(please excuse cross-posting) Hi everyone! I posted the latest in the string of program evaluation reports on Meta today, on Wiki Loves Monuments: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WLM Highlights of the report include: * About 17% of the images uploaded through Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 are in use on our projects. * The majority of Wiki Loves Monuments participants are new users; however, the survival rate of new users is low (1.7% of the 2012 participants made at least one edit and 1.4% uploaded at least one new file to Commons six months after the event). * Half of the existing editors who participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 also participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, with new users making up for the other half. * The global Wiki Loves Monuments organizing team helps support Wiki Loves Monuments organizers around the world, providing replication opportunities via direct support. This makes it easier for someone to organize their own Wiki Loves Monuments contest. Questions are welcomed and encouraged on the talk page. On behalf of the Program Evaluation team, LiAnna -- LiAnna Davis Wikipedia Education Program Wikimedia Foundation http://education.wikimedia.org +1-(415) 839-6885 x6649 _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org

Thanks! The most interesting datum I've noticed so far is the rate of active editor (5+ edits/month) retention among new contributors after six months, which is about 0.4%. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WLM#New_… That (along with the easy-to-measure and already known sheer quanities of photos generated) seems to me to be the most robust number to use in evaluating WLM (and comparable) funding requests. 0.4% may be considered worthwhile or not enough, depending on local contexts, so I'm not drawing a universal conclusion from it, just noting it. (just thinking out loud here.) A. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Samuel Klein &lt;meta.sj(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org

Thanks! The most interesting datum I've noticed so far is the rate of active editor (5+ edits/month) retention among new contributors after six months, which is about 0.4%.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WLM#New_… That (along with the easy-to-measure and already known sheer quanities of photos generated) seems to me to be the most robust number to use in evaluating WLM (and comparable) funding requests. 0.4% may be considered worthwhile or not enough, depending on local contexts, so I'm not drawing a universal conclusion from it, just noting it.

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:45 AM, rupert THURNER &lt;rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: Evaluation team! I'm just assisting with publishing and distributing the report; the work in it is a whole team effort, including contributions from Frank Schulenburg, Dr. Jaime Anstee, Yuan Li, and Edward Galvez. Their hard work went into data collection, reporting, and analysis; I just did some minor copy editing and publicizing. :) But that being said, I encourage everyone to post comments and questions on the talk page, which is where the program evaluation team will be more likely to see and answer them, rather than having parallel discussions on multiple lists: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs_talk:Evaluation_portal/Library/WLM oh, my english is bad, i of course ment how you calculated the number.

Asaf Bartov, 25/01/2014 03:12: Thanks! The most interesting datum I've noticed so far is the rate of Is "active editor retention" a metric defined somewhere? It's not in <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:WMF_ standardized_editor_classes>.