Grants talk:PEG/WM BE/WLM BeLux 2016

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

GAC members decisions[edit]

GAC members who support this request[edit]

  1. I support the request and I like 60% been attracted from external sponsors - that is really good. rubin16 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see experienced hands here. Good luck. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Looks fine. Polimerek (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAC members who support this request with adjustments[edit]

GAC members who oppose this request[edit]

GAC members who abstain from voting/comment[edit]

GAC comments[edit]

Community comments[edit]

WMF Comments[edit]

Hi Romaine, you and your team have put together an excellent proposal. It is easy to see a clear connection between the project goals, activities and measures of success. We have a few questions about your proposal:

  • Because you are focusing on photographing new monuments in this contest, it would be good to set a goal for the number of contest images that get used on Wikimedia projects after the contest and events.
  • Can you please provide more details about the travel expenses listed in the budget? For example, what is the travel for, how many people will get travel funding support?

Thank you for all of the hard work you and your team put into this project plan, it is clear that your efforts to improve the organizational capacity of project volunteers is working well. We look forward to your response to our questions. Once we have a few more details we can post a funding decision. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KHarold, Why would it be good to set a goal for the number of contest images getting used? I am aware that the usage of images in Wikimedia projects is a priority of the Wikimedia Foundation. The goal of Wiki Loves Monuments is to make the local cultural heritage visible, including Wikipedia, but not is not the only place. It is common that monuments are photographed from different angles, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, to make it possible for editors to choose which image to be used as part of their redaction work. We will try to put as much of the images as possible in articles, where possible. However it depends on many factors how much of the images can be used, as it depends on how many photos are made of monuments and how many articles are available. We have at least three people who will add images to articles, but I do not feel comfortable to set a certain number as goal, as I do not consider such realistic (independent from how high or low it is). We understand that for WMF being able to show the usage of images is important, but we have carefully evaluated which set of realistic goals are suitable for our project. Further I would like to mention that we did not set a goal for this in 2014 either, resulting in a high number of images being used in articles.
The travel costs are intended to meet with partners to get more partners involved in sponsoring. Seeing the large enthusiasm of some partners in the Brussels writing weeks, we have the plan to organise up to six events to capture monuments on photo. This we like to do to get more images from areas with less photos. In the first place the costs involve the travel of volunteers who guide the tours to and from the location, from various places in the country. In part 3 are the travel expenses to have a meeting with the jury members, where both the organisers and jury can get their costs reimbursed, ranging from 6 to 8 people. The same for part 4. In part 5 the costs are intended for volunteers and organisers who help at the edit-a-thon(s). We have based the costs for travel on our experiences with previous Wiki Loves Monuments contests and edit-a-thons. Further we think it is important to offer this to our volunteers to be able to grow as volunteer driven organisation. Romaine (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Romaine, thank you for the additional details, and congratulations on the Freedom of Panorama decision. I can imagine that this decision will make WLM even more exciting this year for your community.
  • I understand that the number of photos in use is not a relevant goal for your community in this contest. Do you think it is reasonable to set a goal or make an estimate of the number of new monuments that will be photographed as part of this contest? It sounds like you will be planning tours to help participants access new monuments, and surely the Freedom of Panorama decision will make more monument eligible for illustration on Wikimedia projects. We understand that making these estimates and tracking the outcomes can be time consuming, but like you, we anticipate that your project will be very successful. Having data to demonstrate this success makes it easier to advocate for continued funding of this kind of project in the future.
  • From your comments I understand that the travel funding will serve three purposes (1) to meet with potential partners, (2) for organizers and participants to take part in photo walks and editathons and (3) for jury members to meet to decide on winners and that your travel estimates are based on past experiences. I am a bit confused by the numbers of people and events that will be covered with this funding. Can you add an estimate to the budget table for the number of trips included in each section? From what you have described, the costs seem reasonable, but we do ask all grantees to report this level of detail.
Thank you again for all of your hard work on this project, and for your thoughtful responses to our questions. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello KHarold (WMF), The philosophy on metrics in planning is that I think it is necessary for us as project team that we do have a real influence on those goals. Thinking about the new monuments, referring to monuments without a photo yet, we can ask the public, but besides that there is not much of an influence on this. (A struggle for many teams.) If I think about metrics in relationship to new monuments, I have currently no tool available to track this so far I know, neither both before and after. I have no idea how to track it.
I have added some estimated people and events to the table. I hope this is what you had in mind?
But I have to say, the precise details asked depend on a lot of factors, often only becoming known after first meeting(s) (=costs), while the grants team asks not to spend money before the grant is approved. What was first? the chicken or the egg? Romaine (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Yesterday, 16 June 2016, the federal parliament of Belgium has approved Freedom of Panorama in Belgium. The law comes into force after 10 days of the publication in the Belgian official journal. This was possible after the work we as chapter did to promote and inform about the subject of Freedom of Panorama. Romaine (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 July 2016 it came into force. See: wmbe:Freedom of panorama. Romaine (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]