Dear Wikimedians,
We hope you are all well.
We recognize the importance of continuing the culture of respectful discussion/exchange of perspectives is a crucial element to the movements continued success.
We acknowledge the concerns raised here by the community. The issues were already brought to our attention; we did factor the concerns raised in the regional committee deliberations towards making impactful funding decisions.
Thank you. Veronica.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:47 PM Seydou Diakite clement.bogous78@gmail.com wrote:
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
African-Wikimedians mailing list -- african-wikimedians@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to african-wikimedians-leave@lists.wikimedia.org