Jump to content

Grants:PEG/UG BG/WLE 2016/Report

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Report accepted
This report for a Project and Event grant approved in FY Pending has been reviewed and accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • You may still comment on this report on its discussion page, or visit the discussion page to read the discussion about this report.
  • You are welcome to Email grants at wikimedia dot org at any time if you have questions or concerns about this report.

Project status

Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
Is your project completed?

Activities and lessons learned




The activities planned for executing in the project were the following:

  • Updating all the pages with the necessary information about the project
  • Constituting the jury for the competition;
  • Promoting the competition through the use of social networks and blogs;
  • Competition;
  • Evaluating the photographs uploaded to make the decision;
  • Submitting the best local photographs for participation in the global WLE competition;
    • Organising an award ceremony for the winners of the competition;
  • Evaluating the project and preparing the project report.
    • Additional (unplanned) activities

    We can confirm that all of these activities have been accomplished, and even a bit more than planned in advance. :) Below are described those of the activities (bolded in the list above), which accomplishment reflects certain local specifics or original ideas for implementation.

    Constituting the jury for the competition

    In 2015, during the first edition of Wiki Loves Earth in Bulgaria, we had two Bulgarian and one Ukrainian Wikipedians participating in the jury process. This year, the jury consisted of 8 people, all Bulgarians, three established Wikimedians, and five external experts: in geography, in botany, in ornithology, in ecology and in astrophysics. Opening to external expertise not only contributed with a fresh look to the selection process, but also helped us reach to new audiences via their own channels, too. Institutionally, the jury members represented: NPO "Balkans Wildlife Society" and University of Forestry, Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia Zoo (which are a long-term GLAM collaborator of the Wikimedians of Bulgaria), the Bulgarian edition of the "BBC Knowledge" magazine, as well as the geographic web portal Geograf.bg.
    One of the local jury members, the representative of Sofia Zoo Mrs. Katya Zareva-Simeonova, was also invited in the international jury panel, which happens for second subsequent year (read a translation of an interview with her after her 2015 international jury experience, in the official WLE blog).
    Poster of the "Wiki Loves Earth 2016 Bulgaria" (featuring the 2015 winner photo)
    Spasimir gives public lecture about "Wiki Loves Earth" in the Faculty of Biology, Sofia University.
    With representatives of Sofia Zoo and Balkani Wildlife Society after the WLE public lecture

    Promoting the competition through the use of social networks and blogs

    There were concerns that "this time they will use funding more than own enthusiasm", but in reality it happened exactly the other way round: the increased responsibility coming with the WMF project, the wider online and offline visibility of the contest, and the public awards ceremony at the end of the project, made the team's outreach efforts even more intensive and resourceful.
    The promotion of the competition took place not only in social networks and blogs took place in accordance with the preliminary plan announced in the project proposal, and was closely followed. Multiple blog publications for the blog of the Bulgarian Wikimedia Community were duly prepared, being the first medium in which important WLE-related announcements were made. Four publications were prepared for the international WLE blog, too. Apart of the translated interview with Mrs. Zareva-Simeonova, the Bulgarian branch of the competition also got featured with the personal story of one of the 2015 participants and 2016 team members, with the announcement of the Bulgarian WLE mascot Wozzy and the announcement of the first ever WLE postage stamp which was officially issued in Bulgaria within our efforts of popularization of the contest.
    Multiple shares of the blog publications were made via the official Google+/Twitter accounts (blog's automatic feature) and the official Facebook page and group of the Bulgarian Wiki[p/m]edia. To increase the outreach, the organizing team members were regularly re-sharing these WLE-related posts, and provoked further dissemination by the external jury members. Information about the competition was especially intensively disseminated in late May and early June, in the phase of announcing the competition and attracting potential participants. Furthermore, several niche Facebook groups on photography and environmental protection were targeted.
    A curious example of our communication efficiency in the social networks came about a week before the Awards Ceremony. When the results of the "UNESCO Biosphere Reserves" category in this years' WLE contest were officially announced, we were happy to have a Bulgarian winner among the UNESCO Top 10. However, the uploader had not provided any contact information and did not respond on his talk page in Commons. Given the short time before the Awards Ceremony, for which we wanted to invite him, we had to be especially resourceful and we used the medium of the blog for not just announcing the wonderful news for the Bulgarian winner, but also for actually finding him! Under the title Winner Wanted! we distributed the news and circulated it around the social networks until we found him two days later thanks to the Facebook page (he authorized himself as the winner by responding in Commons).
    The promotion also took place in various other online media, targeted with a total number of four sent en-masse press releases, from which more than 25 educational, ecological, lifestyle, and regional websites reacted and republished our press releases or wrote their own content based on it. Some of the media publications appeared as a result of personal contacts with highly WLE relevant niche media like the monthly newspaper "Echo" of the Bulgarian Touristic Union, and, of course, our first media partner attracted in mid March, the "BBC Knowledge" magazine. Another publication in a very niche media is expected to appear by the end of the year: the "Philately Review" magazine with an article about the official WLE-Bulgaria postage stamp (see below).
    This year, "Wiki Loves Earth" for the first time appeared also in several state institutional websites. Thanks to the collaboration with our Awards Ceremony hosts – the National Museum of Natural History, which is under the umbrella of the Institute of Zoology and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences – information about the ceremony and WLE in general appeared twice on the website of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Also, with respect to the postage stamp validation procedure (see below), information was published on the website of the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Information Technologies.
    One of the unplanned outcomes of the dissemination activity came as a result to our increased collaboration with the NPO "Balkans Wildlife Society", and the "Biodiversity" Foundation. The Sofia-based part of the organizing team was invited to give a public lecture about "Wiki Loves Earth" in the Faculty of Biology of Sofia University during the weekly seminars of the "Biodiversity" Foundation. Happily, this public lecture happened exactly on 1 June, the starting date of the competition in Bulgaria. Another offline form of popularization of the contest were the printed posters which were beforehand prepared and attached in the Faculty of Biology, in the Faculty of Geology and Geography, Bulgarian Touristic Union, Sofia Zoo, University of Forestry, Museum of Natural History and the Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research.
    A trustworthy assistant in all the promotional activities was the plush pygmy owl Wozzy, who was unanimously approved as official mascot of Wiki Loves Earth Bulgaria (in 2016 and beyond). Wozzy took place in the public lecture in the Faculty of Biology on 1 June, in the Awards ceremony on 1 October, in Wikimania, in the Central and Eastern European Meetup, and in multiple WLE-related Facebook posts. In addition, he applied for full member of the Wikimedia Cuteness Association. (Unfortunately, we have only one photo of Wozzy, because all the rest of his Commons-hosted photos got deleted, probably due to cuteness overload...)


    Like in 2015, during the competition period (1 June - 30 June) the photos uploaded got carefully curated on a daily basis by the team members. Apart of checking the submissions with respect to issues like copyright violations, watermarks, out-of-scope irrelevance, etc., the organizers were regularly taking care of the images by adding adequate categories, descriptions in both Bulgarian and English, renaming the files to meaningful filenames, verified the protected site IDs, etc. This day-to-day care-taking approach, while demanding in terms of time and human resource, not only guaranteed that the team had ensured that the massive contributions from non-Wikimedians will not compromise the quality of the project Wikimedia Commons, but also gave us a very good idea of this year's situation regarding the capacity of the submissions to illustrate existing articles and lead to creation of new ones. This required also granting two of the organizing team members of file mover- and Upload Wizard campaign editor- user rights in order to facilitate them in this file patrolling activity.
    Also, by daily checking the uploads, the team observed the uploaders' progress, and spent extra efforts in motivating them to be even more active participants in the contest. During the competition, the team got the idea to award (with the help of Wozzy) "bronze", "silver" and "golden" barnstars to contributors who have uploaded at least 25, 50 and 100 photos, respectively (an idea influenced by the famous 100 Touristic Sites movement in Bulgaria). To promote this motivation leverage, we used the "Mass Message" function in Commons and in at least several cases, this proved to work well and get people hooked to pursue the golden barnstar. In the end, we had awarded 17 bronze barnstars, 7 silver barnstars and 5 golden ones.

    Evaluating the photographs uploaded to make the decision

    This year the jury again utilized the jury tool provided by Wikimedia Ukraine, and the final Top 10 selection was determined in a three-step voting procedure. Big thank you goes here especially to Ilya Korniyko for his support and patience.
    In July, the jury evaluated about 2040 photos (a bit less than the total number, due to the 2 megapixel requirement). On the first round, jury members gave marks from 1 to 10 and comments, and reduced this number to about 800 (reflecting the jury's diverse background and preferences). After the second round, the choice was reduced to only the Top 1% of the initial number of submissions. At the third round, the jury discussed each photo separately and selected the Top 10. The announcement about the local Top 10 photos was given on July, 26th.
    Due to implications, presented in details in the section below What didn't work?, this was not the final decision of the jury, and reconsideration of the choice had to be done in late August and beginning of September. The new winners and ordering were announced on September, 8th.
    Preparing the panes with the winning photos for the opening of the exhibition and awards ceremony
    The calendar with winning photos was one of the gifts to winners, jury, museum partners and wikimedians who attended the awards ceremony
    The exhibition hall right before the start of the awards ceremony (360-degree panorama).
    The green WLE seal
    The gifts soon before being awarded

    Organising an award ceremony for the winners of the competition

    Organisation of the award ceremony started as early as the end of July when the winners were announced for the first time. The precise date, 1 October, was selected balancing between residents' availability in Sofia (generally, after mid September), non-residents' availability (weekend, and more specifically Saturday), the Natural History Museum's availability (who were our hosts for the awards ceremony) and our own availability due to other non-wiki commitments. Of course, most organizational efforts were spent in the last month before the awards ceremony, including:
    • Contacting the winners and understanding their needs with respect to travel and accommodation, as well as their preferences with respect to the gift vouchers.
    • Purchase of gift vouchers (see below the What worked well? section).
    • Planning the exhibition together with representatives of the Museum.
    • Preparation and printing of the wide-format panes with the winning photos (10 BG winners + 1 UNESCO + 1 informative).
    • Preparation and printing of our local "Wiki Loves Earth 2017" calendar.
    • Preparation and printing of WLE badges, posters and certificates for the awards ceremony.
    • Preparation of the unique green seal "Wiki Loves Earth 2016 Bulgaria"
    • Ensuring and translating of the video messages from Katherine Maher, John Cummings (WiR in UNESCO) and one of the winners who could not attend the ceremony.
    • Preparation of a multimedia presentation as a background of the ceremony, and an additional animated slideshow with all the 270 winning photos worldwide.
    • Arranging the exhibition hall together with a volunteer artist.
    • Running a Facebook event and collecting feedback about the number of attendants.
    • Planning the catering.
    The "WLE 2016 Bulgaria" Top 10 (namely, 2nd) winning photo of a griffon vulture that was selected to illustrate the first Bulgarian wiki postage stamp.
    Placing the first-day validation seal on the stamp: Representative from the Council of Postage Stamp Issuance, Vassia from the organizational team, and Emiliya Toncheva, the photographer of the selected photo.

    Additional (unplanned) activities

    Every preliminary project proposal or action plan is bound to generate new, initially un-envisaged ideas for making the envisaged ones more efficient, more appealing, or simply: better. We haven't documented all the small adjustments and unplanned extra efforts, but among the good examples were the creation of the green ink seal with the WLE logo, and introducing the local mascot and talisman of the contest, the heart-melting plush pygmy owl Wozzy.
    However, the biggest additional idea which came after the project started, was the idea about having the first official Wikimedia-related postage stamp in Bulgaria, depicting one of the Top 10 shortlisted photos in the WLE's national stage. Not only because this would have been an original and surprising additional award for one of the winners, but also because an official postage stamp would be very ambitious and innovative on a global scale (before us only Wikimedia Israel has achieved it, to the best of our knowledge) and long-lasting achievement for the user group.
    The idea about the Bulgarian WLE postage stamp occurred in late April/early May, after one of the team members learned about her relative, an artist, who had his stamp design proposal approved. Immediately after having this idea approved with consensus by the rest of the team, contacts were initiated simultaneously with the institution in charge, the Council of Postage Stamps Issuance under the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Information Technologies, and with the legal team of the Wikimedia Foundation concerning the possibility to have the logo of Wikipedia printed on the stamp. According to the proposal, which was immediately and enthusiastically approved by the CPSI, the local WLE jury would select the 10 photo finalists from Bulgaria, and the CPSI members would on their own turn select one of the 10 photos to be produced in the form of a postage stamp. The aforementioned artist agreed to create the stamp design for free given that we are volunteers.
    We are grateful to our legal advisor, Ms. Plamena Popova, and the Foundation's legal team, and mainly Mr. Charles Roslof, for discussing in details our case. This led to the Foundation finally granting a permission for use of the Wikipedia logo on the stamp without Bulgarian government signing any trademark license contracts (which would immensely burden the procedure). This decision was based on the fact that according to the Bulgarian legislation, a postage stamp is a form of governmental security, since only the state (the Ministry) has the exclusive right to approve stamps issuance; stamps in circulation can be traded only for their par value; and counterfeiting stamps is included in the national Criminal Code as a crime against the monetary and credit system of the country.
    Although we were offered a helping hand and were carefully guided through the whole bureaucratic process of the CPSI, it turned out to have certain specifics and time restrictions, which led to the official stamp inauguration (the so called "validation procedure") take place a week after the WLE awards ceremony, rather than in the same day, as we were originally planning and hoping.
    On the bright side, the validation took place within the project period, on 7 October, and provided us with yet another occasion to offer our audiences new and catchy WLE-related information, and to reach out to completely new audience, that of the philately collectors. A detailed article is expected to appear in the "Philately Review" magazine by the end of the year. During the validation procedure, the author of the photograph
    Please note, that we are not allowed to upload the postage stamp design to Wikimedia Commons under a free license, because in the next three years the stamp has the statute of governmental security, as explained above.

    Lessons learned


    What worked well?

    Postage stamp
    Presented in details in the section above Additional (unplanned) activities
    Bulgarian winner in the "UNESCO Biosphere Reserves" category
    We were happy to understand in September that the UNESCO jury which this year collaborated with "Wiki Loves Earth" has selected a picture from Bulgaria for one of its Top 10 "UNESCO Biosphere Reserves". This success might be attributed not only to the higher quality of photos, uploaded this year, but also to the fact that Bulgaria has 16 UNESCO Biosphere reserves on its territory (ranking it 3rd in Europe and 6th globally) and many of these reserves were present in this year's contest submissions.
    Although UNESCO jury had not provided gifts for the winners, and though we hadn't provided in our budget the possibility to have a UNESCO winner from Bulgaria, we wanted to offer equal treatment to this winner. Thanks to the little expenditure in budgetary item 7. "Travelling/Postal expenses", and after approval on the grant's talk page, we managed to ensure a gift for him, too. We contacted the winner and invited him to the Award Ceremony on 1 October, and purchased for him a prize voucher, identical to the prizes for the rest of the winners, selected by the local jury.
    Video messages for the Awards Ceremony
    For the Awards Ceremony, we created a multimedia presentation as a background for the gift handing. The presentation included three videos that made the whole ceremony even more surprising and attractive. First, Katherine Maher, helped by Samantha Lien, kindly contributed with a video message, congratulating the participants, winners, organizers and our host, the National Museum of Natural History. Another congratulatory video was recorded and sent by the Wikimedian in Residence in UNESCO Mr. John Cummings. One of two winners, who were not able to attend, Diego Delso, also sent a video message that was presented right after announcing his name during the Awards Ceremony.
    Photo from Bulgaria ranked second in the international stage
    In this year's finalists, as announced on 25 November, one photo from Bulgaria is ranked among the International Top 15 winning photos, and it's ranked on the second place. This happens during the second time Bulgaria participates in the contest, and is yet another evidence that this year the submitted photos are more qualitative and competitive. The reason might be both the wider recognizability of the contest during its second edition in Bulgaria, as well as this year's availability of prizes and awards ceremony.

    What didn't work?

    Winners reconsidered
    While technically backed up with this tool, we had to start from the scratch the process of finding the optimal way for communication and coordination within the jury, as none of the experience from 2015 was relevant enough, and this time we were much bigger and disperse jury. Along with one technical problem which stopped two of the jury members to start voting in time, we had one more time-related constraint setting for the whole jury a shorter deadline than that in other wiki communities. We had to select our winners by 23 July rather than by the end of July, because only thus we could fit within the working schedule of the Council of Postage Stamps Issuance.
    Probably these two factors lead to the misjudgement leading to two photographs (by the same author), ranked 1st and 3rd place, being detected as photo montages. Unfortunately, we had already announced the winners, when Commons contributors objected the choice of the jury. After consultations with the WLE international organizers and exploring similar cases of disputed photos in the past, the team took the difficult decision to demand from the jury reconsideration of their choice.
    As a result, the two fake photos were disqualified, the rest 8 shifted upwards in the ranking, and two more photos were selected on 9th and 10th place. Making the correcting announcement was not an easy job, but we did with sense of self-irony and humour. Hopefully, this change did not bring about any serious negative communicational or legal implications, though it was a huge lesson to be learned.
    Team tension
    • Spiritia's point of view. The organizing and decision making team consisted of five Wikimedians and most of the time we had very smooth and productive communication, even in such stressful situations like unknowingly announcing two manipulated photos among the Top 10 country finalists. Given enough time, we worked pretty well together. However, in the last month before the Awards Ceremony, there were many moments of increased, palpable tension. These were mainly related to the increased number of tasks that required physical presence, last-moment action, access to bank account, coordination with institutional partners and suppliers within their working time, i.e., kinds of project activities that demand from us availability and dedication, regardless of any other offwiki engagements we may have. As the ceremony quickly approached, the model of decision making, which allowed and even encouraged lengthy discussions involving each of the team members, proved dysfunctional. In some situations, operative decisions had to be taken quickly and under changing/emergent circumstances, possibly differing from what was initially planned or approved by the team, or in situations when action was necessary, while not all of the team member have taken their time to share their opinion. While taking decisions with consensus is of vital importance for Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia and community, good faith and trust in one's individual decision making capabilities, especially in such small project teams, where everyone relies on all the others, should not be neglected.

    What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?


    Learning patterns


    As a result of the jury's misjudgement in the national stage of the WLE 2016, an idea occurred about how to eliminate in future such confusing situations. A learning pattern called WLX jury benefitting from the wisdom of the Commons crowd was created and so far has received two endorsements: from Ukraine and Macedonia.

    Outcomes and impact



    Provide the original project goal here.
    Project "Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in Bulgaria" has defined the following goals:
    • To increase the number of freely licensed photographs from the preserved territories and natural heritage in Bulgaria;
    • To raise the awareness of the natural heritage of Bulgaria through the photographs uploaded during the competition;
    • To improve the quality of the content on Wikimedia projects by providing images to the articles;
    • To boost the creation of new articles about natural heritage sites in Bulgaria;
    • To illustrate already exiting articles about natural heritage sites in Bulgaria;
    • To encourage active participation of photographers in the competition and stimulate the launch of similar projects;
    • To raise awareness about free licenses in Bulgaria.
    • To promote the donated content through social media and other channels.
    Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 short paragraphs.

    Progress towards targets and goals


    Project metrics

    Project metrics Target outcome Achieved outcome Explanation
    At least 150 participants uploading one photograph or more; 118 participants whose contributions were kept after review Target achieved: 79%.
    These are 118 uploaders, whose contributions were kept after review. Initially 120 uploaders were registered, but photos of 2 uploaders got deleted after review. This result is practically identical to the achievement in 2015, when we recorded 119 uploaders. It is worth noting that about 14 of this year's uploaders are people who have already contributed to last year's "Wiki Loves Earth" or "Wiki Loves Earth". This is due to the increased targeting of participants of the two 2015 competitions by using the "Mass Message" function.
    At least 2000 photographs uploaded and kept after review; 2155 contributions kept after review Target achieved: 108%
    This year, 2155 uploads were kept after review, while initially uploaded were 2204 photos. This makes 2.2% deleted uploads. Compared to last year's result, this is 133% increase, since in 2015 we recorded 1613 non-deleted images, after approx. 30 images (or 1.8%) deleted ones due to copyright issues, vandalism, out-of-scope.
    At least 50 natural heritage sites photographed; Approximately 77 natural heritage sites Target achieved: 154%
    Total number of about 77 different heritage sites was counted, though potentially geographically intersecting areas due to the different hierarchical / territorial scope of national parks, nature reserves, nature phenomena.
    At least 50 new articles about natural heritage sites in Bulgaria (in BGWP or elsewhere). 50 new articles in Bulgarian Wikipedia, 13 new articles in other language versions Target achieved: 126%
    50 new articles about natural heritage sites and endemic plant and insect species in Bulgarian Wikipedia and 13 new articles in 10 other language versions were created. All new Bulgarian articles were created during the month of competition, while curating the uploads on a daily basis. All foreign articles were created after the end of the end of the competition, and in half of the cases – after the announcement of the Top 10 photos, often inspired by their high quality. It is worth noting that last year, about 40 new articles were created in Bulgarian, and no statistics has been maintained about WLE-BG photos adoption in other language versions or projects.
    At least 200 already existing articles to be illustrated (in BGWP or elsewhere). About 450 already existing articles Target achieved: 225%
    About 450 already existing articles (in BGWP, other language versions or Wikidata), as calculated subtracting from the total image usages (513) the number of newly calculated articles (50+13). According to the Glamorous tool, this year 352 distinct images are used (16.33% of all images of category) which exceeds last year's performance of 178 distinct images used (11.04% of all images of category)

    Global Metrics


    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.

    1. Next to each required metric, list the actual outcome achieved through this project.
    2. 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.

    Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
    1. # of active editors involved
    2. # of new editors 73%
    3. # of individuals involved 118 participants
    4a. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 355
    4b. # of new images/media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Optional) 2155 new images uploaded to Commons
    5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 63 new articles 63 new articles (50 in Bulgarian, 13 in 10 other language version). See Grants:PEG/UG BG/WLE 2016/Report/Stat
    6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 354 600 bytes only from newly created articles See Grants:PEG/UG BG/WLE 2016/Report/Stat
    Learning question
    Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?



    What impact did this project have on WMF's mission and the strategic priorities?

    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?

    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".


    Please list all project expenses in a table here, with descriptions and dates. Review the instructions here.

    Organized per Costs Justification Document

    # Category Item description Date Supporting document(s) Amount in BGN Amount in EUR Notes
    WLE2016BG01 9. Incidentals 40 "Wiki Loves Earth - Bulgaria" A4 color posters, 2 A3 posters, tubus 2016-05-26 Fiscal receipt for cash payment (invoice forgotten), bank order receipt for cash withdrawal 40.20 20.56 -
    WLE2016BG02 8. Fees, commissions, etc Bank fee for cash widthdrawal - WLE2016BG01 (posters) 2016-06-10 Bank order receipt 1.00 0.51 -
    WLE2016BG03 6. Prizes Amazon.de voucher for the winner on 5th place 2016-09-08 Invoice 302-9183906-2738718/08.09.2016 99.76 51.00 Pending withdrawal from the bank account
    WLE2016BG04 6. Prizes Amazon.de voucher for the postage stamp designer (extra prize, approved on the talk page) 2016-09-09 Invoice 305-2697025-7729104/09.09.2016 97.80 50.00 -
    WLE2016BG05 2. Buttons 100 "Wiki Loves Earth - Bulgaria" buttons (44 mm Ø) 2016-09-20 Proforma invoice 848/14.09.2016, Bank order for bank transfer from 15.09.2016, Invoice 0000017519/20.09.2016 96.00 49.08 Bank fee for bank transfer: WLE2016BG06
    WLE2016BG06 8. Fees, commissions, etc Bank fee for bank transfer - WLE2016BG05 (buttons) 2016-09-15 Bank order receipt 2.20 1.13 -
    WLE2016BG07 5. Panes Test print of one pane (0.765 m, 0.566 m2), 1 tubus, 100 pins 2016-09-24 Invoice 7000036286/24.09.2016, fiscal receipt for cash payment, debit card receipt 23.92 12.23 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG12
    WLE2016BG08 9. Incidentals Color print of a draft of the postage stamp 2016-09-21 Invoice 7000036243/21.09.2016, fiscal receipt for cash payment 4.80 2.46 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG12
    WLE2016BG09 5. Panes Pane laths (17) 2016-09-22 Invoice / fiscal receipt 00901086~3/22.09.2016 19.39 9.91 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG12
    WLE2016BG10 5. Panes Pane laths (4) and holders 2016-09-24 Invoice 0050159436/24.09.2016, fiscal receipt for cash payment 13.93 7.12 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG12
    WLE2016BG11 5. Panes Print of 11 panes (9.91 m, 6,21 m2) and the special green WLE seal (model EOS R40) 2016-09-26 Invoice 7000036332/26.09.2016, three fiscal receipts (100.00 advance payment + 166.74 + 21.43), three debit card receipts 288.16 147.33 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG12
    WLE2016BG12 8. Fees, commissions, etc Bank fee for cash widthdrawal - WLE2016BG07, WLE2016BG08, WLE2016BG09, WLE2016BG10, WLE2016BG11} (panes) 2016-09-29 Bank order receipt 1.00 0.51 -
    WLE2016BG13 1. Calendars 50 "Wiki Loves Earth - Bulgaria" calendars for 2017 2016-09-29 Invoice No. 0000002509/29.09.2016, fiscal receipt for cash payment, bank order receipt for cash withdrawal 588.00 300.64 -
    WLE2016BG14 8. Fees, commissions, etc Bank fee for cash widthdrawal - WLE2016BG13 (calendars) 2016-09-29 Bank order receipt 1.00 0.51 -
    WLE2016BG15 4. Catering 45 litres of soft drinks, 8 packs of sweets, 100 plastic plates, 100 plastic cups, 120 paper tissues 2016-09-30 Invoice/Fiscal receipt 1015815724/30.09.2016, Debit card receipt 83.83 42.86 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG26
    WLE2016BG16 6. Prizes Prize bags for the award ceremony (to contain calendar, certificate, WLE and Wikipedia buttons, Wikipedia stickers) 2016-09-30 Invoice 1015815723/30.09.3016 23.90 12.22 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG26
    WLE2016BG17 4. Catering Finger food (500 pieces for estimated 50-70 guests) 2016-10-01 Invoice 2000000107/01.10.2016, Fiscal receipt for cash payment 301.78 154.30 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG26
    WLE2016BG18 8. Fees, commissions, etc Bank fee for cash widthdrawal - WLE2016BG19, WLE2016BG20, WLE2016BG21 (prizes) 2016-09-28 Bank order receipt 1.34 0.68 -
    WLE2016BG19 6. Prizes One bookshop voucher for the winner on 6th place 2016-09-28 Fiscal receipt for cash payment, Electronic voucher card 100.00 51.12 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG18
    WLE2016BG20 6. Prizes Three photo equipment vouchers for the winners on 4th, 9th and 10th place 2016-09-28 Three fiscal receipts for cash payment, 3x2 vouchers for 50.00 BGN 300.00 153.37 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG18
    WLE2016BG21 6. Prizes Six photo equipment vouchers for the winners on 1sth, 2nd, 3th, 7th, 8th places and the UNESCO winner (20% discount obtained) 2016-09-30 Invoice 0000040957/30.09.2016, fiscal receipt for cash payment, fiscal receipt for debit card payment 740.00 378.32 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG18
    WLE2016BG22 3. Certificates 16 color print certificates: 10 winners, 1 UNESCO winner, 5 external jury members. The same invoice contains also expenses for 2 A3 color print posters for the Awards Ceremony. 2016-09-29 Invoice 7000036417/29.09.2016, fiscal receipt for cash payment 35.22 18.01 Pending withdrawal from the bank account
    WLE2016BG23 5. Panes The information pane re-printed to include logos of WMF and our partnering institutions (1.05 m, 0.11 m2) 2016-10-01 Invoice 7000036490/01.10.2016, fiscal receipt for cash payment, debit card receipt 13.30 6.80 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG26
    WLE2016BG24 7. Travelling / Postal expenses Travel costs: car fuel for one of the winners, User:Alexandra Karadzhova (expense equivalent to 1 two-way bus ticket Plovdiv-Sofia-Plovdiv) 2016-09-30 Fiscal receipt for cash payment (invoice forgotten) 29.84 15.26 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG26
    WLE2016BG25 7. Travelling / Postal expenses Postal expenses (delivery of prize to one winner, and certificate/buttons/calendar to 1 jury member) 2016-10-05 Invoice 1060009407/05.10.2016, fiscal receipt for cash payment, two way-bills 12.70 6.49 Bank order receipt for cash withdrawal: WLE2016BG26
    WLE2016BG26 8. Fees, commissions, etc Bank fee for cash widthdrawal - WLE2016BG15, WLE2016BG16, WLE2016BG17, WLE2016BG23, WLE2016BG24, WLE2016BG25 (catering, transport, postal costs, print) 2016-10-06 Bank order receipt 1.00 0.51 -
    WLE2016BG27 9. Incidentals Organization costs for the museum 2016-10-03 Invoice 0000000817/03.10.2016, bank order for bank transfer on 06.10.2016 100.00 51.12 Bank fee for bank transfer: WLE2016BG28
    WLE2016BG28 8. Fees, commissions, etc Bank fee for bank transferbg12 - WLE2016BG27 (museum costs) 2016-10-06 Bank order receipt 2.20 1.13 -

    Organized per Budgetary Item

    # Category Item description Unit Projected Number of units Projected Cost per unit (EUR) Projected Total cost (EUR) Reported Number of units Reported Cost per unit (EUR) Reported Total cost (EUR) Reported Total cost (BGN) Notes
    1 Calendars Calendars with the logo and the awarded 10 photographs unit 50 5 250 50 6.0128 300.64 588.00 Document WLE2016BG13 for 588.00 BGN (= 300.64 EUR). In the final form, the calendars were a bit more expensive than projected because of the better paper quality and 13-sheet doublesided full-color print
    2 Buttons Branded buttons with the logo of the competition unit 100 0.5 50 100 0.4908 49.08 96.00 Document WLE2016BG05 for 96.00 BGN (= 49.08 EUR). Buttons (44 mm Ø) delivered during the Awards ceremony and the Postage Stamp validation.
    3 Certificates Certificates for the awarded photographers and jury members unit 20 0.5 10 16 1.126 18.01 35.22 Document WLE2016BG22 for 35.22 BGN (= 18.01 EUR), which includes certificates and 2 A3 posters for the Awards Ceremony. 16 certificates: 10 winners, 1 UNESCO winner, 5 external jury members
    4 Catering catering served during the Awards ceremony n/a n/a n/a 200 n/a n/a 197.16 385.61 Document WLE2016BG15 for 83.83 BGN (42.86 EUR) for 45 litres of soft drinks, 8 packs of sweets, 100 plastic plates, 100 plastic cups, 120 paper tissues.
    Document WLE2016BG17 for 301.78 BGN (154.30 EUR) for fingerfood.
    5 Panes Printed paper panes with the awarded best photos m2 20 7.50 150 n/a n/a 183.39 358.71 Document WLE2016BG07 for 23.92 BGN (= 12.23 EUR) - test print of 1 pane, 1 tubus, 100 pins
    Document WLE2016BG09 for 19.39 BGN (= 9.91 EUR) for pane lathes
    Document WLE2016BG10 for 13.93 BGN (= 7.12 EUR) for pane lathes and holders
    Document WLE2016BG11 for 288.16 BGN (= 147.33 EUR) for printing 11 panes and the WLE seal
    Document WLE2016BG23 for 13.30 BGN (= 6.80 EUR) for re-printing 1 pane.
    6 Prizes prizes for the best photographs and best contributors n/a n/a n/a 650 n/a n/a 696.03 1361.46 Document WLE2016BG03 for 51.00 EUR (=99.76 BGN) for Amazon voucher for 1 prize winner from abroad.
    Document WLE2016BG03 for 50.00 EUR (=97.80 BGN) for additional Amazon voucher for the postage stamp designer.
    Document WLE2016BG19 for 100.00 BGN (= 51.12 EUR) for 1 voucher (bookshop).
    Document WLE2016BG20 for 300.00 BGN (= 153.37 EUR) for 3 vouchers (photo equipment).
    Document WLE2016BG21 for 740.00 BGN (= 378.32EUR) for 6 vouchers, incl. 1st and 2nd prize and additional prize for the UNESCO winner (photo equipment), 20% discount obtained.
    Document WLE2016BG16 for 23.90 EUR (= 12.22 BGN) for prize bags
    7 Travelling/Postal expenses Travelling or postal expenses for people who are not living in the capital for the awards ceremony n/a n/a n/a 350 n/a n/a 21.76 42.54 Document WLE2016BG24 for 29.84 BGN (= 15.26 EUR) for travelling costs (car fuel)
    Document WLE2016BG25 for 12.70 BGN (= 6.50 EUR) for postal expenses (delivery of prize to 1 winner, and certificate to 1 jury member)
    8 Fees, commissions, etc Banking fees n/a n/a n/a 50 n/a n/a 4.98 9.74 FIVE bank fees for cash withdrawals: Bank order receipt WLE2016BG02 for 1 BGN (0.51 EUR) for WLE2016BG01 (posters), WLE2016BG12 for 1 BGN (0.51 EUR) for WLE2016BG{07-11} (panes), WLE2016BG14 for 1 BGN (0.51 EUR) for WLE2016BG13 (calendars), WLE2016BG18 for 1.34 BGN (=0.68 EUR) for WLE2016BG{19-21} (prizes), WLE2016BG26 for 1 BGN (0.51 EUR) for WLE2016BG{15-17,23-25}(catering, transport, postal costs, print).
    TWO bank fees for bank transfers: WLE2016BG06 for 2.20 BGN (1.13 EUR) for WLE2016BG05 (buttons), WLE2016BG28 for 2.20 BGN (1.13 EUR) for WLE2016BG27 (museum costs),
    9 Incidentals n/a n/a n/a n/a 100 n/a n/a 74.14 145.00 Document WLE2016BG01 for 40.20 BGN (= 20.56 EUR) for printing advertising WLE posters before the start of the upload campaign.
    Document WLE2016BG08 for 4.80 BGN (= 2.46 EUR) for color print of a draft of the postage stamp.
    Document WLE2016BG27 for 100.00 BGN (= 51.12 EUR) for organization costs for the museum
    Total 1810 1545.18 3022.28
    Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
    EUR 1810.00
    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)
    EUR 1810.00
    Total amount received from WMF
    BGN 3520.45 = EUR 1800.00
    Total amount spent on this project
    BGN 3022.28 = EUR 1545.18
    Total amount of Project and Event grant funds spent on this project
    BGN 3022.28 = EUR 1545.18
    Balance, amount remaining from the grant:
    BGN 498.17 = EUR 254.82
    Are there additional sources that funded any part of this project? List them here.

    Remaining funds

    The funds remaining from this grant in the amount of 248 EUR were deducted from another grant payment for Grants:Project/Rapid/UG BG/Archives Digitisation.
    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.)
    BGN 498.17 = EUR 254.82
    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.
    We can return the money, or, if we get approval of our newly proposed rapid grant proposal Grants:Project/Rapid/UG BG/Archives Digitisation, we can use the money for this purpose (its financial plan is for 248 EUR which is almost the same sum as the one remaining from this project.)