Hi all,
Thanks for the comments on the first two program evaluation reports. This
is the kind of feedback we are looking for coming from the community, and
for that reason, we want to continue this conversation and learn more about
what goals and metrics make more sense to program leaders.
As many of you know, today we held an open virtual event to introduce the
first Wikimedia Programs Evaluation Reports 2015. You can now watch the
recorded event online [1].
We have also captured some of the conversation that started on Wiki Loves
Monuments list on the report's Talk Page [2]. Many community members have
already contributed their views there. We want to encourage everyone to
keep the conversation on the talk page, which will allow us to document all
the feedback and keep track of it.
Looking forward to your feedback and happy editing!
*María Cruz * \\ Community Coordinator, PE&D Team \\ Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc.
mcruz(a)wikimedia.org | : @marianarra_ <https://twitter.com/marianarra_>
[1] Video of the reports presentation
https://youtu.be/PN3TN4wrFZs
[2] Wiki Loves Monuments Evaluation Report - Talk Page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2…
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I think that this may be considered the central
problem.
It's easier to compare two different scenarios with a standard measure and
to use kilos to compare apples and oranges, for instance.
The problem is to understand that oranges will continue to be oranges after
this measure, and apples will continue to be apples.
This is an example to say that several countries focus their contest in
quality, some others in quantity.
The prize and the contest, anyway, is focused to select the "better photo"
and not the biggest uploaders.
It means that there is no sense to force the quantitative parameters while
the incentives are focused to increase quality.
Personally I find the same measure costs/uploads a lot far from the most
correct measure costs/benefits because we cannot consider a single upload
automatically as a "benefit".
In my opinion the most critical point is how measure costs (the workload of
a community is it a cost?) and the benefits (a huge amount of worst photos
is it a benefit?) because it involves several not measurable parameters.
Regards
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Figuring out what ideas are repeatable, scalable, or awesome but one-time
only, is complex. We probably need many different approaches, not one
central approach, to understand and compare.
--
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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>