Wikiversity:Curation of courses and resources on Wikiversity

Open call for Individual Engagement Grants

Hey folks! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals from March 14 - April 12, 2016 to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

• Submit a grant request or draft your proposal in IdeaLab
• Get help with your proposal in an upcoming Hangout session
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants

Also accepting candidates to join the IEG Committee through March 25th.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 23:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The following proposal is a response to the above announcement and RFP.

Proposal contents

We have created a group of participants, called v:Wikiversity:Curators to help with special projects including maintaining and restoring resources and courses. We need to find ways to recruit more volunteers for this user category, train them on how to curate projects already found that are in need, and to find other courses and resources on Wikiversity in need of curation. Total amount=3,000 (USD) requested. Target=English Wikiversity Goal=Increasing Participation More_participants=YES

Round 2 2015 Year=2015 Project=Curation of courses and resources on Wikiversity Timestamp=17:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Portal=IEG Translations=Probox/IEG/Content

Project idea

What is the problem you're trying to solve?

We have created a user group v:Wikiversity:Curators to help curate resources, learning projects, and courses at the English Wikiversity. Some that have already been found are v:Upper Limb Orthotics, v:North Carolina World War I, v:Creating Dynamic Lessons, v:Gastronomy/Food in antiquity, v:Sport/Volleyball, v:Category:Possible copyright violations, and v:CIVICS so far. Small starts have occurred and are ongoing. We need volunteers willing to learn how to curate these and to find other learning projects in need of curation.

What is your solution?

Volunteers may already exist on other WMF projects but may not be aware that their talents are needed. We would like to try a variety of recruitment campaigns. Then, train these volunteers on the steps needed to bring these learning resources up to acceptance standards.

Project goals

We are trying to recruit, train, and monitor volunteers to find and curate learning resources in need at Wikiversity.

Project plan

Activities

Recruit, train, guide and monitor volunteers to help find and curate learning resources and projects at the English Wikiversity. We will carry this out by testing several recruiting advertisements and possible emails to other WMF projects. We hope to recruit help in curating projects already mentioned above. We also need additional curators to help find more, so a goal of at least ten more curators is reasonable.

Budget

• Project management: 3,000 USD
• Total Budget: 3,000 USD

Community engagement

Initially by posting an announcement of this grant proposal on local project Colloquiums.

Sustainability

When successful volunteers are found and trained, they will bring in others to help.

Measures of success

Initially, a few volunteers. Then, a few trained volunteers. Finally, a few volunteers working on or finding a few learning projects in need of curation.

Need target-setting tips? Note: in addition to your project-specific measures of success, you will also be asked to report on some Global Metrics at the end of your final report. Please keep this in mind as you plan, and we'll support you as you begin your project.

Get involved

Participants

• Marshallsumter:I'm about halfway through v:Upper Limb Orthotics. This is a great learning experience and serves as a training and control group for assessing the needs of other learning projects. It has also shown some of the curation requirements needed in training volunteers. I've started v:North Carolina World War I but this is a massive, impressive project from the University of North Carolina. I'm about halfway through v:Sport/Volleyball 183 subpages. This is also a massive project and serves as a test case for v:Dominant group/Wikipedia which is an effort to improve participation of women and minorities on Wikipedia by isolating some of the causes of the apparent tokenism. I've so far found v:Creating Dynamic Lessons, v:Gastronomy/Food in antiquity/, v:Category:Possible copyright violations, and v:CIVICS, so skills in looking for them have been developed and can be passed on.

Community Notification

Please paste links below to where relevant communities have been notified of your proposal, and to any other relevant community discussions. Need notification tips?

• English Wikiversity Colloquium post

Endorsements

Do you think this project should be selected for an Individual Engagement Grant? Please add your name and rationale for endorsing this project in the list below. (Other constructive feedback is welcome on the talk page of this proposal).

• Community member: add your name and rationale here.

Eligibility confirmed

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for review and scoring. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period (through 2 May 2016).

The committee's formal review begins on 3 May 2016, and grants will be announced 17 June 2016. See the round 1 2016 schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us at iegrants{{{1}}}wikimedia · org .

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Curation of courses and resources on Wikiversity

width="60%" style="background: #58595B; color: #ADC2E4 font-size 1.2em; padding: .75em;"|Scoring rubric	align="center" width="10%" style="background: #58595B; color: #ADC2E4 padding .75em;"|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?	5.3
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	4.3
(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?	4.0
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	3.7
Additional comments from the Committee: Wikiversity is worth trying ideas with. I think only English Wikiversity is within scope, but if successful could be used in more projects. Depends on the target audience and the applicant’s methods of persuasion/engagement In my opinion this is critical: A banned user probably cannot have a big success in an online activity like this considering his history. I think the applicant needs to get unblocked on English Wikipedia first, and then I think it may work. An individual banned for systemic copyright violation is not someone we should be paying to "recruit, train, guide and monitor volunteers." As per the admin notes, I think we as a committee should ask the applicant to take action to remove their ban before we consider their proposal and awarding them funding. Additionally, the proposal is very short on detail and, as I understand it, the activities outlined (essentially on-wiki outreach/communications) could be done with minimal effort and without funding. I have nothing against the block. The project is interesting but the reputation of the user is mandatory in this case. This proposal feels incomplete. It is unclear where the budget would be spent or when the project would be considered a success.

-- MJue (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the IEG Committee

Responses of proposer

Thank you for reviewing my proposal!

I assume each of the comments comes only from one person unique to the review committee.

Those comments unconcerned about the block are

1. Wikiversity is worth trying ideas with.

 Comment I agree and assume this statement includes me!

2. I think only English Wikiversity is within scope, but if successful could be used in more projects.

 Comment Wikiversity is the starting place!

3. This proposal feels incomplete. It is unclear where the budget would be spent or when the project would be considered a success.

 Comment The budget is to pay me for intellectual effort that interrupts my on-going projects to help the WMF curate resources starting with Wikiversity. By the rule of diminishing returns, everything should be free, but having food to eat is not. So if you are unwilling to endorse the giving of grants then don't ask for proposals. Each project that is successfully curated as Upper Limb Orthotics is considered each of the successes.

4. Depends on the target audience and the applicant’s methods of persuasion/engagement.

 Comment The target audience depends on the project: for example v:North Carolina World War I would be North Carolinans or historians.

Wikipedia ban on editing

Those comments concerned with the block are

1. In my opinion this is critical: A banned user probably cannot have a big success in an online activity like this considering his history.
2. I think the applicant needs to get unblocked on English Wikipedia first, and then I think it may work.
3. An individual banned for systemic copyright violation is not someone we should be paying to "recruit, train, guide and monitor volunteers."
4. As per the admin notes, I think we as a committee should ask the applicant to take action to remove their ban before we consider their proposal and awarding them funding. Additionally, the proposal is very short on detail and, as I understand it, the activities outlined (essentially on-wiki outreach/communications) could be done with minimal effort and without funding.
5. I have nothing against the block. The project is interesting but the reputation of the user is mandatory in this case.

Thank you for your interest in the ban imposed by Wikipedia admins! I have communicated with users on Wikipedia through email so the proposal is not interfered with by the ban.

Then as now I edit WMF projects per United States of America copyright law including Section 107. On Wikipedia my conformity with this copyright law was at 95 % or better (determined by counting sentences, including cited ones). My efforts on Wikipedia are described by the Wikiversity resource v:attribution and copyright. The copyright policy at that time and probably now on Wikipedia is not in agreement with U.S. copyright law. Attribution on Wikipedia can be by hyperlink, such as {{main|Attribution and copyright}}, or by reference (citation). I used both. I also quoted sources. I created some 250 articles and contributed to some 100 more. Both were made per above. Contributions to those some 100 already existing articles still exist on Wikipedia, were prepared in the same way, and continue to exist on Wikipedia. This suggests that it was not my method of contributing that was the issue but that I chose to create articles, even requesting feedback, perhaps against some group's wishes.

I made one and one only effort to be unbanned on Wikipedia and was rebuked. I will not do so again. If you wish to remove the ban for your own reasons as you've indicated with your comments you are free to do so.

What I need from this committee is proof that 5 of 9 (55 %) comments accurately reflect the committee's view that the ban on Wikipedia is the reason by preponderance (≥51 %) that this proposal was not accepted. This when submitted and sworn to under oath as an affidavit by the committee members constitutes proof that I have suffered fiscal harm due to this ban on Wikipedia.

My preferred course of action is to bring Wikipedia into US Federal District Court to have the banned removed. It's the only way to guarantee a fair hearing. The committee's affidavit is proof that Wikipedia's effort to keep me from contributing per US copyright law has caused me fiscal harm.

If you are unwilling to do this, then the ban on Wikipedia is not the reason by preponderance (≥51 %) that this proposal was not accepted. As such you must remove these potentially libelous comments from your review. To leave them in and portray the unacceptance for something it is not, constitutes a US federal crime of duress for which I can prosecute you. The resources on duress I have directed you to will answer any questions you may have.

I would be happy to submit a sworn statement to the Court that I contributed to Wikipedia in conformance at or above the 95 % level (even though only preponderance, ≥ 51 % is sufficient) with US copyright law. The burden of proof then shifts to Wikipedia to prove their libelous claim is true. They will not succeed as I attributed by hyperlink and by appropriate references (citations).

Round 1 2016 decision

This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!

Next steps:

1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
4. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.

External links

{{Humanities resources}}