Those are awfully hard lines to draw. The reality of grant-writing is that it's always a bit vague and a bit dreamy. If you get too specific about things, you m

Those are awfully hard lines to draw. The reality of grant-writing is that it's always a bit vague and a bit dreamy. If you get too specific about things, you might get held uncomfortably tightly to them. Grant writers know this, and the foundations who give the money also know it. If you weren't on the committee that worked on the grant application, I don't think you can draw any of A, B, or C with certainty. They are not exhaustive of all possibilities, so there's no logical imperative to accept one. I've written and received grants from the Knight Foundation. Everyone involved understands that there is flexibility in scope from the planning to execution of a project. For example, I was on the board of an orchestra that won several grants to put on "a performance of the Verdi Requiem." Surprisingly, that can mean different things to different people. What we ended up doing was an interactive multi-media presentation that focused on the history of the piece and its performance by captive Jews at the concentration camp at Terezin. During the course of which, we did also perform the requiem itself. It was not anything like what you would see if you bought tickets to the NY Phil to go hear the requiem. I can see a reasonable point of view where a person at that event could say, "That was not the Verdi Requiem." And to that person, I would say that it was never our intent to do what the NY Phil would do. We always intended to do something very different. But in my opinion it still counts as "a performance of the Verdi Requiem" and was totally in line with what we requested the grants for in the first place. I'm not saying this is the situation with the Wikimedia grant. I'm saying that it could be. And you should be careful about trying to draw bright lines around a topic that's pretty hazy by nature and about which we have very incomplete knowledge.