Grants:IdeaLab/Redesigning Global Metrics & its support/Outcome/az
Background
This project was undertaken jointly by the Community Resources and Learning & Evaluation teams at the Wikimedia Foundation, as both of these teams have played a central role in the creation, implementation and support of Global Metrics over the last two years.
The goal of updating Global Metrics was to create something that was responsive to copious feedback and suggestions we received through the Global Metrics retrospective and this consultation.
Given the spectrum of feedback, we identified a set of upfront principles that would enable us to create ideas and make decisions that were both responsive and consistent. In the proposed set of changes, these were the set of design principles that were used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each idea proposed. In deciding the final updates to Global Metrics by synthesizing and incorporating feedback, these were principles that we used to guide our decision making:
- We would not introduce new metrics if there were no easy-to-use tools available. Agreed upon new metrics would only be introduced once tools were available.
- We would identify places where we could iterate, understanding that not everything can be done now, but it’s better to do it well even if it’s done slowly.
- We would think holistically about metrics, acknowledging that grant metrics, organizational metrics, and program metrics might overlap, but aren’t necessarily the same thing. All of these metrics need to complement not supersede each other.
Executive Summary
- Metriklər Kitabxanası qrant alanlardan və qrant komitəsinin üzvlərindən rəy bildirən güclü dəstək aldı. Bu mərkəzləşdirilmiş resursun yaradılması 2016-2017 maliyyə ilində Amanda Bittaker üçün Learning & Evaluation üçün əsas layihələrdən birinə çevriləcək.
- Respondentlər arasında Wikimetrics-in Qlobal Metrikləri hesablamaq üçün vahid alətə çevrilməsi ilə bağlı konsensus yox idi. Wikimetrics-in əhəmiyyətli frontend və back-end problemlərini nəzərə alaraq, Sati Houston tərəfindən 2016-17 maliyyə ilində İcma Resursları tərəfindən daha dərin layihə həyata keçiriləcək. yeni alət və ya mövcud alətin təkmilləşdirilməsi məlumatların toplanması ilə bağlı məsələlərin ən yaxşı həllidir.
- There was strong support from respondents to simplify the requirement of Global Metrics, particularly to change the structure to “Proposal 2: 3 shared measures + 2 grantee-defined measures”.
- For the four metrics proposed, respondents provided significant feedback on the importance, usefulness, and definition of each metric, as well as how easy/difficult it would be to collect the information. This feedback was integrated into the final set of metrics, with risks and concerns offered potential mitigations. For additional information see the section on #Participation, #Content, and #Community Building.
- All respondents indicated Community Building was important and useful outcome to capture, but had hugely divergent responses to the question, “What is community building”?. Moreover, respondents indicated that collecting information on Community Building would be difficult; it was unclear if surveys, storytelling, or some other solution was the right fit for capturing this information. As such, Community Building will not be included as a shared measure at this time but we hope to learn more about successes and challenges in this area throughout the upcoming year.
Grant metrics instead of Global Metrics
Global Metrics will be replaced with a simplified requirement for identifying, collecting and reporting grant metrics, as follows:
Three shared metrics
- Total participants. This is the number of people who attend events or activities, either in person or virtually. It does not include many others who might be “involved” in events or activities, such as organizers or outreach channels (e.g. social media followers).
- If outcomes related to volunteer engagement (e.g. the number of volunteer organizers) or raising awareness (e.g. social media followers) remain important to your grant activities, they can be included as grantee-defined metrics.
- Number of Newly registered users. This is the current global metric which is collected through the Magic Button and Wikimetrics. The definition remains the same: the number of newly registered users as a result of the project, using a two week window for specific events if needed.
- Content pages created or improved, aggregated across Wikimedia projects. This is the current global metric, which is collected through the Magic Button. The definition has been slightly re-worded to make it clear that all Wikimedia projects are included.
- Grantees and grant committee members interviewed actually prefered two different metrics than (2) and (3):
- Newly registered users, as well as their retention over 1, 3, 6, or 12 months (called “New User Retention”)
- Content pages created or improved, disaggregated by Wikimedia project
- However, neither the New User Retention metric or the disaggregated content metric have easy-to-use tools readily available today. When these tool issues are resolved, the shared metrics will be updated.
+ Two grantee-defined measures
These measures (whether quantitative or qualitative) are a space for the grantee to highlight outcomes that go beyond those captured by the shared metrics. These could be the outcome of a single program, or a set of programs; there is no preset list to choose from when selecting these measures.
Timeline
This grant metric requirement will only apply to the Project Grant and Annual Plan Grant programs. Rapid Grants and Conference & Travel Grants will retain their current program-specific requirements. No ongoing grants be required to change to the new structure. They will remain with the metrics, objectives and targets identified in their proposals. These new grant metrics will become a requirement for Project and Annual Plan Grant on the following timelines:
- Layihə qrantları - 2016-cı ilin sentyabrında və ya ondan sonra təsdiq edilmiş qrantlar
- Sadə illik plan qrantları: 2017-ci ilin yanvarın 1-dən etibarən maliyyələşdirilməsi üçün təqdim olunan qrantlar (yəni 1 noyabrdan əvvəl təqdim edilən qrant təklifləri)
- Tam illik planlar qrantı - 2016-cı il oktyabrın 1-ci turunda təqdim olunan grantlar
How does this new requirement work in Project Grants?
Currently each Project grant has two tables of metrics: Global Metrics and Project Metrics. Under this new grant metrics requirement, there will be one table, with three rows for the three shared metrics, and two rows for the grantee-defined metrics. Grantees can remove any of the three shared metrics that aren’t relevant to their goals. They may also add more grantee-defined metrics if they have more than two.
How does this new requirement work in Simple Annual Plan Grants?
Currently grantee enters their Global Metrics targets and achievements into a common spreadsheet. For new Simple Annual Plan Grants, the metrics in this spreadsheet will be updated to match the new shared metrics, and the grantee will identify two others that are relevant to their grant.
How does this new requirement work in Full Annual Plan Grants?
Hazırda təklifi və hesabat formasında Qlobal Ölçülər üzrə hədəflər və nailiyyətləri təsvir etmək üçün bir cədvəl var (məsələn, inkişaf hesabatında "Qlobal Ölçevi Önizləmə - bütün proqramlar" bölməsi); proqram ölçüləri müvafiq proqram bölməsində bildirilir. Bu yeni təqaüd ölçülərinin tələbinə əsasən, təklif və hesabat formasının əvvəlində üç paylaşılan ölçülər üçün üç sıra və təqaüdçü tərəfindən müəyyən edilmiş ölçülər üçün iki sıra olan bir cədvəl olacaq. Qrant alanlar üç paylaşılan ölçüsündən birini öz məqsədlərinə aid olmayanları aradan qaldıra bilərlər. Onlar həmçinin ikidən çox olan halda daha çox müvəffəqiyyətli müəyyən edilmiş ölçülər əlavə edə bilərlər. Digər proqram xüsusi ölçülər müvafiq proqram bölməsində qalır.
Next steps
- Yeniləmə Qlobal Metriklərin öyrənilməsi nümunəsinin toplanması – 12 avqust
- Qrant təklifi və hesabat şablonlarını yeniləyin – Qrant turlarının başlama tarixlərinə görə qrant proqramına görə dəyişəcək.
- Metrics Library layihəsinin əhatə dairəsini müəyyənləşdirməyə başlayın – 15 avqust
- Ortaq ölçülər layihəsi üçün aləti əhatə etməyə başlayın – 5 sentyabr
Details on community feedback and rationale behind changes
Structure
Overall, most grantees and grant committee members interviewed prefered “Proposal 2: 3 shared measures + 2 grantee-defined measures”. This structure integrates Global Metrics and other metrics into a single set of grant metrics. Those who favored this structure indicated that it adequately balanced the need for consistency by having a set of shared metrics, and also the need for flexibility by allowing grantees to highlight their specific outcomes and achievements. However, the overall success of this proposed new structure depends heavily on the Metrics Library, as the library will be the main mechanism for grantees to discover new metrics, online resources, and potential tools.
There were three primary concerns raised about shifting to structure that integrated Global Metrics and other grant metrics. In an effort to address these concerns, we have identified a few potential mitigations where applicable:
- This new structure will diminish the distinction between those metrics required by WMF, and those identified by the grantee.
- It is true that removing the this structure will integrate metrics required by WMF and those other metrics identified by the grantee. However, the respondents who supported Proposal 2 highlighted this as a strength of the structure, as all of these metrics together represent the outcomes of a grant.
- Requiring at least two grantee-defined metrics might increase the burden on smaller grants and grantees.
- Mitigation: The Rapid Grant program is designed reduce the grant approval time and the overall burden of reporting, and will not follow this same structure. It will instead maintain its current lighter weight requirements.
- Given these grantee-defined metrics will vary by grant, there may not be adequate support (e.g. tools, online resources) available to the grantee.
- Mitigation: The Learning & Evaluation team has spent the last three years documenting common program metrics through program toolkits and learning patterns, which includes some documentation on available tools. These resources will be integrated into the Metrics Library before its launch, to help with identifying, calculating, and reporting “other grant metrics”. However, a longer-term solution is still needed to ensure that other grantees can contribute their own metrics to the Metrics Library (as well as the associated tools and resources), and to ensure that common metrics are easily identified.
Based on this decision to bring Global Metrics and other metrics into a single set of “grant metrics”, updates will be made to the proposal and reporting templates for Project and Annual Plan Grants to facilitate the integration. Template changes will also aim to make clear that these three shared metrics should only be required when relevant to the goals of the grant.
Measures
Participation
Of the two participation metrics proposed (Individuals Involved and Editors Retained) respondents indicated that both metrics were useful and important, but covered different outcomes and were applicable in different situations. While there was support for having only Individuals Involved as the primary participation metric, there was equal support for allowing grantees to choose between Individuals Involved and Retention, as applicable to their grant (voting data).
Respondents also indicated that the definition of each proposed metric needed to be refined, with the following being the primary changes suggested to the definition:
- İştirak edən şəxslər üçün, tərif daha çox konkretlik tələb edir. Qrantda "cəlb olunan" bir çox insan qrupu olsa da, adətən bu metrikaya daxil edilən üç əsas qrup var:
- İştirakçılar – bunlar şəxsən və ya virtual olaraq tədbirlərdə iştirak edən insanlardır. Məsələn, proqram zamanı istifadəçi adları toplanan insanlar iştirakçıdır.
- Təşkilatçılar – bunlar tədbirin təşkilinə cavabdeh olan könüllülər və ya heyət üzvləridir.
- Təhsil fəaliyyətlərinin hədəfi olan böyük auditoriyalar – bunlar (əsasən) kütləvi kommunikasiyalar vasitəsilə əldə edilən böyük insan qruplarıdır, burada məqsəd Vikimedia hərəkatı, konkret layihə və ya hadisə haqqında məlumatlılığı artırmaqdır. , və s. Məsələn, bunlar xəbər bülleteni alıcıları, sosial media izləyiciləri, poçt siyahısı üzvləri, yarmarkada Wikimedia stendini ziyarət edənlər və s.
- Respondentlər bu qruplar arasında fərqin mükəmməl və ya əhatəli olmadığını bildirsələr də (məsələn, donorlar və ya tərəfdaş təşkilatlar harada tutulacaq? Təşkilatçılara çevrilən iştirakçılar haqqında nə demək olar?), bu üç qrupun ayrı-seçkiliyi tərifin spesifikliyini yaxşılaşdıracaq. , və ümumilikdə daha faydalı olun. İki respondent əlavə etdi ki, könüllü təşkilatçıların sayı həqiqətən də “könüllülərin cəlb olunmasının” ölçüsüdür və bu geniş auditoriyaların ölçüsü həqiqətən “maarifləndirmənin” ölçüsüdür; hər ikisi ümumilikdə iştirakla bağlı olsa da, əslində “ümumi iştirakçılar”dan fərqli nəticələri ölçür.
- Saxlanılan Redaktorlar üçün, daha çox respondent qeyd etdi ki, metrika əvəzinə Yeni İstifadəçilər və Yeni İstifadəçi Saxlanmasına diqqət yetirməlidir. Respondentlər hər hansı Wikimedia layihəsində istənilən ad məkanında saxlama anlayışının 1 redaktəyə qədər genişləndirilməsini dəstəklədilər, lakin qeyd etdilər ki:
- Saxlanmağı ölçmək üçün yeni istifadəçilərin ümumi sayını bilmək vacibdir.
- Saxlanmağı yaxşı ölçmək üçün o, bir neçə müddət ərzində izlənilməlidir (məsələn, 1, 3, 6 və ya 12 ay).
- Nəyin “yaxşı” saxlama kimi təsnif olunduğunu bilmək üçün mövcud əsas göstəricilər olmalıdır.
- Respondentlər qeyd etdilər ki, mövcud ianəçilərin cəlb edilməsi bir çox fəaliyyətlər üçün kritik olsa da, bu fəaliyyətlərin nəticələri rəqəmli saxlama metrikası vasitəsilə deyil, keyfiyyətcə daha yaxşı ələ keçirilir – motivasiya hisslərinə, onların icması ilə bağlılığa və s. diqqət mərkəzindədir.
Bununla belə, bütün bu iştirak ölçülərinin məlumatların toplanması ilə bağlı problemləri olsa da, Yeni İstifadəçi Saxlanmasının əhəmiyyətli problemləri var. Bizim məlumatımıza görə, təklif olunan təriflə bir neçə zaman aralığında saxlama qabiliyyətini əldə etmək üçün kifayət qədər funksionallığa malik heç bir alət mövcud deyil. Bundan başqa, Single User Login orijinaldan sonra təqdim edilmişdir. Qlobal Metriklər müəyyən edilmişdir və çox güman ki, hər bir alətdə “Yeni İstifadəçi”nin texniki olaraq müəyyən edilmə üsulunu dəyişdirmək lazım gələcək (məsələn, “ilk dəfə istifadəçi adı yaradanlar” və “mövcud töhfə verənlər” arasında fərq qoymaq, lakin xüsusi dil layihəsi üçün yeni”), həmçinin “Yeni İstifadəçi Saxlanması”nın texniki olaraq necə müəyyən edildiyi. Həm WMF, həm də könüllülər tərəfindən yaradılmış, saxlanmaya yönəlmiş çoxlu alətlər olsa da, hər birinin kiçikdən böyük təkmilləşdirmələrə ehtiyacı var. (Bu, bildiyimiz alətlərə əsaslanır; əgər aləti əldən vermişiksə, bizə bildirin!). Beləliklə, cari “Yeni qeydiyyatdan keçmiş istifadəçi” metrikası alətlər yeni tərifləri və funksionallığı dəstəkləmək üçün yenilənənə qədər qalmalıdır.
Based on all of this feedback, the new participation metrics will be as follows:
- Total participants. This is the number of people who attend events, either in person or virtually. As suggested, the updated learning pattern will include examples of who should and shouldn’t be included.
- Engaging volunteers and raising awareness remain important goals and outcomes to capture. The “grantee-defined” metrics represent an opportunity for grantees to highlight these achievements in ways that are most relevant to them, rather than be forced to report it in ill-fitting the “participants” metric.
- Number of Newly Registered Users. This is the current global metric, and the definition remains the same: the number of newly registered users as a result of the project, using a two week window for specific events if needed.
Content
Most respondents strongly endorsed the proposed content metric: Content pages created or improved, disaggregated by Wikimedia project.
This new definition resolves some of the issues identified in the retrospective, particularly that the current “pages new or improved” metric was interpreted as “Wikipedia articles new or improved”, or as aggregated pages across Wikimedia projects (e.g. Wikidata items, Wiktionary entries and Wikisource pages). Respondents did not have many suggested improvements to the definition but they did have three concerns. In an effort to address these concerns, we have again identified a few potential mitigations where applicable:
- The quality of content is not addressed.
- Given quality is currently primarily assessed through community processes (e.g. Featured Article process on English Wikipedia, Featured Image process on Commons), or specific processes & rubrics of an event or contest, it is highly contextualized and would be difficult to define in a centralized way. While the adoption of automated tools might be an option in the future, for now it isn’t feasible to include as a shared metric.
- This metric might be easily “gamed” or manipulated, e.g. through creating stub articles or making small edits to as many pages as possible.
- While this is a valid concern, it is unlikely that the grant system will ever have sufficient oversight to ensure gaming doesn't happen.
- The definition of an “improvement” differs by Wikimedia project.
- Potential mitigation: More detailed examples of improved could be added to the metric documentation in the Metrics Library.
Bu parçalanmış məzmun ölçüsü müxtəlif Wikimedia layihələrində əlavə edilmiş və ya təkmilləşdirilmiş məzmunda daha çox spesifiklik təmin etsə də, bu təfərrüatlı məlumatı toplamaq üçün hazırda mövcud alətlər yoxdur (SQL kimi dillərdə bəzi texniki təcrübəyə malik olmadan). Wikimetrics "Vikimedia layihəsi tərəfindən əlavə edilmiş, parçalanmış məzmun səhifələri" və "yaradılmış və təkmilləşdirilmiş məcmu məzmun səhifələri" haqqında hesabat verə bilər, lakin "Vikimedia layihəsi tərəfindən təkmilləşdirilmiş, parçalanmış məzmun səhifələri" haqqında hesabat verə bilməz. (Yenə də deyirəm, hazırda heç bir alətin mövcud olmadığı ilə bağlı qiymətləndirmə bildiyimiz alətlərə əsaslanır; əgər aləti əldən vermişiksə, lütfən (bizə bildirin! )
Given this tool limitation, this metric cannot become a shared grant metric yet. As such, the current “pages created or improved” metric will remain, with slight improvements to the definition. Once the tool issues are addressed, the updated metric (with the disaggregation by Wikimedia project) will replace the current one.
Content pages created or improved, aggregated by Wikimedia project
This is the current Global Metric, calculated by the Magic Button, where a “content page” is defined as an article on Wikipedia, an entry on Wiktionary, a file on Commons, an item on Wikidata, a page on Wikisource, or similar units of content on other Wikimedia projects.
- Grantees may disaggregate aggregated number by Wikimedia project if desired, but it is not required. The time and effort to include these disaggregated numbers is likely too much for most grantees.
- Example: A grantee holds an editathon with the goal of creating or improving content across Wikimedia projects. Participants at this editathon create 4 Wikipedia articles, improve 12 Wikipedia articles, upload 4 images to Commons, and add properties to 18 items on Wikidata.
- The grantee would report 38 content pages new or improved across Wikimedia projects.
- They could also but are not required to report 16 created or improved articles on Wikipedia, 4 media uploaded or improved on Commons, 18 items created or improved on Wikidata.
Community Building
Respondentlər qətiyyətlə qeyd olundu İcma Qurulması əldə etmək üçün vacib və faydalı nəticə idi, lakin “İcma quruculuğu nədir” sualına olduqca fərqli cavablar verdi. Bundan əlavə, respondentlər İcma quruculuğu haqqında məlumat toplamanın çətin olacağını qeyd etdilər; Anketlərin, hekayələrin və ya başqa bir həllin bu məlumatı əldə etmək üçün uyğun olub-olmadığı aydın deyildi.
As such, Community Building will not be included as a shared measure. While important, it needs more investigation and experimentation, to clarify its definition, how the information would be collected, how the information would be used.
However, we will continue to investigate the work that has already been done or is currently being done around Community Building, including currently used definitions. Depending on interest of conference organizers, we could present these findings at a movement conference in 2017.
Appendix
Demographics of respondents
The summarized feedback below is based on interviews and survey data collected from former and current grantees, WMF staffs, grant committee members, and a WMF board member.
- 5 WMF staff from the Community Resources team
- 34 grantees
- IEG: 4
- PEG: 14
- APG: 10
- Simple APG: 4
- Unknown: 2
- 8 Grant committee members
- FDC members: 3
- GAC members: 3
- SAPG committee members: 2
Data
| Topic | Comment |
|---|---|
| Reporting | Need to update the forms to make sure that the relevancy question is clearly answered – i.e. when are these relevant and when not |
| Reporting | The grant framework is not conducive to capturing longer-term outcomes; it's more conducive to capturing the shorter-term outputs; given the clear feedback Grant got in the need to simplify reporting, grant reports are not the right medium to report these longer term outcomes. |
| Simplification | This update simplifies collecting Global Metrics |
| Simplification | Will make comparisons more difficult |
| Simplification | Less information about understanding impact |
| Simplification | There is a loss of nuance in the proposed solutions |
| Simplification | Quantitative metrics create quantitative bias |
| General | Need to communicate how WMF is using this information more broadly |
Structure
| Topic | Comment | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Proposal 1 | Endorsements for Proposal 1 | 6 |
| Proposal 1 | Other metrics will be included anyways; other metrics shouldn't be required | 3 |
| Proposal 1 | Keeps the distinction between Global Metrics and other metrics | 2 |
| Proposal 1 | Proposal 2 may be too much for smaller communities, unless the metrics are clearly defined and have identified tools | 1 |
| Proposal 2 | Endorsements for Proposal 2 | 16 |
| Proposal 2 | Gives organizations flexibility/freedom to pick and choose which outcomes are most relevant to their work | 7 |
| Proposal 2 | Need to start looking at those metrics beyond Global Metrics, given diversity of programs | 1 |
| Proposal 2 | Good combination of cross-cutting metrics, uniform data-gathering, and other/local metrics that are diverse | 2 |
| Proposal 2 | Good balance between consistency and flexibility | 1 |
| Proposal 2 | Gives a chance to acknowledge things/outcomes a grantee thinks brought value | 1 |
| Proposal 2 | The opportunity to see what others are measuring (i.e. sharing) could lead to the opportunity to collaborate / build together new measures | 2 |
| Proposal 2 | Provides space for those measures of success that the grantee has already identified | 2 |
| Proposal 2 | Provides space for those locally relevant challenges and achievements | 3 |
| Proposal 2 | Going to collect other metrics whether it is required by WMF or not | 1 |
| Proposal 2 | Would be difficult for the "extra" metrics to be cross program ones; these would be difficult to identify and collect | 2 |
| Proposal 2 | Will not be able to aggregate these "extra" metrics | 1 |
| Proposal 2 | "Other" metrics need to be consistent year to year | 1 |
| Proposal 2 | Dependent on the breadth and rollout of the Metrics Library | 1 |
| General | Would be difficult (and additional burden) to report metrics by programme | 1 |
| General | Need to be clear in the update that a low number won't be held against a grantee | 1 |
| General | Need to emphasize the importance of other metrics and that “Global Metrics + Other metrics” is what tells the full story | 1 |
| General | Defining a broader set of metrics, with good definitions and tools would also be an alternate solution | 1 |
| General | Outreach events have very different metrics – press mentions, social media, people actively reaching out to partners | 1 |
| General | Having only 3 standard metrics is good as long as the combination of shared and other metrics is sufficient to "measure impact and enable people to learn from success/mistakes" | 1 |
| General | "Proposal 1 allows for homogeneity, which is a good for mapping outcomes, but Proposal 2 allows us to gain insights into challenges and conditions of grantees that will have a huge impact on the movement." | 1 |
| General | Need to test these metrics & structure and incrementally develop further over the years | 1 |
Metrics
| Topic | Affect | Comment | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individuals Involved | General | Endorsements for Individuals Involved (over Retention) | 9 |
| Individuals Involved | Positive | Metric reflects grantee goals, better than other metrics | 1 |
| Individuals Involved | Positive | Main metric for activity | 3 |
| Individuals Involved | Positive | Important metric for those events that only happen once a year (e.g. Art+Feminism, WLM) | 2 |
| Individuals Involved | Positive | Even though the definition of this metric is open and can easily change or be interpreted differently, it gives a good sense of reach | 1 |
| Individuals Involved | Positive | Able to share this externally, beyond the movement | 1 |
| Individuals Involved | Positive | Only way currently to capture offline activity | 1 |
| Individuals Involved | Positive | Easier to collect than retention | 1 |
| Individuals Involved | Positive | Individuals Involved is a useful metric | 8 |
| Individuals Involved | Concerns | Grantee anxiety when the number is small | 1 |
| Individuals Involved | Concerns | Unclear why WMF is interested in this metric / definition overall | 1 |
| Individuals Involved | Concerns | Easy to maximize this number | 1 |
| Individuals Involved | Concerns | Individuals Involved is not a useful metric | 3 |
| Individuals Involved | Concerns | Privacy concerns make tracking difficult | 1 |
| Individuals Involved | Concerns | Manual tracking is the only option | 2 |
| Individuals Involved | Concerns | Redundancy between different sign-in, sign-up mechanisms | 1 |
| Retention | General | Endorsements for Retention (over Individuals Involved) | 4 |
| Retention | Positive | 1 edit threshold is good | 1 |
| Retention | Positive | Good to include any project | 1 |
| Retention | Positive | Good to include any namespace | 1 |
| Retention | Positive | “The definition is fine" | 2 |
| Retention | Positive | Good metric for longer-term outcomes | 2 |
| Retention | Positive | Retention is a useful metric | 2 |
| Retention | Concerns | Retention is not a goal for every activity | 1 |
| Retention | Concerns | Very online, editing focused | 3 |
| Retention | Concerns | Not a good fit for those one time contest participants, outreach | 1 |
| Retention | Concerns | Much more limited metric | 1 |
| Retention | Concerns | Is 1 edit meaningful? At what point does the number of edits become meaningful? | 1 |
| Retention | Concerns | A new editor retention metric will not capture activities focused on existing editor community | 1 |
| Retention | Concerns | Capturing both new and existing retention is important | 1 |
| Retention | Concerns | Selecting 30/90/12 months will not fit time periods like semesters well | 1 |
| Retention | Concerns | Retention is not sufficient to be the one metric | 1 |
| Retention | Definition | Existing editor retention is not useful | 2 |
| Retention | Definition | Should focus on new editor retention | 2 |
| Retention | Definition | Existing editor retention might be addressed through community building question | 1 |
| Retention | Definition | Need flexibility in the retention period | 4 |
| Retention | Definition | Grantee needs to define their retention period beforehand | 1 |
| Retention | Definition | Needs a great baseline, to contextualize "good" retention | 3 |
| Retention | Definition | Time periods might be set to fit the chapters reporting | 1 |
| Retention | Concerns | Short term retention isn't useful to track | 1 |
| Retention | Concerns | 30 day retention isn't going to be useful to all grantees | 1 |
| Retention | Collection | Time intensive to collect and track | 1 |
| Retention | Collection | Need an automated system that tracks the retention of users | 1 |
| Retention | Collection | No system can capture the "retention" of volunteer organizers | 1 |
| Participation | General | Both Individuals Involved and Retention are necessary to see the full picture | 1 |
| Participation | General | Captures both output and outcomes | 1 |
| Participation | General | Allows for flexibility, given the different types of activities run | 1 |
| Content | Positive | Endorsements for the Content metric | 13 |
| Content | Positive | Disaggregation by Wikimedia project is good | 7 |
| Content | Positive | Information on content by project is useful | 9 |
| Content | Concerns | Doesn't capture everything related to content | 1 |
| Content | Concerns | Could be manipulated, e.g. by stubs | 2 |
| Content | Concerns | Number of "Pages improved" is not a good measure of quality | 2 |
| Content | Concerns | Need a measure of quality | 1 |
| Content | General | Make clear "project" is a Wikimedia project and not something else (e.g. WikiProject, or a funded project) | 1 |
| Content | General | Definition should have more detail – Wikipedia articles translated, Wikisource books proofread twice, Wikidata statements created | 1 |
| Content | General | Need to be clear what an "improvement" means – would vary by wiki project | 1 |
| Community Building | Collection | Survey community being served | 3 |
| Community Building | Collection | Measure engagement after an event | 1 |
| Community Building | Collection | Measure active editors | 1 |
| Community Building | Collection | Measure number of participants in community | 1 |
| Community Building | Collection | Answer a set of questions, to assess various dimensions | 1 |
| Community Building | Collection | Look for indicators, not direct causality | 1 |
| Community Building | Collection | Measure before and after the program, not a specific event, but the entire program | 1 |
| Community Building | Concerns | Cannot yet be systematically captured | 1 |
| Community Building | Concerns | Really hard to capture, particularly the qualitative side | 5 |
| Community Building | Concerns | Making the question specific would make it less applicable | 1 |
| Community Building | Concerns | Should not make it too resource intensive to collect and evaluate | 1 |
| Community Building | Concerns | Community Building might not be an outcome, but a prerequisite of the program | 1 |
| Community Building | Concerns | Proving causality will be difficult | 2 |
| Community Building | Concerns | Will be difficult to automate this data collection | 1 |
| Community Building | Concerns | Ambiguous definition | 1 |
| Community Building | General | Community Building is useful information | 8 |
| Community Building | General | Community Building is important information | 15 |
| General | General | Need to think about how the information will be collected in the field | 1 |
| General | General | Metrics are harder for things that are not timebound | 1 |
| General | General | Grantee needs to have a clear definition and be clear about why this metric is important to them | 1 |
| General | General | Grantee needs to demonstrate consistency between the goal and what they are measuring | 1 |
| General | General | WMF needs to address anxiety about low numbers | 1 |
| General | General | Global metrics show how program are working around the globe; program specific metrics are different | 1 |
| General | General | Should have metrics that are applicable from the smallest to largest grant; the comparison is still interesting | 1 |
Resources
| Topic | Comment | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Metrics Library | Endorsement for Metrics Library | 13 |
| Metrics Library | Suggestions for features for the Metrics Library | 16 |
| 1:1 Support | Create a position to help program managers do program evaluation | 1 |
| Tutorials | More online training about using and understanding Wikimetrics could be something to think about. | 1 |
| Tutorials | An online tutorial/masterclass one per month would be a nice way to resolve doubts and questions. | 1 |
| Current resources | Learning patterns and Idea Lab insufficient to inspire experimentation and new program design. So the metrics library seems like a good addition. | 1 |
| Current resources | Maybe there is already sufficient guidance but it is difficult to find. Not all grantees (even "experienced" grantees) knew about it. | 1 |