Grants talk:PEG/Voll/WLM Latvia 2015/Report

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

Hi Voll. Thank you for this grant report and congratulations on a successful Wiki Loves Monuments! We're happy to read that it was a positive experience for the organizers and community, and that you reached most of your goals. The report is approved. We do have a few questions and would appreciate your response.

  1. You mention in the report that communicating with partners was difficult. Was the problem determining the right person to speak with? Or are there other lessons to learn for future partner work? The outcomes mention that you will continue to work with multiple partner organizations in 2016. What partners will you continue to work with and on what projects?
  2. If you support the two learning patterns that you listed, please endorse them by clicking the endorse button!
  3. You surpassed all of your content goals -- congratulations! It’s especially great to see that you had 42 new contributors participate. What do you think was most effective in recruiting new editors? I’m sure your good media coverage was a factor. Did you do anything else in particular to engage new editors?
  4. 17% image usage rate is quite high, especially for your first contest! Did you do anything specific to encourage editors to use photos in articles? If not, this is something to think about for next year.

Thank you again for all your efforts to organize a successful contest! Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding (1) communication problems with partners. Problems with partners delayed both jury decision and awards ceremony. Next time we will have to try harder to educate our judges about using jury tool, which was a problem this year, further influenced by the fact that we communicated via another person from partners side. Awards ceremony was delayed because we wanted it to be part of bigger event which was delayed. In the end awards ceremony was really nice smaller event. Next time we would like to continue work with people from government "monuments agency", as we got their attention during this contest. We are open to work with other partners/sponsors, but we must work harder to ensure all involved people are committed to what we agree before.
(3) Our goals were based on similar contest in Estonia (neighboring country of similar size), so we got similar numbers to what we expected. In my opinion having central notice banner in all language versions in Latvia played a crucial role, as Latvian Wikipedia is only third behind (EN and RU versions). We tried targeting local photo forums and regional tourism information boards, but we can not measure this impact. We did collect other possible websites to work with for future contests. We also wrote personal message to each of our participants and some of them responded with interest to donate more content after the contest.
(4) We did some work ourselves by adding images to articles already during September. We also included images in our monuments list which may explain higher numbers.

--Papuass (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)