Grants:IEG/Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia/Final

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia

Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia

Project pages

Individual Engagement Grants This project is funded by an Individual Engagement Grant
Note: this project is now inactive. Please see the information below for information about the status of the project.


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]

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.

This project originally aimed to “Create collection of video modules that introduce potential education program students and GLAM contributors to Wikimedia, particularly Commons and English Wikipedia. Motivate the viewers to want to contribute constructively to Wikimedia, and teach them basic and intermediate-level participation skills.” Though the idea received strong community support and was awarded funding, it became apparent during project execution that the scope and complexity required far more time and money than was included in the original plan. Also, the project was negatively impacted by the project manager’s simultaneous obligations to the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group which had its own challenges.

Though this video project fell short of its goals, there were several outputs associated with the project:

  • An extensive project outline was completed
  • Ten draft scripts were produced
  • A detailed draft of a diagram that explains Commons licensing was produced. The diagram was intended to support the scripts related to Commons.

Methods and activities[edit]

What did you do in project?

A fairly extensive outline for the video series was written, and drafts for 10 of the planned modules’ scripts were written.

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.

A fairly extensive outline for the video series was written, and drafts for 10 of the planned modules’ scripts were written.

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
At least 5,000 views of the video modules within one year after publication, at least 20,000 cumulative views of the video modules within two years after publication, and at least 50,000 cumulative views of the video modules within three years after publication. (Classes and workshops may have multiple participants. Each individual participant counts as one view for purposes of this goal. One way to estimate attendance at events where the modules are shown to more than one viewer is to ask that instructors and trainers inform us when and where the video segments are used, the number of attendees, and the feedback about the video modules.) Failure Project resources were inadequate for this goal.
Positive feedback received on feedback forms; a link to the feedback form will be displayed in the video. Failure Project resources were inadequate for this goal.
Positive community sentiment from experienced Wikimedians. Partial success There was community support for the concept of the project. However, no videos were actually produced, largely due to inadequate resources. Perhaps in the future someone from the community or a Wikimedia affiliate organization would be interested in resuming work on this project, particularly if resources are available to support it.
Positive sentiment from educators, students in education programs, and GLAM representatives who watch the video in the first 3 months after publication and are individually asked for their feedback. Failure Project resources were inadequate for this goal.
At least two success stories, one each from a Wiki Ed Foundation supported class and one from a GLAM organization, about how the video helped them to achieve their goals or motivated them to contribute. Failure Project resources were inadequate for this goal


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

No. A list of problems with this project is as the end of the report.

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 <40 A small number of editors participated in providing suggestions and feedback as the scripts were being developed. Pine estimates that number at less than 40.
2. Number of new editors 0 Project resources were inadequate for the complete writing and production of the series as originally scoped.
3. Number of individuals involved <40 A small number of editors participated in providing suggestions and feedback as the scripts were being developed. Pine estimates that number at less than 40.
4. Number of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 0 Project resources were inadequate for the complete writing and production of the series as originally scoped.
5. Number of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 0 Project resources were inadequate for the complete writing and production of the series as originally scoped.
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 0, unless the edits that Pine and others made while discussing and working on the project are counted. Project resources were inadequate for the complete writing and production of the series as originally scoped.


Learning question
Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?

Although several contributors expressed interest in the project, no videos have yet been produced. The effect on motivation that would have been achieved if the scripts were produced is unknown at this time, although Pine believes that video demonstrations would make the Wikimedia technical and social environments easier for new contributors to understand and therefore could lead to a modest but widespread increase in the motivation and productivity of new contributors.

Pine liked this project but found that he was stretched too thin by trying to run this project and Cascadia Wikimedians User Group in at the same time, in addition to his responsibilities outside of Wikimedia.

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 A: How did you increase participation in one or more Wikimedia projects?

Option B: How did you improve quality on one or more Wikimedia projects?

Option C: How did you increase the reach (readership) of one or more Wikimedia projects?

This project did not make measurable progress on any of these three goals.

Project resources[edit]

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.

  • Various communications that were not scripts:
  • The Commons licensing diagram flowchart draft. I think that this may be one of the more valuable artifacts from this project:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LawO4Zc9-yEqsPna7CnGJeiD73CfgvgFr2p6pR6118A/

  • The script drafts:


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.

Endorsements:

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.

  1. The planned amount of time for this grant, and correspondingly the amount of money requested to fund that time, were far too small for a project with this scope.
  2. This project was significantly and detrimentally affected by a shortage of human resources capacity for another grant in which Pine was involved. Working on both grants in parallel was unexpectedly problematic.
  3. WMF's plans for the Wikimedia user experience evolved in significant ways during the life of the LearnWiki project that were not planned (or at least, not known to Pine) at the start of this project. Examples of important changes include the New Wikitext Editor (NWTE), syntax highlighting, ORES filters for watchlists, and Citoid.
  4. The plan to write, produce, and then publish all of the modules as a batch encountered repeated disruption from #3. In hindsight Pine would have recommended thinking about writing, producing, and publishing one module at a time or small batches of modules, rather than treating all of the modules as a single batch. Modules could be incrementally updated as needed to reflect changes.
  5. Corresponding with #3, inefficient mechanisms for communications and announcements from WMF for changes to interfaces resulted in Pine needing to spend significant amounts of time reading WMF publications in order to keep himself up to date with WMF plans.
  6. "Additional Materials" were barely envisioned in the original project plan, but during the writing of the draft scripts, the importance of having these materials accompany the videos became clear. However, because these materials were barely envisioned in the original project plan, there was no time or money in the project plan to support the development of these materials. For a variety of reasons, Pine is choosing to discontinue the project rather than request an extension for additional time and funding.


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.

  • Pine still believes that this project could have value for Wikimedia contributors, but in hindsight would have planned the project much differently, including far higher estimates for time and money for the total project. One way to manage risk on the project, both for WMF and for the grantee, would be to request funding for the project in multiple phases, for example by first getting funding for the script outline and the initial construction of the Additional Materials website, then getting funding for three scripts and their accompanying Additional Materials in each phase.
  • Knowing the much higher than planned time requirements for the total project, Pine would not have attempted to work on this project in parallel with working on the Cascadia Wikimedians grant. Pine would be pleased to see further work on this project or a project with similar scope and intent, whether done by WMF, an affiliate, or volunteers. Pine would encourage anyone who is interested in continuing this project or developing a similar project to take note of both this report and the midterm report, especially the “What didn’t work” and “Grantee reflection” sections of this report, as well as the project outline and draft scripts.
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.

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.

  • Yes. The budgeted $87.59 and $74.45 for high quality headphones and microphones were not spent, and the budgeted $109.31 for video software was not spent. Pine has mailed a check for $271.35 to WMF.
  • Note that the $2500 budgeted for NLaFleur’s time was never expended by WMF. These funds can be reallocated by WMF to a different purpose.

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:

Documentation[edit]

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

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

There were no receipts for this project. There would have been receipts for the headphones, microphones, and video software if those items had been purchased.

Confirmation of project status[edit]

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

Please answer yes or no.

Partially yes, partially no. Deviations are noted below:
  • There were deviations from the reporting specifications in the grant agreement, although Pine regularly communicated with Marti about the status of the project.
  • During Pine's time that this grant agreement was active, he came to believe that it would be a conflict of interest for him to accept additional funds from WMF for this or any other project due to the potential for Pine’s acceptance of WMF funding to influence his position or willingness to communicate his views in regards to disputes between WMF and the Wikimedia community.
  • Pine’s communications with Marti, when those communications happened via email, largely took place via Marti’s WMF address rather than the role email account (IEGrants@) that was specified in the grant agreement.

Is your project completed?

Please answer yes or no. No.

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!

  1. When planning complex projects, estimating resource requirements at the minimum level that would be required if everything goes well is tempting, but the reality is that unpredictable things can happen (such as people moving out of the area or reducing their availability to less than what they said it would be; particularly avoid relying on the availability of volunteers for complex projects which will take longer than about one month), and if a project is assigned minimal resources then there is no margin for error. Problems can also happen when scope expansions occur and additional resources (time, money, people, technologies) are unavailable or inadequate to address the scope changes. Some of these challenges can be addressed by requesting extensions for additional time and money, although for various reasons Pine is choosing to discontinue his involvement in this project rather than request an extension.
  1. LearnWiki might have benefited if the project was funded and executed in multiple phases, with information from each phase informing development and funding of subsequent phases. This would help to manage risk for the total project, both for the grantee and for WMF. Inevitably there would be changes to the Wikimedia interfaces and environment that would affect videos that were already produced, and there might be changes to the project plan that would require some editing of earlier videos as the project edits new phases, but this rework would likely be preferable to having a single and relatively high-risk phase for the total project.


Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IEG/Motivational_and_educational_video_to_introduce_Wikimedia/Final&oldid=17178076"