In your scheme, items would not get moved up to be considered if they are not popular enough, right? From my experience working on wikimedia global committees, it would be likely that the volume of requests would be much larger than the capacity of the wikimedia movement to evaluate them. People join the movement primarily to create content with a smaller part being willing to do administrative website work. And an even smaller group being willing to do work around evaluation. Reader come to read content.
So well populated parts of the movement would have a huge advantage over less populated areas. Right now a small user group has a fair chance of getting funds to do a project that might be over shadowed by larger groups that had a constant flow of requests coming in. How do you propose that we make sure that funds are give out in a way that supports more diversity not less? Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Edward Saperia <edsape...@gmail.com> wrote: > Of course you're very correct that there are many projects sitting around > asking for scrutiny - the difference here is the (potential of) funding > would be default yes instead of default no, with the discussion just around > the priority. I expect that would attract a lot more attention very quickly > indeed. > > *Edward Saperia* > email <edsape...@gmail.com> • facebook <http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> > • > twitter <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572 > 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG > > On 25 February 2015 at 15:38, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm pretty concerned that the systematic biases in the wikimedia movement > > would be continued if there was no organized effort to do a comprehensive > > review of all proposals to see where we are lacking diversity. I'm in > favor > > of having more focused funding calls like the Inspire Gender Gap > campaign. > > > > A large part of the work of the community grant committees..IEG, PEG, > > FDC...is evaluating the feasibility of the projects, the impact of work, > > and giving feedback. This work needs the assistance of paid staff to make > > sure all the information needed to make decision is available. Then > > volunteers to look at the information and give a recommendation. I'm not > > clear on how the work flow you suggest would get the important aspects of > > the work accomplished. > > > > I'm not opposed to a group outside of WMF taking over this type of work. > > But there was a huge vacuum in the movement around Learning and > Evaluation > > until recently. The WMF began doing this work for lack of anyone else > > doing it well. At this point, I can't see an independent organization > being > > feasible. > > > > Instead of small Project and Event Grants, micro grants, or travel > grants, > > many organizations are asking for unrestricted funds to pay for staff, > > offices, equipment, specialized staff for software development. They want > > to have funds to make long term plans with GLAM partner organizations. > The > > evaluation of these large grant requests is extremely time consuming. Our > > current method of asking a group of volunteers to be available to this > type > > of work a set period of time, and having it also open for other community > > comment seems to the best approach to make sure every project get a fair > > look. > > > > Today there are dozens of ideas for projects on meta waiting for people > to > > comment and offer assistance of some type. I'm in favor of doing more to > > encourage members of the wikimedia movement to come to meta and join in > > working on them. > > > > IdeaLab. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Ideas > > > > Sydney Poore > > User:FloNight > > > > Wikipedian in Residence > > at Cochrane Collaboration > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Edward Saperia <edsape...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > This reminds me of a slightly heretical idea I had a while ago while > > > thinking about crowdfunding and WMF fundraising... > > > > > > Currently the WMF raises money via site banners, and spends these on > > > programmes and disburses them via grants, which go to all kinds of > > projects > > > - education, outreach, development, Wikimedians in Residence, etc etc. > > > Despite the relative openness of the WMF as an organisation, this is > > still > > > a very centralised, top down method of handling (the disbursement of) > > these > > > funds. If we're truly going down the "everything open, everything > > community > > > driven" route, the more consistent approach would be something like the > > > following: > > > > > > The community submit funding proposals for projects they want to do, of > > any > > > kind. Each has a campaign page with a description of the project (much > > like > > > a kickstarter page, with project milestones, background, team etc), a > > > monetary target they're trying to raise, and a banner design. These > > > projects compete for advertising time on the site banner via a > community > > > curated queue; When they're at the top of this queue, they're displayed > > on > > > the banners, which lead to their project pages; if they hit their > > > fundraising target, they're taken down; if they have a low conversion > > rate > > > (% of views that lead to donations), they're demoted down the queue > and, > > if > > > persistently low, rejected entirely. > > > > > > The criteria for prioritisation of projects in the queue and the > vetting > > of > > > project quality is done organically by the community, who would create > > and > > > evolve guidelines and policies. The actual handling of the queue could > be > > > done algorithmically via an openly editable algorithm, or even done > > > manually like with e.g. WP:ITN - you'd just need a widget that tells > you > > > how much a given project has raised so far and what the conversion rate > > is. > > > If the community is concerned about people being shown too many > banners, > > we > > > dial down the number of people being shown banners, or raise the bar in > > > terms of acceptable conversion rates. > > > > > > If a project raises money and is ultimately considered a failure, then > > > hopefully the community will learn from this and provide more support / > > be > > > more careful with that kind of project in the future. However, one > hopes > > > that this will also allow for bolder project ideas to get off the > ground, > > > and also allow for a much larger amount of small funding to go to many > > > small projects, as there is no centralised grants body that has to > > process > > > them all. > > > > > > In order to pay for its own programmes, then, the WMF itself would have > > to > > > submit projects into this queue. Nobody would have to go to any > > centralised > > > body for money - all funds would be raised and disbursed via this one > > > channel. Operationally I suppose the WMF would provide the > infrastructure > > > to actually receive and send out the money. > > > > > > You could even start getting clever with e.g. showing different > campaigns > > > to readers from different geographical regions, or particular campaigns > > to > > > readers looking at articles from particular wikipedia categories, and I > > > imagine that kind of thing would start to evolve on its own. > > > > > > It really struck me that the discussions around the centralnotice > > > fundraising banners fell into a classic pattern; one centralised team > > doing > > > their best, but being overwhelmed by feedback from a large community. > > This > > > model puts all this attention to good use. > > > > > > *Edward Saperia* > > > Conference Director for Wikimania 2014 <http://www.wikimanialondon.org > > > > > email <edsape...@gmail.com> • facebook < > > http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> > > > • > > > twitter <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572 > > > 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG > > > > > > On 24 February 2015 at 18:54, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Austin Hair <adh...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > With more and more Wikimedians engaging in crowdfunding, I suppose > we > > > > > can talk about whether the mailing list for Wikimedia movement > > > > > organization is the place to advertise in this way. For my part, I > > > > > don't think a simple (i.e., without any additional context) "please > > > > > check out this Indiegogo" is any different from "hey, check out my > > > > > blog," so when the last one came through the queue I rejected it > > > > > without much thought. It certainly wasn't done with any prejudice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > For my part, I always like to see crowdfunding pitches from > > > > Wikimedians. There haven't been *that* many of them (maybe 8 or 10?), > > > > and so far they've all (that I've seen) come from prolific > > > > contributors. > > > > > > > > These crowdfunding pitches generally take a lot more effort to put > > > > together than a blog post does, and they are also easy and satisfying > > > > to act on. If I can take 3 minutes and a few dollars to > simultaneously > > > > say thanks to a great contributor and help them make even better > > > > contributions, I'm grateful for that opportunity. > > > > > > > > -Sage > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
