Grants:Project/Rapid/Wiki From Above 2016/Report
Did you meet your goals? Are you happy with how the project went?
Yes, goals were met and we are generally happy with how the project went. However we are disappointed by the lower submission rates. See details below for a breakdown of the overall project.
Please report on your original project targets.
|Target outcome||Achieved outcome||Explanation|
|Increase number of aerial photographs available on Wikimedia Commons||Success (limited)||The project increased the number of aerial photographs and media footage on Commons by 84 files. Thereby increasing the cumulative total of aerial content submitted through both the WFA 2015 and WFA 2016 projects to 218 files. The estimated value of the content submitted in 2016 was $435.32 in photographs (72 photographs x $6.06) and $720 in video media (12 videos x $60) totalling $1,156.32. This is based on the private sector cost of R3200 ($273) for 35 aerial pictures and a video or $6.06 per aerial photograph and $60 per aerial video. This however was a limited success as the competition produced less content than the WFA 2015 where 134 images and videos were submitted. This was made up for by a much higher rate of use on Wikipedia but that is expanded upon below.|
|Increase the quality of articles on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects by the use of submitted content.||Success (limited)||Submitted content was used on 81 Wikipedia articles. Given the high value of aerial content for illustrating certain topics on Wikipedia this has increased the quality of most of these 81 articles significantly. This is however a decline from the 119 articles that use content from WLM 2015 however that content has been available for use on Wikipedia for over a year longer than content from the WLM 2016 event.|
|Increase proportion of submitted photographs and videos that are used on Wikipedia.||Success (great)||The number of unique images and videos used on Wikipedia articles has increased noticeably from 2015 with 58.33% of the 84 files submitted being used on Wikipedia in some way. This is an increase from 38.8% in 2015. This represents a large increase in the usability and quality of submitted images for use on Wikipedia.|
|Site||Images used 2016||Images used 2015|
|Total images submitted||84||134|
|Total image usages||81||119|
|Distinct images used||49 (58.33% of all images of category)||52 (38.81% of all images of category)|
The awards will be handed out at the Cape Town Maker Fair on the 27 August 2016 at the Cape Town Science Centre. The best use on Wikipedia category was announced in early December 2016.
Best use on Wikipedia
1st prize- Bollenvelden bij De Zilk for its use to illustrate agriculture of the Netherlands on multiple different language Wikipedias.
2nd prize - Loonse en Drunense Duinen for its use to illustrate the Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen article on Dutch Wikipedia.
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?
- The overall concept of the project -aerial photographs for use on Wikipedia- worked well and a very high proportion of the media submitted was used to effectively illustrate articles on Wikipedia. Additionally the targeting of professional and hobbyist drone pilots worked well and produced high quality submissions just as it did in the 2015 competition.
- What did not work so well?
- The workshops did not work as well as in 2015, the feedback we got that this was largely because of new aviation rules regarding drones in South Africa thereby demotivating people from participating.
- What would you do differently next time?
- Due to recent changes in the regulations regarding the taking of aerial media using drones in South Africa, thereby making it more difficult to run and effectively regulate the competition thereby decreasing the appeal of the public to participate it has been decided to discontinue it for the foreseeable future.
- If we did run it next time we would a) reduce the size of the advertising budget as person-to-person outreach was more effective and b) we would decrease the value of the prizes the feeling is that it did not play a significant enough role in incentivising members of the public to participate.
Grant funds spent
Please describe how much grant money you spent for approved expenses, and tell us what you spent it on.
|Description||Requested Funds||Spent Funds||Remaining/Unspent|
|Total (ZAR)||Total (USD)||Total (ZAR)||Total (USD)||Total (ZAR)||Total (USD)||Notes|
US dollar figure based on the exchange value in the grant application of R15.52 for $1
Do you have any remaining grant funds?
Yes: a total of $166.41 or R2,582.69
Anything else you want to share about your project?