Grants:IEG/Batch uploader for small GLAM projects/Final

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Individual Engagement Grants This project is funded by an Individual Engagement Grant

proposal people timeline & progress finances midpoint report final report


Welcome to this project's final report! This report shares the outcomes, impact and learnings from the Individual Engagement Grantee's 6-month project.

Part 1: The Project[edit]

Summary[edit]

Pattypan uploader flyer

In a few short sentences, give the main highlights of what happened with your project. Please include a few key outcomes or learnings from your project in bullet points, for readers who may not make it all the way through your report.

The project was an attempt to fill in a gap in GLAM upload tools for institutions and volunteers looking for flexibility when it comes to creating file descriptions, but at the same time looking for tools which would be easy to use and run without extended "technical knowledge" or programming skills. We were also aiming to offer an upload tool which allows volunteers to run diverse uploads, from different institutions and consequently, a tool which allows to adapt the choice of description fields with each batch.

Diana and Endymion by Luca Giordano, collection of the National Gallery of Art, uploaded by Slowking4

The resulting program – Pattypan written by Yarl – can run on most standard computers, and works both with open software and with Microsoft Office which is often the software installed on computers at small GLAM libraries or offices. Yarl released all subsequent versions of the open application Pattypan on Github, and we wrote a simple manual of how to use it on Wikimedia Commons. The software was then tested by a small group of initial users who reported issues or desired fixes/extensions.

Further uploads and comments by volunteers and the general community of Wikimedians led to the current, improved and functional 0.3 release (download). The main innovations in this release, compared to the initial version of the program, are:

  • The option to preview the resulting file descriptions;
  • The selection fields enabling users to generate a spreadsheet with only the needed fields – and the option to deselect ones which are not needed;
  • The option to automatically pre-fill repetitive data (e.g. license, institution or photographer) in selected fields;
  • The option to preload dates from photo EXIF data;
  • Listing errors/warnings per each file in the filled-in spreadsheet.
  • Full list of changes for version 0.3

Main outcomes[edit]

  • Pattypan is up and running, available and visible on Wikimedia Commons.
  • Over 2500 files were uploaded by volunteer users.
  • Uploaded images have been reused on Wikimedia projects 901 times
  • 858 individual images were reused on Wikimedia projects (33% of "Uploaded with Pattypan" category)
  • At least 6 GLAM newcomers to Wikimedia Commons uploaded their files using Pattypan
  • Several other batch uploads from GLAM institutions (previously present on Wikimedia Commons) were made
  • Basic information materials, manual and presentations are available
  • Users who responded to survey have stated they will continue using the program.

Methods and activities[edit]

Yarl's concept drawing

What did you do in project? Please list and describe the activities you've undertaken during this grant. Since you already told us about the setup and first 3 months of activities in your midpoint report, feel free to link back to those sections to give your readers the background, rather than repeating yourself here, and mostly focus on what's happened since your midpoint report in this section.

Initial activities[edit]

Mid-project[edit]

Pattypan's main window (version 0.3)
  • Received email feedback from several participating volunteers and kept in touch to resolve issues;
  • Implemented some fixes and improvements as requested by the testing users group
  • Released 3 subsequent versions of Pattypan, resolving issues with: lengths of the Description field; the preview feature; information on errors and warnings for each file; other improvements;
  • Wrote the midpoint report

Further activities[edit]

  • Published information about the uploader – mailing lists, This Month in GLAM newsletter – invited Wikimedians to use the new upload tool;
  • Yarl published the version 0.3 with several improvements;
  • Prepared the summary PDF printout flyer for Wikimedians and GLAMs;
  • Made new program screenshots and designed the program logo;
  • Improved the manual on the Wiki page – in 2 languages;
  • Prepared an online user survey;
  • Yarl presented the programming of Pattypan, its practical use, and examples of practical applications at the Wikimedia CEE 2016 Meeting.

Outcomes and impact[edit]

Outcomes[edit]

What are the results of your project?

Please discuss the outcomes of your experiments or pilot, telling us what you created or changed (organized, built, grew, etc) as a result of your project.

Pattypan and its features:[edit]

  • The Pattypan uploader is up and running, and users have begun working with it to upload their files and collections.
  • Pattypan's unique features are: the option to select fields from description templates, previewing file descriptions before uploading (and listing any errors), and the option to pre-populate selected fields with a chosen value to be automatically applied to the entire batch of files.

File upload and reuse:[edit]

  • Around 2500 files have so far been uploaded using Pattypan and the number of uploads is growing
  • 858 individual images were reused on Wikimedia projects (33% of "Uploaded with Pattypan" category)
  • Uploaded images have been reused on Wikimedia projects 901 times – 125 images were used in articles and 774 images were used on Wikidata.
  • View reuse statistics


GLAM uploads:[edit]

Other uploads[edit]

Other outcomes[edit]

  • Basic information materials, manual and presentations are available
  • Users who responded to survey have stated they will continue using the program.


Progress towards stated goals[edit]

Please use the below table to:

  1. List each of your original measures of success (your targets) from your project plan.
  2. List the actual outcome that was achieved.
  3. Explain how your outcome compares with the original target. Did you reach your targets? Why or why not?
Planned measure of success
(include numeric target, if applicable)
Actual result Explanation
The batch uploader tool will be available in a stable version and functional by the end of the project. Pattypan is available for download, works well and is used by a growing number of contributors to Wikimedia Commons. Completed. Initial versions of Pattypan have already been available by the time we submitted the Midpoint report. The current version has improved functionality, and is also equipped with automatic notification of new versions (extensions may still be added regardless of the grant ending).
At least 5 new GLAM institutions will contribute content to Wikimedia Commons. See GLAM uploads. Among the contributions to Wikimedia Commons from new GLAM institutions are: Completed. We have reached our assumed target of GLAM content being a large part of Pattypan uploads and content from new GLAM contributors.
Qualitative data will be gathered from participating GLAM institutions on the usability of the tool versus pre-existing tools. Survey sent to participating GLAM volunteers, online survey open to all interested parties. Ongoing, but initial results are in. Feedback and email comment was gathered from 10 specific GLAM volunteers and several other users. 80% completed. Survey results can be seen here; survey is online for further users. We have carried out our minimal plan of gathering feedback, but will continue doing so – we're waiting for more responses. A final result will be presented in the "one year after release" quick update in March 2017 (this will be published on the "This Month in GLAM" newsletter, and elsewhere if needed).
At least 300 image files uploaded by GLAM volunteers by end of project & 50 articles illustrated. Over 2500 files uploaded & 125 articles illustrated & 710 images added to Wikidata. Completed. Reuse in articles & projects by August 2016: 125+ uses in articles; 710 uses on Wikidata. 914 image usages, 33.85% of category used in projects.
At least 10 GLAM institutions using the application a year after the tool release. Ongoing (time not elapsed until March 2017) but it is highly likely. See GLAM uploads. Ongoing; will be continued, going forward, by GLAM coordination.
The number of files contributed to Wikimedia Commons will be counted via a Commons category related to the tool. Statistics Completed. Category: Uploaded with pattypan


Think back to your overall project goals. Do you feel you achieved your goals? Why or why not?

Global Metrics[edit]

We are trying to understand the overall outcomes of the work being funded across all grantees. In addition to the measures of success for your specific program (in above section), please use the table below to let us know how your project contributed to the "Global Metrics." We know that not all projects will have results for each type of metric, so feel free to put "0" as often as necessary.

  1. Next to each metric, list the actual numerical outcome achieved through this project.
  2. Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome. For example, if you were funded for a research project which resulted in 0 new images, your explanation might be "This project focused solely on participation and articles written/improved, the goal was not to collect images."

For more information and a sample, see Global Metrics.

Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. Number of active editors involved 20 20 individual active editors using Pattypan to upload files.
2. Number of new editors Unknown Direct support of new editors wasn't one of the project goals.
3. Number of individuals involved 40 20 active users + 20 attendees at Yarl's recent WMCEE presentation.
4. Number of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 914 Images from Pattypan category were reused 914 times in Wikimedia projects. 871 inidividual images were used. Statistics (Glamorous)
4b. Number of new images/media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons 2582 Pattypan was used to upload 2582 images.
5. Number of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 125 articles were illustrated. Illustrations were added to 125 articles. Article editing was not among the project goals.
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 51970 MB 51970 MB: this includes only images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. In addition, 125 illustrations on Wikipedia + 774 images (with information?) on Wikidata.


Learning question
Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?
The present image donation has also served as an important test-case for the new batch-upload tool Pattypan. This tool was built to allow batch-uploads of offline images with metadata supplied through a spreadsheet and was specifically designed to be simpler in use than the GWT. The MCC image donation with its very long object descriptions suggested an extension of the upload tool to allow them too, which the developer was able to implement promptly. As a result of this upload, it is expected that Pattypan will also play an important role in future uploads by Dutch GLAMs and WiRs."

Loving the Pattypan uploader - can really see how this tool will, if we target it correctly and used in partnership with the visual editor, have the potential to seriously increase smaller GLAM's engagement. Thanks to all involved!

Indicators of impact[edit]

Do you see any indication that your project has had impact towards Wikimedia's strategic priorities? We've provided 3 options below for the strategic priorities that IEG projects are mostly likely to impact. Select one or more that you think are relevant and share any measures of success you have that point to this impact. You might also consider any other kinds of impact you had not anticipated when you planned this project. Option B: How did you improve quality on one or more Wikimedia projects? Improving quality:

  • Pattypan is allowing volunteers working with GLAM and other content to create more detailed and informative descriptions of uploaded media, which in the long term will make these media easier to find, and more likely to be reused in (and out of) Wikimedia projects. The files uploaded so far already have a relatively high reuse rate.
  • It allows easily creating file descriptions tailored to the institution (example – files with long Description fields)
  • It can be a good tool to allow GLAM staff to "learn by practising" about the file information structure, its options, templates, etc., on Wikimedia Commons – but at first, only what is relevant to their own institution.

Project resources[edit]

Workshop Pattypan, May 2016
Pattypan presentation at WMCEE Meeting 2016, August 2016

Please provide links to all public, online documents and other artifacts that you created during the course of this project. Examples include: meeting notes, participant lists, photos or graphics uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, template messages sent to participants, wiki pages, social media (Facebook groups, Twitter accounts), datasets, surveys, questionnaires, code repositories... If possible, include a brief summary with each link.

Materials created by other users[edit]

Learning[edit]

The best thing about trying something new is that you learn from it. We want to follow in your footsteps and learn along with you, and we want to know that you took enough risks in your project to have learned something really interesting! Think about what recommendations you have for others who may follow in your footsteps, and use the below sections to describe what worked and what didn’t.

What worked well[edit]

What did you try that was successful and you'd recommend others do? To help spread successful strategies so that they can be of use to others in the movement, rather than writing lots of text here, we'd like you to share your finding in the form of a link to a learning pattern.

What didn’t work[edit]

What did you try that you learned didn't work? What would you think about doing differently in the future? Please list these as short bullet points.

  • Allocate more time for grant. In order to meet the goals we had to extend grant time.

Other recommendations[edit]

If you have additional recommendations or reflections that don’t fit into the above sections, please list them here.

Next steps and opportunities[edit]

Are there opportunities for future growth of this project, or new areas you have uncovered in the course of this grant that could be fruitful for more exploration (either by yourself, or others)? What ideas or suggestions do you have for future projects based on the work you’ve completed? Please list these as short bullet points.

Based on user feedback we established main areas where we want to make application better. I can be found in WMCEE Meetup presentation and on GitHub issues page.


Think your project needs renewed funding for another 6 months?




Part 2: The Grant[edit]

Finances[edit]

Actual spending[edit]

Please copy and paste the completed table from your project finances page. Check that you’ve listed the actual expenditures compared with what was originally planned. If there are differences between the planned and actual use of funds, please use the column provided to explain them.

Expense Approved amount Actual funds spent Difference
programming work 2175 USD 2175 USD
Total 2175 USD 2175 USD


Remaining funds[edit]

Do you have any unspent funds from the grant?

Please answer yes or no. If yes, list the amount you did not use and explain why.

  • No.

If you have unspent funds, they must be returned to WMF. Please see the instructions for returning unspent funds and indicate here if this is still in progress, or if this is already completed:

  • No unspent funds.

Documentation[edit]

Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to grantsadmin@wikimedia.org, according to the guidelines here?

Please answer yes or no. If no, include an explanation.

  • If I understand correctly, no additional documentation is needed.

Confirmation of project status[edit]

Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?

Please answer yes or no.

  • Yes.

Is your project completed?

Please answer yes or no.

  • Yes.

Grantee reflection[edit]

We’d love to hear any thoughts you have on what this project has meant to you, or how the experience of being an IEGrantee has gone overall. Is there something that surprised you, or that you particularly enjoyed, or that you’ll do differently going forward as a result of the IEG experience? Please share it here!

I'm really glad, that we decided to run this grant. It helped us get funding but more important it allowed us to share idea with global community, get endorsements, early users and useful feedback. Yarl (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)