Grants talk:PEG/WM CL/Annual Program Plan 2013-2014/Report
Thank you for this detailed and informative report. We appreciate that you put in significant effort to describe what you learned from each of your programs and we enjoyed learning about how you address your challenges as well as celebrate your successes. We also appreciate the meticulous work that went into organizing your finances and your receipts, as well as the fine work you have done to show global metrics for each program.
One thing that would be nice to have is a table showing how you performed on the global metrics overall, across all of your programs. While we can sum up the content from the individual tables, we realize that there may be some overlap in the numbers of active editors, editors, and contributors involved for each program. If you have these total numbers available across programs, could you add a summative table to this report or this discussion page? Once we receive that, we’ll be ready to approve this report.
We especially enjoyed learning about some of your more innovative work like Wiki Tour and your successful partnership with FSA on the Speeches of Salvador Allende. Congratulations on achieving 3,009 images through the Wiki Tour program with significantly less effort than Wiki Loves Monuments, and contributing some important content to Wikisource through your partnership with FSA. We note, as we did when the discussion about this grant request was underway, that the prizes for WLM contest were unusually expensive, and were glad to see you achieving great results with a less expensive program (Wiki Tour). We appreciate that you are carefully weighing whether it makes sense to invest similar resources in WLM in the future given your own results and the broader trends you are observing. At this point, we agree it makes sense to reevaluate that. By the way, we liked how you also used WLM to leverage some new connections and partnerships. Your observations about the Wiki Tour voting on facebook (both your challenges with the voting tools and the idea that you could build more connections on social media through the contest) were quite interesting and might make a good Grants:Learning pattern, especially if you are able to test out some of the voting tools in future contests.
We appreciate that you have included some information about views of some of the content created through your work in the section describing your impact. This gives us more context for the impact of your work. We would also encourage you to think about how to understand and document different content gaps in your areas of focus, as addressing gaps in content seems to be an expertise you are growing in. Understanding what content is needed may help you target your projects to achieve maximum impact and show how needed your work is.
Congratulations on the progress you have made in establishing your organization’s processes, paying your administrative expenses, and getting up-to-date with your reporting during the grant period. We are sorry the delay in grant funds had an adverse affect for you and your volunteers. It’s sometimes difficult to anticipate when delays will happen, but we are always working to improve our guidance and documentation so we can avoid causing unneeded difficulties for volunteers. We’ll be sure that your feedback reaches the grants administration team as well as us program officers, and we will see if we can work to improve some of that guidance around setting start and end dates and the period it may take to receive funds. Thank you also for the detailed information about events you participated in during the grant period. In the future, especially for learning events like the Wikimedia Conference, we’d encourage you to share a few lessons, connections, or ideas, Wikimedia Chile specifically took away from each conference. This would help us better understand how these events are contributing to your organization’s growth and learning.
Finally, we saw that you added references to two learning patterns, but did not see that you endorsed them. Did you know that you could do that by using the blue button in the box on the right top corner of the page, to show others that you endorse the pattern? Thanks again for the great report and for your team's work growing content on Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikivoyage, and your work growing the Wikimedia communities in Chile. We look forward to reviewing and discussing your next grant request in the coming weeks.
- Dear Winifred, you are welcome. Thanks for your comments, we did our best to adapt to the new format of reporting that includes the metrics section. Also, as requested, I included a summary (summative table) on the report, of all the metrics discarding overlaps in the numbers of active editors, editors, and contributors involved for each program (as accurate as I could). Please let me know if it accomplishes what you wanted. Cheers back! :] --3BRBS (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks 3BRBS. The only comment I have on the metrics summary is that the # of individuals involved should probably be higher than # of active editors/editors involved since that metric includes not just editors, but any volunteers, other folks reached during general outreach who did not edit, etc. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Alex, before I added the numbers in a different way, just counting the people involved and not counting new editors/editors. I updated the numbers and the total sum to include active editors/editors, volunteers, and people. Now the number is higher as a result.--3BRBS (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)