Hi Lodewijk,
Thanks for your feedback about the process. It's been very valuable.
I have a few follow up questions below:
Sure, the team did reach out in the collection phase -
after all, without
the data such evaluation would be impossible. But after that, the
conclusions were drafted and shared with the wide community, rather than
with the stakeholders involved to discuss interpretation.
Can you say more about which stakeholders? Do you have ideas how we might
include them in the future, for example, through the Wiki Loves Monuments
mailing list, or were you thinking in some other way?
Either way, all communication seemed to be aimed to announce the
evaluation, rather than to ask active input on whether
the analysis made
sense, whether there were misunderstandings, etc. But maybe you have had a
lot of follow-up discussions with the people you collected data from on a
1-to-1 level, which would be admirable.
We tried to encourage input and questions through the next steps and in the
talk page, but it sounds like this might not have been enough. How do you
think we can do this better next time? Anything specific that stands out to
you, beyond sharing with stakeholders beforehand?
Thanks so much,
Edward
Again, I do appreciate the effort, I don't agree
with the approach and
process.
Best,
Lodewijk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Edward Galvez
Program Evaluation Associate
Wikimedia Foundation