Talk:Project grants/Take the Lead!
Hi Casliber, is this grant application still live, or could it be closed? You will see from the Grants page that grants can be paid only to members of the charity, so you'd either need to join or include in the grant proposal a member who would receive the funds. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2015 (BST)
- For the record, Casliber have never personally received any funds. The office have always directly paid any prizes to the eventual winners. If Wikimedia UK would like a member to be a "sponsor" of such competition grant application, I'll be happy to be such a member for this, Core, Stub, and/or GAN contest that Casliber would like to run. -- KTC (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2015 (BST)
Is it too early to discuss this? I'm not 100% comfortable this idea. Feels a bit like paid editing. Plus £250 while not a huge amount of money could be better spent on other things. Why not buy some fancy paper such as this and then put them in a nice presentation sleeve like this and give out winners and runners up certificates with maybe a box of quality street or a bottle of plonk if you really want to be generous. I've won several prizes for work in my lifetime and I have to say that the nice feeling you get is from the winning not from the actual value of whatever you win. Theresa knott (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2015 (BST)
- Ok here's the thing. The prizes are for amazon vouchers (sorry forgot to add that - was in a hurry and doing stream-of-consciousness writing). I think books for learning are better than awards or a bottle of plonk. And speaking of personal experience, I spent several years in my early teens shit-broke....and would have really appreciated a book voucher or two more than decorative awards. I'll get back to filling this one out. Casliber (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2015 (BST)
- Yes, this is a different take on what WMUK has been doing for some years, sponsoring "The Core contest", which Cas also runs. Most of the prize-winners are usually not in the UK, so physical prizes such as bottles of plonk etc aren't practical. Personally I think the outcomes of that have clearly made it well worthwhile, though as a winner in the past some might say I'm biased. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2015 (BST)
This seems like a sensible proposal overall. On the rewards, I've raised concerns about associating Amazon with WMUK before now, due to controversies surrounding Amazon in the UK, but I've come to the conclusion they're a reasonable prize compared to alternatives, and I'm happy to support giving them subject to some flexibility being given if a winner requests it. Paid editing per se doesn't bother me that much, though I respect that it is a third rail in the Wikimedia community, so direct cash prizes are probably best avoided. I prefer the £25 option when it comes to the distribution of the prizes, as I'm sure most volunteers would be happy with cash prizes at that level, and it does indeed spread the love around more. On the overall budget, I don't think £250 is unreasonable, though I think this request would be strengthened by reducing it down slightly given the budget constraints WMUK now faces. Perhaps a £200 budget with eight £25 Amazon vouchers – one going to the winner, and seven others being randomly distributed based on article submissions? CT Cooper · talk 22:04, 9 June 2015 (BST)
- I am not privy to your budget. if you have to cap it at £200 then so be it, still plenty to go round. The more I think about it the more I prefer to spread vouchers in 25 quid aliquots...Casliber (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2015 (BST)
The contest is now scheduled to take place in January, further details at Wikipedia:Take the lead!
Right, at the conclusion of the contest, 606 articles (from 20 editors) have been improved as per the guidelines and now go into a raffle for Amazon vouchers. Can someone from WMUK provide me eight random numbers between 1 and 606? I can't choose a winner as they are so diverse and I feel like it'd be comparing apples with oranges. Hence happy to do 8 x £25 vouchers for the lucky eight numbers drawn rather than seven plus a lead-winner. Casliber (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2016 (GMT) Oops, gotta give folks 72 hours...forgot 'bout that....and I need to pick a winner I think.So seven lucky dip numbers it is...Casliber (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (GMT)
- @Casliber: Righto, we'll hold fire on the lucky dip then. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2016 (GMT)
The Take the Lead! competition resulted in 20 editors writing new or expanding too-small leads in 606 articles. It is difficult to ascertain what dent this made in wikipedia's articles with small or no leads as it became clear to me beforehand that the number of articles tagged with lead problems (~2000 before the competition's commencement and ~ 1800 afterwards) was only a small fraction of all articles on wikipedia with the same issues (clicking the 'random' button will give you an idea!). Still, it was fun to run and attracted a different pool of editors. I think this is worth running again at least once and see what sort of headway we make. I am reluctant to tag all articles as it'd be alot of ugly tagging.... Casliber (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2016 (GMT)