free knowledge created by and for people with less systemic
>> privilege in the world, direct grants (given to actual Wikimedians) is
>> something that the Foundation is uniquely placed to do, as opposed to
>> generic lump sum grants for addressing the root causes of social injustice
>> and inequity. While those are laudable problems to solve, they are not in
>> fact our organization?s mission and what donors think they are funding when
>> they give us money.
>>
>> A second Knowledge Equity round that fails to specifically address how
>> each grantee and their work is going to help Wikimedia projects accomplish
>> our mission is a huge misstep and a violation of the trust that the
>> community and donors place in the Foundation to disburse funds. I fully
>> agree that we should find ways 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[Samuel Klein]

++.  Anything we can learn + apply from Outreachy (and their own community
of mentors, alums, and practitioners!) would be wonderful.
Their impact per unit of funding seems, at very casual inspection, well
ahead of all comparable initiatives.  And we could even fund them directly,
who have often helped us in turn. ;)

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 12:13 AM Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:23 PM Steven Walling
>  wrote:
>
> > With the money allocated to Knowledge Equity in the last couple years,
> we could have hired
> > at least a couple more software engineers to do work like fulfill
> community wishlist requests.
>
> I disagree with that framing. Wikimedia Foundation, even with reduced
> fundraising goals, is a very well-endowed organization that can easily
> shift more of its existing effort towards community wishlist requests.
> _All_ areas in which it spends money are deserving of healthy
> scrutiny, not just this new program. I feel it's best to evaluate this
> program on its own merits -- and to make a separate argument regarding
> the community wishlist & prioritization of software engineering
> ventures.
>
> To me, the question with these grants is whether there's a plausible
> theory of change that ties them back to the Wikimedia mission and
> movement. I share some skepticism about broad objectives around
> "improving quality of sources about X" without any _obvious and
> direct_ connection to the movement's work (i.e. concrete commitments
> about licensing and availability of information, or collaboration with
> Wikimedians). The Borealis Journalism Fund grant report [1] explicitly
> states:
>
> # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages: 0
> # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects: 0
> Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects: 0
>
> (There are qualifiers in the report, but frankly, they're not very
> plausible ones.)
>
> I see a lot of value in WMF having new connections with these grantees
> -- these are organizations Wikimedia _should_ have a relationship
> with. But do we best accomplish that by directly funding their
> operations? This statement from the latest announcement stands out to
> me:
>
> > The Equity Fund Committee [...] have also connected each of these
> grantees with regional
> > and relevant partners in the Wikimedia movement, including local and
> established
> > movement affiliates who can support knowledge equity work and help
> grantees learn about
> > how to connect back to the work of free knowledge on the Wikimedia
> projects.
>
> That's great, and I look forward to hearing what comes from these
> connections. I do worry a bit about slipping into a transactional
> framework -- "we give you support for your core mission, and to
> maintain good relations with us, you have some meetings with friendly
> Wikimedians in your area". Many grant-giving organizations tend to
> adopt transactional frameworks, sometimes overtly, sometimes without
> even realizing it. In the worst case, the grantee experiences it as a
> chore -- a checklist item to complete to apply for the next round of
> funding. Not saying that's where this program is at, just that it's
> something I would suggest watching out for.
>
> Personally, I see potential in the direction of well-scoped
> fellowships/residencies/internships paid by WMF, where both parties
> understand fully that engagement with the Wikimedia movement is part
> of what they're signing up for. There are pitfalls here as well:
> avoiding paid editing; making sure that the fellows themselves are
> diverse, etc. But these issues seem "closer to the metal" of
> Wikimedia's work, i.e. "the right kinds of of problems".
>
> There's a lot of institutional history to look back on & learn from,
> from GLAM residencies to WMF's internal fellowship program which you,
> Steven, went through so many years ago. I'd also encourage a close
> look at Outreachy, who have done amazing work getting diverse new
> contributors to join open source & open science projects. And that may
> be what you mean with "try less controversial methods to improve
> knowledge equity", but I feel this should be entirely about
> effectiveness and mission alignment, not about avoiding controversy.
>
> In general, I'd love to hear more from both the staff and community
> members on the committee how they came to their funding decisions
> (i.e. what set the successful grantees apart from the unsuccessful
> ones, and what theory of change animated the decisions), and where
> they'd like to see the program go in future.
>
> Warmly,
> Erik
>
> [1]
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Knowledge_Equity_Fund_%28Round_1%29_-_Borealis_philanthropy_report.pdf
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public