Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Wiki Loves Monuments 2022 in Moldova (ID: 21906281)/Final Report

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Rapid Fund Final Report

Report Status: Under review

Due date: 2023-01-31T00:00:00Z

Funding program: Rapid Fund, Wikimedia Community Fund

Report type: Final

Application

This is an automatically generated Meta-Wiki page. The page was copied from Fluxx, the grantmaking web service of Wikimedia Foundation where the user has submitted their midpoint report. Please do not make any changes to this page because all changes will be removed after the next update. Use the discussion page for your feedback. The page was created by CR-FluxxBot.

General information[edit]

  • Title of Proposal: Wiki Loves Monuments 2022 in Moldova
  • Username of Applicant: Gikü
  • Name of Organization: N/A
  • Amount awarded: 800
  • Amount spent: 780 USD, 14600 MDL

Part 1 Understanding your work[edit]

1. Briefly describe how your proposed activities and strategies were implemented

  • The contest was organized under a Wiki Loves Monuments template, as planned.
  • Like last year, participants were able to use the list of monuments and the Wikidata-generated map to find monument IDs, or upload images directly.
  • The list was improved mainly by adding coordinates to monuments (currently 55% compared to ~3.5% before the contest) and also by manually reviewing much of the items.
  • A page was setup for readers to report errors in the lists of monuments.
  • Social media presence was improved; posts highlighting certain monuments from a given district or settlement were shared to Facebook groups about the respective places.
  • Press was notified about the contest.
  • Bike quest was successfully organized under a gamified structure.

2. Were there any strategies or approaches that you felt were effective in achieving your goals? Please describe these strategies and approaches.

The effort put into adding coordinates to as many monuments as possible payed out:

  • there were several instances of participants going out to discover monuments near their place of living, including – especially – monuments of the archaeological kind, which in the majority of cases do not feature any physical characteristics
  • in some cases it was easier for organizers to validate the images
  • Agency for Inspection and Restoration of Monuments in Moldova reached out for collaboration, but nothing has materialized yet

The bike-quest was well-received by the participants, and provided good results. The gamified ruleset ensured that the participants went out of their way to visit as many objectives as possible, as exemplified by the nighttime photos made ([1], [2]).

Achieving the 5 secondary goals proved rather unsuccessful. Of these, tangible results can be reported perhaps only on the outreach part, as the contest was unexpectedly promoted by Moldova's most important heritage event organizer Klumea.

Can't attribute to a specific strategy or approach, but the diversity of images was greater than last year when looking at types, locations, and uploaders.

3. Please use this space to upload media and other files that help tell your story and impact.


Field to type in URLs.

4. To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the work carried out with the support of this Fund? You can choose “not applicable” if your work does not relate to these goals.

Our efforts during the Fund period have helped to...
A. Bring in participants from underrepresented groups Neither agree nor disagree
B. Create a more inclusive and connected culture in our community Agree
C. Develop content about underrepresented topics/groups Neither agree nor disagree
D. Develop content from underrepresented perspectives Neither agree nor disagree
E. Encourage the retention of editors Neither agree nor disagree
F. Encourage the retention of organizers Agree

5. Is there anything else you would like to share about how your efforts helped to bring in participants and/or build out content, particularly for underrepresented groups?

The underrepresented part of this was showcased by multiple participants logging in to upload images of obscure monuments from their village or city.

Part 2: Your main learning[edit]

6. In your application, you outlined your learning priorities. What did you learn about these areas during this period?

  1. The contest indeed brought some images showing different perspectives and evolution through time. The best example are Pelinoleg's and Rodion Gavriloi's aerial photos from Chișinău (c:File:Ansamblul Catedralei „Nașterea Domnului” 26.jpg and c:File:Grădina Publică "Ștefan cel Mare și Sfânt" Foto 2.jpg respectively) and IurieSvet's photo of the restoration process of an old wooden church (c:File:Biserica de lemn din Hiriseni in Muzeul Satului - 2.jpg)
  2. No; uploaders did not venture onto Wikipedia
  3. No; there was no immediate desire to use the uploaded images into new articles
  4. No; the two organizers' effort was sufficient
  5. Potentially interested NGOs did not come to Wikipedia, but there were notable instances when they promoted the contest.

7. Did anything unexpected or surprising happen when implementing your activities?This can include both positive and negative situations. What did you learn from those experiences?

Positive:

  • A large number of drone photos were submitted. Perhaps a future iteration should include a special prize category for drones.
  • Winners are surprised about getting complementary postcards with their prizes, despite this becoming a tradition.
  • There was great competitiveness between the participants of the bike-quest, although some constructive feedback was received on how to organize it better.
  • Completely unprompted (I say this because I usually reach out myself to press and other potentially interested parties), Moldova's most important heritage event organizer Klumea shared multiple posts about the contest, driving engagement and some new participants.
  • The volume of coordinates available for monuments prompted the Agency for Inspection and Restoration of Monuments in Moldova to reach out to us for collaboration on their bookkeeping, but nothing has materialized yet.
  • We received more than expected material from the 'provinces' – i.e. obscure monuments from settlements far away from the capital.

Negative:

  • Sharing posts to hundreds of Facebook groups of districts, cities, and villages.. attracted on-site engagements (likes, comments, shares) but translated to very few actual submitted images.
  • Received a feedback about the Wikidata-generated map being unusable in the sense that there is no way to upload a new image straight from it.
  • Jury was not diverse enough: 2 photographers and a Wikipedian.

8. How do you hope to use this learning? For instance, do you have any new priorities, ideas for activities, or goals for the future?

To be improved:

  • Include a special prize category for aerial (drone) images.
  • Simplify and relax the rules of the bike-quest, such that more people can participate.
  • Find a way to introduce a direct link in the Wikidata-based map to the upload page.
  • People like promoting their villages / cities. More effort should be done into promoting WLM as a way to do that.
  • Further diversify the jury, potentially by inviting some more past participants.

9. Documentation of resources: Use this space to upload any documents that would be useful to share with others (e.g. communications material, training material, presentations).


Here is an additional field to type in URLs.

N/A

Part 3: Metrics[edit]

10a. Open Metrics reporting

In your application, you defined some open metrics and targets (goals). You will see a table like the one below with your metric in the title and the target you set in your proposal automatically filled in. Use the tables to report the result. Use the comments column to describe any aspects of this result that you find relevant. If the results were different from the initial target (goals) then you can explain why and what you learned from this. You can also provide any qualitative analysis regarding these results. In the last column please describe the tools and methodology used to collect this data and any difficulties you might have had.

Open Metrics Summary
Open Metrics Description Target Results Comments Methodology
Images used in articles (Last year's planned number: 450; actual number: 282)

There are still less than 200 articles of Moldovan protected monuments on Romanian Wikipedia, in addition to 44 lists of monuments. This metric can only grow if:

  • more articles are written that can accommodate galleries – i.e. multiple illustrations per monument
  • fresh photos are added to particular monuments, which will populate the lists on Wikipedia – but with no more than 1 illustration per monument
  • images are added more actively into the articles about the settlements they are located in – should be a priority in 2022

Since dramatic improvement is not expected for any of these, the expectation this year will be less than last year.

300 656 Although few new articles were written, this metric exceeded the expectation thanks to the sheer number of newly illustrated monuments (see metric below) and the fact that on Wikidata they were used as aerial view, inscription image, nighttime view, etc. instead of just image. Wiki Loves tool
New items covered (Last year's planned number: 300; actual number: between 266 and 326)

This metric can only grow if images are added to relatively obscure monuments, because the most recognizable landmarks of Moldova and almost the entire heritage of Chișinău (the capital) have already been illustrated. The expectation is thus that there will be enough new rural churches, WWII monuments, and archaeological sites uploaded into the contest to have a decent result on this metric.

200 265 Original expectation has been fulfilled: there were be enough new rural churches, WWII monuments, and archaeological sites uploaded into the contest to have a decent result on this metric. manual tracking under c:Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2022 in Moldova – new categories, coupled with tracking by Wikidata query
Images uploaded through the bicycle quest (Last year's planned number: 300) 300 137 Main reason: small number of participants (only 3 teams). Also, although the number of covered monuments exceeded expectations, participants elected to make a small number of snaps for each objective and hurry up to the next one. This was caused by the ruleset, which was designed to reward a greater number of visited monuments rather than a greater number of photos. This is actually a good thing, and the problem was expecting too many photos per monument. About 3 images per visited monument is more realistic. manual tracking under c:Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2022 in Moldova – Bike-quest + Petscan query filtering in actual cultural heritage monuments
Items covered by the bicycle quest (Last year's planned number: 30) 30 50 Thanks to the ruleset, participants had a greater motivation to visit a greater number of visited monuments rather than to take a greater number of photos. manually, externally though Google Sheets
Images of other sites uploaded through the bicycle quest (Last year's planned number: 400) 400 204 Main reason: small number of participants (only 3 teams). The problem was expecting too many additional photos in proportion to visited settlements. About 10 images per visited settlement is more realistic. manual tracking under c:Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2022 in Moldova – Bike-quest + Petscan query filtering out actual cultural heritage monuments

10b. Core Metrics reporting

In your application, you defined targets for some core metrics and targets (goals). You will see a table like the one below with each core metric in the title and the target you set in your proposal automatically filled in. Use the tables to report the result. Use the comments column to describe any aspects of this result that you find relevant. If the results were different from the initial target (goals) then you can explain why and what you learned from this. You can also provide any qualitative analysis regarding these results. In the last column please describe the tools and methodology used to collect this data and any difficulties you might have had. Note: a table will appear for each Wikimedia project content contribution you defined in your proposal.

Core Metrics Summary
Core metrics Description Target Results Comments Methodology
Number of participants (Last year's planned number: 50; actual number: 19. For newcomers, the numbers were 30 and 9 respectively)

For 2022, based on past experience and the projected outcome of the improvements, it is expected to have:

  • about 25 participants (photographers) with at least one upload
    • about 15 of which newcomers
  • about 10 participants in the bicycle quest
35 34 Photo contest had There were 31 participants, of which 19 newcomers.

Bike-quest had 6 participants, of which 3 uploaded photos through the photo contest. Out of 11 people who enlisted for the bike-quest, only 6 ended up actually going. They chose to go into 3 groups by two.

So the actual numbers were:

  • 31 participants (photographers) with at least one upload (expected 25)
    • 19 of which newcomers (expected 15)
  • 6 participants in the bicycle quest (expected 10)
    • 3 of which were not part of the "participants (photographers)" set
Wiki Loves tool and Uploaders in cat tool

Participants in the bicycle quests were counted manually because I needed to co-ordinate with all of them.

Number of editors Not applicable for the purposes of this contest Not applicable for the purposes of this contest
Number of organizers The scope is narrow relative to similar contests in other countries, so it does not require a large team. Both organizers have the experience of the previous WLM in Moldova (2021) and are fundamentally familiar with the Registry of protected monuments, its translations into Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons, as well as the inner technicalities of the contest itself. 2 2 No changes were expected, none happened.
Number of new content contributions per Wikimedia project
Wikimedia Project Description Target Results Comments Methodology
Wikimedia Commons (Last year's planned number: 3,000; actual number: 2,872.)

Number of uploaded images to Wikimedia Commons.

Based on previous results, it looks like several thousands of images uploaded is a reasonable expectation. However, a big chunk of the images uploaded last year were organizers' own contributions, including a near-complete inventory of the monuments of Chișinău (the capital), which was a one-time effort. So the expectation this year is lower. At the same time, this year for the first time we will allow images of the archaeological monuments. We won't risk making any assumptions about the number of such images uploaded because we don't know how well the potential participants will be able to locate this kind of landmarks.

2000 3707 Of the total of 3,707 uploaded images, 3,592 satisfied the image criteria (representing a monument from the list, having an acceptable resolution, wtc.), and 1,447 satisfied the uploader criteria (excluding organizers). Images uploaded: c:Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2022 in Moldova
  • of them, valid submissions: Petscan
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

12. Did you have any difficulties collecting data to measure your results? This could include things like a lack of time or resources, or the expertise in your team to collect this data. It could also include difficulties with particular data collection tools.

No

12a. State what difficulties you had.

N/A

12b. How do you hope to overcome these challenges in the future? Do you have any recommendations for the Foundation to support you in addressing these challenges?

N/A

13. Use this space to upload any documents and provide links to any tools you have used that would be useful to understand your data collection (e.g., surveys you have carried out, communications material, training material, program and event dashboard link, project page on Meta).


Here is an additional field to type in URLs.

Results page on rowiki: ro:Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments/Moldova/Rezultate/2022

14. Have you shared these results with other Wikimedian communities (either affiliates, user groups, volunteers, etc., different to yours)? This can include things such as data and direct outcomes, lessons you have learned, or information on how to run or recreate your programs.

Partially

14a. If yes or partially, please describe how you have already shared them and if you would like to do more sharing, and if so how.

Results page on rowiki was populated with metrics immediately after the submission deadline, and with winner images immediately after jury's final decision. Rowiki is a rather small community, so stakeholders see what is going on through the Recent changes. I will share a link to this report to the local village pump, once it is up on Meta.

Part 4: Financial reporting and compliance[edit]

15. & 14a. Please state the total amount spent in your local currency.

14600 MDL

16. Please state the total amount spent in USD.

780 USD

17. Please report the funds received and spending in the currency of your fund.

17a. Upload a financial report file.


17b. Please provide a link to your financial reporting document.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10UGD534IrRoW1FBLsDk-J4gFKetxJR7cdN0s7OCMQCw/edit#gid=0

Column "Spending comments" shows the location of spending proof (receipt and voucher scans) within the attached PDFs.

Among attached PDFs, doc5 and doc6 contain signed acknowledgements of winners that they've received their respective prizes.

As required in the fund agreement, please report any deviations from your fund proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.

17c. If you have not already done so in your budget report, please provide information on changes in the budget in relation to your original proposal.

N/A

18. Do you have any unspent funds from the Fund?

Yes

18a. Please list the amount and currency you did not use and explain why.

approx $20 went unspent.

There was less spending (-$72) than anticipated on the bike-quest refreshments and symbolic gifts, because there were less participants. There was more spending (+$36) than anticipated on the vouchers because of MDL fall against USD between the grant approval and now. There was more spending (+$40) than anticipated on the powerbanks, because they got more expensive overall due to energy issues in the region (war in Ukraine)

All of the above cancels out nicely, but there still is less spending (-$25) on the bike shop voucher. This is because I read the budget wrong when I bought and gave the prizes: instead of awarding two bike shop vouchers for both members of the winning team I only purchased one for the team. This is a honest mistake.

18b. What are you planning to do with the underspent funds?

A. Propose to use the underspent funds within this Fund period with PO approval

18c. Please provide details of hope to spend these funds.

I can remedy the bike voucher mistake by buying the second voucher and meet with the team one more time to award it to them. Or if it's too late I can return the funds to WMF, or transfer them to the next WLMMD iteration in 2023.

19. Are you in compliance with the terms outlined in the fund agreement?

Yes

20. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement?

Yes

21. Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement? In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the WMF mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.

Yes

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

An enormous shout out to co-organizer TotalAnarchy, who was instrumental in managing monuments of archaeological type, adding 2,000 pairs of coordinates, and taking initiative in a lot of the organizational matters. Thank you!

Other documents