Grants:PEG/Jackson Peebles/Video and Interactive Tutorials/Report


Report accepted
This report for a Project and Event grant approved in FY 2012-13 has been reviewed and accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • You may still comment on this report on its discussion page, or visit the discussion page to read the discussion about this report.
  • You are welcome to Email grants at wikimedia dot org at any time if you have questions or concerns about this report.


Compliance and completionEdit

Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
Answer YES or NO.
YES
Is your project completed?
Answer YES or NO.
YES
Did you use any of the grant funds?
Answer YES or NO.
YES

Activities and lessons learnedEdit

This section describes what the grantee did, and what the grantee learned from implementing the project. This section should be useful to others implementing similar projects and is an opportunity for the grantee to reflect on the project's performance.

ActivitiesEdit

Provide a detailed list of activities performed to complete this project, descriptions of these activities, and the amount of time spent on each activity. This section should also include a list of participants, or a link to pictures, blog posts, or videos from the project or event.
  • On April 20, 2013, I purchased necessary software to complete this project - Adobe Captivate 6.0 Educational License
  • On April 22, 2013, I purchased necessary hardware to complete this project - the budgeted Sennheiser PC 360 Headset. This concluded the necessary expenses.
  • On April 22, 2013, I submitted a request to the Wikimedia-l mailing list per the suggestion of Asaf Bartov for comment on what videos I should create. I also created an RfC.
  • Between March 30 and May 2, 2013, I received detailed feedback to the aforementioned RfC and post from 9 editors, including registered users and IP editors:
  • On May 28, I was granted access to WMF Labs to host the videos in HTML 5 format.
  • Between May 2 and September 14, 2013, I created videos for this project.
  • Between May 30 and September 14, 2013, I uploaded videos onto WMF Labs and linked to them from the project page.
  • On September 14, 2013, I posted an RfC for the prototype videos.
  • On September 15, 2013, I requested feedback on the prototype videos via the Wikimedia-l mailing list.

It is difficult to quantify the amount of time taken on each step.

Lessons learnedEdit

What lessons were learned that may help others succeed in similar projects? Consider the following questions and respond with 1 - 2 paragraphs.
What went well?
The first RfC was extremely successful, rallying many editors around the idea and garnering substantial support for the idea as well as numerous concepts. There appears to be great enthusiasm for video tutorials. Furthermore, tool creators expressed great interest in supporting the objectives of this grant and provided cooperation in metric collection. Other experienced editors provided assistance in scripting. Equipment purchased worked flawlessly.
What did not go well?
Promotion of the project, once underway, was extremely difficult. The second Wikimedia-l and RfC failed to garner substantial input. Further, it is doubtful that the project is being used to its full potential, as it is difficult to find the project's outcomes.
What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?
I would request more support from the Wikimedia Foundation in terms of non-financial support via the promotion of the videos in site banners and input into what videos should be created and their attributes. I would also request additional financial support in the form of a stipend, as this is an extremely time-consuming project.

Project goal and measures of successEdit

This section should reference the project goals and measures of success described in the approved grant submission. See Grants:PEG/Jackson Peebles/Video and Interactive Tutorials to review the goals and metrics listed in the approved submission.

Project goalEdit

Provide the project goal here.
This project will create positive change by lowering the barriers-to-entry for Wikipedia participants with respect to software-assisted tools. Video tutorials will be an intuitive and user-friendly way to introduce the tools and the often complex policies that surround them. I (as flow funder) believe (and my academic research has supported) the notion that we increasingly need efficient and tool-supported means to do patrolling and other maintenance tasks. While the WMF has a strategic pillar (per its 2015 plan) to "improve quality", I would argue that maintaining our current content from damage is just as important. Though English Wikipedia is the primary target project, the subject matter of these tutorials sometimes do cross language barriers (e.g., the "Huggle" tool has many language editions); and we could imagine the creation of dubbed/close-captioned tutorials in natural languages besides English.
Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 paragraphs.
Yes. As stated below, some videos, such as the uploading tutorials, provide guidance to overcome initial hesitation when considering making a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons contribution. Other videos, such as those on Twinkle, Snuggle, and STiki, enable more experienced editors to take a step towards moderate semi-automation in edits that do not necessitate the tedium associated with their corresponding manual action, without sacrificing quality. It is my belief that many users are unaware of such tools; the creation (and future promotion) of these videos will aid greatly in their implementation and the associated projects' successes.

Measures of successEdit

List the measures of success exactly as provided in the approved grant submission, and evaluate your project according to each measure listed there.
We will consider this project to be a success primarily based upon usage, which could be monitored using a hit counter. Furthermore, while the proposed tutorials would be available via Wikimedia Commons, it is my intention to incorporate them into a Wikipedia Education Course that incorporates both the CVUA and Adoption programs, to some extent, along with additional editing/tool advice. Thus, successful completion of this program could also be factored in, when developed. The most important success would manifest itself in a great quantity of quality editors as well as a greater quantity of proper tool users; this can be calculated to some extent by comparing the rate of new tool user edits pre-and-post video and monitoring whether their edits are constructive.
Provide an overall assessment of how your project went according to these measures.
It is my belief that the videos have seen some level of viewing due to feedback. I am also optimistic that the number of viewers will grow in the future as they are implemented into project pages and mentorship activities, as is the intention of an upcoming grant application. However, no solid metrics exist. With this said, mentorship programs and the adopt-a-user program seem to be in high demand, as is interest from experienced users for reform, which could include implementation of videos.
If you were to plan a similar project, would you measure it differently? If yes, please explain how.
Use of YouTube was abandoned due to concerns over accessibility and open-access as well as advertising in response to community input and consideration of initial non-open-source concerns brought about during the application phase. However, the HTML 5/JavaScript code did not include a hit counter, nor can I view how often specific pages have been viewed. If I were to plan a similar project, I would implement some sort of JavaScript counter for metrics.

ImpactEdit

This section ties this project to Wikimedia's broader goals, and shows what the project accomplished.

What impact did this project have on WMF's mission and the strategic goals? Please answer in 1 -2 paragraphs and include specific measures of impact such as the number of readers or editors reached by a particular project, or the number of articles edited or improved.
Stabilize infrastructure
Increase participation
Improve quality
Increase reach
Encourage innovation
This project succeeded in increasing reach, participation, quality, and, as a result, organizational effectiveness and financial sustainability, incorporating all aforementioned key organizational objectives of the Wikimedia Foundation. Some videos, such as the uploading tutorials, provide guidance to overcome initial hesitation when considering making a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons contribution. Other videos, such as those on Twinkle, Snuggle, and STiki, enable more experienced editors to take a step towards moderate semi-automation in edits that do not necessitate the tedium associated with their corresponding manual action, without sacrificing quality. It is my belief that many users are unaware of such tools; the creation (and future promotion) of these videos will aid greatly in their implementation and the associated projects' successes. This, in turn, could conceivably increase the quantity and type of end-user, which could also result in increased donations as the community's trust and use in Wikimedia projects increases.

As shown, below (and mostly as expected), Wikipedia itself shows no significant differences that can be directly attributed to the success of this project. However, when broken into a component, such as STiki, we see two extremely important positive metrics: an increase in vandalism reversion and in tool users, which could very well be attributable to this project, particularly as the STiki page now links to this video tutorial (and the talk page has for some time).

Statistics for WikipediaEdit

Baseline 1* Baseline 2** Baseline Slope Test 1*** Test 2**** Test Slope
Pages 29,818,514 30,149,163 7514.75 31,098,915 31,151,162 7463.85
Articles 4,197,865 4,231,453 763.36 4,327,781 4,333,057 753.71
Files 803,848 805,800 44.36 814,879 814,443 -62.29
Edits 603,932,137 612,098,320 185595.07 647,126,531 650,630,796 500609.29
Users 18,710,895 18,960,880 5681.47 19,682,108 19,731,451 7049.00
Admins 1,450 1,446 -0.10 1,437 1,438 0.14
Active Users 135,209 129,804 -122.84 127,156 127,156 0

*As of 21:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[1] **As of 18:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[1] ***As of 05:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[1] ****As of 21:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[1]

Statistics for STikiEdit

Baseline 1* Baseline 2** Baseline Slope Test 1*** Test 2**** Test Slope
Vandalism Reversions 278,207 300,863 526.884 377,527 381,831 614.86
Editors with at Least 1 Use 653 660 0.163 734 736 0.29

*As of 21:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[2] **As of 18:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[2] ***As of 05:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[2] ****As of 21:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[2]

Reporting and documentation of expendituresEdit

This section describes the grant's use of funds

DocumentationEdit

Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to grants at wikimedia dot org, according to the guidelines here? Answer "Yes" or "No".
YES

ExpensesEdit

Please list all project expenses in a table here, with descriptions and dates. Review the instructions here.
These expenses should be listed in the same format as the budget table in your approved submission so that anyone reading this report may be able to easily compare budgeted vs. actual expenses.
Note that variances in the project budget over 10% per expense category must be approved in advance by WMF Grants Program staff. For all other variances, please provide an explanation in the table below.
Number Category Item description Unit Number of units Cost per unit Total cost Currency Notes
1 Adobe Captivate Screen capture software (+ taxes); Academic license for which requestee is eligible License 1 316.94 316.94 USD Eligible for Academic License
2 Sennheiser USA PC 360 Headset used for video production (+tax) Item 1 201.07 201.07 USD


Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
USD 579.39
Total amount requested from WMF (from your approved grant submission, this total will be the same as the total project budget if the WMF grant is your only funding source)
USD 579.39
Total amount spent on this project (this total should be the total calculated from the table above)
USD 518.01
Total amount of WMF grant funds spent on this project (this total will be the same as the total amount spent if the WMF grant is your only funding source)
USD 518.01
Are there additional sources of revenue that funded any part of this project? List them here.
N/A

Remaining fundsEdit

Remaining funds from this grant have been returned to WMF in the amount of US$61.38.
Are there any grant funds remaining?
Answer YES or NO.
YES
Please list the total amount (specify currency) remaining here. (This is the amount you did not use, or the amount you still have after completing your grant.)
USD 61.38
If funds are remaining they must be returned to WMF, reallocated to mission-aligned activities, or applied to another approved grant.
Please state here if you intend to return unused funds to WMF, submit a request for reallocation, or submit a new grant request, and then follow the instructions on your approved grant submission.
I will return these unused funds to WMF. (Already done and confirmed by grants admin.)
  1. a b c d "Wikipedia:Statistics". English Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. May 12, 2013. Retrieved May 12, 2013. 
  2. a b c d "Wikipedia:STiki". English Wikipedia. Andrew West. May 12, 2013. Retrieved May 12, 2013.