Re: [Wikimedia-l] WLM Brasil 2015 - Winners / Numbers

On 31 October 2015 at 17:43, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: ... The comment here puzzled me, especially from an involved GAC member, as grant targets should not be "stretch targets" but realistic commitments to be met with the invested money. I went back to read the grant page and accurately it can be stated (traffic light colours added by me):[1] 1. [GREEN] at least 400 participants uploading one photograph or more; 2. [RED] at least 5,000 photos uploaded; 3. [RED] at least 15% of photos used on Wikipedia [i.e. > 666 photographs in use]; 4. [GREEN] at least 50% of new users engagement during the contest; 5. [RED] at least 10 new articles about natural heritage sites in Brasil [no report]; 6. [RED] at least 10% of new user retention after 2 months of the contest [no report]. There are a number of clarifications on the grant talk page, especially Wang's (WMF) significant questions raised under "WMF comments". The clarifications add detail to the above 6 measures, but also make some further commitments which have yet to be reported on. Based on this detail, it would not be possible to "close-out" the grant against reported results until December 2015. I recommend that the Wikimedia Community Brazilian Group of Education and Research go the extra mile to measure and report the detail so that their 2016 grant applications can demonstrate learning from the targets that were met or not met in this project. == Technical Note == Most of the measurements can be produced from using SQL on the Commons and Wikipedia(s) databases, if the more web-friendly tools such as Catscan are not up to the job. It may be worth asking for help at [2] or [3] if this gets stuck/seems a lot of effort, as such scripts are fairly easy to re-run each month and can be 'recycled' in coming years once worked out. == Community Observation == It might help future on-wiki discussion if questions are enumerated/logged and seen to be responded to in a non-personalized style. Even if the perception is that someone is griefing the project or organization, if you can bat back questions with formal and direct replies with hard measurements and statistics, or a clear explanation of why it is not worth the volunteer or staff time to report in some areas, then not only would the questions dry up, but they form a useful foundation for future more robust grant requests. Keep in mind that testing questions do add value. Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Wikimedia_Community_Brazilian_Gr… 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests 3. IRC #wikimedia-tech https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Channels#MediaWiki_and_technical Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae