Grants talk:PEG

Hi,

Does the Grants Program only fund Wikimedia-related work, or anything that's (broadly) mission-aligned? And by mission-aligned I mean anything that will result in the sharing of free knowledge (in reference to the WMF mission). So, for instance, will you be willing to consider funding the creation and/or distribution of Khan Academy educational videos in rural Africa? Abbasjnr (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this question! The answer is: "it depends". While most projects are expected to have a direct bearing not only on our general mission but also on our concrete strategic goals, it is not inconceivable that in some circumstances, projects that are farther afield may be perceived to have a capacity-building or infrastructural benefit for later work more closely aligned with our strategic goals.

To your specific example, I don't think we would be interested in funding the distribution of Khan Academy educational videos in rural Africa. The reason is that there is not particular reason for us, the Wikimedia movement, to be funding this. This resource is well-understood, is already funded by several large (larger than us) foundations, and is being distributed in several different projects, themselves funded by other funders as well. In other words, the added value of WMF as a funder here is not obvious, and we are looking for opportunities we are more uniquely situated to fund. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Please do not edit this page."

I think this is a very un-wiki thing to say. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, it is a very anti-wiki thing to say. However, it is also the right thing to say in this instance for this page.

The reason is we are working hard to make this and other grant program information pages accessible to everyone in their own language, and edits to the English original disrupt the translations integrity and have the potential to add unnecessary work to our (overworked, volunteer) translators.

Additionally, there is the potential wasted work of making a change that is not, in fact, compatible with what WMF is willing to do (since these pages are describing the reality of a program with certain rules and requirements), having translators pick up the change, only to realize the work was wasted when WMF staff needs to revert the changes on the English original.

That is why we ask all changes to be made on the talk page. If they make sense and are consistent with the actual program, WMF staff will effect them on the page itself. Also, we are likely to buffer several minor changes (such as improved phrasing) and make them all at once, again to make it easier on the volunteer translators. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it better just to ask TAs not to approve major changes without asking PEG-guys? --Base (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. Not-approving changes is not as good a solution as discouraging editing on a page that exists to communicate official policy made at WMF. This talk page is a good venue to receive feedback and suggestions for changes. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Take no notice of Bartov. It's out of line to be going around telling the community what and what not to edit. Tony (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Are translations not normally permalinked to a specific version of the original? If so, then subsequent edits to the original are captured in the history, and can be used to update the translation when time permits. On the other hand edits to a page produced by translation could certainly wreak havoc. The better approach may be to stick to appending content at the end of the translation, rather than editing inside it. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Decision-making process

Hi all. I'm rather worried about the decision-making process that the GAC/PEG go through. As far as I understand it, the GAC is a volunteer body that commits to providing comments on the talk page of PEG proposals, and then a single WMF staff member (or maybe now two staff members) makes the decision about whether the PEG proposal is funded or not. As much as I respect Asaf (who is absolutely fantastic and amazing), I don't think that he should be the sole decision-maker here, even if his decision is based on the GAC's comments. I wouldn't want to see anyone put in that position. Contrast this to the way that the FDC works, which consists of a group of wikimedians collectively providing a recommendation to the WMF board (again a group of wikimedians) for review and decision - that involves far more people in actually making the decision, rather than it coming down to a single person. Given the scale of the GAC grants compared to the FDC allocations, the decisions probably can't be recommended to the WMF board to make, but I would really like to see the GAC collectively provide recommendations to the WMF staff about what should be done rather than leaving the decision completely to them to decide on, so that the decisions clearly have broad support of a group rather than being the decision of an individual.

(If I've misunderstood anything about how the GAC works, then please accept my apologies and correct me here.)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Mike, thank you for your concern. One could go down that pathway, but a key advantage of the current GAC system is that it delivers balanced, reasonable outcomes in its assessment of applications, with minimal overheads in terms of its volunteer input. Actually, I think the staff need to be, and are, very careful in weighing competing issues. The FDC volunteer setup is expensive, involves elections and appointments, and meets only twice a year; and the ED has raised issues with its composition in terms of potential COI, although it's very hard to get the formula right in such a huge organisation. A disadvantage of the current GAC system is that more volunteer input would improve the system; but I'm yet to be convinced that making our role more exclusive, more official, more powerful, would end up in greater balance and value for money. Not at the moment, anyway.

With respect to Asaf, Alex, and the other grantmaking staff who have input into the PEG process, we should be pleased with their skill and dedication. Although I sometimes disagree with Asaf, that might well be my lack of balance: overall, I've come to trust their judgement. The questions they ask on talk pages are balanced, reasonable, and usually probing, with a professional insight I sometimes envy.

So while your point might need to be revisited as the system evolves, my feeling is that the system is OK at the moment. Looking at the outcomes of the current system, are there decisions that concern you? Tony (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Thanks for your reply. :-) There are different models that follow the principles but differ from that used by the FDC that could work better in this situation - for example, agreeing on recommendations via telecon rather than in-person deliberations (something that's not possible for the FDC due to the complexity of the FDC proposals and the need to consider the entire entity, but something that could work well for the GAC). I'd agree that the lighter selection process for the GAC is also very much suitable for it, although I wonder if something more like the enwp arbcom elections might be better suited. I won't comment on the ED's issue that you mention, aside from to say that I disagree with them. I haven't looked through the PEG decisions in detail, so I won't comment on that now - what I'm worried about here is more the general setup. Imagine if Asaf moved on and was replaced by someone that wasn't quite so amazing - would you still feel comfortable with the current framework in that situation? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

One has trust in more grantmaking staff than Asaf alone. Elections would make it all more political and would come at considerable cost – volunteers would have to organise them; there are inherent distortions in every voting system; and decisions are more likely to be politicised. Let's carefully consider those downsides over the current system, for which you don't point to decisions that could have been improved. Tony (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:WMF grants by chapter empty

Most categories in this category are empty; the same can be said of Category:WMF grantees. It seems some categorisation massacre happened. --Nemo 08:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nemo. We realized this as well and are working to fix it. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)