Learning and Evaluation/Archive/Share Space/Overview Logic Model/On-wiki writing contests

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

Logit Model:on-writing contest

In the logic model tables you will find within each of the program logic model links you will also find a number, or question mark within parentheses next to each logic model/theory of change component listed. The number refers to the mean (numeric average) rating of the perceived difficulty in measuring that component in cases where you were able to rate those with sticky dots in Budapest. The Numeric scale is: 1 = Relatively Easy - you would likely be ready to move forward with a strategy 2 = Somewhat Difficult - you may need help devising a strategy if you wanted to capture/measure the component 3 = Difficult – you find the component tricky to measure and would definitely need assisted devising a strategy if you wanted to capture/measure the component

Program Name: Writing Contests

Group Notes: Representing German WP with Writing Contests, Article Marathon, and Wiki-Cup & English WP with Core Contest, Wiki-Cup, and Featured/Good

Theory of Change Vision: No notes

Theory of Change Concepts: No notes

Inputs Participants Activities Direct_Products Short_Term_Outcomes i.e. Change to Learning and Motivations Medium_Term_Outcomes i.e. Change in Action Long_Term_Outcomes i.e. Change to the Conditions
  • Volunteer Time - Entrants and Judges (2.5)
  • Prizes (1)
  • Awards (1.5)
  • Small budget (1)
  • Staff time - Jury Meeting travel (1.5)
  • Existing editors:
  • Entrants (?)
  • Judges (?)
  • Set-up Wikipage (?)
  • Select Judges (?)
  • “The writing contest is dead” (?)
  • Setup and discussing rules (?)
  • Writing articles (?)
  • Jury discussion (?)
  • Reviews (?)
  • Management of prizes (?)
  • Reporting outputs (?)
  • Number of participants (1)
  • Number of articles Written (1)
  • Number featured content (1)
  • Prizes for winners (1)
  • A t-shirt from WMAT (1)
  • Filling content gaps (2.5)
  • Fun/Motivation for authors (2.5)
  • Quality improvement of authors (3)
  • Improved rules for next time (1.5)
  • Improved confidence and editing skills of participants (2.5)
  • Participants are more focused (3)
  • Entertaining for viewers/other Wikipedians (3)
  • Media Publicity – sometimes (1)
  • Feeling of being responsible – ongoing attention (2.5)
  • Creation of editing related articles (2.5)
  • Improved quality of content area (3)
  • Higher number of articles (1)
  • Motivation of volunteers (2.5)
  • Increased reader satisfaction (3)
  • Quality standards increase – existing (3)
  • Average article size increases (1)
  • Gain in reputation for individual authors – winners (3)
  • Long-term satisfaction/pride of winners (2.5)
  • Setting standards for article quality (3)
Assumptions External Factors
  • More content is better (?)
  • Editors see positive Return on Investment/have fun (?)
  • People are keen to win (?)
  • discussion, discussion, discussion, discussion (?)
  • Creativity and expertise of participants (?)
  • Access to sources (?)