The OpenRefine project has received some support from the Wikimedia Foundation in the past. However, our most recent application to the foundation was not successful. Part of this reason is that Wikimedia Foundation has changed their funding focus to their affiliates. In order to be eligible for funding moving forward, we must have an official Wikimedia user group.
OpenRefine already has a presence on Meta, as it is an important tool used in Wikidata workflows. Creating a Wikimedia Group would formalize the relationship that the project has to the wiki-movement, while allowing us access to a much-needed funding stream.
In order to be eligible to form a group, there must be at least three active Wikimedia editors who have made a total 500 or more contributions to a Wikimedia project (or, in the case of Wikidata, 800 or more edits). It’s recommended that groups include approximately ten members, as this illustrates the close tie that the community has to the project. A proposal would need to follow Wikimedia affilate naming conventions
Finally, in an application to be an official Wikimedia group, the OpenRefine community would need to address the following two points:
How would your user group contribute to the mission of the Wikimedia Movement
How does the background of the founding members contribute to the success of your user group
Would you support the creation of a Wikimedia OpenRefine Group? What questions or comments do you have about this proposal or process? Would you like to be a member of the group if it is founded?
I would like to be a part of this group. OpenRefine is an invaluable tool for my work with Wikibases (Wikidata and the cloud instance run by my organization) and I think it is vital to have OpenRefine collaborate more closely with Wikimedia communities.
The General Support Fund (GSF) is open to Wikimedia Movement organizations and organized groups of Wikimedia volunteers, to support the effective programmatic work of those implementing their work in 100% of the time related to and focusing exclusively on Wikimedia projects.
(emphasis mine)
Even if there will be an OpenRefine Wikimedia affiliate, OpenRefine's activities do not 100% of the time relate to and focus on Wikimedia projects.
OpenRefine has pivoted to become, as has been decided by its community years ago, a generalized data tool, not a Wikimedia tool. Wikimedia features are (planned to be) in / moved to OpenRefine extensions, not in the core software. Reconciliation is explicitly positioned to be a feature outside of OpenRefine, and not Wikimedia-specific. A Wikimedia user group won't change that situation, and grants committees and officers won't be fooled by arguments to the contrary.
I wouldn't waste people's limited time on this, as it will only produce disappointment. The OpenRefine community can continue supporting its Wikimedia features in the following ways:
Use parts of non-Wikimedia funding to also fund and sustain Wikimedia features (e.g. as part of grants obtained by OpenRefine community members active in non-Wikimedia sectors: libraries, data science, digital humanities, data journalism...). Including Wikimedia support will only make such grant applications more attractive for external funders, as the grants will produce larger impact and outreach.
And/or retain (a) volunteer developer(s) who further sustain(s) the Wikimedia features, for free, without funding.
Personally, I am refocusing my efforts to those initiatives and communities that do have a 100% Wikimedia focus, are affordable to the Wikimedia movement, don't require the maintenance of specialized APIs and protocols, and are usable by as many people as possible without training. In the current political landscape, that is very urgently needed.
Thanks for your reply, @Sandra. I serve on the Wikimedia North America Community Fund, and while I wouldn't be making any decisions about funding OpenRefine due to the conflict of interest, I can share that many of the projects we fund do not spend 100% of their time and focus on Wikimedia projects. A couple examples of these projects are:
The very good news for OpenRefine is that unlike other projects, OpenRefine doesn't have monthly costs (no servers to run, no hosting to pay, no recurring bills). I've always appreciated that and prefer that OpenRefine stay this way. So without bills to pay, OpenRefine doesn't actually need funding, what it needs are more contributors and volunteers, which someone back in the day thought meant getting money and funding.
A vibrant ecosystem of contributors, good documentation, onboarding materials, and especially easier to use programmatic system choices for contributors to code/maintain, are what will keep OpenRefine alive more than anything.
I would like to be part of such a group. I think the OpenRefine-Wikibase pipeline (be it Wikidata, Commons, or individual Wikibase instances) is of some importance for multiple GLAM communities and the group would help to strengthen the connection. I have > 900 edits on Wikidata, most of them using OpenRefine.
It's very nice to see that we have many people wanting to be part of a group like this. Two steps to take next are figuring out a good name and appointing two people to be primary contact points towards Wikimedia Foundation. Do we have any ideas and volunteers?
What about something simple for a name, like "OpenRefine Community" or "OpenRefine Users"? I would be happy to be one of the two primary contacts, but since I serve on the Community Fund for North America, I don't think that this would be the most wise approach. While in any case I would recuse myself from funding discussions due to COI, I don't want to give any impression of favoritism. Of course, we might not be funded and then this wouldn't matter - but in case we are funded! @Ainali , would you be willing to be one of the two primary members? @DaxServer , would you consider being the second? (Of course, other nominations and self-nominations are very welcome - I am making nominations in the aims of moving this discussion forward.)
The naming guidelines are a bit vague, but that almost sounds like the last example under non-acceptable use: "MediaWiki Developers".
Using one of the acceptable example templates ("[Region/Interest] Wikimedians User Group") is perhaps the simplest: "OpenRefine Wikimedians User Group"?
I could be a primary contact, but think it would be better for our community if the two primary contacts are not also in the advisory committee.
