Grants:Project/Rapid/Abián/Study on Wikidata property constraints/Report
Did you meet your goals? Are you happy with how the project went?
I am happy with the results. More editors (58) than expected ("at least 12") formally participated in the survey, and the report, available on Wikidata:2020 report on Property constraints, generated particular interest among researchers and external experts (). The developers are already working on some issues; the editors are implementing the suggestions slowly, although an RfC (similar to a voting process in Wikidata) may help implement most of the necessary changes at once.
Please report on your original project targets.
|Target outcome||Achieved outcome||Explanation|
|At least 12 users with different levels of experience and involvement in Wikidata surveyed.||58 active editors (including administrators, Property creators and other users) surveyed.|
|At least 20 constraint types analyzed.||26 constraint types analyzed.|
|The results let the staff gain a good understanding of how Property constraints are used on Wikidata and how to improve them.||The Product Manager for Wikidata said the report "is a very useful resource for further improving the constraints." See also phab:T244043.|
|At least 2 recommendations are applied by editors shortly after the publication of the report.||So far the editors have not implemented any recommendations.||The report is long and reactions follow each other very slowly. Many of the problems encountered are complex and will probably require discussion and consensus for several months. An RfC may help implement most of the necessary changes at once.|
Projects do not always go according to plan. Sharing what you learned can help you and others plan similar projects in the future. Help the movement learn from your experience by answering the following questions:
- What worked well?
- Many active editors have participated in the survey, which has provided sufficient feedback and accurate figures.
- The results have been highly appreciated, even by external experts.
- The report is detailed enough to allow us to check in the future whether the system has improved or worsened.
- What did not work so well?
- Generating reports with quantitative data and useful visualizations in wikitext is a tedious task.
- Although there are many users willing to provide feedback promptly, fewer are willing to help act on it.
- What would you do differently next time?
- I would invest time in programming the generation of wikitext automatically to make the work less tedious.
- I would not expect the recommendations to be implemented quickly by users, but would propose an RfC after which I would try to solve some of the issues myself.
- I would plan on a slightly higher budget. The number of hours spent was higher and, although there were no major unforeseen events, anything could have caused the delivery date to be exceeded.
Grant funds spent
Please describe how much grant money you spent for approved expenses, and tell us what you spent it on.
- 11 weeks for part-time data collection and analysis, survey preparation and report writing: 1,350.00 EUR
- Task management on Phabricator, edits on Wikidata for problem solving and other complementary tasks: 0 EUR (volunteer actions)
- See: phab:T244043 (still in progress)
- Contingencies: 0 EUR (assumed by the grantee)
- ~15% more working hours were spent; the schedule (the delivery date of the report) was met.
Do you have any remaining grant funds?
- There are no remaining funds.
Anything else you want to share about your project?
- Thank you for making this project possible!