It’s time I step in with some basic thoughts on the grant process in general and Wikijunior in particular.
I want to start by saying that my position with regard to the Wikimedia Foundation is that our objective is to collect and disseminate knowledge in all its forms. This is our goal. The sense of community and camaraderie that derive from this are wonderful, but our goal is to collect and present the sum of human knowledge in a way that is freely accessible to people anywhere, whether in print or online. That is why we have so many different languages and projects. When deciding on new projects, our criteria should be this goal alone: does it assist in the collection and/or dissemination of knowledge to a specific community?
Our grant process, which is still in its infancy, should respond to that. Our purpose is not to bolster some virtual playground, where people can play around with their favorite topics. In fact, this is the basis of the criteria for inclusion: “Is it encyclopedic?” Our grants should focus not just on getting new servers, but on finding ways to make the Wiki projects accessible and friendly to the most divergent audiences. I think Anthere said it best when she wrote:“It is not a party.” We are committed to the serious work of creating an encyclopedia.
Of course, this is totally in character with what funders are looking for. No one wants to give money so that some random group of people can get together on the Internet. They want to see bang for their buck (pardon the Americanism). They want to see that their money is invested wisely in creating something. Any grant we receive will want to see some outcome. They have a right to demand a product that is created as a result of their funding. If not, they will not give funding.
At this point, perhaps I should clarify regarding a misconception in an earlier post. The NEH grant was not dropped because people opposed it. We simply weren’t ready for it this time around. I hope that next time we will be.
We are now in the process of requesting substantial grant moneys. It is no exaggeration to say that the sums are of the six and seven digit kind. That kind of money will empower us to do quite a lot. However, it also commits us to doing what we promise.
I myself am opposed to open discussion of this process. While this may sound un-wikilike, it is obvious to me that the discussion leading up to grant proposals will be done in a casual, informal style. Things may be said that we do not want the potential grant-givers to hear. If it is open to the kind of public debate that is typical of Wikipedia, we are seriously endangering our chances of receiving those grants.
I also believe that grants should be coordinated. Grants involve making promises (that we can stick to). The grant process is not panhandling. Uncoordinated grant applications could mean that six or seven people approach a certain group (let’s say UNESCO), asking for different things and making different promises. It certainly impinges on our credibility, especially when some of those same groups may well be coming to us at the same time (and yes, we have been approached by some major charitable organizations). At the same time, we do not want to be seen as being in a position of turning down grants and perhaps burning bridges with organizations in whose good graces we will want to be, if only at a later date.
To me, approval of grant requests means board approval. Believe it or not, there are some people who do see a larger picture and know what is going on in various competing spheres. I certainly don’t know everything that is going on, so when I ask for a grant, I turn to them to inform various considerations I might have. That is not hierarchy. That is informed decision-making based on consultation.
Back to Wikijunior. An organization approached us. It is a relationship we would like to foster. The objectives of their request clearly meet our own goal of creating and disseminating knowledge. In fact, it is a wikibook (or series of wikibooks) for a younger audience. I don’t know when that idea was ever rejected, and the fact is that people have shown quite a bit of enthusiasm for the idea. Obviously, it needs some working out still. It is not a fork, just as Wiktionary or Anglo-Saxon are not forks. It will be the same people working on the same material. I also believe that it will benefit our other projects as well, both in terms of information offered and dissemination. If anything, I would hope that people welcome the idea of developing educational materials for younger children, whether they plan to work on them or not.
I am anxious to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
Danny
I would like to thank Danny for writing the Wikijunior grant application. It is a project I am very interested in, because it fits so neatly into our mission.
I would also like to thank Ambi for sharing her concerns, which I find valid, and which I believe merit discussion.
Part of the reason people are reluctant to be very open about certain things is that discussions can become literally endless, with no goal being achieved. So what I believe we need are clear procedures how to get community input on issues and making decisions. I hope the Wikinews case can, in some ways, serve as a precedent when it comes to starting new projects.
When it comes to matters where leaks would be dangerous, I think we should try to find a wiki-like solution. One option would be a private wiki or mailing list, where anyone can apply to become a member and existing members decide, a la WP:RFA, whether the user is trusted enough or not. New members have to swear a blood oath of secrecy and participate in various special rites which involve hamsters. Joking aside, I think the members could keep an eye on each other and try to determine when the right point to go public has been reached. The existence of this place, the procedure for joining and its purpose could be open and well known - potential grant givers will understand why we are doing this.
The same place might also be home to a permanent log of the #wikimedia channel, so that nothing gets lost among us.
This process is, by the way, very similar to the one that will be used for the email ticket system, so maybe the rules could be identical. To prevent it from turning into a cabal, these rules need to be fair and open.
Wikimedia is growing up, and at each step along the way we can decide whether we will do things in the traditional, conservative way, or in a more open, progressive away. I think whenever we are about to go for something traditional, we should pause and reflect whether there might not be a better option.
Now, I apologize if the cabal already exists, but it's your fault for not inviting me in.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit: I hope the Wikinews case
can, in some ways, serve as a precedent when it comes to starting new projects.
Just a thought... I think setting up an approval voting limit at simple majority to conclude a project is supported does not strike me as being a consensual decision.
I think we still need to think better how to start/decide new projects.
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Just a thought... I think setting up an approval voting limit at simple majority to conclude a project is supported does not strike me as being a consensual decision.
I think we still need to think better how to start/decide new projects.
Yes, simple majority is *not* an acceptable level of support. We work by consensus here and thus must develop proposals that a supermajority of people support. If only a simple majority supports something, then we must go back to the people who voted against the issue and ask what else needs to be done to change their minds.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Just a thought... I think setting up an approval voting limit at simple majority to conclude a project is supported does not strike me as being a consensual decision.
I think we still need to think better how to start/decide new projects.
Yes, simple majority is *not* an acceptable level of support. We work by consensus here and thus must develop proposals that a supermajority of people support. If only a simple majority supports something, then we must go back to the people who voted against the issue and ask what else needs to be done to change their minds.
A simple majority often gives us a majority of the simple.
A bare simple majority can be a symptom of a divided community. I don't know if going back to "change their minds" is the right approach. That as often results in people digging in their heels. Even "supermajority" drags in the language of a system based on divisiveness. The minority needs to be brought into the decision, and made to feel that they are a part of it irrespective of their earlier position. It often means that the majority opinion still needs to be modified.
Ec
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:37:21 -0700 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Just a thought... I think setting up an approval voting
limit at simple majority to conclude a project is supported does not strike me as being a consensual decision.
I think we still need to think better how to
start/decide new projects.
Yes, simple majority is *not* an acceptable level of
support. We work by
consensus here and thus must develop proposals that a
supermajority of people
support. If only a simple majority supports something,
then we must go back to
the people who voted against the issue and ask what else
needs to be done to
change their minds.
A simple majority often gives us a majority of the simple.
A bare simple majority can be a symptom of a divided community. I don't know if going back to "change their minds" is the right approach. That as often results in people digging in their heels. Even "supermajority" drags in the language of a system based on divisiveness. The minority needs to be brought into the decision, and made to feel that they are a part of it irrespective of their earlier position. It often means that the majority opinion still needs to be modified.
Ec the type of voting you are talking about involves
millions of people.whether it is fair or not i will have to think about.good luck in trying to implement your idea.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
______________________________________________________________ http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service
Erik Moeller wrote:
Part of the reason people are reluctant to be very open about certain things is that discussions can become literally endless, with no goal being achieved. So what I believe we need are clear procedures how to get community input on issues and making decisions. I hope the Wikinews case can, in some ways, serve as a precedent when it comes to starting new projects.
I'm sure others disagree, but IMO it would be better if there were not a particularly easy way to start new projects. We so far have exactly one highly successful project, from what I can tell---Wikipedia. Wiktionary has been languishing for years now in relative disuse (and in my brief attempts to use it to look up words, doesn't have enough words in it to be useful as a dictionary, driving me back to reference.com), Wikisource is still getting off the ground and is fairly disorganized, and Wikibooks has only in the last 6 months seen any books that are remotely close to being reasonable books (and even the ones labeled with 4 blocks as "complete" are still *far* short of book length and detail... we have nothing on Wikibooks that can compete with a commercial textbook). I'd rather we spent some time working on these projects we already have instead of spawning off still more projects, lest we become a clearinghouse of ideas that were started but never really carried through.
To be clear, this isn't opposition to Wikinews---I think Wikinews is a well-defined project with a clear group of users interested in working on it and minimal overlap with other projects, but I think that would be a good place to stop for now. After starting Wikinews, and counting Wikispecies, we'll have six projects---Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikispecies, and Wikisource---of which only one, Wikipedia, is really in a well-developed state.
-Mark
Delirium a écrit:
Erik Moeller wrote:
To be clear, this isn't opposition to Wikinews---I think Wikinews is a well-defined project with a clear group of users interested in working on it and minimal overlap with other projects, but I think that would be a good place to stop for now. After starting Wikinews, and counting Wikispecies, we'll have six projects---Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikispecies, and Wikisource---of which only one, Wikipedia, is really in a well-developed state.
-Mark
By the way, is it possible to cite people who are ready to get involved *actively* in wikinews in the foreseen future ?
I'm sure others disagree, but IMO it would be better if there were not a particularly easy way to start new projects. We so far have exactly one highly successful project, from what I can tell---Wikipedia. Wiktionary has been languishing for years now in relative disuse (and in my brief attempts to use it to look up words, doesn't have enough words in it to be useful as a dictionary, driving me back to reference.com), Wikisource is still getting off the ground and is fairly disorganized, and Wikibooks has only in the last 6 months seen any books that are remotely close to being reasonable books (and even the ones labeled with 4 blocks as "complete" are still *far* short of book length and detail... we have nothing on Wikibooks that can compete with a commercial textbook).
I partly agree with this, and partly not. We have the one highly successful project, and a second one coming along nicely in Wikisource. It's still got a long way to go, but it doesn't have the problems with disuse that Wiktionary and Wikibooks have. I do think we should concentrate on improving the ones we have, but some of these projects, such as Wikinews, are likely to be considerably easier to contribute to (as is the case with WP and WS), which would make them a more viable solution than some of our current projects.
instead of spawning off still more projects, lest we become a clearinghouse of ideas that were started but never really carried through.
Still, this is something we really need to watch out for.
-- ambi
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
..... We have the one highly successful project, and a second one coming along nicely in Wikisource. It's still got a long way to go, but it doesn't have the problems with disuse that Wiktionary and Wikibooks have. I do think we should concentrate on improving the ones we have, but some of these projects, such as Wikinews, are likely to be considerably easier to contribute to (as is the case with WP and WS), which would make them a more viable solution than some of our current projects.
I very much agree with the above.
</aol>
A big reason I think that Wikibooks and and Wiktionary have not taken off is due to a lack of very important software features;
1) the ability to search within and easily create new pages for individual books for Wikibooks 3) database support and cross-wiki templates for Wiktionary.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
..... We have the one highly successful project, and a second one coming along nicely in Wikisource. It's still got a long way to go, but it doesn't have the problems with disuse that Wiktionary and Wikibooks have. I do think we should concentrate on improving the ones we have, but some of these projects, such as Wikinews, are likely to be considerably easier to contribute to (as is the case with WP and WS), which would make them a more viable solution than some of our current projects.
I very much agree with the above.
</aol>
A big reason I think that Wikibooks and and Wiktionary have not taken off is due to a lack of very important software features;
- the ability to search within and easily create new pages for individual
books for Wikibooks 3) database support and cross-wiki templates for Wiktionary.
-- mav
Nod, plus interproject links.
Anthere
daniwo59@aol.com a écrit:
I myself am opposed to open discussion of this process. While this may sound un-wikilike, it is obvious to me that the discussion leading up to grant proposals will be done in a casual, informal style. Things may be said that we do not want the potential grant-givers to hear. If it is open to the kind of public debate that is typical of Wikipedia, we are seriously endangering our chances of receiving those grants.
You have a point here Danny. Still, when grant requests are not publicly discussed, how can we hope to involve more people in the process ? Ideas ?
Response to Danny -
Our grant process, which is still in its infancy, should respond to that. Our purpose is not to bolster some virtual playground, where people can play around with their favorite topics. Of course, this is totally in character with what funders are looking for. No one wants to give money so that some random group of people can get together on the Internet. They want to see bang for their buck (pardon the Americanism). They want to see that their money is invested wisely in creating something. Any grant we receive will want to see some outcome. They have a right to demand a product that is created as a result of their funding. If not, they will not give funding.
Of course, grants are a great thing, but should we not be sure, before accepting the grant, that this is a project we wish to proceed with? Perhaps we need to have some agreed-upon outcomes, as far as applying for grants go.
At this point, perhaps I should clarify regarding a misconception in an earlier post. The NEH grant was not dropped because people opposed it. We simply weren't ready for it this time around. I hope that next time we will be.
No, you're right. It was dropped because people thought we weren't ready for it. There was no reason to outright oppose that one. Same difference.
We are now in the process of requesting substantial grant moneys. It is no exaggeration to say that the sums are of the six and seven digit kind. That kind of money will empower us to do quite a lot. However, it also commits us to doing what we promise.
Which is why we should be all the more sure that we're the community agrees to moving in this direction.
I myself am opposed to open discussion of this process. While this may sound un-wikilike, it is obvious to me that the discussion leading up to grant proposals will be done in a casual, informal style. Things may be said that we do not want the potential grant-givers to hear. If it is open to the kind of public debate that is typical of Wikipedia, we are seriously endangering our chances of receiving those grants.
I can understand the rationale behind this. Mav poses some good solutions below, which would help things. However, if entirely new projects are going to be started with no prior discussion, because there was no consultation, don't be surprised when people like me bitch about it.
I also believe that grants should be coordinated. Grants involve making promises (that we can stick to). The grant process is not panhandling. Uncoordinated grant applications could mean that six or seven people approach a certain group (let's say UNESCO), asking for different things and making different promises. It certainly impinges on our credibility, especially when some of those same groups may well be coming to us at the same time (and yes, we have been approached by some major charitable organizations). At the same time, we do not want to be seen as being in a position of turning down grants and perhaps burning bridges with organizations in whose good graces we will want to be, if only at a later date.
Not disputing this one - of course we need this.
Back to Wikijunior. An organization approached us. It is a relationship we would like to foster. The objectives of their request clearly meet our own goal of creating and disseminating knowledge. In fact, it is a wikibook (or series of wikibooks) for a younger audience. I don't know when that idea was ever rejected, and the fact is that people have shown quite a bit of enthusiasm for the idea. Obviously, it needs some working out still. It is not a fork, just as Wiktionary or Anglo-Saxon are not forks. It will be the same people working on the same material. I also believe that it will benefit our other projects as well, both in terms of information offered and dissemination. If anything, I would hope that people welcome the idea of developing educational materials for younger children, whether they plan to work on them or not.
A WikiReader is not a fork, just as the Cryptology WikiReader is not a fork. However, that (appears to be) not all that is being proposed. A kiddipedia, in the same wiki editable form as Wikipedia, is most definitely a fork. And that's why I have some problem with waking up one morning and finding a message on goings-on "hey guys, we've decided to start a new project which, up until now, had either not been discussed or had been roundly voted down". This will be our third English language encyclopedia, after en and simple. While I'm not *necessarily* opposed, I'd still question if we really need this.
-- ambi
Rebecca wrote:
No, you're right. It was dropped because people thought we weren't ready for it. There was no reason to outright oppose that one. Same difference.
No, this is still not correct. The incomplete grant application was not sent, because it was not complete in time. It wasn't "dropped because people thought we weren't ready for it" -- we made a valiant effort but it was just too much in too little time. It *will be* applied for again next year.
--Jimbo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org