Hello,
One of the key strengths from Wiki Loves Monuments, at least in the Netherlands, is that
we actually can use the pictures (3.000 new monuments photographed even in the 3rd year
with a coverage of 70%).
In 2009 there was Wiki loves Art in the Netherlands. Wiki Loves Monuments had a few
advantages over this contest: *From Wiki Loves Art almost none of the pictures are used in
the articles, maybe only 200 out of 7000, for Wiki Loves Monuments every year around 50%
gets used. This is because of the identifier system, the identifier gives participants
only one thing to identify and we take it from there. This means: No categorisation, no
finding the right article for the picture (you could offcourse decide not to do these 2
but that means a nice contest of unused images).*For Wiki Loves Art organisers had to
arrange permissions with each museum. *You couldn't participate everywhere: mainly one
part of the country where the most museums are. On the other hand this had a benefit:
being able to photograph in these museum had something exclusive, especially the museums
where you can't photograph normally.
Why telling this here? Well I think at one point we, or some countries want to try
photographic competitions on other topics (seperated new contest seems best to me). When
you decide to do this think very well about which topics are useful. Having a list (big)
of images you want, and actually a place to put them is a big advantage, at least if you
want the pictures to be useful. When it's more to small topics you could also think
about non federal world wide contests (only one global organiser). A global contest like
that would give a whole other way of organising a contest. But it would be an idea for
smaller, or less location specific topics. If you're for example going to start a
contest to photograph wildlife or food there are no country boundries, so why not start it
global, on the other if you're going to do that it would be dangerous to focus on high
numbers like 100.000 images, a few thousand seems more suitable. Smaller world wide
contest to meet the wishes of our contest fanatics, or maybe give users who don't
participate now topics they like more.
Some countries allready have a high coverage of monuments, a good example is the completed
Andorra. For those countries I think focussing on other subjects would be a good idea (I
don't want to tell any specific country what to do, so I'll talk about my own, the
Netherlands.)
Future of WLM for the Netherlands:*We've 70% off the monuments on a picture, also the
cultural heritage organisation has released it's 560.000 images containing file
database. From there we should be able to get another 10% covered. The question is whether
the same contest will stay fun for all the years to come. Maybe people get more exited
when they can photograph on other subjects.
Another consideration is: do you want to get bigger and bigger every year. This year we
went from 13.000 to 7.000 pictures, I think that's more in the numbers than the
quality (the quality didn't decrease, only the people who photographed 1000 images in
the cities completed most cities and didn't participate), on the other hand we went up
in photgraphers from 170 to 250 or something. My main question is: how would scaling down
and stabilizing our participation effect the succes of the contest? If there is a global
contest it would be a shame for the Netherlands, as starting up country, not to
participate. But does it have to be big every year? I think the answer is no, we might
also consider to put less time, and money in the contest and see the effects of this.
We've succesfully participated for 3 years now: the lists are fine, we experimented
with some other ways of reaching out, but they do not seem that strong to me. Maybe scale
it down to just the classical contest with a few nice prices and a fine running website
will do the trick for the main part. We go down a bit in numbers (participants and
pictures) but it costs us less effort, so effort based succes might increase big time.
This way we also have more time to experiment with other contests and ideas to reach out.
Another thing is how to get these users editing. The lists might be a bit hard to start
from (not the easiest with templates and all). But maybe writing articles is an idea. We
should try to get users to write in our local wikipedia about monuments, and this way they
can become writers on Wikipedia. But how?
Greetings,
Bas
From: lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:59:07 +0100
To: wikilovesmonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Long Term - something a bit different
Hi Pete,
that's an interesting way to look at things! I think it would be helpful if you bring
this to the evaluation table as seperate ideas (the combination makes it harder to grasp),
but some comments from my perspective (and not necessarily the Truth):
* I don't agree that the yearly cycle (it's not a one-month thing as we all know -
it takes several months to prepare the list, which is just another phase in the cycle) is
a weakness - I actually see it as a strength. It allows volunteers to commit for a limited
period of time and still accomplish a lot in real life. That also means you get in touch
with a new group of volunteers who you will otherwise not see become active in chapters.
* I don't agree the emphasis is on bigness. I know that this has been used in PR, and
we used it too often perhaps in our messaging, but our emphasis is on getting more content
and people for Wikipedia.
* I don't agree that getting the monument lists for Wikipedia (including all its
details) is not a goal of the WMF. While the topic may not be a priority, facilitating
volunteers to gather and improve on content (which the list creation is), is one of the
goals. Not that it matters whether it is a WMF goal or not :) (it is mostly a chapter and
volunteer run program)
* You suggest that we should morph WLM into a Wiki Loves Everything. I personally believe
(and we explained this several times in our presentations) that the focus is one of the
key success factors. It makes it more tangible for participants, and allows outreach in
groups of potential volunteers we otherwise wouldn't reach. It wouldn't hurt to
have multiple contests ongoing at the same time though!
I'm curious why you think there is a "lack of real success". Perhaps you can
elaborate on that on the feedback page.
The thought I definitely do like is the idea to have multiple contests. I don't think
we should immediately run these internationally though, but rather try them out
nationally, and build from that - similarly as we did with Wiki Loves Monuments. I would
suggest though to move a bit away from the buildings and make it clearly distinct. Keep
the success factors in mind though (easy access, fun, helping Wikipedia etc.).
Best,Lodewijk
2012/11/4 Peter Ekman <pdekman(a)gmail.com
re Lodewijk
I do think that WLM is ultimately going to have to change focus, and
some sort of permanent organization will be helpful here. In
particular, I think WLM is getting too big to be sustainable (over
several years) and that we've aimed too much for bigness. Let's look
at our goals, strengths and weaknesses and see where we can take this
in an on-going, multiyear basis. My suggestion is that it be a hub
for encouraging and organizing many types of photo contests on Commons
- big and small.
Current Goals
1. To recruit and keep photographers and editors for Wikimedia
projects (Key WMF goal)
2. To document "monuments" and other cultural heritage (wonderful goal
- perhaps a bit narrow, not a key WMF goal)
Strengths
1. Access to Wikipedia banners for recruitment, publicizing
2. Bot and technical processes needed for contests, lists
3. Federal style organization across national boundaries
4. A record of success - which of course can lead to confidence among
editors and the public and thus more success. "Nothing succeeds like
success!"
Weaknesses
1. An emphasis on big for the sake of bigness - unsustainable growth.
2. Trying to mix some quite different things (e.g. situations in
Italy, Switzerland, India, Ghana) into one big contest
3. Once a year focus
4. (Perhaps) Lack of real success/emphasis on keeping newly recruited
photographers (we do about the same as other projects in percentage
terms)
I suggest:
1. Keeping the goal of recruitment of new editors/photogs and
strengthening it to emphasize "keeping" the new recruits.
2. Broaden the goal of documenting "monuments" to anything about
"cultural heritage" or, ultimately, to anything that large numbers of
people like to photograph in contests - become "Wikimedia Loves
Photographs" instead of "WL Monuments"
3. Form a permanent organization, likely on Commons or a new site
closely related to it, to have many contests, at different times of
the year, on slightly different topics, of different lengths.
Gradually increasing the scope of the contests to all topics of
interest to photographers. (Perhaps at first, WL Historical
Buildings, WL Cemeteries (for a week at Halloween!), WL Public Art,
etc. until we get to WL Wildlife, WL Oceans or WL Ships, and maybe
even WL towns in Pennsylvania or Transylvania)
4. Concentrate on recruiting different people to organize the
different contests, and giving them the tools, expertise, and some
standards to meet their similar (but not identical) goals.
There's a lot here, and I'm not interested in beating my head against
the wall if other folks aren't interested, but ultimately I think this
is the direction WLM will take if it's going to be sustainable.
All the best,
Pete Ekman
User:Smallbones
2012/11/4 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
> (changing the title to give it its own thread)
>
> I think this discussion would indeed be best on
the feedback page. But I
> will respond to some of the points already here.
>
> First off: I personally do not think this will be
an ever lasting event.
> I think that a country can only organize Wiki
Loves Monuments 3 or 4 times
> in a row without exhausting enthusiasm about it. I
actually have the
> feeling next year (2013) might very well be the
last year that we organize
> it on an international level. But I hope someone
will proof me wrong!
>
> I agree with Yaroslav that a real life
organization would be a
> possibility. We don't need that though.
Actually, I think it would be a
> worse situation than what we're in right now.
It would cause a lot of
> bureaucracy (conflict of interest: I would be one
of the people who would
> have to review the bylaws in the Affiliations
committee).
>
> An ongoing project on Commons to coordinate
heritage projects would
> perhaps be a good idea. Commons isn't exactly
suitable for it as it also
> involves a lot of other things - but it is
probably better than the
> alternatives. Outreachwiki would drive us too far
from the content side of
> things etc. I don't think it would be a
priority of myself, but I can
> definitely see the added value. I do not think it
could or should replace
> current efforts, but it should be complementary.
>
> Some people suggested over time that Wiki Loves
Monuments is a GLAM
> project. Everyone who knows me, knows that I'm
no fan of acronyms and
> especially not this one. If you would use the
alternative 'cultural
> heritage institutions' (or if you prefer
acronyms: CHI) it indeed fits the
> definition well. However, at the same time it is
quite different from all
> the other initiatives that are ongoing in this
field by Wikimedia.
>
> Wiki Loves Monuments is mostly public facing and
not institution-facing.
> We're focused on participation by individuals,
and while the institutions
> that provide the infrastructure (the lists) are
critical - they are
> primarily a tool to reach that goal. That is why I
usually consider it more
> a seperate thing from traditional cultural
heritage initiatives in
> Wikimedia - but it has many interfaces. Every
national Wiki Loves Monuments
> competition has probably one or several Cultural
Heritage collaborations.
> In the Netherlands we collaborate with the Museum
association (prize
> sponsor), National heritage board (providing the
lists), a
> monument/heritage association (networking partner,
outreach and prize
> sponsor), the Architecture museum (prize sponsor),
Open Monument Days
> (networking partner and outreach) etc. In other
countries you will likely
> see similar collaborations especially in the
second/third year develop.
>
> Anyway - I definitely cheer upon Poli's great
idea to have a cleanup
> project. I have been doing a bunch of that myself
recently on some
> countries (India, Canada, Argentina) and I think
it could use some help. I
> think Maarten sent recently an email about it (now
WLM is over, what's
> next).
>
> Yaroslav, Polimerek: would you like to volunteer
to set up such portal on
> Commons?
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org