Seeking community recommendations for Equity Fund grantees

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Wikimedia France - New board &...

Invitation to Episode 9 of...

Nadee Gunasena

20 Jan 2022 20 Jan '22

8:40 p.m.

Hi all, I’m writing to share the latest update on the Equity Fund, a pilot program created by the Wikimedia Foundation to address the barriers to free knowledge experienced by Black, Indigenous, and communities of color around the world. As we've shared on Diff today [1], based on feedback from the first round of Equity Fund grants we are continuing to iterate on our process for choosing grantees and increasing community participation. Today, we are opening up the second round of Equity Fund grantees and are seeking community recommendations. We know that many of you work closely with and are aware of external organizations that can help advance the movement’s goals and address equity gaps. We invite recommendations from current Wikimedia volunteers and communities through an intake form available on Google survey [2] and LimeSurvey [3]. We’ll be taking your suggestions for Round 2 through February 18. Thank you to those that have already submitted recommendations! You can read more about the current status of the Equity Fund, criteria for grantees, as well as other updates around community participation with the Equity Fund on Diff [1]. We invite your questions and feedback on Meta [4]. Thank you, Nadee Gunasena, on behalf of the Equity Fund Committee [1] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/20/next-steps-for-the-equity-fund-and-ho… [2] https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSctHahuVnJQQNG2eo_3F7aB1Z2jQi1JxhN… [3] https://equity-fund.limesurvey.net/162641 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund -- *Nadee Gunasena* Executive Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> ᐧ

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 8.0 KB)

Show replies by date

Mike Peel

21 Jan 21 Jan

8:28 p.m.

Hi Nadee, I remain very concerned by this funding process. The last round of grantees was quite a surprise announcement, and there was no way to follow up on the announcement since the grant details weren't shared - it was basically 'we've given $X of movement funds to this org' and that was about it. Hopefully lessons have been learnt since the last round - and things have also changed at WMF, since we now have the regional grant committees. So please, make the information about the potential grants available on meta *before* they take place, and invite community input on the candidates at the review stage, not just the suggestion stage. And please ensure that you involve the WMF's regional committees in the review process. I've also posted this on-wiki at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Concerns Thanks, Mike On 20/1/22 20:40:57, Nadee Gunasena wrote: > Hi all, > > > I’m writing to share the latest update on the Equity Fund, a pilot > program created by the Wikimedia Foundation to address the barriers to > free knowledge experienced by Black, Indigenous, and communities of > color around the world. > > > As we've shared on Diff today [1], based on feedback from the first > round of Equity Fund grants we are continuing to iterate on our process > for choosing grantees and increasing community participation. Today, we > are opening up the second round of Equity Fund grantees and are seeking > community recommendations. We know that many of you work closely with > and are aware of external organizations that can help advance the > movement’s goals and address equity gaps. We invite recommendations from > current Wikimedia volunteers and communities through an intake form > available onGoogle survey [2] and LimeSurvey [3]. We’ll be taking your > suggestions for Round 2 through February 18. Thank you to those that > have already submitted recommendations! > > > You can read more about the current status of the Equity Fund, criteria > for grantees, as well as other updates around community participation > with the Equity Fund on Diff [1]. We invite your questions and feedback > on Meta [4]. > > > Thank you, > > > Nadee Gunasena, on behalf of the Equity Fund Committee > > [1] > https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/20/next-steps-for-the-equity-fund-and-ho… > <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/20/next-steps-for-the-equity-fund-and-how-you-can-get-involved/> > > [2] > https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSctHahuVnJQQNG2eo_3F7aB1Z2jQi1JxhN… > <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSctHahuVnJQQNG2eo_3F7aB1Z2jQi1JxhNMRuzPCWLU4dJSig/viewform> > > [3] https://equity-fund.limesurvey.net/162641 > <https://equity-fund.limesurvey.net/162641> > > [4]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund> > > > -- > *Nadee Gunasena* > Executive Communications Manager > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> > > ᐧ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Nadee Gunasena

25 Jan 25 Jan

5:11 p.m.

Mike, thank you for your reply and your questions. I've shared more information about how we'll be sharing the recommendations and making decisions about the grantees on Meta in response to your comment there: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Concerns. Best, Nadee ᐧ On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 12:28 PM Mike Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:

...

Hi all, I’m writing to share the latest update on the Equity Fund, a pilot program created by the Wikimedia Foundation to address the barriers to free knowledge experienced by Black, Indigenous, and communities of color around the world. As we've shared on Diff today [1], based on feedback from the first round of Equity Fund grants we are continuing to iterate on our process for choosing grantees and increasing community participation. Today, we are opening up the second round of Equity Fund grantees and are seeking community recommendations. We know that many of you work closely with and are aware of external organizations that can help advance the movement’s goals and address equity gaps. We invite recommendations from current Wikimedia volunteers and communities through an intake form available onGoogle survey [2] and LimeSurvey [3]. We’ll be taking your suggestions for Round 2 through February 18. Thank you to those that have already submitted recommendations! You can read more about the current status of the Equity Fund, criteria for grantees, as well as other updates around community participation with the Equity Fund on Diff [1]. We invite your questions and feedback on Meta [4]. Thank you, Nadee Gunasena, on behalf of the Equity Fund Committee [1]

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/20/next-steps-for-the-equity-fund-and-ho…

[2]

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSctHahuVnJQQNG2eo_3F7aB1Z2jQi1JxhN…

[3] https://equity-fund.limesurvey.net/162641 <https://equity-fund.limesurvey.net/162641> [4]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund> -- *Nadee Gunasena* Executive Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> ᐧ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines

at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l

Public archives at

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…

To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

-- *Nadee Gunasena* Executive Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>

Inductiveload

26 Jan 26 Jan

12:36 a.m.

On 25 January 2022 17:11:59 GMT, Nadee Gunasena <ngunasena(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

I've shared more information about how we'll be sharing the recommendations and making decisions about the grantees on Meta in response to your comment there: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Concerns.

Besides how the grants are allocated in the first place, something I do not see on that page is the clear description of how the success of the grants are measured and reported, auditing of expenditures and when the results are due. From the Meta page:

...

The Equity Fund is focused on supporting groups outside of the movement whose work will impact and improve knowledge equity on the Wikimedia projects over the long term.

Thus I imagine a good part of the results will be able to be tied to long term changes that will be measurable as some kind of wiki engagement? If the results are not expected to manifest "on-wiki", where and when are they expected to manifest? Obviously, "long term" implies no final results "soon", but responsible management means that the outcomes of interest are, of course, known already along with a plan for follow-up analysis. No self-respecting organisation would spend over $7 million without even a way to tell if the money is being spent as promised, or no way to tell if the project is working or has lasting effects. For context, it's enough money to keep the servers on for years, or, as about 50 person-years of payroll and overhead expenditure, keep a modest dev team trucking for a decade or so. The story of what knowledge-societal good has been done with this amount of money will be absolutely fascinating to anyone with an interest in knowledge equity, and critical to justifying support for similar initiatives in future. The analysis and accurate reporting of the outcomes of these grants is at least as valuable to future similar efforts as the grants themselves. Imagine the utterly disastrous effect it would have if it were impossible to showcase the success: it could undermine the whole idea of knowledge equity in general as a worthwhile financial cause, and within the wiki movement, it would badly injure the concept that funds donated in good faith are spent carefully. I look forward to reading in detail about what outcomes have been selected to be tracked, how and why that selection was made, how each grant is expected and hoped to affect them, and when and how we may be expected to find out how it went, both "on the ground" for the grantees and in terms of the already-set outcomes. These are all things that must already have been carefully documented. Down the road, a thorough breakdown of how it actually did go and how it can be done better, if possible, for future rounds will be a cornerstone of best-practice for knowledge equity initiatives for years to come. Cheers, --IL

Peter Southwood

7:31 a.m.

Good points, these. I hope someone will answer them. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Inductiveload [mailto:inductiveload@gmail.com] Sent: 26 January 2022 02:36 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Seeking community recommendations for Equity Fund grantees On 25 January 2022 17:11:59 GMT, Nadee Gunasena <ngunasena(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

The Equity Fund is focused on supporting groups outside of the movement

whose work will impact and improve knowledge equity on the Wikimedia projects over the long term. Thus I imagine a good part of the results will be able to be tied to long term changes that will be measurable as some kind of wiki engagement? If the results are not expected to manifest "on-wiki", where and when are they expected to manifest? Obviously, "long term" implies no final results "soon", but responsible management means that the outcomes of interest are, of course, known already along with a plan for follow-up analysis. No self-respecting organisation would spend over $7 million without even a way to tell if the money is being spent as promised, or no way to tell if the project is working or has lasting effects. For context, it's enough money to keep the servers on for years, or, as about 50 person-years of payroll and overhead expenditure, keep a modest dev team trucking for a decade or so. The story of what knowledge-societal good has been done with this amount of money will be absolutely fascinating to anyone with an interest in knowledge equity, and critical to justifying support for similar initiatives in future. The analysis and accurate reporting of the outcomes of these grants is at least as valuable to future similar efforts as the grants themselves. Imagine the utterly disastrous effect it would have if it were impossible to showcase the success: it could undermine the whole idea of knowledge equity in general as a worthwhile financial cause, and within the wiki movement, it would badly injure the concept that funds donated in good faith are spent carefully. I look forward to reading in detail about what outcomes have been selected to be tracked, how and why that selection was made, how each grant is expected and hoped to affect them, and when and how we may be expected to find out how it went, both "on the ground" for the grantees and in terms of the already-set outcomes. These are all things that must already have been carefully documented. Down the road, a thorough breakdown of how it actually did go and how it can be done better, if possible, for future rounds will be a cornerstone of best-practice for knowledge equity initiatives for years to come. Cheers, --IL _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ message/TGZK3JNX4FLBZIIQB6GUBXL7IMPE4CV2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

Gnangarra

27 Jan 27 Jan

9:53 a.m.

Perhaps the Equity Fund could invest a few million in developing, building, and sustaining the Community Tech team to help it fix all the underlying problems that continue to plague the projects. They could then provide equity of coverage across all projects, improve participation across all countries. On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 15:35, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:

...

The Equity Fund is focused on supporting groups outside of the movement

whose work will impact and improve knowledge equity on the Wikimedia projects over the long term. Thus I imagine a good part of the results will be able to be tied to long term changes that will be measurable as some kind of wiki engagement? If the results are not expected to manifest "on-wiki", where and when are they expected to manifest? Obviously, "long term" implies no final results "soon", but responsible management means that the outcomes of interest are, of course, known already along with a plan for follow-up analysis. No self-respecting organisation would spend over $7 million without even a way to tell if the money is being spent as promised, or no way to tell if the project is working or has lasting effects. For context, it's enough money to keep the servers on for years, or, as about 50 person-years of payroll and overhead expenditure, keep a modest dev team trucking for a decade or so. The story of what knowledge-societal good has been done with this amount of money will be absolutely fascinating to anyone with an interest in knowledge equity, and critical to justifying support for similar initiatives in future. The analysis and accurate reporting of the outcomes of these grants is at least as valuable to future similar efforts as the grants themselves. Imagine the utterly disastrous effect it would have if it were impossible to showcase the success: it could undermine the whole idea of knowledge equity in general as a worthwhile financial cause, and within the wiki movement, it would badly injure the concept that funds donated in good faith are spent carefully. I look forward to reading in detail about what outcomes have been selected to be tracked, how and why that selection was made, how each grant is expected and hoped to affect them, and when and how we may be expected to find out how it went, both "on the ground" for the grantees and in terms of the already-set outcomes. These are all things that must already have been carefully documented. Down the road, a thorough breakdown of how it actually did go and how it can be done better, if possible, for future rounds will be a cornerstone of best-practice for knowledge equity initiatives for years to come. Cheers, --IL _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ message/TGZK3JNX4FLBZIIQB6GUBXL7IMPE4CV2/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TGZK3JNX4FLBZIIQB6GUBXL7IMPE4CV2/> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

-- GN.

Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga

11:52 a.m.

+1 Let's think we get funding for uploading a collection of images from, let's say, the exclusion of LGBT women in Myanmar (this is an example), and we think this fits perfectly in the Equity Funds grant goals. Well... it doesn't matter, Pattypan is broken. We can't upload images massively. Let's make our system work and THEN we can start creating cool things in a more equitable way. ________________________________ From: Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 10:53 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Seeking community recommendations for Equity Fund grantees Perhaps the Equity Fund could invest a few million in developing, building, and sustaining the Community Tech team to help it fix all the underlying problems that continue to plague the projects. They could then provide equity of coverage across all projects, improve participation across all countries. On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 15:35, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net<mailto:peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>> wrote: Good points, these. I hope someone will answer them. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Inductiveload [mailto:inductiveload@gmail.com<mailto:inductiveload@gmail.com>] Sent: 26 January 2022 02:36 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Seeking community recommendations for Equity Fund grantees On 25 January 2022 17:11:59 GMT, Nadee Gunasena <ngunasena@wikimedia.org<mailto:ngunasena@wikimedia.org>> wrote:

...

The Equity Fund is focused on supporting groups outside of the movement

whose work will impact and improve knowledge equity on the Wikimedia projects over the long term. Thus I imagine a good part of the results will be able to be tied to long term changes that will be measurable as some kind of wiki engagement? If the results are not expected to manifest "on-wiki", where and when are they expected to manifest? Obviously, "long term" implies no final results "soon", but responsible management means that the outcomes of interest are, of course, known already along with a plan for follow-up analysis. No self-respecting organisation would spend over $7 million without even a way to tell if the money is being spent as promised, or no way to tell if the project is working or has lasting effects. For context, it's enough money to keep the servers on for years, or, as about 50 person-years of payroll and overhead expenditure, keep a modest dev team trucking for a decade or so. The story of what knowledge-societal good has been done with this amount of money will be absolutely fascinating to anyone with an interest in knowledge equity, and critical to justifying support for similar initiatives in future. The analysis and accurate reporting of the outcomes of these grants is at least as valuable to future similar efforts as the grants themselves. Imagine the utterly disastrous effect it would have if it were impossible to showcase the success: it could undermine the whole idea of knowledge equity in general as a worthwhile financial cause, and within the wiki movement, it would badly injure the concept that funds donated in good faith are spent carefully. I look forward to reading in detail about what outcomes have been selected to be tracked, how and why that selection was made, how each grant is expected and hoped to affect them, and when and how we may be expected to find out how it went, both "on the ground" for the grantees and in terms of the already-set outcomes. These are all things that must already have been carefully documented. Down the road, a thorough breakdown of how it actually did go and how it can be done better, if possible, for future rounds will be a cornerstone of best-practice for knowledge equity initiatives for years to come. Cheers, --IL _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ message/TGZK3JNX4FLBZIIQB6GUBXL7IMPE4CV2/<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hy… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> -- GN.

813

days inactive

820

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

6 comments

6 participants

tags (0)

participants (6)

Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Gnangarra
Inductiveload
Mike Peel
Nadee Gunasena
Peter Southwood