Send African-Wikimedians mailing list submissions to
        african-wikimedians@lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/african-wikimedians.lists.wikimedia.org/

You can reach the person managing the list at
        african-wikimedians-owner@lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of African-Wikimedians digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Grant Application concerns (Seydou Diakite)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 04:47:27 -0800
From: Seydou Diakite <clement.bogous78@gmail.com>
Subject: [African Wikimedians] Re: Grant Application concerns
To: Mailing list for African Wikimedians
        <african-wikimedians@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: "affcom@lists.wikimedia.org" <affcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
        <CACrpZeu7LeHMTnDV-Dg1DnwW0j02rTw7eaT=6SZq+A0bAWXpBw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="00000000000094d05005d28dc6cb"

Hello Emmanuel,

Thanks for coming out to try and resolve the issue although your
explanation is not convincing. Yes the Dagbani User group may be existing
as a separate entity but why is that so? What I said is it is the same
people are behind it and I haven’t because the Executive Director of the
Dagbani Usergroup is a founding member of GOIF.

In the budget it was the Executive Director who was requesting to be paid
an amount of $5000 a month for a period of 12 months that’s $60,000 to be a
project Manager.  In fact the edit history shows he did most of the grant
application so why is he not even coming to justify that grant here?

Talking about Mole-Dagbani languages in Ghana how many of them are written
in Ghana, studied in schools and has a lot of Literature or content and so
has encyclopedic status?

Concerning LUCG how different is their goals from GOIF? What is the
ultimate plan of LUCG because I have seen the Twi group gearing up to be a
Usergroup? And if you follow things closely you will realize the Dagbani
Usergroup initially started as Twi, then GOIF and now the same group is
trying to start a Twi group.

Sorry if my tone is harsh but I believe that’s inconsequential in this
regard. If you think I have been conclusive and my observation are out of
place.

Can you justify why a small language group like the Dagbani group was
requesting $190,000 since you conveniently chose not to address any of the
observations bothering around the padded figures in your budget?

I think this is a public platform so by putting my concerns here is another
way of reaching out to you publicly.

Lastly I want to know on whose behalf you’re speaking because you seem to
be in all these groups.

Best Seydou


On Tuesday, December 7, 2021, Emmanuel Yeboah <hazel3993@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Seydou,
>
> Thank you Seydou for sharing your observations and raising these concerns.
>
> However, we would like to clarify that, although the Dabgani Wikimedians
> Usergroup is one of the language groups that Global Open Initiative
> birthed, they currently exist as a separate entity operating from the
> Northern half of Ghana supporting multiple languages in the Mole-Dagbani
> tree including Dagbani. And the Global Open Initiative team is not involved
> or has no say in the day to day running of the Dagbani Wikimedians group.
> We do still collaborate when asked but we are not aware or involved in
> every decision or activities the group takes. So their activities and
> operations are different from that of GOIF.
>
> We apologise for the delay in making this clarification soon.
>
> Secondly, concerning the LUCG
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/LUCG_Wikimedia_Community/LUCG_First_Edit-a-thon>,
> this is a project proposed by a long-volunteer to recruit and maintain
> already existing members of Lakeside University College, Ghana (LUCG). This
> is in line with our objectives to empower self-sustaining Wikihubs at the
> institutions that we collaborate with. Their proposal couldn’t have been
> included in our plan because it was brought to our attention after we
> submitted the annual grant.
>
> We do empower and support individuals and groups to contribute in various
> ways to the Wikimedia Movement (which we believe aligns with the movement's
> recommendation of increasing the sustainability of the movement) but at a
> point, if they want to operate on their own as a group or embark on
> individual projects, we give them a chance to.
>
> The assumption that GOIF is taking advantage of the Foundation by founding
> offshoot communities to rip the Foundation off is absolutely wrong. The
> tone of this message is rather conclusive. This makes it difficult for us
> to accept that these concerns were raised in good faith. We’d kindly
> request for you to reach out to us publicly to seek clarification before
> drawing these conclusions.
>
> Warmly,
>
> Emmanuel
>
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021, 07:12 Mohamed Aliyu, <mmaliyu2012@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Good! Thanks for your insights into this matter.
>>
>> We hope that the Wikimedia grant committees be cautious in their
>> decision to fund those types of affiliates.
>> --
>>
>> Mohamed Mustapha Aliyu (he/him)
>> Wikim(p)edian
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021, 01:19 Seydou Diakite, <clement.bogous78@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I have been following the grant process with keen interest. I have
>>> rather noticed a worrying trend that I think for the sustainability of the
>>> grant program and the continuity of the volunteer spirit we need to address
>>> this issue as a regional group.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First and foremost we must bear in mind that Wikimedia Foundation is
>>> donor funded and non profit. And as such people give and make it possible
>>> for the organization to support the activities of volunteers. Therefore our
>>> request and demands must be guarded.
>>>
>>> Again we need to know that the movement relies on the activities of
>>> volunteers ( more content are created by volunteers than any other set of
>>> people) and as such that should be spirit we should be promoting through
>>> all our undertakings.
>>>
>>>
>>> After painstakingly going through the grant request of some Usergroups,
>>> what I noticed was something rather alarming. I will just mention a few of
>>> my observations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Wikimedia Inc Nigeria for instance was requesting over $55,000
>>> (aprox $4800 a month) for an office space at a time when even bigger tech
>>> organizations etc are moving to working remotely and hence promoting work
>>> from home.
>>>
>>>
>>> In addition to this, there were line items for projects that have other
>>> organizations running and hence have funds they disburse for organizations.
>>> (Arts and Feminism,Wiki Loves Africa etc)
>>>
>>>
>>> My second observation wasn’t only alarming but also ridiculous.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Dagbani Usergroup which linked to GOIF as exclaimed on their own
>>> pages (was actually formed from the GOIF
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Open_Initiative#Planned_Activities>)
>>> put in separate grant applications totaling over $220,000.( far higher than
>>> a continental group like Wiki in Africa and country group like Wikimedia
>>> CIV) This same group is also behind another group (LUCG) that has currently
>>> put in another rapid grant
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Project/Rapid/LUCG_Wikimedia_Community/LUCG_First_Edit-a-thon>
>>> request. ( tye proposed Twi Wikimedians Usergroup
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Twi_Wikimedians_User_Group/Memberships>
>>> is also an offshoot) A question was posed about their link to GOIF
>>> (their mother institution) and the answers seem quite unreasonable, because
>>> all the separate activities can be rounded in one grant request as programs
>>> to paint a holistic picture of their annual activities rather than create
>>> fragments.
>>>
>>> Now let’s take things into perspective.
>>> The Dagbani language is spoken by less than 10% of Ghana’s population of
>>> over 30M people. The user group is fairly new and their primary focus is to
>>> reach the target Dagbani population which could be much more organic than
>>> their forced request for salaries for 10 trainers per month.
>>>
>>> Their community has less than 30 active contributors based on the
>>> current criteria for active members (3 edits per month), and hence even
>>> using their entire membership for the 12 month period, means members will
>>> be overwhelmed and burned out easily.
>>>
>>> Now the request to pay volunteers to train is to be treaded cautiously
>>> as this could change our culture for volunteerism and encourage
>>> participation because members can receive payments for contributing
>>> (mentoring, training, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on the monthly salary requested for these 10 trainers, it is only
>>> right to assume that each of these trainers will organise at least 2
>>> trainings per month making a monthly total of 20 trainings (annual 240
>>> trainings). This is somewhat ridiculous and overly ambitious for even a
>>> well developed Wikimedia community.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aside from the aforementioned monthly payment for 10 volunteers/trainers
>>> they are also requesting for 2 other paid roles with very exorbitant
>>> amounts requested as salaries especially for the Executive Director role
>>> ($5000 a month), which even top manager levels in Corporate Ghana and in
>>> government workplaces never receive. In the first place this is a small
>>> group trying to rally and sustain a community and these requests for staff
>>> is just surprising and out of place.
>>>
>>> In addition to this, there was a request for a paid WiR for 12 months
>>> ($3,500 for 12 months). Apart the huge salary this is even problematic
>>> judging from the fact there was no partnership with any organization to do
>>> a GLAM activity or a project that needed an embedded Wikimedian in a
>>> partner organisation, which is normally the workflow that creates the need
>>> for a WiR.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again this wasn’t even part of the goals of this organization.  A closer
>>> look at the budget further shows that most of the requests are either
>>> frivolous, overpriced or outrageous.
>>>
>>> Looking at such a small language Usergroup what is the need for an
>>> office space and all the equipment for an office?
>>>
>>> The request for 6 MacBook airs for team members is rather an insult to
>>> the charitable donors of the foundation. The million dollar question here
>>> though, is why MacBooks? And why 6 of them? Wikimedians don’t need
>>> priced equipment to deliver on their jobs and if the intention is to be
>>> able to loan it to the community then macbooks still seem outrageous
>>> (because they can be destroyed easily with change of hands).
>>>
>>>
>>> Then comes a request for two foreign trips at a time when most
>>> organizations are putting hold on trips. However the question is trips to
>>> where? For what? And why two team members?
>>>
>>>
>>> These and many several budget items feel out of place, from requesting
>>> for research line items (which I am wondering what it's meant for and the
>>> goals of the research) to requesting specific team members for projects
>>> (arts&feminism) which should be managed by already requested staff roles
>>> (why hire other people again when you have a project manager for the
>>> organisation, who is supposed to run projects anyways)
>>>
>>>
>>> Everything in that budget seems padded and inconsiderate to the many
>>> donors that believe in our vision. Such characters should not be supported
>>> in our movement and be watched closely.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lastly I have noticed significant changes to the budget (from about
>>> $190,000 to about $39,000) after the questions posed by the committee, this
>>> is a significant 80% drop from the initial request
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Dagbani_WIkimedians_User_Group_Annual_Projects_2022>.
>>> As to whether the new requested amount is a true reflection of the needs
>>> on the ground we all all judges. I am fully aware that the grant proposal
>>> has been updated but I decided to bring to light the initial grant request
>>> because if it has has been approved I am sure the group would have accepted
>>> the full funding. And also the current grant is still padded.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have also copied Affcom in this mail because I wanted to bring to
>>> their notice the other trend that I wanted to spell out. The proliferation
>>> of language Usergroups. The same group has one Usergroup and three
>>> incubator groups why so? Three of these groups have applied for grants
>>> separately.
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to re-examine our commitment to this cause. Wikimedia is a
>>> voluntary movement to promote the sum of all human knowledge. Yes it’s ok
>>> when we sometimes expend our expertise so ask for some remuneration. But we
>>> shouldn’t form Usergroup groups with the basis of being employed or a
>>> conduit for making profit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>>
>>> Seydou
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> African-Wikimedians mailing list -- african-wikimedians@lists.
>>> wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to african-wikimedians-leave@
>>> lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> African-Wikimedians mailing list -- african-wikimedians@lists.
>> wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to african-wikimedians-leave@
>> lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 25425 bytes
Desc: not available

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
African-Wikimedians mailing list -- african-wikimedians@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to african-wikimedians-leave@lists.wikimedia.org


------------------------------

End of African-Wikimedians Digest, Vol 13, Issue 88
***************************************************