Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:FAQ

💡 In simple words: Before joining a game, you want to know the rules: who can play, who decides who wins, and how prizes are given. This page collects all those questions about WikiDeal open calls. Proposed answers are now published for each question; they are waiting for review and comments before becoming official.

🎯 In 20 seconds (scientific summary): This FAQ gathers the detailed rules and procedures of the WikiDeal open calls, as a complement to the summary published on the Open Call page. It follows the Open Call Model 1, intended for Prototype 1. The questions cover participation, submission, evaluation, decisions, payments, rights and licensing, and governance. Each question now has a proposed answer, written in careful language; the answers are pending review and comments and are not yet official.

Open Call FAQ: how are open calls managed

Status: proposed answers, pending review, not yet official. Every answer below is a proposal, written in careful language, and awaits validation by the project team. Nothing on this page creates any right, promise or guarantee.

These questions and answers aim at being generic: they would apply to open calls on any topic (see the list of open calls). They complement the summary published on the Open Call page and follow the Open Call Model 1, intended for Prototype 1.

Participating

Do I need an account to participate? If yes, which one, and how do I create it?

Proposed answer: yes, a standard account on wikideal.net would be the entry point. No email exchange is needed: you would log in and post your ideas and links in the Discussion tab of the call page. Creating the account is free and takes a minute. If account creation fails for any reason, the contact address info@wikideal.net can be used to ask for help.

Who can participate? Is it reserved for Wiki experts (experienced users of Wikipedia and other key wikis, for example WikiHow and Uncyclopedia), or open to anyone, anywhere in the world? Does it cost anything?

Proposed answer: no, open calls are intended to be open to anyone, anywhere in the world, with no participation fee. The first wave of calls (the early bird calls) is especially publicised among Wiki experts because the programme is informally launched during Wikimania 2026, celebrating 25 years of Wikipedia, but it is not reserved for them. Established funding programmes such as the Wikimedia Community Fund follow a similar spirit of broad, low barrier participation, and WikiDeal draws inspiration from that practice without copying its rules.

Can I participate as a team or only as an individual?

Proposed answer: both. A single person or a constituted group could submit. A group would name one contact person for communication and, if money is attributed, for the payment; how the group shares an attributed sum internally would be the group's own responsibility. This mirrors the individual versus consortium distinction found in European programmes, in a much lighter form: no consortium agreement or heavy paperwork is intended for these micro calls.

Is there an age requirement? Can minors participate?

Proposed answer, under discussion: ideas would be welcome from anyone, including young people. However, paying money to a minor raises legal questions that differ by country, so any payment to a minor would require the consent of a legal guardian and would be examined case by case. Options without cash, such as Karma tokens only or participation without remuneration, could make participation simpler for minors. This point is not yet decided.

Can I participate anonymously or under a pseudonym?

Proposed answer: contributing ideas under a wiki pseudonym would be possible, as on most wikis. Receiving a cash payment, however, would require a verified identity and a bank account (IBAN), for legal and accounting reasons. A pseudonymous contributor could therefore choose Karma tokens only, or participate without remuneration, and keep the pseudonym. Details are under discussion.

Can I participate without receiving any money?

Proposed answer: yes. Three options are proposed: full participation with cash and Rewards (no guarantee), participation with Karma tokens only and no cash, and participation without any remuneration at all. Contributors would state their preference; many people contribute to free knowledge projects without payment, and that choice would be fully respected here.

Can I both submit my own ideas and give my opinion on the contributions of others?

Proposed answer: yes, and it is encouraged. The construction is intended to be participatory and open: everyone sees the ideas of everyone else, and commenting on, improving or supporting the proposals of others is itself considered a valuable contribution that the committee could take into account when attributing rewards.

Can the same person hold several roles, for example contributor and evaluator?

Proposed answer: the system is intentionally porous and organic. On one side there would be a steering committee whose membership evolves over time; on the other side, contributors who can play several roles. The proposed limit is simple: not several roles for the same person within the same call. Someone evaluating a given call would not compete in it. But no exclusion would be definitive: a contributor could later join the committee, and committee members could contribute to other calls. Situations would be examined case by case.

Do I have to write in English, or can I submit in another language?

Proposed answer: English is the working language of the wiki, so proposals in English are easiest to evaluate. Submissions in other languages could be accepted, ideally with a short English summary; automatic translation tools make this workable. The exact practice is under discussion and would be clarified call by call.

Submitting a proposal

How exactly do I submit a proposal? Where do I post it, and in what format?

Proposed answer: you would go to the Discussion tab of the call page and post your proposal there, as text with any useful links. You can then raise a Request for Feedback (RFF) to draw attention to your proposal and gather community reactions. No file upload, form or email is required for the first wave.

Is there a template or a required structure for proposals?

Proposed answer: no heavy template for the first wave. A good proposal would state, in free form: what is proposed, why it is useful, where the idea comes from (see the question on references below), and the mandatory AI transparency disclosure if AI tools were used. An incomplete proposal would not be thrown away: the committee could ask for completion, or consider the part that is usable. As the programme advances, calls are intended to become more detailed, precise and documented, and lightweight templates could appear.

Do I have to say where my idea comes from? Are references mandatory?

Proposed answer: yes, this is one of the most important rules. Every contributor is asked to state whether an idea is their own or comes from elsewhere, and to document their sources: links, authors, prior projects, publications. Honest referencing protects everyone, allows fair attribution, and is part of the culture of free knowledge. Undocumented borrowing presented as original work could lead to the loss of any reward.

Can I submit several proposals, to the same call or to several calls at once?

Proposed answer: yes. Several proposals to the same call, and participation in several calls in parallel, would both be allowed. Quality matters more than quantity: a flood of thin proposals would not help, and the evaluation would look at usefulness, not volume.

Can I edit my proposal after posting it? Can I build on someone else's proposal, and how would the reward be shared?

Proposed answer: yes to both. Proposals live on a wiki, so they can be improved until the evaluation of the relevant cycle; the page history keeps track of who added what and when. Building on the proposals of others is explicitly welcome, since the construction is open by design. When several people shape one result, the committee would weigh each direct input. The first contributor of a key idea could sometimes receive more, in recognition of the direct initial input, while those who refined, tested or completed it would share the rest. There is no fixed formula: attribution would be explained case by case.

Do I have to disclose the use of AI tools?

Proposed answer: yes, AI transparency disclosure is mandatory. A proposal would state which AI tools were used and for what (drafting, translation, images, code and so on). Using AI is not penalised in itself; hiding its use is the problem. The disclosure would be a short note attached to the proposal.

Evaluation and decisions

Who decides which proposals are selected?

Proposed answer: a steering committee, informed by public discussion and, where relevant, a public vote. The committee's membership is intended to evolve over time rather than being fixed. During the first period the sums involved are small, so the stakes are deliberately low; decision procedures would become more formal progressively, as amounts and participation grow.

When are decisions made? Is there a fixed calendar for each call?

Proposed answer: it depends on the call. Some calls have a fixed deadline and a competitive selection; others stay open until a first simple version of the expected result has been adopted. In all cases, attribution is intended to happen progressively, as good contributions arrive, rather than in one single verdict, and each attribution would come with an explanation. Evaluation cycles would be periodic; their exact rhythm is not yet defined.

What are the evaluation criteria?

Proposed answer: the criteria aim at staying close to what established research and innovation programmes use, in a lighter form. Three generic families are proposed:

1. Relevance and quality of the idea: does it answer the question of the call, is it sound, is it well referenced? (Comparable to the "excellence" criterion of Horizon Europe and the "relevance" criterion of Erasmus+ Cooperation Partnerships, the actions formerly known as Strategic Partnerships.)

2. Expected impact and usefulness: what would the idea change for WikiDeal and its future users, and does it stimulate other contributions? (Comparable to the "impact" criterion used by both programmes.)

3. Feasibility and maturity: can it realistically be implemented, and does it last over time? (Comparable to "quality and efficiency of the implementation" in Horizon Europe, detailed in the Horizon Europe general annexes.)

WikiDeal draws inspiration from these frameworks without copying their rules: no consortium, no formal scoring grid for the micro calls of the first wave, but the same underlying logic of relevance, impact and feasibility, applied with common sense by the committee and the community.

Is there always a single winner? Can several people be rewarded, or nobody at all?

Proposed answer: most calls are not a cold competition where one person wins and the others lose. The goal is to have several rewarded contributors, because they helped each other: authors of complementary ideas, careful commenters, people who improved the proposals of others. Some calls can be competitive by design, with a single selected proposal, and this is stated on the call page. A call can also end with no attribution: in that case the money is never kept, it is intended to be reinvested in another open call.

Can a very small idea be rewarded? What are a "coup de coeur" and a "micro boost"?

Proposed answer: yes. Two light mechanisms are proposed alongside the regular evaluation. A coup de coeur (a heartfelt favourite) would let the committee reward a contribution that touched or convinced it, even outside the strict frame of the call. A micro boost would reward a small idea that stimulated a lot: a remark of two lines that unlocks a debate or reorients a design can be worth more than pages of text. Both would involve modest amounts and a short public explanation.

How will I know if I am selected? Can I get feedback, or contest a decision?

Proposed answer: when money is attributed and paid, the WikiDeal team informs the contributors concerned directly. Each attribution is intended to come with a public explanation, so non selected contributors can understand the reasoning. Questions can be asked on the discussion page of the call. A formal appeal procedure does not exist yet for these micro calls; whether one is needed is under discussion, and would be examined as the amounts grow.

Rewards and payments

How and when do I receive my money? What about fees and taxes?

Proposed answer: payments would be made by bank transfer to the IBAN you provide, after the attribution decision and the verification of the licensing conditions (see the licensing question below). Part of the sum can be withheld for up to one year under the maturity criterion, explained below. Taxes and social charges on amounts received remain the responsibility of each recipient, under the law of their own country; WikiDeal cannot give tax advice.

Who pays? Which organisation is legally behind the open calls?

Proposed answer: in a first period, the payments would be made by the Ynternet.org Foundation, a Swiss non profit foundation, which carries the WikiDeal project at this stage. As the governance of WikiDeal develops, this could evolve; any change would be announced on the wiki.

Where does the money come from?

Proposed answer: the announced sums come from an initial fund provided by the founder of the project (see the credits page). This initial fund is intended to be progressively reimbursed by the first subscriptions, through the Rewards mechanism, and by donations made against Rewards (no guarantee). In other words: the founder advances the money so that the open calls can start before the platform has revenue, and the community model would gradually take over. None of this constitutes a financial promise.

What is the difference between direct cash and Rewards (no guarantee)?

Proposed answer: direct cash is money actually paid to your bank account once attributed. Rewards (no guarantee) are a conditional mechanism linked to future subscription revenue of the platform: they may translate into value later if the project develops, and they may not. The two are always kept distinct in the call tables, and no promise is attached to Rewards. Karma tokens are a third form, usable for services within the ecosystem.

Why can part of the sum be withheld for up to one year? What is the maturity criterion?

Proposed answer: the committee wants to distinguish a solid base from a flash in the pan. A contribution can deserve money directly, or partly: in that case a part is paid at attribution and the rest is kept by the committee and attributed according to how long the idea stays in use and remains useful over time. For example, half of a sum could be paid immediately and the other half one year later, if the idea has lasted, as an increase of the donation. The exact split would be stated at attribution. To assess whether the idea has lasted, the Maturity Score of the concerned User Group can be used as an indicator: for example, whether real deployment has taken place one year later. The Maturity Score measures the health of User Groups and their marketplaces (not of the open calls themselves); its use here is limited to informing the release of a second tranche.

Do I need a bank account (IBAN)? What if I do not have one?

Proposed answer: yes, an IBAN is the proposed default for cash payments. If you do not have one, or do not wish to share one, the proposed alternatives are Karma tokens only, or participation without remuneration. Other payment channels are not planned for the first period, mainly to keep accounting simple and verifiable; this could be revisited later.

What are Karma tokens and how can I use them?

Proposed answer: Karma tokens are the internal credits of the WikiDeal ecosystem, usable for services within it. A contributor can choose to receive part or all of a reward in Karma tokens instead of cash. They are not money, they are not convertible on demand, and their scope of use would grow with the ecosystem itself.

Rights, licensing and rules

Who owns my proposal once submitted? Under which licence is it published?

Proposed answer: contributions are published on the wiki under its free licence (CC BY-SA 4.0), following the Free Licensing principle of the project. By submitting, you confirm that your contribution is either your original work, or based on third party material that is itself under a free licence, in the public domain, or covered by usage rights you are authorised to grant. A contribution that does not meet these conditions implies the waiver of any reward. You remain the author and are credited as such; the licence lets the community reuse and improve the work.

Can WikiDeal use my proposal even if I do not win?

Proposed answer: yes, and this is by design. All proposals are visible to everyone and published under a free licence, so any of them can inspire or be integrated into the project, with attribution preserved through the wiki history. This openness is precisely what makes mutual improvement possible. The coup de coeur and micro boost mechanisms exist partly so that useful non winning contributions can still be recognised.

What if two people submit the same idea?

Proposed answer: the wiki history shows who posted what and when, and the mandatory referencing shows where each idea comes from. The first contributor of an idea could receive more, in recognition of the direct input, while later contributors who genuinely enriched it would also be considered. Identical ideas arising independently are common and would be handled case by case, with an explanation. Claiming someone else's idea as one's own, on the other hand, would lead to the loss of any reward.

Which behaviour rules apply during an open call? Whom can I contact?

Proposed answer: the general conduct rules of the wiki apply, in particular the Universal Code of Conduct (proposal, to be adopted): respectful behaviour, no harassment, no manipulation of discussions or votes. For any question not answered here, use the discussion page of the call, or write to info@wikideal.net.

Governance and evolution

How are the open calls governed? Will there be votes?

Proposed answer: the governance aims at being participatory and progressive. In the first period, the sums are small and the stakes deliberately low, so decisions rest with a steering committee whose membership evolves, informed by open discussion. As the programme grows, more formal collective decision methods would be introduced. For fundamental decisions, such as master plans, the Condorcet voting method is envisaged and even encouraged, because it handles multiple options well; it is not planned for the first period.

Will the open calls change over time?

Proposed answer: yes. The more the programme advances, the more the calls are intended to become detailed, precise and documented: clearer criteria, better templates, richer examples. A further possibility under discussion is the organisation of call workshops, synchronous online sessions or even in person meetings, for example alongside events such as WikiGLAM gatherings or hackathons, where contributors could work on a call together. These are intentions and ideas only; nothing is guaranteed or scheduled.

Which existing programmes inspire the open calls?

Proposed answer: the open calls borrow their spirit, not their bureaucracy, from several established frameworks:

• Erasmus+ Cooperation Partnerships (EACEA / European Commission), the actions formerly known as Strategic Partnerships, for the generic award logic of relevance, quality of design and implementation, quality of cooperation, and impact. erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu (Cooperation Partnerships)
• Horizon Europe (successor of Horizon 2020), for the three classic evaluation criteria: excellence, impact, quality and efficiency of the implementation. research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu (Horizon Europe) · general annexes (PDF)
• Wikimedia Foundation grants, notably the Wikimedia Community Fund, for community driven, low barrier funding of volunteer initiatives. meta.wikimedia.org (Wikimedia Community Fund)
• InnoCentive, now Wazoku Crowd, as a long running example of open innovation challenges where a defined problem is opened to a worldwide crowd of solvers. wazokucrowd.com

WikiDeal is affiliated with none of these organisations; they are cited as sources of inspiration for generic, well tested procedures.

---

See also: Open Call page · User Group Maturity Assessment