From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Project Grants This project is funded by a Project Grant

proposal people timeline & progress finances midpoint report final report

Report under review
This Project Grant report has been submitted by the grantee, and is currently being reviewed by WMF staff. If you would like to add comments, responses, or questions about this grant report, you can create a discussion page at this redlink.

Welcome to this project's final report! This report shares the outcomes, impact and learnings from the grantee's project.

Part 1: The Project[edit]


The GLAMpipe tool was developed as a much more extensive configuration than originally expected. It is being actively used and developed by Artturimatias at the University of Jyväskylä Open Data Center.

Meanwhile, the adoption in the Wikimedia environment is not actively supported. The project demo at is functional while the installation in the Wikimedia servers at is not.

Project Goals[edit]

  1. With this project we want to focus on bringing data to Wikidata: creating a node for preparing data, and another one for saving prepared data to Wikidata.
    1. The software infrastructure was entirely reworked and ready to support import, manipulation and export to and from a variety of sources. The interface was designed with a goal to clarify the complexity of the process.
  2. Secondly, we focus on the distribution: delivering the tool in different delivery packages - as an online tool and a more powerful desktop application.
    1. The application was created as both an online version and a software package to run locally. It was also installed in the wmflabs server, but over time there were server updates, and the software stopped to function at wmflabs.
  3. As a third point, we work with a group of test users to make the interface easy to use for GLAM professionals and other data partners. We work with them by tracking issues in the code repository, collect evaluations with a survey and meet online to discuss the experiences and to develop solutions.
    1. The project took a long time to reach maturity. As the key functionalities of writing to Wikimedia Commons and writing to Wikidata were not mature, we were not able to make use of the interest of the GLAM community we had already gathered. Over time, the preference of the community of trying to develop this software over other options shifted towards the others.
  4. The process will produce tutorial videos and documentation for using the application and developing additions to it. The aim is to have the tool adopted by the GLAM-Wiki community.
    1. The software is documented at

Project Impact[edit]

Important: The Wikimedia Foundation is no longer collecting Global Metrics for Project Grants. We are currently updating our pages to remove legacy references, but please ignore any that you encounter until we finish.


  1. In the first column of the table below, please copy and paste the measures you selected to help you evaluate your project's success (see the Project Impact section of your proposal). Please use one row for each measure. If you set a numeric target for the measure, please include the number.
  2. In the second column, describe your project's actual results. If you set a numeric target for the measure, please report numerically in this column. Otherwise, write a brief sentence summarizing your output or outcome for this measure.
  3. In the third column, you have the option to provide further explanation as needed. You may also add additional explanation below this table.
Planned measure of success
(include numeric target, if applicable)
Actual result Explanation
A regular web location will be established in Wikimedia Labs The site was established, but not maintained by the team members. It is easy to re-establish if there is interest. There is a running version at
Create a Wikidata node and login with OAuth The Wikidata node was put together in a rough format but it was not ready for production. The OAuth was not completed.
We will carry out a survey. The survey was not carried out. The software configuration for Wikimedia processes was not ready.
2 online meetings with the test users There was a Hangout call with the group of advisers in the beginning of the project to get insight into the production.
GitHub repository The GitHub repository exists at
A community site will be established The documentation site at has served this purpose. The need for a community site has been postponed.
A set of instructional videos will be produced Instructional videos exist at and
3 blog posts We were not able to publicize the unfinished product.
GLAMpipe will be presented in several Finnish and 1 international events. The GLAMpipe project was presented first at Wikimania 2017, in the Wikidata Conference 2017 in a one-hour workshop demonstrating the application and subsequently in CRIS2018 and for the Brazilian GLAM community. There will be also workshop in Open Repositories 2019.


Looking back over your whole project, what did you achieve? Tell us the story of your achievements, your results, your outcomes. Focus on inspiring moments, tough challenges, interesting antecdotes or anything that highlights the outcomes of your project. Imagine that you are sharing with a friend about the achievements that matter most to you in your project.

  • This should not be a list of what you did. You will be asked to provide that later in the Methods and Activities section.
  • Consider your original goals as you write your project's story, but don't let them limit you. Your project may have important outcomes you weren't expecting. Please focus on the impact that you believe matters most.

A little bit of background: While I (Artturimatias) made Commons uploads with GWToolset before this project, I realised that the main problem was preparing the metadata for uploads so that the resulting records would have good quality metadata that was properly formatted and well linked to wikidata. GWToolset did not provide any help for this as it is basically an upload tool, not a data processing tool. So when this project was started, I saw this project as a chance the make tool for data processing.

The problem with designing of data processing tool is that, unless you have only one data source, you need to prepare to handle many different data sources and even more data structures. In this case, the amount of data sources and formats was almost limitlessness. Data could come from museum databases, from spreadsheet of a volunteers, from national services for cultural heritage or any web service like Internet Archive. The format could be XML, CSV, .XLS or JSON.

Basically there are two options for designing a data processing tool for this variety of inputs. The first one is to make data source specific routines. This is the approach that was chosen by Glam2Commons -tool. This makes tool simple to use, since the number of options and tweaks can be kept minimum. The downside is that one must create that routine for every data source. The problem is who will create those routines for every museum who is willing to make uploads, for example?

The another approach is to make tool itself so flexible, that it can be adjusted for every possible data source and format. The price to be pay here the unavoidable complexity of the tool which makes tool complex to use. There are no 1-Click uploads here. However, GLAMpipe choose the third option that combines the first two options.

GLAMpipe's solution is based node-based GUI and REST api. Node-based workflow enables flexibility needed. There are import, processing, view and export nodes. With these building blocks one can build the routine that is able to process the data and upload it to commons without any specific technical skills. "1-click" uploads can be created by a web developer by GLAMpipe's REST API.

What did we achieve? GLAMpipe is a dream tool for data wrangling. It allows anyone to use components to read from data and content sources, perform data manipulation operations on the data and import the modified data and content to a connected data repository. Developers may create and modify these components for new repositories and workflows.

GLAMpipe continues as a living software project. The tool is in production use in the Open Science Centre of University of Jyväskylä where it is used for several data processing tasks. GLAMpipe workshops were held in CRIS2018 and for Brazilian GLAM community. There will be also workshop in Open Repositories 2019. The tool is under total rewrite and rewrite is functional in summer 2019.

The project was ambitious and also challenging to manage. The software core took it's time to be developed, and the subsequent activities depended on this process.

By the time of Wikidata Conference 2017 the software had been successfully installed and functioned in the Wikimedia labs. It was presented in an hour-long workshop. Artturimatias has continued to develop and present the software, and we would like to see it adopted anew.


If you used surveys to evaluate the success of your project, please provide a link(s) in this section, then briefly summarize your survey results in your own words. Include three interesting outputs or outcomes that the survey revealed.

The surveys were not carried out eventually.


Is there another way you would prefer to communicate the actual results of your project, as you understand them? You can do that here!

We invite members of the Wikimedia community to test GLAMpipe and contact Artturimatias if they find GLAMpipe suitable for their purposes.

Methods and activities[edit]

Please provide a list of the main methods and activities through which you completed your project.


  • The software core was entirely reworked.
  • The online versions were available at and
  • The user interface was completely worked through to structure the workflow.
  • Initial Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons nodes for importing data to Wikimedia projects were created.

Co-development and community building[edit]

  • Several GLAM practitioners were invited to a test user group. In the early phases, it was however impossible for them to install the software or use the online tool, and co-development had to be left until later.
  • The user interface was evaluated with two WMF designers, Jan Dittrich and Pau Giner at different occasions.
  • The plan included a simple survey to measure the expectations of our test users and their satisfaction with the tool, but the survey was not carried out.
  • The code is openly available in a GitHub repository.

Outreach and learning[edit]

Project resources[edit]

Please provide links to all public, online documents and other artifacts that you created during the course of this project. Even if you have linked to them elsewhere in this report, this section serves as a centralized archive for everything you created during your project. Examples include: meeting notes, participant lists, photos or graphics uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, template messages sent to participants, wiki pages, social media (Facebook groups, Twitter accounts), datasets, surveys, questionnaires, code repositories... If possible, include a brief summary with each link.


The best thing about trying something new is that you learn from it. We want to follow in your footsteps and learn along with you, and we want to know that you took enough risks in your project to have learned something really interesting! Think about what recommendations you have for others who may follow in your footsteps, and use the below sections to describe what worked and what didn’t.

What worked well[edit]

What did you try that was successful and you'd recommend others do? To help spread successful strategies so that they can be of use to others in the movement, rather than writing lots of text here, we'd like you to share your finding in the form of a link to a learning pattern.

What didn’t work[edit]

What did you try that you learned didn't work? What would you think about doing differently in the future? Please list these as short bullet points.

  • In a group project it is important to acknowledge the personal risk and responsibility of every participant.
  • We promised too much. Despite all tremendous work we did not meet our goals. We worked a lot.
  • For the project to thrive it is essential to engage the community of developers and practitioners from the early stages.
  • Artturimatias: if one is not an active commonist/wikipedian (I'm not), the environment can be challenging to work with (i.e. things go smoother if you know people)

Other recommendations[edit]

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

Next steps and opportunities[edit]

Are there opportunities for future growth of this project, or new areas you have uncovered in the course of this grant that could be fruitful for more exploration (either by yourself, or others)? What ideas or suggestions do you have for future projects based on the work you’ve completed? Please list these as short bullet points.

  • GLAMpipe continues as a living software project. The tool is in production use in the Open Science Centre of University of Jyväskylä where it is used for several data processing tasks. The tool is under total rewrite and rewrite is functional in summer 2019.
  • We believe in this project firmly, and invite GLAMmers and technologically savvy Wikimedians to work together with Artturimatias to make it more usable in the Wikimedia environment.

Part 2: The Grant[edit]


Actual spending[edit]

Please copy and paste the completed table from your project finances page. Check that you’ve listed the actual expenditures compared with what was originally planned. If there are differences between the planned and actual use of funds, please use the column provided to explain them.

This table will display the changes compared to the original budget.

Original hours Rate Total Corrected Total
Ari 48 h 23 €/h 1,104€ 48 h 1,104€
Kimmo 100 h 23 €/h 2,300€ 100 h 2,300€
Susanna 52 h 23 €/h 1,196€ 63 h 1,449€
Travel 542 km 0.41 €/km 487€ 222.22€
5,087€ 5,075.22€ 

Here is the affected budget table from the finances page

In the final half we have wanted to discuss using the funds reserved for Wikimedia hackathon for other expenses or more working hours. The funds for the hackathon were used on a joint workshop trip to Jyväskylä using own car, with two passengers, Susanna Ånäs and Kimmo Virtanen. The cost is based on governmental kilometre compensation of 0.41€/km. The return distance from Helsinki to Jyväskylä is 542 km. We were carrying additional physical objects in the car, which justifies the use of a car.
Expense Approved amount Actual funds spent Difference
General development €230 €230 €0
Wiki import node €2,300 €2,300 €0
Co-development €920 €920 €0
Outreach and learning €947 €935.22 €11.78
Reporting, documentation €690 €690 €0
Total €5,087 €5,075.22 €11.78

Remaining funds[edit]

Do you have any unspent funds from the grant?

Yes, 11.78€.

The reallocated sum does not match the expenses exactly.

Please answer yes or no. If yes, list the amount you did not use and explain why.

If you have unspent funds, they must be returned to WMF. Please see the instructions for returning unspent funds and indicate here if this is still in progress, or if this is already completed:


Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to grantsadmin(_AT_), according to the guidelines here?

Please answer yes or no. If no, include an explanation.

The costs are based on the items below

Confirmation of project status[edit]

Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?

Please answer yes or no.


Is your project completed?

Please answer yes or no.


Grantee reflection[edit]

We’d love to hear any thoughts you have on what this project has meant to you, or how the experience of being a grantee has gone overall. Is there something that surprised you, or that you particularly enjoyed, or that you’ll do differently going forward as a result of the Project Grant experience? Please share it here!

Artturimatias: Personally I have mixed feelings about this project. We tackled with a very challenging problem and we managed to solve it. At the same time we failed to provide that solution to the wikimedia community as "easy to use" format. GLAMpipe is an extremely flexible tool (and even more flexible after rewrite) that can work with any kind of GLAM-data. But it is not simple to use, although this is just matter of education, like Brazilian GLAM community proved with their uploads.

If I had to start this project again I would go with the same route again with minor changes. I still believe that quality of metadata is essential, even more essential than amount of uploads. Without good metadata items are not found nor are they linked with other items in commons and wikidata.

For future wikidata and commons related projects it would be good if there were stable test environments available and projects participants had proper rights *before* project actually starts. Automatic testing of uploading to commons was not possible since I did not have rights to remove content from commons-beta, although I made a request for that. With these rights I could have run same tests wiht same data again and again (I should have been more pro-active in this matter). Also commons-beta were often broken or offline making testing quite frustrating process sometimes. Testing of wikitext content was also a problem since commons-beta had no all templates installed.

Susanna: I firmly believe in this project and I think Artturimatias has done tremendous work beyond what anyone could ever have expected! The tool is meant for GLAMmers who are slightly technologically oriented but not comfortable with coding their own tools. GLAMpipe has needed to mature enough to be usable by them, and it is reaching that point now. We need more technical collaboration and commitment to further develop the Wikimedia-specific features such as data import to Wikidata and Structured Data for Commons.

I also have very mixed feelings. I think we produced something exceptional, but we were exhausted at the project configuration – the overtaking proved much bigger than the grant.

I think the project is very future-compatible and I would like to see it get adopted. I whole-heartedly welcome contributors and users to organically grow and adopt this project for the Wikimedia environment. It has the firm support of Artturimatias and the University of Jyväskylä Open Data Center.

I am very satisfied that we brought this project to the Wikimedia community, as it has the potential to address many of the challenges the GLAM community faces.

Kimmo: Glampipe was developed in the project towards a data conversion utility which could be configured over a web interface as “pipes” and then launched from other tools over API. I think that using Glampipe over API is also the way Glampipe is mostly used. It is also the direction I think Glampipe should be developed towards as it integrates to different kind of workflows. Big thanks with this goes to the Artturimatias. Susanna also did a great work with defining and solving usability issues.

The biggest hurdles were with features that were needed for online use, but that were a lot easier to implement for local/intranet service. Most notable was file access to large datasets. Also the reconciliation and integration of the the result to user interface in a usable way was not trivial and took more work than was expected.