Well, you could create a guideline that said "In the interest of innovation, we should try and fund a diversity of projects" and then with the community hash out what dimensions you care about for diversity in this context, and how far from equality you are happy to go without artificial interference, and then what interference should happen if you go outside that boundary.
Let's say we've decided that we care about a diversity in where project leads come from. Then you'd create a way to record from where successful projects are from, and if there is a lack of diversity then this will be obvious - like how it works with rotating Wikimania around different continents: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/past I actually imagine that while this list would rarely be empty, the individual items on it would be burned through very fast; it'd be like the front page of Reddit. Most projects would be looking for small amounts of money, so they'd either get fully funded in hours, or are shown to have a low conversion rate and get kicked back down the queue - unless we're holding them there because we think funding them is critical. Also presumably we'd have an empirically derived "cut-off" conversion rate; if after x thousand views, fewer than 0.???% of viewers donate on a proposed project then it gets removed from the queue. If there are no projects in the queue then we don't show any banners at all. So if people are complaining that we show too many banners, they can instead try and quantify how much by arguing to raise this cut-off rate by a certain amount. *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 16:24, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
