Jump to content

Grants talk:PEG/Wikimedistas de Colombia/Wiki Loves Monuments Colombia 2014

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 9 years ago by 3BRBS in topic Evaluation by the GAC

Evaluation by the GAC[edit]

GAC members who support this request[edit]

  1. Seems a fine submission. Support (would even support stronger if my comments below are accepted). Alleycat80 (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
  2. This request seems reasonable for me. I see that the main concerns have already been addressed bellow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
  3. MADe (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC) But try to apply for grants earlier next yearReply
  4. I would have liked to see a Wikicontest, but the request seems fine overall. Good luck!--3BRBS (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

GAC members who oppose this request[edit]

GAC members who abstain from voting/comment[edit]


Comments by MADe[edit]

Hey, project request seems good to me.

However, I don't find Columbia on the Commons list of participating countries... And the competition starts in one week! MADe (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder! Indeed, we still have to update our status with the global contest.
As a sidenote: this year, WLM-CO is a bit (just a bit) more "independent" than in previous years. This is mainly because when we started to organize it, the global organization wasn't as strong or defined as it was in previous years. This is reflected, for example, in the fact that we'll not use monument lists this year, while [as far as I know] every WLM contest until now has had them. --Racso ¿¿¿??? 16:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Comments by 3BRBS[edit]

Hi you guys. I believe that this is a fair request, and just wanted to state that it feels more correct to me to grant prizes not in cash, but in the range of the objects listed. Also, and this is more of a metaphysical thing, I believe that to achieve quality images, more important than advertizing a lot, as of the proposal intends to do with facebook, is to target the right people, which means a harder effort to find that people. That said, and in my experience, the quality of images is going to be present, but it is more a matter of chance on a massive photograph contest such as Wiki Loves Monuments, so it might be more responsive, in my opinion, to aim for another goal, regarding this aspect (such as: Quantity, Outreach, Completeness of lists of monuments or other); also on the same line, I believe that the measure of success numbers are obviously related to prior executions of the contest, but on the other hand, I do not think that, and just giving a random example, if you get 12,000 images, but only 200 participants from 70 towns, the contest would not be succesfull, regarding this aspect I always believe that is better to phrase things different, for example, stating an intention to beat numbers of past executions of the contest, more than declaring that if you do not accomplish 2 out of 3 you were not succesfull. Good luck!--3BRBS (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I second this concern. Usually the metrics of success in applications are too vague, yours are in fact too precise and dangerous for you :-) For example number of pictures: "6126" - why exactly this number? This is your last year result? Polimerek (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Indeed Polimerek, as stated in the "risks" sections, is the amount of pictures obtained in the 2012 version of the contest.--3BRBS (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the comments.
3BRBS is completely right with the goal comment. While we obviously want to achieve images with as much quality as possible, what would make us happier is to have a high participation (counted in number of participants, not in number of photos). That desire is currently reflected in the measures of success (we didn't put a single one regarding image quality). I'll rewrite the project goal to make it right.
About the measures of success: I really appreciate your comments about this. It's difficult to find an equilibrium between metrics, and I would really like to have clear, precise and mesurable ones. Our goal is, indeed, to beat our current maximums (except for the "number of towns" metric, which is an approximation), but your are right with your example. I'll try to rephrase the metrics to make them a bit less dangerous without losing precision. --Racso ¿¿¿??? 16:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
I believe it is a smart choice, good luck! Maybe you could also add a prize for a Wikicontest, so you can create an instance to incorporate the images from WLM to Wikipedia. Maybe it is too complicated to add now, but it gave good results for Wikimedia Chile when we did so, so if you can think about it, I would support that also.--3BRBS (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Comments Alleycat80[edit]

Hey, thanks for a good submission. Two of my usual comments to WLMs:

  • Can/Should you add a measure of success like - "1% of the photos are used on Wikipedia articles"? I think this is a worthy goal, and you should consider holding a "photo-fest edit-a-thon" for using the actual photos and linking them to articles. This should not cost much (if at all) and should greatly improve the overall result. You can also combine this with the measurement about towns - you want at least one good photo for each town's article.
This is a great suggestion and similar to what 3BRBS said above. In terms of a reasonable metric for the percentage of photos used on wiki projects 3 months after the evnet, 10% is a good goal. That number should be increased if you plan to add an event (edit-a-thon or wikicontest) specifically focused on incorporating images. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I think that, if you should also consider combining some kind of award for writing articles to go with the photos - e.g. if I photographed a National Monument that has to article, or its creator has no article, it might be good to award for writing about these.

That's it for me so far. Alleycat80 (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comments.
While we are aware of the usefulness of the images in terms of illustrating Wikipedia articles, we would prefer to focus all our efforts in the photographic contest only, specially since our resources (people, money, time) are relatively limited. We wouldn't like to promise extra activities and then be unable to make them because of those limitations. The same goes for a success metric of this kind.
Still, please note that we will consider your suggestions. We'll check how things are going near October, and see if organizing an editing contest is possible. As we won't reveal the contest prizes until we have the grant funding for sure, we have time to adjust them if necessary (for example, we may switch the third place's prize for a "wiki picturing" prize instead). --Racso ¿¿¿??? 01:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the response and the reasonable explanation. Having one prize for "wiki picturing" is a good idea and does not take additional resources.

Question from Racso[edit]

I just noticed that I didn't take into account the possible bank fees that would apply to the money before it arrives to us. Should a small margin be added to the grant value for that matter (if yes, How much is it common to add?), or is that an extra, out-of-grant amount? Thanks! --Racso ¿¿¿??? 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there will be bank fees and exchange rate losses since we can only send funds to Colombia in USD. Is it possible to get an estimate from the bank on what those costs would be? Then we can add those funds to the grant total. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, the bank fees are an extra "out-of-grant" amount and should not be added to the grant total on the request page. We will work with you after the grant is approved to cover these fees. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification, Alex, and thank you everyone for reviewing this application and for your confidence in us. --Racso ¿¿¿??? 23:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply