Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Israel/Staff proposal assessment
Revisiting the metrics issues
I am quite satisfied with this report and believe it gives a fairly accurate representation of the subject. Out of curiosity of what other chapters ("entities") wrote as their metrics and what scores they got I can see that WMCH & WMNL got a high score on this section. Do I understand correctly that Increase the GLAM partnerships, particularly with scientific museums (taken from WMCH proposal) or To bring in new editors and new volunteers from communities/backgrounds relevant to WP and Wikimedia Nederland (number of participants in events that go on to become active in WP or Wikimedia Nederland activities) (taken from WMNL proposal) are acceptable metrics? If that is the case, I'm afraid we were using the word "metric" differently. Since these "metrics" are something we already discussed as part of our annual planning, we can quickly submit these. Tomer A. -- Talk 14:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
two minor comments
- (D) WMIL has expressed concerns about its own ability to measure and execute the plan, but they have a strong volunteer base - We have no doubt WMIL will be able to execute the suggested plan (otherwise, we would not have submitted it).
- (L) Many of these activities are relevant to other organizations, but are not likely to be replicated since they are not yet particularly innovative - None of our programs is innovative. One of our planning principles is to take something that works elsewhere and do it well. Therefore, our contribution to the movement is through sharing practices. So in that sense, it will be helpful for other entities.
- Having another look at Table III it seems that more emphasis was given to the replication part. According to the suggested answers there, it seems that phrasing the evaluation criteria as: How likly it is that the initiatives in the plan, if successful, will be replicated by other entities, would be more suitable.