Grants:Project/Rapid/Global Open Initiative/Parliament of Ghana challenge/Sixth Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana/Report

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Report accepted
This report for a Rapid Grant approved in FY 2019-20 has been reviewed and accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Event poster - Sixth Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana
Section of female participants at the Wikidata training and launch of the month-long contest at Madina Institute of Science and Technology on 24 January 2020


Did you meet your goals? Are you happy with how the project went?

All of the project's high-level metric goals were met and even exceeded in some cases. In a nutshell, the Global Open Initiative/Parliament of Ghana challenge/Sixth Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana
  1. Add(ed) or improve(d) content on Wikidata
  2. Recruit(ed) new editors on Wikipedia
  3. Engage(d) existing editors
  4. Recruit(ed) new editors
  5. Increase(d) skills for existing and new editors
The project's timeline got shifted 5 months between August 2019 and January 2020. This was due to delays in processing our grant application. Our team was, however, able to adjust to this situation and so the delay did not appear to affect the organizational effectiveness of the challenge, except for some prospective contest participants who knew about the grant application and were anxiously anticipating when the contest would begin; some of whom may have moved on (not being able to participate at the time that the contest finally started running) but we are too sure about how many were affected this way.
Ultimately, we're happy about the outcome of the contest. Similar to the Seventh Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana series of editathons that was organized in 2019, the Sixth Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana contest
  1. Garnered wide social media attention. [1] [2] [3]
  2. Attracted new editors to both the initial Challenge editathon launch and the contest.
    After the editathon launch at the Madina Institute of Science and Technology, new editors were again roped into the month-long contest that took place from January 25 to February 24 of 2020. To some of the editors who have now gone on to become vibrant members of the Global Open Initiative Foundation (and the wider Wikimedia community in Ghana), the Sixth Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana was their first encounter with any Wikimedia project. One of such participants, User:Muhibudeen, who was totally new to the Wikimedia projects, became a top contributor and eventually emerged winner in 3 sub-categories of the contest.
  3. Opened further opportunities for Global Open Initiative to collaborate with mission-allied entities beyond our local Wikimedia community in Ghana. [4]
  4. This project completed the second of of thirteen campaigns we have planned to work on Wikimedia entries for Ghanaian parliamentarians. These learning experiences have paved the way for us to organise the subsequent events even better and with more clarity.


Please report on your original project targets.

Target outcome Achieved outcome Explanation
Number of participants: 30 ➤ 48 unique people registered their participation on Google Forms
➤ 32 unique people either attended the contest launch or participated in the month-long contest
➤ 28 people joined the campaign dashboard
We created different dashboards for the different stages of the project; recording fewer participants on the dashboard in the month-long contest than attended the launch of the contest on 25 January 2020.
Number of workshops: 1 One (1) Edit-a-thon session(s) was held Two unofficial non-physical extended sessions were held before and after the main workshop on 25 January 2020 and the contest from 26 January - 24 February 2020, for the purposes of organizing the entries before the campaign, and cleaning up wrong/missing entries after the campaign.
Number of articles created or improved (All 275 members of the Seventh Parliament of Ghana have Wikidata items) All 275 members of the Sixth Parliament of Ghana Now have Wikidata items
Number of articles created or improved (All 275 members of the Seventh Parliament of Ghana have Wikipedia articles) All 275 members of the Sixth Parliament of Ghana Now have Wikipedia articles
  • ➤ 80+ New Wikipedia pages were created
  • ➤ 150+ existing Wikipedia pages were updated with new information
  • ➤ Prose size of all 275 articles was increased to at least 1000 bytes
Number of articles edited: 0 51800 This was not a target we proposed in our grant application. We embarked on other projects in the course of the month-long contest resulting in the capture of other unrelated works in our dashboard metrics, and so, instead of 257 items + 257 articles = 514 our dashboard captured 51800 total items/articles.
Wikimedia Commons uploads: 0 526 This was not a target we proposed in our grant application. Similar to the above, our dashboard captured extra works that were not related to our campaign.


ORES visualization of campaign article/item development
User:Kinvidia, One of the most prolific Wikipedia editors in Ghana, partook in the contest as a member of the jury
Group photo of participants who made it to the end of the training workshop to launch the campaign

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?
  1. The campaign employed User:ListeriaBot to organise the entries that participants had to edit. That way, it was easier for participants to choose and pick cells to edit, and that was useful for us (the organizers) to know where we are at, and how much more work was left so that we could follow up with the contest participants. We had some help from User:Tagishsimon with regards to the markup that produced the tables.
  2. Aside from the ListeriaBot generated page, we created a contest landing page with a listing of the MP's categorised by Region. We asked participants of the contest to sign their names against the entries they had completed. We thereafter gave the contents feedback about their entries by marking them with three ticks. Three judges checked those entries by adding the following ticks;
    1. Yellow if the articles met the Wikipedia rules,
    2. Pink if the Wikidata item requirements were met, and
    3. Then a third judge verified both entries again by adding a green tick to show that that MP's entries were complete.
    4. A fourth judge upon seeing the green tick would update the contestant's points in the leaderboard. This system allowed not only us, but the participants as well, to know just by visiting the landing page, how much work was remaining to be completed, and where they stood on the leaderboard.
  3. Although the contest participants were mostly familiar faces, the in-person pre-contest workshop we organized to launch the campaign was instrumental in recruiting new members to join the Wikimedia community in Ghana; some of these new faces went on to score top marks in the overall tally of the contest.

  • What did not work so well?
  1. The event was delayed for 5 months because our grant application was not reviewed. When grant was finally approved, the team were already working on other projects. Managing the multiple projects placed a train on our energy.
  2. It was recommended of participants to bring their own laptop the Wikidata training workshop, but some came to the workshop without one and were unable to participate during the practical sessions.
  3. Although it was anticipated not not all projective participants who registered to attend on Google Forms would actually shoe up, and was adjusted for, we still recorded fewer participants attending than expected. On the bright side, the opposite scenario where more people would show up than we prepared would have been worse.

  • What would you do differently next time?
  1. This campaign was a remarkable improvement from the previous one we organised in 2019 that spanned a total of 3 months. In transitioning from in-person editathons to an online contest, we estimated 1 month to complete the entries for the 275 members of the 6th Parliament of the 4th Republic of Ghana. Two weeks into the contest however, we quickly realised that that was more time than our contestants actually needed, and so we asked them to include parliamentary terms outside of the scope we had initially planned. Next time, if we are sure that we can pool together a similar group of motivated contestants, then we may either choose a shorter duration for the contest, or maintain the same duration but stretch the number of parliamentary terms to more than one.
  2. The size for our jury was small, and that placed us in the position where we were reviewing participants' entries from a one-week backlog over very long hours. Next time, we will take this into consideration to increase the jury or include some form of compensation to make up for the difficult task of assessing to ensure they met the requirements of the competition.


Grant funds spent[edit]

Please describe how much grant money you spent for approved expenses, and tell us what you spent it on.

Editathon (1)
Venue space 600 600 n/a
Projector 150 150 n/a
Internet routers 499 732.36 We bought the Router with Internet data and paid for the cost of delivery.
Internet Data 399 185 We had already purchased an innitial data bundle. (Please the the receipt above).
Refreshment (Light Breakfast + Lunch) 2160 2600 We had to make arrangements for this several days before the event with an estimate of 40 people based on the Google Forms responses we received.
Water 108 600 This expense includes snacks and disposable items we bought for breakfast.
T-Shirts 240 0 We had a few leftovers from previous events. We also did not get the time and capacity to follow up on this item.
Stickers 125 0 We had leftovers from previous events and decided to forgo thjis item.
Printing 120 0 We decided to forgo this item and instead direct participants to online versions of our documents.
Transportation for projector 60 120 The shop insisited that the projector was a fragile item and would only release it if we agreed to use a taxi instead of public transport.
Transportation for refreshments (food and water) 60 60 n/a
Transportation for refreshments (items) 60 97.85 This includes bank charges and the cost of cheque to withdraw funds.
Transportation for event facilitators 600 766 This included transportation allowance for other key members of the team that showed up to help with the organisation, including transfer chrages for each.
Prizes (2)
Wikipedia > Highest edit count > First 300 300 n/a
Wikipedia > Highest edit count > Second 200 200 n/a
Wikipedia > Highest edit count > Third 100 100 n/a
Wikipedia > Destubbed Wikipedia articles > First 600 600 n/a
Wikipedia > Destubbed Wikipedia articles > Second 400 400 n/a
Wikipedia > Destubbed Wikipedia articles > Third 200 200 n/a
Wikidata > Highest edit count > First 300 300 n/a
Wikidata > Highest edit count > Second 200 200 n/a
Wikidata > Highest edit count > Third 100 100 n/a
Wikidata > Statement Qualifiers > First 600 600 n/a
Wikidata > Statement Qualifiers > Second 400 400 n/a
Wikidata > Statement Qualifiers > Third 200 200 n/a
Wikipedia > Top Female contributor > First 300 300 n/a
Wikipedia > Top Female contributor > Second 200 200 n/a
Wikipedia > Top Female contributor > Third 100 100 n/a
Wikidata > Top Female contributor > First 300 300 n/a
Wikidata > Top Female contributor > Second 200 200 n/a
Wikidata > Top Female contributor > Third 100 100 n/a
Organisation (3)
Social Media Posts 171.22 0 We decided to forgo this item.
Internet Data (Jury) 720 880.25 We enlisted a 5th Jury to help us with the tasks, including data transfer charges.
Event Poster designs 0 61.92 We payed a Graphics Designer to make promotional posters for advertisements.
TOTAL GHS (1 + 2 + 3) 11372.22 11653.38 Difference: 281.16

Remaining funds[edit]

Do you have any remaining grant funds?


Anything else[edit]

Anything else you want to share about your project?