Grants talk:IEG/Wiki needs pictures/Midpoint

Feedback on report[edit]

Thank you for submitting this midpoint report. It sounds like your inquiry into user needs and technical possibilities is laying a solid foundation for building a strong tool. This is a worthy outcome of the first phase of your project. However, I would like to ask you to share a little more about your findings in this report. Please add a little more specificity about your process to your Methods and activities section and a summary of the results in your Midpoint outcomes section.

For example, you mentioned that you asked people about what they expect from a tool like this. Specify the methods you used to identify target users (what group were you seeking to understand? how did you contact them?) and to ask them about their needs (surveys? interviews?). How many people responded? What did they say about their needs? What decisions did you make in light of them? You've already provided some of this information in your monthly updates, so this should just be a high level summary that briefly guides your reader through the big picture of what you've done so far. For your outcomes, lay out what you learned, how you interpret it and what conclusions you drew as a result of your inquiry.

It's fine to be succinct, use bullets, etc. You don't have to add a great deal of text. I encourage you to think of this report as a springboard for your project goals and structure going forward. It's also an opportunity to support others by being transparent about your process (part of the reason I ask you to summarize your methodology is because I like to point grantees to one another's reports to give them ideas for how to conduct their own projects).

Lastly, now that you're ready to dive into building your tool, I'd like you to fill in your Timeline table with your milestones for the project. The associated deadlines you fill in are not absolute--it's fine to change them if needed. They should just represent your best estimate of how you expect building to proceed.

I'm hoping this will be a simple ask, and not a burdensome request. However, I know that reporting requests can seem cumbersome, so contact me if you want to talk a little more about what I'm looking for here.

Thanks, both!

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marti (WMF) I have very good results with the partial version of the tool, i can upload you an image about the users I've contacted. My main problem is contacting Alessio. I try to do my best via mail and skype but I got no answer...I still have to provide some translations so the tool is multilingual but I am just wating for a reply. Last time we discussed was in early May and it was very brief.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the results of my "campaign". I've contacted dozens of it>4 users on wikidata (or on commons and itwikivoyage, but the main explanation was always given on wikidata in order not to be dispersive) about tools such as wikishootme, WDLIST and in the end Wikineedspictures. But I can contact them again for new versions of Wikineedspictures, or new tools.

My explanation was structured in some sequential steps and included a "lesson" about the P18 (image) and P373 (commonscat) properties of wikidata, followed by a presentation of specific tools related to "image maintenance". Contacted users were selected because they showed a very strong geographical "center of Interest". They can therefore fill the gap of the area in a fast and efficient way. Results show that almost 33% of them showed some sort of interest and activity. The activity is described as "good" if tools are understood and used at least to take care of the P18 and P373 properties of some wikidata items. it is described as "strong" when it is continuative, when more information about wikidata are requested or when users specifically upload new pictures from their area that are missing.

As stated here, on the maling list of WMI, on village pumps of commons and wikidata, and on Grants:IdeaLab/Wikimetrics_for_local_users, coupling of wikimetrics and mass messages could provide a much bigger (and efficient) response. The problem of finding images related to specific geographic locations in area with a decent density of population and internet access is de facto not a problem anymore.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report accepted[edit]

Alexmar983 and AlessioMela,

Thank you for the updates you've made your Midpoint Report. I'm accepting it now and will be reviewing your Final Report next. Please let me know if you have any additional updates to make to your Final Report before I review it.

Warm regards,

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marti (WMF) I have informed even more people about tools for images (I have to update the map), in the last three months I have started to discuss about the quality. I hope one day when Alessio has more free time to update these ideas in the final tool. I have also informed Manske about new feature requested by users, for example the possibility to change coordinates of wikidata items directly from the his new version of WikiShootMe.

My expertise about newbies and wikidata was also relevant in creating a new welcoming project. So all the "social part" is ok. Even if Alessio is going to be unfortunately busy, even if we don't have "that tool", I can assure you that users are more and more informed and interested and receptive. Slowly, I have started to ask for feedbacks from non-Italian users but so far requests are very similar to the it-N users. Germans seem to like it very much.

Also, I am establishing some contact with OSM users. see User_talk:L0ll0 about the query of OSM to integrate the look for missing images even when they don't have a wikidata item or an article.

So it is like a workflow of ideas, from my point of view, I am creating a network of competence, of interested users. Whoever joins the network, can be really helped and received a lot of feedback. If you want during my next holiday, end of May, i can prepare a report but the nature of this work is more close to an open discussion, like a thread on a village pump, than a "formal" report. A report would be easy to write with a final output, like a complete tool where you put this and that because of this and that, this is more like following the flow. You don't know where the needs of the users you talk with will bring you, you just keep following them.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]