I aggree with both of you, these are the main goals :)

(Personally I prefer Lodewijk's approach, I think community building and outreach is more important than simple content creation, at least for us.)

Samat

On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:

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

Jane, you are quite right, and this illustrates a clear distinction between what at least the UK organisers considered 'valuable' and what the Foundation is focusing on.

One of the main aims of the UK contest was to encourage the collection, development, promotion and distribution of open knowledge. This was done by uploading photographs to Wikimedia Commons in line with Commons' open knowledge aims [1] of providing a media file repository:

* that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and * that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The WMF evaluation addresses only the second of these open knowledge aims, which may be understandable from the Foundation's perspective, but was never our main purpose.

In most countries I suspect that the narrow focus of "improving Wikipedia" was not the reason for running the contest. It has been known for some time that WLM is not a particularly effective way to achieve that specific goal. The goal of improving Wikipedia is of course useful in its own right, and indeed may be something we will consider next time. It will not be tackled through the WLM contest, though.

Michael (WLM-UK organiser)

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope

Jane Darnell mailto:jane023@gmail.com 2 May 2015 13:20 I was a bit surprised to learn that Wikimedia Commons files are only "valuable" if they are explicitly used to illustrate Wikipedia articles. Though of course that is important, there are lots and lots of Wikipedia articles that link out to Commons categories too. One of the most admirable parts of the whole WLM concept is the ability of the campaign wizard to pre-sort the image files into such categories for further categorization by volunteers. That time investment would be seen as having zero value, according to the article

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org Samat mailto:samat78@gmail.com 2 May 2015 13:09 I aggree with both of you, these are the main goals :)

(Personally I prefer Lodewijk's approach, I think community building and outreach is more important than simple content creation, at least for us.)

Samat

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org Lodewijk mailto:lodewijk@effeietsanders.org 2 May 2015 13:02 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

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org Romaine Wiki mailto:romaine.wiki@gmail.com 2 May 2015 12:54 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

---

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

Romaine Wiki, 04/05/2015 18:51:

There is after a contest like Wiki Loves Monuments no environment at all that fits to handle all the participants and give guidance so that they can continue to be active. Those users that participated in a contest fall in a black hole afterwards. [...] What Wikipedia misses is a social environment that fits with these people and gives them stimulation.

Send them to Wikisource, then! :)

Nemo

WMF is trying to push and pull on editor retention, but that is pulling a dead horse as long as the environment is not adapted to those the

people.

I fully agree, Romain

Greetings from Vienna, Heinz

Am 04.05.2015 um 18:51 schrieb Romaine Wiki:

Hello Lodewijk & all,

Yes we disagree on that, but that is fine. My personal goal of organising Wiki Loves Monuments is to get the cultural heritage monuments on Wikipedia with photo, and that is the actual thing that happens for sure with Wiki Loves Monuments. If other people want to set other goals, I am fine with that.

But, I have analysed for myself what is to me a realistic goal, and I do only come out on having more cultural heritage monuments on Wikipedia with photos. As side effect it is fine to have more people on board, but not as main goal. Let me explain why.

For me personally Wikimedia/Wikipedia is a relative nice environment as I well in easily learning myself new things and to pick up new stuff. For people who have the capability to explore the Wikimedia environment themselves, it works fine. For those people it is easy to continue after a contest with taking pictures and writing articles, because they have the capability to find those other things to do. But I think most people who have that as strong personal characteristic have already tried this and are still active or found it not interesting enough. The software and environment is excellent for those people to work with, for early adopters and pioneers. But those kind of people are almost sold out now. But still the focus is still pointed towards this kind of people.

Over the past 5 years I have helped many people with editing Wikipedia and with uploading pictures to Commons, and I have spoke with a lot of people why they stopped editing Wikipedia. Almost none of those people have the capacity of exploring the environment on their own. Besides the (hostile) mentality and atmosphere on Wikipedia, the environment of Wikipedia/Wikimedia does not full-fill basic needs those people have. There is not a really friendly environment, there is no productive environment that gives sufficient stimulation, and it is not a really social environment the large majority needs. With the VisualEditor there is an easy way to edit Wikipedia for people who are not comfortably with wikisyntax, but it still lacks a social environment in what those people are comfortable.

As a figure of speech: The early adopters like the assignment to build a house in the middle of the desert, the large majority wants that house already been built and wants to do the decoration only or wants a much more comfortable living.

There is after a contest like Wiki Loves Monuments no environment at all that fits to handle all the participants and give guidance so that they can continue to be active. Those users that participated in a contest fall in a black hole afterwards. This is with all the contests volunteers from Wikimedia organised. But not just with contests, this is also the core problem why edit-a-thons and workshops in editing Wikipedia gives so little result in editor retention: it is going fine during the edit-a-thon and the workshop when they have a personal coach next to them to ask questions. But after the edit-a-thon or workshop, those users are on their own. Wikipedia is aiming on creating content, with all kinds of pages that try to support that. What Wikipedia misses is a social environment that fits with these people and gives them stimulation.

With past edit-a-thons I noticed also another strong need with the participants. After the editing they all are interested to continue doing this together as group. Then you can say that they can use a project page on Wikipedia, but that does not work for them at all. It appears way too primitive for them.

WMF is trying to push and pull on editor retention, but that is pulling a dead horse as long as the environment is not adapted to those the people.

And please understand me well: I consider it as the most important to get more people on board, but with the current environment it seems to me to be unrealistic to have a big influence on this.

And yes, I think it is great all the organising teams have done so much work. All the organisers have achieved something really great. <- This is actually something I miss as well in this "evaluation".

Romaine

2015-05-02 14:02 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org mailto:lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>:

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
<mailto: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
    <mailto: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
        <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org>
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
        http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org



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



_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto: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

There isn't straight list of countries that I can see, but you can work out which are included by going through the table in the Appendix/more data/inputs section.

One entry ("WLM_64") is anonymous: the text just says "WLM 2014" with no country.

Michael

Lodewijk mailto:lodewijk@effeietsanders.org 2 May 2015 13:11 Thanks for spotting, Michael. I don't seem to be able to find the list of countries however, this is somewhat hidden. Where did you locate it? It is quite crucial for understanding...

Another very practical mishap I note: for the retention, they only seem to consider Commons... which is odd. I would definitely include /all projects/ for this! In earlier evaluations, these numbers proved to be much higher, which makes sense as most of these people are only occasional photographers, and their actual interest lies in the content (monuments, art, etc). Again assumptions.

---

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org Michael Maggs mailto:Michael@maggs.name 2 May 2015 13:01 For some reason the 2014 WLM contest in the UK has not been included in the reported data.

Michael

---

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

On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:

To be fair, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015/Wi... was useful for me to quickly extract a couple trivia/curiosities.

Other than that, I agree I wouldn't know how to use it for any meaningful evaluation, at least for the purposes I had when volunteering for WLM-IT. I didn't expect that though; defining the goals of WLM-IT and assessing our progress against them has always been our own burden that nobody can help with (especially given the very peculiar situation with Codice Urbani).

in my professional life i am doing a lot of "lean" and "agile" now. one of the main goals there is to do only things that "the client" would benefit of, as soon as possible. a client is always the "end user", never some intermediary, or administrative person. one of the indicators there is to minimize the seven wastes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_%28Japanese_term%29

when i am seeing such an evaluation report i try to fit that somehow in this agile world. who the client would be. maybe the wikipedia readers, or the editors using commons images? then i try to imagine what benefit they have from this report. and i try to imaging what would happen if this report would not be there. to my shame i must admit i cannot come up with anything reasonable *blush*. anybody of you got a little more fantasy about benefits ?

rupert.

I've collected photos for Commons with cost lower than 0.01 $ per image, so I don't like claims, that "A god shot of a professional artist doesn't cost 0.90 dollars". Considering the fact, that average upload in WLM is usually out of rather poor quality and will not find itself a place in an article, then thous things aren't that easily comparable.

I specially like the comment about Romaine, and I have taken somewhat similar approach. Only if I'm able to provide constant work for the newcomers there is some chance of keeping them with the program. Getting images vs getting users are two rather different aims. I have also set interest towards getting quality images as we have so many contributors per capita in Estonia, that it isn't very likely to get an increase there without some rather desperate means. But just focusing on images could help to get significantly better quality contributions.

As of this evaluation I'd actually like to get some selected examples, that would explain somewhat on what others have done and what kind of differences there are. For instance, if someone spends thousands of dollars for this campaign, then I'd like to know where the money went, as I can't personally think of any places on where to spend that much. Or what kind of outreach approach was taken to achieve the x goals etc.

Regards Ivo Kruusamägi

2015-05-05 11:06 GMT+03:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:

To specify what I am saying:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015/Wi...

In the paragraph "Content Production and Quality Improvement" it's not mentioned any paragraph about the quality of the photos.

It's a photo contest and the photo contest gives a prize to the best photos not to the biggest uploaders.

This is an example of divergence between the real aim of the projects and the measures of the evaluation.

Probably there is a misunderstanding in same place.

A god shot of a professional artist doesn't cost 0.90 dollars.

To measure the success the best approach is to consider that a god shot can costs around 50-100 dollars.

Replying to people that agree that the measure is to cover articles, I agree with them but I also agree that there is no sense to have bad photos even if these photos are not "descriptive".

Regards

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Lodewijk, it's not the fisrt time that I am saying that the measures of the evaluation are able to measure quantities and not qualities.

If the aim of Wikimedia is to improve also the qualities, it's clear the direction that the movement is taking.

I know that measuring quantities is easier, but it's not an evaluation, are simple numbers without a clear "strategy".

regards

On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:

...

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

-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

---

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

To be clear. Here the benefits are not calculated because we consider that a single upload is a benefit.

What is missed is the time of the volunteers.

If we calculate the overload of the community to check photos or to look for copyviol, this relation changes.

It an important parameter because a volunteer to filter a huge amount of poor photos or of copyviol has a negative impact in other activities.

Basically these parameters are not realistic. Il 05/Mag/2015 13:59, "Ilario Valdelli" valdelli@gmail.com ha scritto:

It's un unclear.

A god shot on the market costs more than 50 dollars.

Everything in high quality is a benefit.

So the aim is not to calculate a cost per shot but the relation costs benefits.

Basically the delta.

If there is the need to evaluate the success considering the poor relation costs per upload, there is no sense to have a photo contest. An editathon will produce more results. Il 05/Mag/2015 12:21, "Ivo Kruusamägi" ivo.kruusamagi@gmail.com ha scritto:

...

I've collected photos for Commons with cost lower than 0.01 $ per image, so I don't like claims, that "A god shot of a professional artist doesn't cost 0.90 dollars". Considering the fact, that average upload in WLM is usually out of rather poor quality and will not find itself a place in an article, then thous things aren't that easily comparable.

I specially like the comment about Romaine, and I have taken somewhat similar approach. Only if I'm able to provide constant work for the newcomers there is some chance of keeping them with the program. Getting images vs getting users are two rather different aims. I have also set interest towards getting quality images as we have so many contributors per capita in Estonia, that it isn't very likely to get an increase there without some rather desperate means. But just focusing on images could help to get significantly better quality contributions.

As of this evaluation I'd actually like to get some selected examples, that would explain somewhat on what others have done and what kind of differences there are. For instance, if someone spends thousands of dollars for this campaign, then I'd like to know where the money went, as I can't personally think of any places on where to spend that much. Or what kind of outreach approach was taken to achieve the x goals etc.

Regards Ivo Kruusamägi

2015-05-05 11:06 GMT+03:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:

...

To specify what I am saying:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015/Wi...

In the paragraph "Content Production and Quality Improvement" it's not mentioned any paragraph about the quality of the photos.

It's a photo contest and the photo contest gives a prize to the best photos not to the biggest uploaders.

This is an example of divergence between the real aim of the projects and the measures of the evaluation.

Probably there is a misunderstanding in same place.

A god shot of a professional artist doesn't cost 0.90 dollars.

To measure the success the best approach is to consider that a god shot can costs around 50-100 dollars.

Replying to people that agree that the measure is to cover articles, I agree with them but I also agree that there is no sense to have bad photos even if these photos are not "descriptive".

Regards

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Lodewijk, it's not the fisrt time that I am saying that the measures of the evaluation are able to measure quantities and not qualities.

If the aim of Wikimedia is to improve also the qualities, it's clear the direction that the movement is taking.

I know that measuring quantities is easier, but it's not an evaluation, are simple numbers without a clear "strategy".

regards

On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:

...

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

-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

---

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

Hi all,

I noticed that on the talk page of the evaluation WMF is only collecting "questions". It annoys me very much that they leave out the actual feedback we have given here.

WMF is in my opinion failing in understanding and describing Wiki Loves Monuments. They fail in write a good evaluation and they fail in responding in a suitable manner to our feedback here. They live in an ivory tower without taking us seriously enough.

Therefore I have started on the talk page of the evaluation a collection of problems. See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/20... There I have tried to rephrase both our feedback and my own feedback from elsewhere. I would like to invite all of you to comment on the issues I have tried to address in this section. Feel free to add other problems under a new sub section and feel free to expand the comment I added with other perspectives that that are also relevant for the described problems.

Thanks! Romaine

2015-05-05 14:12 GMT+02:00 Roel Balingit roel.balingit@wikimedia.org.ph:

I believe that calculation is unfair because it prejudices communities where free knowledge isn't widely accepted as well as countries which have limited Internet penetration. Just a general statement.

*ROEL BALINGIT* *Treasurer* *______________________________________________________________* *WIKIMEDIA PHILIPPINES* *G/F Gervacia Center, 152 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City* *T: +63-2-8123277 | F: +63-2-8127177 | M: +63-917-8807635 * *W: **www.wikimedia.org.ph http://www.wikimedia.org.ph/ | E: roel.balingit@wikimedia.org.ph roel.balingit@wikimedia.org.ph*

---

---

This e-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail.

Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

---

---

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:

...

To be clear. Here the benefits are not calculated because we consider that a single upload is a benefit.

What is missed is the time of the volunteers.

If we calculate the overload of the community to check photos or to look for copyviol, this relation changes.

It an important parameter because a volunteer to filter a huge amount of poor photos or of copyviol has a negative impact in other activities.

Basically these parameters are not realistic. Il 05/Mag/2015 13:59, "Ilario Valdelli" valdelli@gmail.com ha scritto:

...

It's un unclear.

A god shot on the market costs more than 50 dollars.

Everything in high quality is a benefit.

So the aim is not to calculate a cost per shot but the relation costs benefits.

Basically the delta.

If there is the need to evaluate the success considering the poor relation costs per upload, there is no sense to have a photo contest. An editathon will produce more results. Il 05/Mag/2015 12:21, "Ivo Kruusamägi" ivo.kruusamagi@gmail.com ha scritto:

...

I've collected photos for Commons with cost lower than 0.01 $ per image, so I don't like claims, that "A god shot of a professional artist doesn't cost 0.90 dollars". Considering the fact, that average upload in WLM is usually out of rather poor quality and will not find itself a place in an article, then thous things aren't that easily comparable.

I specially like the comment about Romaine, and I have taken somewhat similar approach. Only if I'm able to provide constant work for the newcomers there is some chance of keeping them with the program. Getting images vs getting users are two rather different aims. I have also set interest towards getting quality images as we have so many contributors per capita in Estonia, that it isn't very likely to get an increase there without some rather desperate means. But just focusing on images could help to get significantly better quality contributions.

As of this evaluation I'd actually like to get some selected examples, that would explain somewhat on what others have done and what kind of differences there are. For instance, if someone spends thousands of dollars for this campaign, then I'd like to know where the money went, as I can't personally think of any places on where to spend that much. Or what kind of outreach approach was taken to achieve the x goals etc.

Regards Ivo Kruusamägi

2015-05-05 11:06 GMT+03:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:

...

To specify what I am saying:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015/Wi...

In the paragraph "Content Production and Quality Improvement" it's not mentioned any paragraph about the quality of the photos.

It's a photo contest and the photo contest gives a prize to the best photos not to the biggest uploaders.

This is an example of divergence between the real aim of the projects and the measures of the evaluation.

Probably there is a misunderstanding in same place.

A god shot of a professional artist doesn't cost 0.90 dollars.

To measure the success the best approach is to consider that a god shot can costs around 50-100 dollars.

Replying to people that agree that the measure is to cover articles, I agree with them but I also agree that there is no sense to have bad photos even if these photos are not "descriptive".

Regards

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Lodewijk, it's not the fisrt time that I am saying that the measures of the evaluation are able to measure quantities and not qualities.

If the aim of Wikimedia is to improve also the qualities, it's clear the direction that the movement is taking.

I know that measuring quantities is easier, but it's not an evaluation, are simple numbers without a clear "strategy".

regards

On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org > wrote:

> 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 >

-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

---

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

---

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

Hi all,

In the online meeting it was said that we should at our comments to the talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/20...

Romaine

2015-05-06 18:17 GMT+02:00 Edward Galvez egalvez@wikimedia.org:

Hi Roel,

See my response:

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Roel Balingit < roel.balingit@wikimedia.org.ph> wrote:

...

I believe that calculation is unfair because it prejudices communities where free knowledge isn't widely accepted as well as countries which have limited Internet penetration. Just a general statement.

This is really great to hear from your perspective. We totally acknowledge that there are differences! The report is a first step to learning about the programs looking at some metrics globally. The next step is to do interviewers with people from all over to learn the best practices in different contexts, and share them in the form of a toolkit.

...

*ROEL BALINGIT* *Treasurer* *______________________________________________________________* *WIKIMEDIA PHILIPPINES* *G/F Gervacia Center, 152 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City* *T: +63-2-8123277 <%2B63-2-8123277> | F: +63-2-8127177 <%2B63-2-8127177> | M: +63-917-8807635 <%2B63-917-8807635> * *W: **www.wikimedia.org.ph http://www.wikimedia.org.ph/ | E: roel.balingit@wikimedia.org.ph roel.balingit@wikimedia.org.ph*

---

---

This e-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail.

Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

---

---

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:

...

To be clear. Here the benefits are not calculated because we consider that a single upload is a benefit.

What is missed is the time of the volunteers.

If we calculate the overload of the community to check photos or to look for copyviol, this relation changes.

It an important parameter because a volunteer to filter a huge amount of poor photos or of copyviol has a negative impact in other activities.

Basically these parameters are not realistic. Il 05/Mag/2015 13:59, "Ilario Valdelli" valdelli@gmail.com ha scritto:

...

It's un unclear.

A god shot on the market costs more than 50 dollars.

Everything in high quality is a benefit.

So the aim is not to calculate a cost per shot but the relation costs benefits.

Basically the delta.

If there is the need to evaluate the success considering the poor relation costs per upload, there is no sense to have a photo contest. An editathon will produce more results. Il 05/Mag/2015 12:21, "Ivo Kruusamägi" ivo.kruusamagi@gmail.com ha scritto:

...

I've collected photos for Commons with cost lower than 0.01 $ per image, so I don't like claims, that "A god shot of a professional artist doesn't cost 0.90 dollars". Considering the fact, that average upload in WLM is usually out of rather poor quality and will not find itself a place in an article, then thous things aren't that easily comparable.

I specially like the comment about Romaine, and I have taken somewhat similar approach. Only if I'm able to provide constant work for the newcomers there is some chance of keeping them with the program. Getting images vs getting users are two rather different aims. I have also set interest towards getting quality images as we have so many contributors per capita in Estonia, that it isn't very likely to get an increase there without some rather desperate means. But just focusing on images could help to get significantly better quality contributions.

As of this evaluation I'd actually like to get some selected examples, that would explain somewhat on what others have done and what kind of differences there are. For instance, if someone spends thousands of dollars for this campaign, then I'd like to know where the money went, as I can't personally think of any places on where to spend that much. Or what kind of outreach approach was taken to achieve the x goals etc.

Regards Ivo Kruusamägi

2015-05-05 11:06 GMT+03:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:

...

To specify what I am saying:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015/Wi...

In the paragraph "Content Production and Quality Improvement" it's not mentioned any paragraph about the quality of the photos.

It's a photo contest and the photo contest gives a prize to the best photos not to the biggest uploaders.

This is an example of divergence between the real aim of the projects and the measures of the evaluation.

Probably there is a misunderstanding in same place.

A god shot of a professional artist doesn't cost 0.90 dollars.

To measure the success the best approach is to consider that a god shot can costs around 50-100 dollars.

Replying to people that agree that the measure is to cover articles, I agree with them but I also agree that there is no sense to have bad photos even if these photos are not "descriptive".

Regards

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi Lodewijk, > it's not the fisrt time that I am saying that the measures of the > evaluation are able to measure quantities and not qualities. > > If the aim of Wikimedia is to improve also the qualities, it's clear > the direction that the movement is taking. > > I know that measuring quantities is easier, but it's not an > evaluation, are simple numbers without a clear "strategy". > > regards > > > On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Lodewijk < > lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Ilario Valdelli > Wikimedia CH > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich > Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario > Skype: valdelli > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli > http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 > Tel: +41764821371 > http://www.wikimedia.ch >

-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

---

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

---

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

-- Edward Galvez Program Evaluation Associate Wikimedia Foundation

---

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