I think this is a clear demonstration that WLM is a diverse project :) You identify that having a picture for each monument is the main goal, but as you know I disagree with that: for me the competition is and will always be a tool to get more people on board, to get people aware of the fact they can contribute, and help them over the threshold. For many local competitions, it is more important however to use WLM as a community building tool. I have seen great outcomes in this field in the Middle East, where communities work together in real life for one of their first main projects, and after that continue to organize other activities as well. 

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
The focus of the evaluation is very much biased.

The focus is too much on money, it gives me a horrible feeling, the community/participants are not a factory plant in what every employee needs to work a minimum number of hours. The goal of Wiki Loves Monuments is to get all monuments with a good picture on Wikipedia, not just of the most popular or easy monuments. The first time a contest as such is organised the low hanging fruits are done first, but they forget to mention that getting the low hanging fruits is not the core goal of Wiki Loves Monuments. The goal of Wiki Loves Monuments is to get a photo of every monument. The more monuments get a picture, it becomes much harder to ge a picture of the other monuments. It are too much easy thoughts without thinking it through. It is failing in describing the actual situation and misses totally what Wiki Loves Monuments is about.

WMF has set some objectives for itself, and now the evaluate those objectives/goals, even while Wiki Loves Monuments has a different focus.

To me the evaluation is a signal that WMF is too far away from the actual community.

Romaine


2015-05-02 13:26 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>:
Hi all,

it seems that the WMF evaluation department has once again put together an evaluation of Wiki Loves Monuments. Out of curiosity, were any of the organizers involved in this? A quick glance suggests some factual errors, and again a big focus on assuming WLM is a consistent project, that is similar in each country (while in reality it is a diverse collection of projects, tailored to the needs of each country, by its community) and with a focus towards number crunching. 

Statements that begin with 'the average Wiki Loves Monuments implementation/contest' make my eyes bleed... Did anyone make a more thorough analysis of the report? 

Best,
Lodewijk

_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org


_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org