The Wikimedia Foundation this week announced the winning grantees in March's "Inspire" grant-making campaign. The campaign was organized as an invitation to the editing community for thoughts, ideas, and opinions on how to address Wikipedia gender gap. Ideas were presented and commented by and within the community via the collaborative IdeaLab, and to help attract contributors the Foundation ran a prominent CentralNotice banner in support of the campaign. The best ideas were to be matched to long-term advisers as well as up to US$250,000 of funding withdrawn from the Individual Engagement Grants and Project and Event Grants programs, which were on hold from February to April this year to free up program staff for the campaign. The campaign served as a pilot project for what the WMF hopes will prove to be a viable new option in community-oriented grant-making: further "Inspire grants" organized as all-at-once timely campaigns focused on issues deemed to be of particular importance to the movement.
With the campaign now complete director of community resources Siko Bouterse and Project and Event Grants Program Officer Alexandra Wang presented the winners in a post to the Wikimedia Blog. At the time of the campaign's organization the Foundation was hoping for 20 new grant-supported projects, which appears to have been more or less fulfilled: after "careful review by a committee of volunteer Wikimedians and gender-focused experts", 16 projects have received WMF funding. They are as follows:
In a post to the WMF-l mailing list, Wang wrote:
| “ | The projects are experimenting with a variety of strategies: organizing events and leveraging professional communities, institutions and partnerships to create quality content, researching gaps in both content and contributors, and testing approaches for training and mentorship to better support gender diversity on-wiki. Overall, we're particularly pleased to see projects looking at gender in multiple ways as they work to improve Wikipedia's gender diversity across various contexts, and to be supporting some returning grantees as well as many new project leaders who identify as women or allies for increasing gender diversity. | ” |
Further feedback from the Foundation's Inspire team focusing on their experiences in organizing the campaign, which has been in embryo since last December, will be forthcoming. Meanwhile staff and volunteer time has returned to the now-unfrozen PEG and IEG programs, and any further proposed contributions to the themes of gender gap are encouraged to seek any further feedback at these venues.
In related news, senior operations analyst Tilman Bayer published a post to the Foundation blog a day earlier, on March 30, summarizing the statistical work that has been done so far to quantify the scale of the gender gap. Addressing the gender gap emerged as a major strategic goal for the WMF in 2011, following external media coverage about the fact, blowing up what had by that time already become an internal concern for former executive director Sue Gardner and founder Jimmy Wales alike (Signpost coverage at the time was itself written by Bayer, at the time the Signpost's volunteer editor-in-chief). The assessment came with a long list of qualifiers and provided numbers ranging from 6 to 26 percent; as the blog post points out, in the "Inspire" campaign's own banners the number used by the Wikimedia Foundation is a well-hedged "less than 20%". Past articles in the Signpost and elsewhere have used a 10% meter stick. Likely the best assessments come from a trio of editor surveys carried out in support of the 2010-2015 strategic plan, which gave 9%, 9%, and 10% figures, respectively, in 2011-2012—subject to the biases introduced by the use of voluntary editor surveys.
All that said, Bayer does not specifically criticize the distinct lack of recent data. There has been no general survey of the Wikimedia userbase since 2012, making it difficult to get an accurate accounting of how the gender gap has changed in the last three years. While WMF is currently working on another survey, there is no indication of when it will be completed and sent out. R
Seven featured articles were promoted this week.
_13.jpg)
Three featured lists were promoted this week.
Ten featured pictures were promoted this week.
.jpg)
.jpg)
The second round of the WikiCup has all wrapped up, and round three has now started; 34 competitors remain. Leading the way overall was 
Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. There was a number of high importance articles improved during the second round including the work by 
Coemgenus (submissions) on the 18th President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant. His work there is a prime example of how collaborative working can be included in the WikiCup - he wasn't the only person working on the article but individually it was considered to be significant enough for him to earn the points. 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), WikiCup champion in 2013 and 2014 maxxed out the bonus points by taking Dragonfly to Good Article. Another significant GA which was promoted during round two was Alexander Hamilton by 
LeftAire (submissions); Hamilton was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a level 4 vital article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which was high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and so all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. On June 28, the top two in each group will progress automatically to the fourth round while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards.
| Key | |
|---|---|
| FA | Featured article |
| GA | Good article |
| FL | Featured list |
| FP | Featured picture |
| FT | Featured topic |
| GT | Good topic |
| DYK | Did you know? |
| ITN | In the news |
Of course this is not a complete list of content produced by any one contestant; consider this a sample of their overall work.
_(14681891387).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
artnet and The Next Web report (May 6) that the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum is releasing a hundred images of works in its collection under Creative Commons licences in conjunction with a May 19 editathon. The donation includes works by Edgar Degas, Vincent van Gogh, and Paul Klee. Pharos, president of Wikimedia New York City and a speaker at the editathon, told the Signpost that the works should all be available in the Wikimedia Commons category commons:Category:Media contributed by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in time for the event. The images will be of works already in the public domain, but they will be higher resolution images than have been previously available, and will include both two-dimensional and three-dimensional works.
Advertising Age reports (May 4) that a campaign involving Wikipedia was honored at the 94th annual awards of the Art Directors Club, presented last week in Miami Beach. The campaign was created by the Costa Rican branch of Leo Burnett Worldwide for Fundación Paniamor, a Costa Rican non-profit organization dedicated to children's advocacy, for the 2014 presidential election last May. In October 2014, they edited the articles of the major candidates on the Spanish Wikipedia, including the eventual winner Luis Guillermo Solís, to insert a largely blank section asking what the candidates would do to address childhood protection issues. The edits were immediately reverted and the articles protected, but the campaign drew attention to the edits with the hashtag #IncompleteBios. The campaign received attention in the Spanish-language media and claims credit for the candidates all adopting childhood protection policies in their platforms.
_007.JPG)
.JPG){kind=spacer}
Elections have begun for five community members of the Funds Dissemination Committee, the Foundation's volunteer body for judging and recommending millions of dollars worth of annual grants to affiliates in the movement. This is the first year in which Wikimedians will elect the full quota of five members, who will serve until the next election in mid-2017. The election lasts just eight days, from Sunday 3 May until 23:59 UTC on Sunday 10 May, so at the time of publication, voters will need to act promptly. All Wikimedians who satisfy the requirements may vote. Voters can update their selections by simply going through the process again before the deadline.
Eleven candidates are competing for the five positions: Snezhana ("Zana") Shtrkovska (native speaker of Macedonian, from Macedonia); Tanweer Morshed (Bengali, Bangladesh); Shawn Chen (English, US); Itzik Edri (Hebrew, Israel); Mike Peel (English, UK); Pete Ekman (English, US); Felix Nartey (English, Ghana); Liam Wyatt (English, Australia); Ad Huikeshoven (Dutch, the Netherlands); Lorenzo Losa (Italian, Italy); and Michał Buczyński (Polish, Poland). The Signpost put 10 propositions to each candidate for their response; the results are set out below.
Candidates' basic details and election statements are displayed on Meta. Links to translations in many languages are trumpeted at the top of the election pages, showing yet again that relying on pro bono translation ends up almost nowhere: non-English-speakers beware. A table of further information on the candidates, including total edits on their home-site and on all WMF sites, appears on the talkpage of the German Wikipedia's news outlet, Der Kurier.
A ternary voting system is used, imported last year from the English Wikipedia's ArbCom elections. This gives voters three options for each candidate—support, neutral, or oppose—in which avoiding "neutral" votes strengthens the positions of those whom a voter supports, on simple arithmetic grounds. The formula S/(S+O) will determine the successful candidates, who must then be endorsed by the WMF Board.
Elections for the FDC ombudsperson—who receives, documents, and makes recommendations to the WMF Board on complaints concerning the FDC process—are being held concurrently. There are two candidates, Kirill Lokshin (English, US) and Mykola Kozlenko (Ukrainian, Ukraine/Paris).
In March 2012 the WMF Board passed a resolution setting up a staff-supported volunteer body to allocate annual funding to eligible affiliates. In two rounds each year (October and March), the Funds Dissemination Committee has since pored over, analysed, and met in San Francisco to discuss dozens of lengthy applications detailing track-records and spending proposals, and made recommendations to the Board that have thus far always been accepted. The FDC receives an annual budget for each pair of rounds, which the Board has held at 2013–14 levels of US$6 million until at least the end of the 2015–16 year (Board minutes and p. 7, WMF Annual Plan).
The FDC's "framework" provides a year-by-year system of four Board-appointed members in even-numbered years and five community-elected members in odd-numbered years (after elections in 2013 and 2014 for two and four members, respectively).
The Signpost put to the candidates a set of 10 propositions related to the FDC, asking them to respond on a 1–5 numerical scale, with brief comments. The table below sets out their responses, with counts of "net positive" responses (1s and 2s), "net negatives" (4s and 5s), and neutrals (3s).[A]
The 1–5 Likert scale was:
| Proposition | Mike | Liam | Shawn | Ad | Tanweer | Zana | Pete | Lorenzo | Michał | Itzik | Felix Nartey | Av (StDev) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appoint external tech experts | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2.8 (1.2) |
| Make Wikidata separately eligible | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3.3 (1.2) |
| Direct unspent funds to planned new endowment | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2.6 (1.3) |
| Current FDC budget is sufficient | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.6 (0.8) |
| Don't align FDC judgment more closely with tech needs | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3.1 (1.0) |
| Method of FDC appt/election should continue | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2.0 (0.6) |
| Retain "guardrails" | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3.4 (1.1) |
| Align FDC judgment more closely with edu. outreach | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2.5 (0.5) |
| Advisory committee no longer needed | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2.8 (1.2) |
| Prioritise global south | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2.2 (0.9) |
For each proposition, we give the number of positive responses (1s and 2s), the number of negative responses (4s and 5s), and the number of neutrals/no responses (3s).[B]
(a) "The WMF should be appointing external technological expertise to the FDC to enhance its ability to judge major technical grants, such as projects related to Wikidata." [5 positive; 3 negative; 3 neutral]
Michał strongly agrees, and Lorenzo strongly disagrees. Some candidates point out that a reasonable alternative is for the FDC to consult the opinions of subject-matter experts where the Committee itself lacks the necessary expertise. Ad finds the proposition tangential: he would prefer a fully elected FDC.
(b) "Wikidata should be spun off from Wikimedia Germany into an independent FDC-eligible organisation to address the need to increase the development of Wikidata, and remove it from competing with demands on the German chapter’s budget." [2 positive; 4 negative; 5 neutral]
The Wikidata proposition is probably the most provocative, and unsurprisingly the least favoured. Mike and Liam strongly disagree with it, as does Ad in principle ("the FDC doesn't have a say in such a question. Wikidata is a geat success, [the German chapter] does a great job"). For Michał, an "independent, international entity working on Wikidata would be plausible", but he feels that its budget can be quite transparent even within the German chapter, and Wikidata should be kept semi-independent from the WMF. Lorenzo comments: "It may make sense, from the FDC point of view, to separate the evaluation of Wikidata from the rest of Wikimedia Germany, but I would not advise to create a new entity just to support Wikidata." For Liam, "this idea would not make Wikidata any more efficient than being a department of WM-De, as this would require much of the organisational infrastructure of the chapter be duplicated. Tanweer strongly supports the proposition: "The Wikidata project, though developed by Wikimedia Deutschland, has now come into such a position that it needs to be developed by the wider community and so its authority for control and supervision should be transferred to an eligible entity."
(c) "The unspent funds from each annual FDC budget should go into the planned new WMF endowment." [5 positive; 3 negative; 2 neutral]
Currently, unspent funds at the end of each year go to the WMF's reserves, but the recent plans to create an endowment raise the question of whether unspent funds should be put into longer-term safekeeping or spent by the WMF in the shorter term. The proposition is controversial, with strong agreement by Shawn and Lorenzo, and strong disagreement by Ad, for whom "there shouldn't be an endowment. ... Unspent FDC money should roll forward to the next FDC round." Liam agrees that an endowment should be created, but does not think it should "compete" against FDC allocations. Michał suggests directing unspent funds to a "quasi-endowment".
(d) "The current FDC budget is sufficient for the movement’s needs, given the competing needs of the editorial communities." [4 positive; 1 negative; 6 neutral]
Ad strongly believes more funds are needed to support existing and new affiliates, but objected to the notion that affiliates compete against the needs of editorial communities. Michał thinks an increase will be required when Wikidata expands, and that should software development by affiliates increase, more funding would be required. Tanweer strongly supports the proposition. More than half of the candidates are neutral on this matter, as for the next proposition.
(e) "The FDC’s judgment should not be more closely aligned with the movement’s technological needs." [2 positive; 3 negative; 6 neutral] (note polarity reversal)
Michał strongly agrees with closer tech alignment, linking to his previously expressed opinion. For Shawn, the FDC "should ultimately be aligned with the guidance provided by the Foundation and its community of what would benefit the movement's mission". Lorenzo has no major concerns about the alignment between the FDC recommendations and the movement's technological needs. Itzik strongly agrees that tech needs should not be aligned more closely with FDC decisions.
(f) "The method of appointing/electing FDC members has served us well and should be continued beyond the Board’s arrangements." [9 positive; 0 negative; 2 neutral]
This is the most strongly supported proposition of all. Lorenzo does think "the current ratio is sound (but there might be a problem of continuity: none of the members ending their term now is seeking reelection", but nevertheless responded "neutral", as did Ad, who would strongly prefer a higher ratio of elected members.
(g) "The “guardrails” (limits of +/– 20% in funding changes from year to year) should be retained." [2 positive; 6 negative; 3 neutral]
The guardrails are controversial, and this is among the two least popular statements, with Mike strongly against. Shawn writes that the guardrails "create a bias towards limiting the potential of an applicant within those means. I believe we can graduate from the transitory phase and allow more opportunities for our grantees." Michał believes they should be increasingly flexible and merit-based. This is similar to Liam's view: "much more context needs to be taken into account for each applicant than merely applying a formula like this".
(h) "The FDC’s judgment should be more closely aligned with the movement’s broader educational outreach." [5 positive; 1 negative; 5 neutral]
There is weak support.
(i) "The FDC has matured sufficiently that a separate advisory committee is no longer needed." [3 positive; 5 negative; 3 neutral]
This is the other least-popular statement. Lorenzo strongly agrees, and Michał wants the advisory committee to be more pro-active in providing expertise on tech, community, and financial matters.
(j) "Where possible, the FDC should prioritise global south funding." [8 positive; 1 negative; 2 neutral]
Given that a huge majority of voters are from the global north, this is a politically intricate issue for candidates. Pete and Tanweer are strongly supportive. Ad believes that "all global south programs already well funded". There were several nuanced opinions: Michał: "Prioritize on efficacy, effectiveness, SWOT [strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats]". Liam: "Yes, but only in as much as this is the strategic goal of Wikimedia more generally." Lorenzo is keen to value diversity, "which is a bit different (and a bit more general) than global south. And, above all, it should prioritize impact ... although [the global south is] important, it's an issue that goes well beyond funding, and I don't want to convey the impression that funding is the solution."
Pete Ekman provides only a summary statement, which is oriented towards the big picture of the FDC's evolving role:
| “ | The questions contain many good ideas, but I haven't seen them discussed as part of an overall package of what the FDC should do. We do need such a discussion to thrash out what the FDC should and shouldn't do. One thing is certain – the FDC cannot remain an organization that almost exclusively funds Annual Program Grants for European chapters. Frank discussion is sorely needed. | ” |
Voters can ask questions of candidates here. Voting (and re-voting) is open until the end of Sunday UTC.
______________________
Footnotes:
Summary: Like colliding ocean liners, rousing entertainment and harsh reality merged ungainly in this week's top 10 list. The much heralded pay-per-view pummeling of Manny Pacquiao by Floyd Mayweather, Jr. dominated the list's top slots, giving this list one of its highest total view counts in months. Box office behemoth Avengers: Age of Ultron, which had ruled last week's list, was sent to number 4, despite the fact that its views had actually increased. However, just below, the death of Freddie Gray and the horrific earthquake in Nepal forced viewers' attentions back to the vagaries of human experience.
For the full top-25 list, see WP:TOP25. See this section for an explanation of any exclusions. For a list of the most edited articles of the week, see here.
As prepared by Serendipodous, for the week of April 26 to May 2, 2015, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the most viewed pages, were:
| Rank | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Floyd Mayweather, Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao | 
|
2,631,206 |  |
Wikipedians love their combat sports, but this is the first time such an event has topped the list since it began in January 2013. This long-anticipated boxing match between Floyd Mayweather, Jr. (pictured) and Manny Pacquiao, and the latest fight to be dubbed the Fight of the Century (a somewhat presumptuous title, given that our century is currently 15 years old), was held on May 2 in Las Vegas. To say this fight has been highly anticipated is an understatement: this article was created in July 2013, and plans to get these two in the ring together date as far back as 2010. For all that hype, pay-per-view revenues are estimated to be as high as $400 million, fulfilling record-breaking predictions. |
| 2 | Manny Pacquiao | 
|
2,578,817 |  |
The current Filipino Congressman and boxing's only octuple champion suffered a fairly noble defeat to Floyd Mayweather, Jr. during the "fight of the century" on May 2. |
| 3 | Floyd Mayweather, Jr. |
|
2,507,300 | |
The quintuple champion upheld his undefeated record with his 48th straight win on May 2. |
| 4 | Avengers: Age of Ultron |
|
2,407,812 |  |
The latest instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe premiered in Hollywood on April 13, and went on wide release on May 1. In any other year, the sequel to the billion-grossing Avengers would be the film to beat at the box office, but with the success of Furious 7, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens ahead, no one is taking bets on who will come out on top. The movie's $188 million opening weekend failed to live up to its predecessor's $207 million, but when the numbers are this big, you're splitting hairs. |
| 5 | Death of Freddie Gray |
|
2,093,596 |  |
America has seen a spate of young black men killed under suspicious circumstances by police in the last 12 months, and in the confusion and politicised debate, viewers turned to Wikipedia for clarity. The death of Eric Garner and the shooting of Michael Brown topped this list for a combined three weeks running, and in a more typical week, this latest death would top the list as well. The decision of state's attorney Marilyn Mosby to charge the police who killed Freddie Gray with homicide has meant that the city of Baltimore has been spared the worst excesses of the riots visited upon Ferguson, Missouri. |
| 6 | Bruce Jenner |
|
1,219,166 |  |
The former track and field Olympian and current honorary Kardashian remains the news this week, and views for his article have dropped just 25%. Jenner previously appeared on the Top 25 for two weeks in February, but his article would not include what the tabloids were reporting until Jenner said it himself, which he did in an April 24 interview on American television with Diane Saywer – that he is a trans woman. His gender transition will be the subject of an eight-part documentary series starting July 2015. |
| 7 | Nepal |
|
1,192,053 |  |
Before today, this Himalayan country sandwiched between India and China was probably best known as the home (with Tibet) of Mount Everest, and also of the Sherpa people, who guided the first Westerners to its summit. A onetime spot on the Hippie trail and home for disaffected westerners looking for an alternative way of life, it has seen tragedy, upheaval and civil war in recent years, but horror reached a climax this week with the hideous 7.8 magnitude earthquake that struck its central region, including its capital, Kathmandu. |
| 8 | 2015 Nepal earthquake |
|
908,375 |  |
The grinding push of India into Asia that is slowly raising the Himalayas has meant that the Nepali people are no strangers to geological tragedy; even so, the horror they woke up to on 25 April was the worst they would have known in more than eighty years. A combination of size (7.8), depth (a relatively shallow 15 km) and duration (twenty seconds) made the quake particularly devastating; generating a death toll of 7,500, with hundreds still missing. Entire villages near the epicentre were wiped out. Temples that had stood for centuries were flattened. But perhaps the greatest tragedy is that the poor state of transport infrastructure in the country has meant that many of the more remote villages have still received no aid. |
| 9 | Vision (Marvel Comics) |
|
825,378 |  |
The sentient AI and foil for the villainous Ultron became the breakout star of The Avengers: Age of Ultron and allowed actor Paul Bettany (pictured) to finally step out of the voice-only shadows of his J.A.R.V.I.S. character into full acting. |
| 10 | Furious 7 |
|
660,138 |  |
After burning through the global box office like a brush fire for its first three weeks, this latest installment in the Fast and Furious franchise is apparently winding down, taking only $6 million in its latest weekend; however such was the overwhelming gravitational pull of Avengers: Age of Ultron that Furious 7's meagre gross still placed it at no. 2 in the charts. |
