Grants talk:PEG/WM PH/Annual program plan 2014/Report

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

Thank you for this grant report. We especially appreciate your reflections on challenges and lessons learned. We have a number of questions/comments on the report and look forward to your responses:

  1. One challenge that stands out is the lack of active volunteers who are able to help organize projects. The goal to have 10 members become project leads was not met and the report cites that a number of project leaders were unable to commit to following through with their plans. It would be helpful for us to better understand what the underlying cause of this challenge is. Are the interests of the volunteers/potential project leaders not aligned with with the chapter proposes to do? Is it just a matter of finding volunteers with more time? This is a common challenge across our communities, but having a better understand of your particular context would help us in brainstorming ideas for improving this.
  2. The main program supporting individual and active editors, the Wikipedia Rewards Program, was not organized. Please provide more explanation on the decision not to do this project.
  3. There are metrics reported for only 2 of the 6 editathons. Were you unable to collect information about the number of participants, accounts created, or content improved/added for the remaining 4? We do expect that WMPH uses Wikimetrics to track participation at your events. If you have questions about this tool, please do let us know.
  4. What type of follow-up was conducted after the editathons? Do you have a sense if the participants have continued editing or participated in other offline events?
  5. Please clarify if the Wiki Loves Monuments exhibition was held. The project table says "done", but it looks like this activity was replaced by the Cultural Heritage Mapping Project. If so, can you please provide more explanation on why the chapter decided an exhibition was no longer necessary/beneficial?
  6. The global metrics learning question does not require quantitative metrics. You can answer this based on your assessment of if participants who came to your events have either continued to edit, joined subsequent events, or in any other way expressed their intention to continue participating in Wikimedia projects (offline or online).
  7. Under the impact section, it says "The organization's projects for 2014 were specifically targeted at content generation, either creating new content in subject areas that were underrepresented, or expanding already existing content." Can you please provide more details on which projects were most successful filling which content gaps?
  8. It's great that the projects were able to engage 27 new editors this year. What is the chapter doing to continue to engage and motivate these new editors?
  9. It would be helpful to have more thoughts on why the microgrants program was underutilized. For the grants that were given, for Jojit to speak at a number of events, please provide more information on what the purpose of his attendance at those events were and any follow-up benefits -- general awareness building, editor training, partnership development?
  10. The chapter invested a lot of time and effort in supporting the Tap and Learn Roadshows. We appreciate your support for Wikipedia Zero and the trainings your provided. What is your assessment of this project? Have you been able to follow-up with any of the teachers that participated in the trainings? It sounds like the teachers in Legazpi were the best positioned to use Wikipedia in the classroom? Do you know if they have tried to at all?
  11. Please either create or endorse Learning Patterns that are most relevant to your experience.
  12. In terms of the reallocation request, we will need more details for the following line items #1,2, and 3. Additionally, what are the usb flash drives for and how many? We'd like to have more information on the impact of the Tap and Learn Outreach before allocating additional resources to this project.

Thank you again for this report. We know we've asked a lot of questions, but your responses will help us better understand your communities' contexts, rationale for changes that were made during the course of the past year, and impacts of your projects. It will also be very helpful for us to better evaluate your current proposal. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(1) Lack of project leads[edit]

It's not that the interests of the volunteers or potential project lead are not aligned with chapter goals—in fact, all of the chapter's projects have been ideas proposed by members and the community. The problem is a matter of finding the people with enough time, and more importantly, the motivation and interest to actually implement and execute the ideas. The chapter does not have a lack of ideas to try, but as Roel is fond of saying whenever someone proposes an idea: "That's a great idea, but who will lead? Will you?"

Work in the Wikimedia movement in the Philippines (and most probably elsewhere) is essentially volunteer work and often has a lower priority than day jobs, school, and family. The only reason things get done (sometimes delayed) is because there is a tangible loss or disadvantage, as can be seen with complying with government regulations. —seav (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As Roel mentioned during the online call, another problem is lack of project management skills among the members. Roel can help with the budget management: planning and monitoring, but the actual project execution, from planning and monitoring we cannot provide much help. —seav (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a wake up call for the Chapter. There are many volunteers and active contributors but you only tap your circle of friends who are not even editors. Clearly, you have lost confidence in your members or is it the other way around? --Filipinayzd (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Chapter could refocus and invest in training project leads and "specialize" them in a particular type of projects. It may not be easy to identify if certain individuals have the necessary skill set or potential, we could use some best practices of other chapters or WMF in this regard, in order to retain them for a long period of time. -- User:Namayan (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(2) Wikipedia Rewards program[edit]

The planning for the Wikipedia Rewards program actually started and the project leads began with canvassing expenses for procuring the rewards merchandise. The two major stumbling blocks for implementing the project are technical and logistics issues. For the technical issue, the chapter has not actually fully determined how the users who may avail of the rewards will be monitored and their contributions validated with minimal effort. For the logistics, the chapter has not also determined how the merchandise can be awarded to the contributors. This is not yet even considering the fact that shipping the merchandise might actually cost more than the item to be shipped itself.

We may revisit the Wikipedia Rewards program in the future once the resolution to these issues has been better considered. In retrospect, the program sounds good as an idea, but the devil is in the details. —seav (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

At first, we thought this one is a good project since it will at least reward those who really contribute to the projects. There are recognized communities so logistics should not be a problem/an excuse. It is becoming a bad habit to ask funding for a certain program and reallocate it later to a project such as the Tagalog Wikipedia anniversary which is just a social event or a project that is very extravagant that it needed additional budget. --Filipinayzd (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(3,4,8) Edit-a-thon metrics, follow up, and new editors[edit]

The chapter has not yet been fully imbued with the culture for proactively gathering metrics aside from the project goals, so the Global Metrics data was not in the priority. This is aside from the fact that the Global Metrics was only launched in September 2014. Additionally, because the 2 edit-a-thons with Global Metrics were conducted outside Manila and thus required more time for preparation, the idea of gathering the data for metrics was better thought out. The remaining 4 edit-a-thons were all in Manila and were executed in a less-organized manner. Thus, the event leads were more concerned that the event ran successfully and less with gathering data for metrics. I think we did record the attendees and their usernames for those 4 edit-a-thons so we can re-collect the Global Metrics. This is one aspect that the chapter needs to improve on and this is why we have added measures related to Global Metrics in the 2015 grant request.

As for follow-ups, many of the attendees were volunteers of the Cultural Heritage Mapping Project and so we have no doubt that they continued with their contributions. However, we have not tracked the activities of other attendees, especially those that attended for the first time. As mentioned, the chapter does not have the deep culture of gathering metrics and such follow-up activities definitely tend to take a back seat to other more urgent matters. —seav (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As for engaging the 27 new editors, (to follow)...

(5) Wiki Loves Monuments exhibition*[edit]

The Wiki Loves Monuments exhibition was not held, it was checked because the activity that replaced it ("Tap and Learn") was the one accomplished. The WLM exhibit was not exactly unnecessary nor no longer beneficial, but the Chapter decided that accepting the invitation to partner with the local Wikipedia Zero provider (Smart Communications) was an opportunity it cannot afford to let go. The Chapter could have submitted a new grant proposal for it, but the relatively short notice Smart Communications gave us as to what their entire outreach project was all about didn't afford us the time to do so, instead we just decided to tap the funds allocated for the WLM exhibit in order to forge the partnership. Had there been other funds immediately available, we might have still held the WLM exhibit. -- User:Namayan (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that WMF had already approved to reallocate the money for the exhibit to the Tap and Learn program as seen on the Grant talk page. Basically, we decided the opportunity presented by Smart is too good an opportunity to pass up. —seav (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(7) Content generation target[edit]

The chapter was more or less caught by surprise by the Global metrics that were rolled-out during the period of the grant, thus we were not able to keep track of individuals who are willing to undergo "monitoring", to provide a quantitative output and the subject matters they actually filled-in. The chapter needs to redesign how it will make its materials available at the same time. -- User:Namayan (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(9) Microgrants program[edit]

The fund was utilized primarily for general awareness building, as mentioned in the report Jojit who has had several engagements with schools and constantly get invitations to speak about Wikipedia. It would be ideal to have follow-up activities or more solid tie-ups with school-based organizations in order to further Wikipedia in their campuses. We should be able to develop a system that would open up the schools to more Wikipedia activities, the challenge would be identifying and provide comprehensive training for those who conduct training so that they could also provide follow up options for the campuses they were able to conduct these general awareness building, though such may not be immediately translate to activities within a given year. The education brochures released by the Education Program can be studied and adapted to the local setting. -- User:Namayan (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WMPH often receives invitations from schools to talk about Wikipedia or related topics. Sometimes this is just for a lecture/presentation-type activity as part of a series of talks for the target students, but sometimes we also request the inviter to allow us to hold a workshop if possible. We think would be a shame to turn down these invitations just because they do not strictly meet the strategic goals. As in elsewhere in the developing world, there is still a general lack of awareness regarding how Wikipedia works and how Wikipedia should be used by students so we take these opportunities to spread knowledge about Wikipedia, even if they don't translate to a lot of new editors or content. —seav (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(10) Tap and Learn Roadshows*[edit]

On our end, we highly think of these kind of activities where we can spread information about Wikipedia, dismiss several notions, misconceptions, and show to a wider audience the benefit of using/improving Wikipedia. Teach educators which were the target audience of the project to determine when they can rely information obtained from Wikipedia. We believe the state of Wikipedia in the Philippines requires these kind of activities.

We have established open communications with the teachers and certain contact persons. It's hard to provide commitment because we cannot guarantee the availability of funding/logistics even if they are interested in pursuing projects with us. We have also considered how could this fit well with the strategic goals of WMF when the actual output that may be generated may not be commensurate to costs. There has also been a question why the Surigaonon language (we conducted a leg of the roadshow in Surigao City) doesn't have a Wikipedia despite being spoken by around 500,000 people, and is among the 19 languages used as mediums of instruction in the Philippines. We have contemplated on introducing the Incubator with them, but that is even more complicated than a editing in a regular Wikipedia. We cannot undermine the enthusiasm, we are simply cannot guarantee of our availability, much more if such an initiative can be funded. The teachers of Legazpi also had the potential, and we simply wanted to refer this to the Bicol community (people who speak the same language), but our differences with the sole admin of that Wikipedia project prevents us from pursuing it, etc.

We are challenged by the quantitative metrics, as some of these initiatives may not show outright immediate metrics, the benefits may only be translated into numbers in two or three years when given the opportunity to focus on projects that will immerse them in Wikipedia. We may experiment with "requesting" them to translate in their local language this list offline before working on the Incubator. -- User:Namayan (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, you were trying to form a new Bikol Community in Legazpi City. Our Community attempted to ask funding through the "Micro grants" (see the hierarchy) but only visiting-WMPH members based in Manila (who do not have a recognized Community of their own, assuming that the organization is THE Tagalog Community) benefited from the fund you allocated in meet ups and activities supposedly attended by contributors and volunteers here (READ: COMMUNITY). Look how you responded to a fellow volunteer in one of our proposals here.
You are trying to eliminate people who come your way by kicking people out of the organization. You have been the Treasurer of the organization since 2010. You field candidates for Internal Auditors who lives outside Manila. --Filipinayzd (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, there is only one person "manipulating" the overall operations of WMPH---the one who has control of the funds; and I say no more.Geopoet (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(12) Reallocation*[edit]

  • For the flash drives, we bargained to order only 300 pcs. from the lowest priced quotation as standard minimum quantity among three suppliers we've canvassed is 500, each costs ₱225 ($5). It was more cost effective than printing just one of the Wikipedia Education brochures that was needed in the Tap and Learn activity, the cost of printing for just one brochure was ₱300 ($6.67), due to the small quantity of brochures printed. In one of the legs, we distributed some brochures we've obtained from WMF, but everyone scrambled just to obtain a copy. We saw the need to provide them all the available brochures in digital format by saving them in the flash drive. The impact cannot be measured using Global Metrics standard as we understand the need to spread more information about Wikipedia locally, dispel several misconceptions about it, and encourage teachers to correct information they encounter, the limited time we've had in the outreach project. They were basically introduced to Wikipedia and how they can help in correcting or adding content to it, had them identify the editing tools, navigate around, identifying or inserting references using the built-in tools. If we were to do this again, we'd ask them to create a Username and obtain it so we can track their contributions. But certainly we'd definitely need more time to accomplish that. -- User:Namayan (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Others[edit]

Mukta

Thank you for your responses to the questions above. We would still like to understand how the chapter is following up with newly engaged editors. We'd also recommend WMPH hold on to remaining funds and include any reallocation request in your grant request that is under discussion. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Alex, we'll provide more information on the reallocation request. On the otherhand, the new editors were products from engagements that were held in outside Manila, particularly in Pangasinan and in Eastern Visays, and we hope you'll continue to support these initiatives. Jojit Ballesteros and Michael Ong already proceeded with their slated activities in Eastern Visayas (we need to reimburse them for the expenses they've already incurred). We also need to calibrate with them for them to be able to continuously engage these new users and if needed provide them the training for to extract metrics to monitor the new users. I believe there's sufficient time for them to initiate other followup activities.
As for the users from Pangasinan, we'll likely pursue coordinate further if these are the same types of engagements that Vanj Padilla would continue or pursue on their own as she communicated by email that she'll pursue direct requests from WMF, otherwise we'll be the one to organize activities in the region to come up with followup activities for the new users. -- Namayan (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)