Grants:PEG/Shared Knowledge/Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 in Macedonia/Report
- 1 Project status
- 2 Activities and lessons learned
- 3 Outcomes and impact
- 4 Reporting and documentation of expenditures
- Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
- Is your project completed?
Activities and lessons learned
- creating and editing all the pages with the necessary information about the project (before 1 September);
- creating/re-desiging the project's official site (21-25 August);
- constituting the jury for the competition (29 September);
- promoting the competition through the use of social networks and the media (throughout the duration);
- participants uploading photographs on Wikimedia Commons (1 September - 15 October);
- interview about the contest given for Utrinski Vesnik by Bojan Jankuloski (7 October);
- extension requested and granted, prolonging the 15 October (granted 18 September);
- jury meeting to evaluate the photographs uploaded and decide the winners (3 November));
- submitting the best photographs to participate in the global competition (4 November);
- Organising printed materials, venue and catering (10-16 October);
- award event held at Koncept 37 venue (17 October);
- evaluating the project and compiling the report (10-15 December).
- What worked well?
- Organisation went very smoothly, with no obstacles of any note, except the need to extend the competition. 1,532 images were uploaded by 23 participants, covering a total of 103 listed monuments. We also had great coverage in a comprehensive interview titled "Promoting Our Country's Great Heritage" in the prominent national newspaper Utrinski Vesnik, where Bojan Jankuloski, the head organiser, talked at length about the nature of the competition and its value. It was published on 7 October 2015.
- What didn't work?
- The competition needed to be extended due to reduced interest. Since we had withdrawn the prizes for prolific contestants, participation has been reduced, both in terms of individuals and image quantity. Overall quality has remained the same. Many listed monuments were not covered, as people generally seem not willing to go the extra mile to get to them. Considering our situation, we have come up with a new paradigm (explained below), to make WLM work for us. It should also be noted that the planned edit-a-thon did not take place due to a particularly busy period for our editors, and the required number of images were added in articles in the regular manner of editing.
- What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?
- From our previous experiences, it was clear that quantity is not what we are after anymore, but should focus on quality. Considering the (only) modest success of this contest, next time we intend to change the approach towards promotion and outreach. We will still keep the general outreach, but from now on, we will pay special attention to reaching to photography groups and societies, cultural research groups etc. and their forums. We will also approach individuals whom we know to be members of such communities and can also spread the word of mouth. These are the people who are both concerned with quality and with content, and are in the habit of going to heritage sites not covered in the competition so far.
Outcomes and impact
- Provide the original project goal here.
- Wiki Loves Monuments is a well-known and proven worldwide initiative and a very good way of creating freely licensed images that can be used by the Wikimedians to improve the quality of articles on specific Wikimedia projects. With our 'wiki-loves' contests so far, we have found great success, both with our participants and in the public, as it stimulates the community to generate content about cultural heritage sites.
- Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 short paragraphs.
- The project goal has been achieved in a modest and satisfactory way, given the number of images and participants. But the project has not met our expectations. Given the change we have made (to which we stick, and think is for the better), the results were wanting in quality of images and uniqueness of content, which are our main concerns.
Progress towards targets and goals
|Target outcome||Achieved outcome||Explanation|
|at least 50 participants uploading one photograph or more;||23 participants||Per GLAMorous tool).|
|at least 20 new users participating in the contest||15 new participants||Per WLM Macedonia user stats.|
|at least 100 new monuments photographed||30 new monuments photographed||Per gallery.|
|at least 200 images (or 7% of total images) used in Wikipedia articles in three months||8.02% of total images||Per GLAMorous tool.|
We are trying to understand the overall outcomes of the work being funded across our 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" where necessary.
- Next to each required metric, list the actual outcome achieved through this project.
- Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome. For example, if you were funded for an edit-a-thon 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.
|1. # of active editors involved||3||Adding images and creating contest pages.|
|2. # of new editors||0||not applicable|
|3. # of individuals involved||7||Organisers, people adding images, promo, hosting, jury, financial management.|
|4a. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages||122||Or 8.02% of total images.|
|4b. # of new images/media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Optional)||1532||Per WLM Statistics.|
|5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects||15||Images added to about 15 articles.|
|6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects||4603500000||Per WLM Statistics.|
- Learning question
- Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?
- As explained above, we think that this year, contributor motivation was decreased, or at best, stayed the same. What we need is a new, more focused contributor base, that will be both motivated and able to help us fulfill our goals.
Option B: How did you improve quality on one or more Wikimedia projects?
- This year, there was a good number valuable photographs of cave churches, which are registered as 1st class national heritage. The images that were used in articles resulted in a great illustration of these monuments, which are rarely seen and not very accessible for the public. Few images exist of these national treasures, especially such that are freely licensed.
Reporting and documentation of expenditures
This section describes the grant's use of funds
- Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to grants at wikimedia dot org, according to the guidelines here? Answer "Yes" or "No".
- PLACEHOLDER TEXT
- Please list all project expenses in a table here, with descriptions and dates. Review the instructions here.
|No.||Item||Description||Unit||No. of units||Amount per unit||Total amount||Currency||Notes|
|1||Promo materials||posters, pens, notebooks, certificates, mugs, printed winning images||n/a||n/a||n/a||240.00||EUR||Promo materials given on award day, plus winning images printed to be hung at venue.|
|2||Catering||catering and drinks served during the Award ceremony||n/a||n/a||n/a||267.00||EUR||Food and drink on award ceremony.|
|7||Prizes||prizes for the best photographs and best contributors||n/a||n/a||n/a||1,200.00||EUR||5 prizes of different amount. 1.300 EUR was requested. The winner of 5th prize (100 EUR) did not claim award, in spite of our efforts to reach him in every way possible. Should we still wait for him?|
|8||Compensation for jury members||compensation for the participation of jury members||person||4||100.00||400.00||EUR||Professional photographers.|
|9||Web hosting||expenses for hosting the official website of the competition||unit||1||10.00||10.00||EUR||Hosting for official website..|
|10||Web design||compensation for developing and maintaining the official website||n/a||n/a||n/a||100.00||EUR||The item includes both the expenses for developing and maintaining the official website.|
|11||Advertising and publicity||compensation for an expert in public relations||n/a||n/a||n/a||200.00||EUR||PR person who promoted the event.|
|14||Incidentals||expenses that are not projected in the budget but may still occur||n/a||n/a||n/a||45.00||EUR||Paper bags for promo materials, postage for tax certificates. jury catering. and ban fees for payments.|
- Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
- 2,771 EUR
- Total amount requested from WMF (from your approved grant submission, this total will be the same as the total project budget if PEG is your only funding source)
- 2,771 EUR
- Total amount spent on this project
- 2,462 EUR
- Total amount of Project and Event grant funds spent on this project
- 2,462 EUR
- Are there additional sources that funded any part of this project? List them here.
- Are there any grant funds remaining?
- Answer YES or NO.
- Please list the total amount (specify currency) remaining here. (This is the amount you did not use, or the amount you still have after completing your grant.)
- 309 EUR
- If funds are remaining they must be returned to WMF, reallocated to mission-aligned activities, or applied to another approved grant.
- Please state here if you intend to return unused funds to WMF, submit a request for reallocation, or submit a new grant request, and then follow the instructions on your approved grant submission.
- Under discussion