Grants:PEG/WM ES/Wiki Loves Monuments Spain 2013/Report

Report accepted
This report for a Project and Event grant approved in FY 2013-14 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 completion

Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
Is your project completed?
Did you use any of the grant funds?

Activities and lessons learned


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.



The key activities performed throughtout this project:

Summary of key activities (chronologically)
  • Search for partners and supporters (mainly other websites). We could find some supporters but unfortunately no partners. When we were near to the launch of the contest and we didn't have any partner for the prizes, then we planned to ask for this grant, but not before.
  • Look for support from some regional governments (as supporters or partners, but also to give us new lists of monuments and release material).
  • Update the external site (in different languages) and the Commons site: Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Spain
  • Search for jury members. At the end, there were six members instead of five, because OKFN Spain didn't confirm it to us until the moment we already had five members. Two members were previous WLM winners, one a wikimedian, one an expert in art and finally one a person from Open Knowledge and one from cultural management world.
  • Create a group in Flickr for WLM. This is a very important source of very high quality images.
  • Ask for funds to finance the prizes of WLM in Spain.
  • Promote the contenst inside and outside Wikimedia. We didn't have a mail list of newspapers and web sites and we had to do it by hand. We learned from it and we are still working in a complete list. We promote the contest also in a dedicated website, on our blog, Twitter and Facebook accounts and sending e-mails. Supporting websites helped us with this promotion on their web sites.
  • Move files from Flickr to Commons after revising they fulfilled the project policies.
  • Let the jury select the top 10 pictures.
  • Verify that the winners fulfill all criterias (copyright, licensing, active email adress, right ID, right timing) and subimission to the international organisation
  • Get in touch with the winners and send the prizes (either directly from a shop online or from WMES, e.g. diploms)
  • Write this inform.
Activities performed throughout the process
  • Improve the existing monument listing (updates, including new monuments, pictures of monuments that had none), see here. The complete "lists of lists" can be found on our site. We created also new lists for this year.
  • Improve categories and description of uploaded pictures on Wikimedia Commons. During the process we could fix some mistakes and also classify old pictures.
  • Use the uploaded pictures in the Wikimedia projects (this tool with this category: "Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Spain", as of December 16th 11,3% of the 23.000 pictures used in Wikimedia projects)
  • Gather media news and web sites about the contest in Spain, see directory here (43 mentions)

Lessons learned

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?
Effort to reorganize the contest was lower than last year thank to the infrastructure in place (e.g. website with variables from last year to be changed centrally in order to get all subpages updated)
Some associations wanted to be supporters.
The new tool for the jury helped versus last year.
More traffic in our web site.
More press and web sites mentions.
What did not go well?
The amount of pictures collected was much lower than last year, mainly because people already took pictures of the places around them and cool factor of a new project decreased in this third edition. Also the amount of participants was lower. This was a trend among many countries, mainly where the contest had been held several times.
What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?
We would focus on monuments without pictures, asking people to go a bit further to photograph them and at the same time discover new places in their provinces where they wouldn't usually be. Also asking for parts of monuments not represented, like interiors.
We would try to create additional lists with more monuments. We already accessed new information of other monuments of some regions.
Contact with photographic associations and associations related to concrete regions with a low amount of participants or pictures uploaded.
Try to develop some activities like Wiki Takes and workshops about Wikimedia and Wikimedia Commons.
Maybe we could include a survey for participants in Spain to evaluate their preferences. Also asking to participants in previous editions to know why they carry on participate or why they leave the contest and didn't participate in the other editions.

Project goal and measures of success

Provide the project goal here.

Copied from the grant request:

The overall purpose of WLM is to increase the material related to monuments with a free license in Commons. With the scope that we are asking funding for we want to finance the cost of the awards to the context winners. The prizes are a stimulus to increase the amount of people participating in the contest and sowith increase the amount of material in Commons than can be used in different articles, along with new contributors to the Wikimedia movement. At the same time and without charge of the WMF there is a widen promotion of the contest online in Spain.
Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 paragraphs.
We believe that the overall goal was achieved, although participation was lower, the promotion of the event was higher. The contest had more mentions and people start to know better Wikimedia projects and Wiki Loves Monuments. We received more e-mail asking for new contest and more lists of monuments from people who liked this kind of projects, and however, they weren't editors.
We were aware of a decrease in the participation (half photographers and 55% of photographs) but, at the same time, we believe that the quality and diversity of the pictures is better, and we could gain some new contributors through a higher diffusion of the contest. Some times, a higher quality of the pictures could discourage some people to participate. But now, we are looking also more quality despite more quantity of pictures of the most well represented monuments.

Measures of success

List the measures of success exactly as provided in the approved grant submission, and evaluate your project according to each measure listed there.

Note: copied from the grant request:

Amount of media participating in the contest within Spain: success is over 20,000 files: 22,873 or 23,064
Amount of single users participating in the contest: success is over 500: 400 in Commons and 44 in our Flick group
Amount of new editors still active 6 months after the contest ended: success is over 15: Too early to provide this figure
Amount of articles in the Wikimedia projects using this material after 6 months: success is 5,000: Currently (4 months after the end of the contest) and according to this tool the total file usage is 3,690 and the distinct files used 2,518.

In addition, we have internal metrics in WMES:

Page views of the relevant webpage. For the external site we have experienced an increase from 1,4 million visits in 2012 to 2,3 million in 2013 visits (not requests, those are higher, but actual visits).
Mentions in press or other web sites. The contest had at least 43 mentions. Lower than in 2012, but it is normal because many of them in 2012 talked about the success of some images of Spain (especially the second position) in the international contest.
Provide an overall assessment of how your project went according to these measures.
We have noticed that the contest is loosing freshness and we need to reorientate it, so that it remains attractive. We have already listed some ideas above, but we need to look for the best way. We still think that WLM has a high potential in Spain, with thousands of monuments without image, and thousands not listed yet. However, we have only three year experience and this is actually a very short sample to evaluate the trend.
On the other side, our efforts to promote the contest have derived in a higher traffic in our website and mentions in other web sites and on-line newspapers. More support from associations and local governments could change the last year trend.
If you were to plan a similar project, would you measure it differently? If yes, please explain how.
We think that the current metrics were sufficient, and would possibly include the site traffic and mentions in the press as measures of success. Maybe we could include a survey for participants in Spain to evaluate their preferences.


  • One of the known key targets of WLM is increasing participation with new contributors in Commons that will hopefully also edit in other Wikimedia projects.
  • We have improved the quality of the movements for those 3690 articles (as of January 30th) that have got so far pictures from WLM 2013 in Spain, and improved also the monument listings on different Wikipedias and Wikimedia Commons categories.
  • We have increased the reach of the movement through participation and promotion, over 2 million visitors in Spain's WLM website and 43 mentions are good proofs of that.
  • We have contributed in the overall success of WLM worldwide ranking #5 in terms of participating pictures.
  • Two pictures are among the 40 pictures of the International Jury Report. More than 50 Quality Images and 2 Featured Pictures so far.

Reporting and documentation of expenditures


This section describes the grant's use of funds

Documentation of expenditures has been received by WMF.


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".


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 Actual cost per unit Actual total Budgeted total Currency Notes
1 Awards Tablet Nexus 7 32 GB Wiki 1 tablet 1 273.99 273.99 249.00 EUR First prize
2 Awards External Hard Disk Drive 2 Tb 2.5" 1 HDD 1 119.99 119.99 123.90 EUR Second prize
3 Awards External Hard Disk Drive 1 Tb 2.5" 1 HDD 2 59.99 + 63.99 = 123.98 123.98 122.60 EUR Third prize and photographer who uploaded most pictures. Note: there are two different prices because we bought the HDD on different days.
4 Awards Exemplar of the book Wikipedia de la A a la W, Author:Tomás Saorín, 2012, Editorial: UOC, ISBN: 978-84-9029-012-5 1 book 15 12.50 201.50 200.00 EUR Planned: 10 best photographers, uploader #1 and 5 jury members; At the end: we had 6 jury members but 7 different finalists + the most uploads. We still have one of the books because one of the finalist didn't answered yet to provide his / her address, and we keep the book with the hope that he or she will answer us in the future. The actual price per book was 12.5 EUR like we planned, but we have paid a charge and shipping expenses.
5 Certificates Printout of certificates 1 certificate 17 0 22.00 EUR 10 best photographers and uploader #1; not relevant, we made it ourself. In addition we sent also certificates to the jury members.
6 Internet Domain and web hosting for site 1 package 1 12.64 12.64 30.00 EUR None
7 Shipping Shipping to up to 16 persons 1 shipment 16 26.00 80.00 EUR Note that some shipping costs were included in the cost of the purchase
8 Unforeseen Expenses that cannot be planned at this moment 15% of estimated budget 0,15 0 0 124.125 EUR There were not any unforeseen costs

Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
951.625 EUR
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)
951.625 EUR
Total amount spent on this project (this total should be the total calculated from the table above)
758.10 EUR
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)
758.10 EUR
Are there additional sources of revenue that funded any part of this project? List them here.

Remaining funds

Remaining funds are retained by the grantee with WMF's permission until a decision is delivered on Grants:PEG/WM ES/CUSL8.. After this date, please return any remaining unused grant funds to WMF following the instructions at Grants:Return unused funds to WMF.
Are there any grant funds remaining?
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.)
193.525 EUR
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.
New grant request: Grants:PEG/WM ES/CUSL8