Open main menu


Report accepted
This report for a Project and Event grant approved in FY 3 May 206 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.


Project statusEdit

Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?

YES

Is your project completed?

YES

Activities and lessons learnedEdit

Wiki Loves Africa 2015 was the second year of a photographic / media contest that encouraged people from across Africa, and beyond, to celebrate Africa’s diversity and cultural richness through images or videos illustrating the theme “Cultural Fashion and Adornment”.

In the competition’s second year, it was important to make it clear to people what falls in the scope of the contest. On one hand, the theme has to be narrow enough to be interesting to potential participants and give a clear focus to the contest and make it easy to "sell". On the other hand, it has to be wide enough to allow everybody to participate with a relatively low threshold. It was very helpful that we provided sample images of what we were expecting, as well as a list of categories of topics that could be listed in the broad theme “fashion”. For the Francophonie side of the competition a brochure was created that assisted in guiding quality submissions.
The competition scope was: Submissions of media that cover cultural dress and fashion; specifically fashion that is defined by local cultural influences, including cloth, styles, ways of wrapping and hanging, etc. This theme would include adornment, such as culturally defined jewellery, make-up, hairstyles, cloths and woven materials.
There were no media files (video or audio) submitted to competition this year.

ActivitiesEdit

The competition took place between the 1st October and 30th November 2015. The contest was accompanied by focus events in eight countries: Algeria, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania, Tunisia and Uganda. In the 2014 competition, the focus countries were Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, South Africa, Tunisia, and Uganda.

This meant 2 year continuation with Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Tunisia and Uganda; and the addition of new countries with Algeria, Cameroon, Nigeria, and Tanzania.

In these countries, local teams organised events to drive contribution. These events ranged from launch events and press conferences to photo hunts and mass upload sessions.

Once the entries were in, then came the task of selecting the best. A jury of 10 people (3 wikimedians, 7 non wikimedians) used WLX Jury Tool to do the first selection, and the second round. The final selection was made on a google spreadsheet to select the 3 top winners. The top 39 images from the jury short list (minus the winners) was then submitted to the community for the selection of a 4th prize. All winners were contacted successfully. All prizes have been sent.

Communications and driving public participationEdit

The contest was communicated through:

  • a bi-lingual website http://www.wikilovesafrica.org (reach statistics and analytics are available)
  • a Facebook account, 4,481 likes
  • a twitter account, 247 tweets, 364 followers
  • Pages on Wikimedia Commons : Wiki Loves Africa 2015
  • Pages on Meta Wiki Loves Africa
  • An Indiegogo campaign to raise money for prizes [1]
  • A site notice was displayed on top of pages of all wikimedia projects for all African countries during the two months of the competition (and in France for a couple of weeks).
 
Signpost featuring Wiki Loves Africa Winners

During the contest, other venues for communication were also used, including:

  • the blog of Wikimedia France : [2] and [3]
  • the blog of Wikimedia Foundation: [4]
  • mentions during Wikimedia 15 campaign [5]
  • 3 press releases [6] were sent out for the launch, mid-contest and winners announcement. The first was sent in English, French and Arabic. The next one in French and English. The final was sent in English. A press release was sent by the Wikimedia France to the press. Press releases were drafted as templates and were sent to the teams to be reused, modified, and translated.
  • Coverage on the Signpost [7].
  • 3 email sends were sent to 8,500 people on the Africa Centre database and 2 separate specialist sends of 357 to Francophone media.
  • Information was sent out via the African Wikimedians mailing list [8].
  • and, of course, information was provided on the Wikimedia projects (village pumps).

Some of the media coverage can be found here: [9]

Communications materialEdit

See more ...

Local TeamsEdit

In 2014 the focus teams were chosen according to initial enthusiasm. In 2015, there were more local volunteer groups who wanted to be part of the project, and, due to a request by the Wikimedia Foundation to keep the number of focus groups to 8 and not increase it, we created a vetting process.

In 2015 the groups applied to be part of the project by submitting a project plan and budget. Volunteer groups that were keen to participate were encouraged to enter a proposal [10]. There were 10 proposals and eight of them were financed as per the Wiki Loves Africa budget negotiated with the WMF. The teams that were chosen were in Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Tunisia, Tanzania and Uganda. These are the local organisers' experiences of the Wiki Loves Africa 2015 competition:

  • Wiki loves Africa in 2015 run on a theme that hadn't been my first choice but it later turned out to be a time of discovery especially when it comes to different cultures. It involved taking photographs of people on streets and working through puzzled stares. But it was a good time that involved working with newer faces.
  • This my second year of organising Wiki Loves Africa, with the Tunisian Team we have organised 5 events.
  • Very challenging as it was the first time organised in Cameroon. You had to encourage people to participate and a lot of training to get them versed with Wiki.
  • In my capacity as chairman of Wikimedia Ivory Coast, I supervised the conduct of the project in the country.
  • I was one [of] the two coordinators of Wiki Loves Africa 2015 in Côte d'Ivoire. I contributed to plan, to organize and to make effective the different activities of the contest in Côte d'Ivoire.
  • Wiki Loves Africa in 2015 was a very first experience and was unique in terms of relationships. We met and trained many people and great work has been done, as well as awareness.
  • It was great this year.
  • Great experience, it permit me to meet with the photograph community to many Algerians to discover the open knowledge, the creative commons, this terms are very important to have a easy contact and facilitate the organization of this kinds of contest like wiki loves it is always an opportunity to tell face to people why we are on these projects projects that we have not on them any material compensation.
  • It was a bit of a challenge in Tanzania it being the first time to have national organizers. One of the things i can point out is bringing sponsors on board was a huge challenge. We did as much as we could to reach out to them but their response was so low. The other is, people's interest towards contributing their content for the competition was a hustle.
  • It’s an eye opener to the extent and diversities involved in African heritage and fashions.
  • I have a good experience about the project.

Local eventsEdit

The chosen 8 countries went on to host events that drove contributions in those countries.
The events that happened can be found on here local events on Commons and the report feedback is available via the team's event feedback forms.

42 events were organised in 8 countries.

  • 5 events in Algeria (2 workshops/training, 2 presentations/upload sessions and 1 celebration)
  • 6 events in Cameroon (2 edit-a-thon/training, 2 upload sessions, 1 press conference and one Exhibition event)
  • 2 events in Egypt (photo trips)
  • 12 events in Ivory Coast (edit-a-thon, upload sessions, photo hunts, ceremony)
  • 3 events in Nigeria
  • 1 or 5 events in Tunisia (organizers did not complete the feedback form as required, but there is evidence of several events)
  • 5 events in Tanzania (photo hunts and upload events)
  • 4 events in Uganda (edit-a-thon, photo hunts and upload events)

The teams were asked “What were the successes of hosting Wiki Loves Africa events in your country?” They responded with the following:

  • It brought more coverage of cultural fashion in Uganda and got people to understand more about Wikipedia. From Fashion they asked about general things about Wikipedia.
  • New users involved in Wikimedia projects
  • We now have a database of all those passionate about wiki. We can easily rally ourselves and start thinking of starting a user group.
  • New partnership and collaboration, new contributors and better organization for our user group.
  • Public awareness; Popular participation; Good organization of the team of Wikimedia User Group of Côte d'Ivoire; Numerous partnerships with individuals and institutions.
  • These events enabled to organize the exhibition of the best pictures in competition, train participants and establish a team.
  • Get new editors for Wikipedia.
  • With a small team - we have had good results.
  • Local Photographer had something to challenge their skills. We had models as well who shared their work with the rest of the world instead.
  • 1. Sense of belonging, 2. Popularity of the product (Wikimedia), 3. Increase in our membership count, 4.Increase in Nigeria Images on Heritage and Fashions on Wikimedia Common.
  • Community engagement.

Many more pictures are available here.

Extension project: The Photographic GuideEdit

In collaboration with Wikimedia France, a Photographic Guide was published to coincide with the launch of Wiki Loves Africa 2015. It is hoped that this will be translated into English to be ready for any future Wiki Loves competitions.

 
Guide Photographique Wiki Loves Africa (Format web)

Images collectedEdit

The contest resulted in over 7,508 Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2015 images uploaded by 734 [10] users who uploaded one or images. By March 2016, 48 of these were deemed "Quality images" and 2 were placed as "Featured Pictures" and 391 unique images were used 494 times on wiki mainspace pages [11].

All African countries were welcome to participate to the contest. But Tunisia won in terms of participation with 1242 pictures [12] submitted from IP addresses within that country.

Jury, winning pictures and winnersEdit

The photo contest entries were reviewed by a panel of experts, which collectively, identified the best of images from Wiki Loves Africa 2015.

Jury
A jury of 10 people selected 3 of the prize winners. The Jury was made up of a range of Wikimedians from Africa and Europe with a few Africa-based photographic or fashion specialists.

  • Oguntimehin .A. ARIYO (Nigeria): an artist, documentary photographer and a freelance photojournalist.
  • Sylvain BOISSEL (France): a developer and wikimedian, currently working as a systems and network administrator for Wikimedia France.
  • Fanta KONE (@fantastyck) self defined as a Digital Girl.
  • Jacques KOUAO (Ivory Coast): a professional photographer who, with bloggers and friends, decided to visit various cities of Ivory Coast in search of these men and women that provide real and pragmatic solutions to the problems of their communities. Jacques is also co- founder of the Wikimedia User Group Ivory Coast.
  • Habib M'HENNI (Tunisia): long time Wikipedian and Wikimedian, amateur photographer, and contributor to Wikimedia Commons. Habib is very actively involved in Wikimedia Tunisia User Group.
  • Samson NGUMENAWE (Uganda): a geographer and an amateur photographer from Uganda. He is a fresh Wikipedian who joined Wikipedia in 2015 under the username Ngumenawe.
  • Yetty OGUNNUBI (Yetty D) (Nigeria): a professional in the Fashion and Art Industry in London and Nigeria (where she lives).
  • Céline RABAUD (France): a young wikipedian and is also member of Wikimedia France. She combines her activities as a photographer, her passion for heritage and interest in collaboration through Wikimedia projects.
  • Paul WEINBERG (South Africa) a South African-born documentary photographer, filmmaker, writer, curator, educationist and archivist. He began his career in the early 1980s by working for South African NGOs, and photographing current events for news agencies and foreign newspapers.
  • Siwar HORCHANI ZARROUK, an industrial chemical engineer, is passionate about photography and blogging.

Prize winners selection
There were three rounds for the jury. The first was on the WLX Jury Tool with only experienced Wikimedians who created the long list. The full jury took part in the 2nd round on the WLX Jury Tool to come to the short list. The full jury also took part in the final selection on a google sheet due to problems with the WLX tool. The selection process for the third round is available here [13].

Jury Winners

Community prize
The Community Prize was decided between the 5th and the 15th of February. Community members from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons members chose from the top 39 (these images of course did not include the top 3 winners that had already been selected by the official jury).

Prizes
The prizes in 2015 were:

  • 1st prize: a Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 + an Africa-published book + Mystery gifts from the Wikimedia Store + print of the participant winning picture
  • 2nd prize: US$300 Amazon gift + an Africa-published book + Mystery gifts from the Wikimedia Store + print of the 2nd prize picture
  • 3rd prize: US$200 Amazon gift + an Africa-published book + Mystery gifts from the Wikimedia Store + print of the 3rd prize picture
  • Community Prize: US$200 Amazon gift voucher + an Africa-published book + Mystery gifts from the Wikimedia Store + print of the Community Prize

National prizes
Some local teams also organised local juries, prizes and ceremonies for their countries.

In Cameroon, the team organised an exhibition at the Institut Francais of quality photographs from the competition, including the winners : c:Category:Exposition in Cameroon.

Lessons learnedEdit

What worked well?

We have compiled a page on Commons that details results and best practices (as we did in 2014). Here is a summary of what worked well and what didn't work so well:

  • Having done it before, the project was as effective, if not more so, this year. Teams knew what they needed to do and did more. New teams joined. New volunteer groups got together and did amazingly well considering their newbie status.
  • Marketing material was available centrally and ready for all teams to work with as they needed it.
  • There was more experience from the teams and more targeted effort (events were planned when groups made their proposals).
  • The continental team was more efficient with processes, suggestions and support. There was less delays in getting things done.
  • Communications lines and expectations were clearer, more efficient and effective.
  • Invoicing and payment communication was clearer and although there were a few unexpected problems, this was sorted out with more ease than previously.
  • The local teams all provided timeous feedback and updated the various channels as they need (so much better than the first year!).
  • Having created the site notice pages the year before, the support on Commons was virtually seamless. The wizard was easily adapted and it all worked very well.
  • The theme was one that people easily understood, and got excited about.
  • The overall quality of submissions rose.
  • Again, there were key people in the global community and at the Foundation that we could not have done without. These were user:Romaine (site notice), user:Ilya (for the voting tool), Erik Zachte and Jaime Anstee (stats), the Wikimedia Grants team, and the WMF blog team. We also got huge help from user:Ji-Elle (Jacqueline Louviot) to better categorize and clean-up all incoming pictures (including contacting some of the authors). We also were very much supported by Wikimedia France (photographic book and communication). And generally got more visibility from within the community (such as the SignPost article).
What didn’t work so well?
  • In 2014 we asked the teams to contribute to the blog. It had dubious results. This year we didn’t ask them. And so the website was less busy than it could have been.
  • There was a delay in dispatching the initial batch of funding as the Reserve Bank of South Africa’s exchange control required more paperwork than we had previously been required to do. This caused internal confusion and delayed the initial payment of funds.
  • Translation issues : Last year a member of the community translated the website into Arabic. This year the community was not so excited (or perhaps considered it was not so useful to translate ?). The site, as a consequence, remained bi-lingual. Similarly, the Commons pages mostly stayed bilingual.
  • Translation issues (cont) : The technical translation issues met in 2014 were easier to deal with this year, but… we met an expected problem : The contest main page was at the same time meant to be taggued for translation BUT also protected. The appalling consequence was that it could not be moved, nor renamed, nor tagged again for translation unless done by a special editor with both admin AND translation rights. Requests for help on the translator noticeboard went totally unnoticed and calls on individual user talk pages went unanswered. This suggested that there were not enough editors with the right access to help. After a couple of weeks, I (Anthere) called u:Romaine for help and he saved the day (the month). As the translation issues are so time consuming, I did not called for help to get the pages translated in more languages than English and French.
  • The WLX Jury Tool was challenging:
  • Frustrating and took (a lot of) time to set up, as it had very little support.
  • The final 3rd round of votes by the jury was finally done on a google spreadsheet as it was easier and took less time than trying to get the WLX Jury Tool set up for an additional round.
  • There have been complaints that the Jury process was not transparent. We understand this issue and really hope that next year there is a solution for all the WLX projects. Whilst the WLX Jury Tool is probably the best tool we have at the moment, it only provides two different type of access : the organizer of the vote has access to absolutely everything. The jury member only has access to his own vote. And others have access to... nothing. This does not help building consensus between jury members and it does not provide the level of transparency appreciated by our community.
We are trying to get the Jury Tool better supported for all the WLX projects, as we had a terrible time with this one. You can see u:Anthere’s submission to the Idea Lab here : Grants:IdeaLab/WLX Jury Tool : improved tool and great service
  • There was a schedule clash between the WMF funding drive with regards to the site notice on French Wikipedia. This was obviously a problem for diasporic members of the contest.
  • Last year the Crowdfunding campaign didn’t work at all. This year, we started earlier. We changed the tone and campaign to make it more engaging. We emotionally blackmailed friends and family … and it did work - to a certain extent. We raised US$525 out of the US$1,200 we needed to cover the prizes. Only $454.70 arrived in the Africa Centre accounts.
  • This year we split the payment for each team into two payments. The first was sent at the beginning of the competition (see the note about delayed payment above). The second was released in December, once reporting and receipts were sent through. Although there was much more accountability as a result of the split payment, the split meant that many of the team leaders were out of pocket for a month or two until they could sort out their internal finances. We think this possibly caused undue stress and internal issues among volunteers.
  • We have had conflicting numbers with regards to the statistics for the project. Both Erik and Jaime have been amazing in supplying stats, but the main numbers conflict. We have taken the numbers that seem to align with what makes sense.

With the local teams, the challenges they faced included:

  • Troubles with spreading word of mouth.
  • Limited finances and sponsorship for national campaign (mentioned twice).
  • Lack of trained Wikipedians.
  • People who doubted the credibility of Wikipedia and Wikimedia.
  • People who feared the internet.
  • Availability problem and time to volunteer.
  • The voting procedures are complicated.
  • Poor Internet quality.
  • Loading of Images.
  • Understanding of Open movement.

One team reported that the reporting and administrative requirements this year were too time consuming and not flexible enough (which probably explain why this team final reporting information is missing). It suggested that the contest was occurring too rapidly after Wiki Loves Monuments, which accounted for volunteers fatigue and lesser motivation.

What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?

We really hope that the competition will run again next year. We would like to make it clear that the weak points outlined above are relatively easy to fix, and we intend to work on them to ensure that they are not such an issue this year.

We asked the focus teams what changes they would like to see for future Wiki Loves Africa competitions. Here were their answers:

Timing related:

  • The date should not be after wiki loves monuments, I propose January and February

Funding related:

  • The budget for the competition should be increased. There was less traveling because of the limited funds.
  • Increase in the amount of funding and training for organisers.
  • Project funds should come ahead of time for early preparations. The winners should get prizes more valuable than the current ones. (These will motivate the crowds more) National Organisers should one way or another be recognised. As much as we are volunteering, we need to get something out of all this.
  • Increase funding.

Organisational timing

  • Communicate earlier the theme of the contest to allow people to be better prepared.
  • Central organisation and local team must perform their tasks diligently.

Increased local support and opportunities

  • Organise photo exhibition under the logo Wiki Loves Africa.
  • Give more support for the local communities.
  • Creating a prize to encourage the active local group. Criteria can be: events (number, impact), photos (quantity & quality), number of contributors, etc..

Increased role of local groups

  • Local teams’ skills and activities with local countries should be strengthened for more autonomy; partnerships with institutions should be built.
  • I think it is good if local teams self organise. There is still a challenge of raising money [from local sources]. The decentralisation can be done gradually as the local teams grow and become independent.

The focus teams were also asked what could be done in future Wiki Loves Africa to increase participation and engagement …

  • Giving rewards to participants at the country level.
  • More community management, on Facebook and Twitter.
  • Creating articles in local African languages.
  • More Wikithons in several regions.
  • Creating category between professional and nonprofessional.
  • Communicate earlier on the competition and theme of the year.
  • Upgrade the different prizes of the contest.
  • There is a need of having a local jury to support participants and field trips with provision of cameras for participants, and having some motivation for participants (sponsoring).
  • Organise photos workshops / gather people around a tour.
  • Having National Prizes for Winners on the national level. I know the national organisers should handle this, but with the experience I have had, getting funds or someone to sponsor this is hard.
  • Prompt planning.
  • Entertainment.

From the centralised organisers side, we believe that the following will improve the effectiveness of the project:

  • Earlier disbursement of funds to ensure that the teams are able to receive the funds early.
  • A larger amount going to local teams to ensure that there is no limitation as to travel and event planning.

Next steps
After the competition, a survey form [14] was sent to the 8 Focus Teams to collect information related to the events that they hosted. One of the questions we asked was about their willingness to be involved in a 2016 version of the competition.

With this in mind, the Wiki Loves Africa team is already working towards the next contest

  • It is likely to be held more or less over the same period - end of the year in 2016 (but maybe not exactly Oct-Nov, or maybe not 2 full months, depending on the theme chosen);
  • Although the vote will go out to the community, focus teams have already been asked what themes they would like to see in the 2016 competition. There was overwhelming support for Architecture as a theme, with Music/Entertainment, Daily life and Cultural artefacts also being suggested;
  • The exhibition issue will be revisited;
  • The issue with regards to holding National prizes will be revisited;
  • The possibility for mature groups to apply either through the global funding scheme or through individual grant requests will be discussed;
  • Voting tools and platform service require improvement. Wikimedia France has been approached and agreed to provide tech/admin support if needed;
  • An increased effort to facilitate reuse after the contest will be revisited;

The change of schedule in the grant system should facilitate issues related to financial management and funds flow.

Outcomes and impactEdit

OutcomesEdit

Provide the original project goal here.

Wiki Loves Africa (WLAf) is an annual contest where people across Africa can contribute media (photographs, video and audio) about their environment on Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia and other project websites of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wiki Loves Africa particularly encourages participants to contribute media that illustrate a specific theme for that year. Each year the theme changes and could include any such universal, visually rich and culturally specific topics (for example, markets, rites of passage, festivals, public art, cuisine, natural history, urbanity, daily life, notable persons, etc).

The project is a two-month competition which will start on the 1st October and end on the 30th November.

The project will be run at the entire continental level. However, some specific actions (training, communication etc.) will be held in some countries with national organisers.

The project will feature a contest to select the best media at the continental level, with prizes as deemed appropriate.

The aim of the Wiki Loves Africa project is to provide support for national organisers, and organise the continental layer of WLA. The framework that will be developed could serve as a template for future editions of the WLA, thus expanding the value of the project well beyond its actual lifespan.

The theme for the 2014 photo contest was Wiki Loves Africa Cuisine. The theme for the 2015 photo contest has been chosen as Wiki Loves Africa 2015: Cultural Fashion and Adornment. The theme for 2015 was chosen after 1 month of open nominations for themes, and one month of voting on the nominated themes.

Wiki Loves Africa 2015 : Cultural Fashion and Adornment

The competition scope will be: Submissions of media that feature cultural dress and fashion; specifically fashion that is defined by local cultural influences and determines cloth, styles, ways of wrapping and hanging, etc. This theme would include adornment, that includes culturally defined jewellery, make-up, hairstyles, draped cloths and woven materials.

Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 short paragraphs.

The competition was held on the dates expected. 7,508 images were uploaded by 722 registered users from across Africa and beyond were entered and (mostly) complied to the theme. 42 events were successfully held in 8 countries by focus team members. The 10 member Jury chose 3 winners, the 4th winner was chosen by a community vote. All the actions indicated in the project proposal was successfully conducted.

Progress towards targets and goalsEdit

Project metrics

Target outcome Achieved outcome Explanation
Aim for an average of 750 media files uploaded to the contest by each CNO (this level of contribution is expected to be an average of all the contributing countries) 681 on average per CNO Half of the CNOs were new to the project. It was no surprise that the largest contributing countries were Cote d’Ivoire, Cameroon and Tunisia who are well established and organised. The newer teams of Algeria, Tanzania and Uganda showed a lot of enthusiasm, and spent much valuable time concentrating on training and licencing.
Minimum of 8,000 media uploaded from across the continent Final count after cleaning is 7,508 Falling short by 492 entries is not a bad result.
Minimum of 400 uploaders from across the continent 722 registered users entered media to the competition goal achieved
Minimum of 7 countries to join the contest as CNOs 8 countries joined as CNOs / 10 applied goal achieved
A minimum of 8 events focused on content integration Over 8 integration events [15]
9 months after the contest has ended, at least 25 new users become active contributors (5 edits per month in any of the Wikimedia projects) no data yet it is too early for this outcome to be reported on
Reuse on Wikimedia projects of at least 8% 5.43% per [16] still not enough, but better than last year :)
A grant request is accepted successfully, and a report is produced according to the request Grant accepted / report been written Outcome achieved
A survey is executed among local organisers, showing high levels of satisfaction with the continental team Survey conducted / when asked to rate the organisation of competition by the team, 16.7% rated as excellent and efficient, 66.7% as Great and helpful and 8.3% as Good. Outcome achieved. 83.4% rated above average performance
A list of improvements is proposed for the following year list included in report Outcome achieved. List included in “What would you do differently” section of this report
The African finale is successfully completed. done Outcome achieved
The prizes are handed out before May 2016, with a possible exception for travel-related prizes. The prizes have been dispatched and will arrive by end of March 2016. Outcome achieved
Documentation is available for all those organising a local Wiki Loves Africa contest. Documentation is available on Meta, Commons and the Wiki Loves Africa website Outcome achieved


Global MetricsEdit

We are trying to understand the overall outcomes of the work being funded across our grantees. In addition to the measures of success for your specific program (in above section), please use the table below to let us know how your project contributed to the Global Metrics. We know that not all projects will have results for each type of metric, so feel free to put "0" where necessary.

  1. Next to each required metric, list the actual outcome achieved through this project.
  2. Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome. For example, if you were funded for an edit-a-thon which resulted in 0 new images, your explanation might be "This project focused solely on participation and articles written/improved, the goal was not to collect images."

For more information and a sample, see Global Metrics.

Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved 595 were existing users
2. # of new editors 116 were newly registered users for the event
3. # of individuals involved 734 contributing users
4a. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 391 unique images used 494 times on wiki mainspace pages
4b. # of new images/media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Optional) 7508
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 504 total images usage
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 11197081.0
Learning question
Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?
81% of contributors were existing Wikimedia users. Although it might indicate that not enough outreach had been done during the project, it also could indicate that many of the people who were involved in last year’s project re-entered. Which would show increased motivation.


ImpactEdit

What impact did this project have on WMF's mission and the strategic priorities?
How did you increase participation in one or more Wikimedia projects?

The project saw 116 new editors (down from 598 in 2014) and 595 existing users enter n the competition with 7,508 entries (up from 6736 in 2014). There were over 20,276 non-media pages edited by competition users during the course of the 2 month event and 1,936 non-media pages were created.
The feedback from the focus teams claimed that the competition raised public awareness, brought new editors, increased membership to volunteer projects and increased participation.

How did you improve quality on one or more Wikimedia projects?

The competition added 7,508 images about a relatively sparsely covered cultural subject (diverse cultural fashion and adornment) from a geographical area (Africa). By March 2016, 48 of these were deemed "Quality images" and 2 were placed as "Featured Pictures" and 391 unique images were used 494 times on wiki mainspace pages.
With the addition of the photographic guide in collaboration with Wikimedia France, and by encouraging the teams to work with local professional photographers and photographic groups, the project has helped to encourage professional submissions of photographs to Wikimedia projects, as well as a greater understanding of the licensing implications.

How did you increase the reach (readership) of one or more Wikimedia projects?

The project encouraged new and old editors on the continent (and many from outside the continent) to focus on a theme that was easy to access. In 2015, 81% of the contributors were existing users of Wikipedia, compared to 68% of the entrants being new contributors in 2014. The number of contributors leapt to 734 (from 598 in 2014).
With regards to the focus teams, four new countries (Algeria, Cameroon, Nigeria and Tanzania) were involved in the project this year, ensuring that 12 countries are now experienced in the competition. Almost all the focus teams saw a dramatic rise in the level of national entries, but the participation from the new countries was particularly marked with, for example, Cameroon increasing from 78 to 871 entries and Tanzania from 180 to 501 entries.

Reporting and documentation of expendituresEdit

The release of funds happened according to plan. There was very little deviation from the plan. The only notable issue was the contribution of US$454.70 to the prizes from crowd funding, this was less than the US$1200 hoped. In this case, the remaining funding for prizes has come from the contingency section.

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.

The full expense sheet is available on this document.

Category Item description Unit Number of units Unit price in US dollars Currency Budget 2015 Actual spend Organisers comment
1 Project Staffing Co-project manager - FR months 5 1,500.00 USD 7500 7500.00
1 Project Staffing Co-project manager - ENG months 5 900.00 USD 4500 4780.26 This covered a quarter of the salary of Isla at the Africa Centre.
1 Project Staffing Administrative and financial management support months 5 411.00 USD 0 0 This was covered by the Africa Centre.
1 Communication Design, Identity and Communication per item 1 1,200.00 USD 1200 1088.58
2 Communication In-country communication and materials per country 10 120.00 USD 960 820
2 Events Meetup, edit-a-thon, activations, workshops or upload sessions, Wiki Takes and photo hunt events per country 10 700.00 USD 5600 5647.19
3 Prizes Continental prizes x 4 (photo-related vouchers, photo safari, devices, etc.) general cost 2,000.00 USD 0 1645.34 Although US$453.70 was secured by the project from the crowd funding campaign, it was not enough to cover the full amount required by the prizes. This money was taken from the Contingency line item.
4 Prizes Prize winners printed general cost 200.00 USD 200 138.98
4 Prizes Postage of prizes per item 4 125.00 USD 125.00 500 405.66
4 Judges / Sponsors Thank you goodies and postage general cost 500.00 USD 500 338.75
5 Additional elements Contingency general cost 2,000.00 USD 2000 233.21 This section has included the bank charges that result from cross-continental payments.
6 totals 22,585 22,760 +454.70 =23,214.70 22,597.97 total budget equals WMF grant and pledges from Indiegogo campaign
Category spending summaryEdit
Subtotals budget spend Percentage
1 Project Staffing 12,000 12,280.26 102.3%
2 Communication 2,160 19,08.58 88.4%
3 Events 5,600 5,647.19 100.8%
4 Prizes 500 21,89.98 438.0%
5 Judges / Sponsors 500 338.75 67.8%
6 Additional elements 2,000 233.21 11.7%
Total 22,760 22,597.97 99.3%
Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
35,950 USD
Total amount requested from WMF (from your approved grant submission, this total will be the same as the total project budget if PEG is your only funding source)
22,760 USD
Total amount spent on this project
22,597.97 USD
Total amount of Project and Event grant funds spent on this project
22,143.27 USD
Are there additional sources that funded any part of this project? List them here.
Indigogo campaign = USD454.70
Funding from Africa Centre for:
  • Project management
  • Financial and administration support

Remaining fundsEdit

Remaining funds from this grant have been returned to WMF in the amount of US$616.73.
Are there any grant funds remaining?
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.)
616.73 USD
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.

Return unused funds to WMF