Open main menu

Grants:PEG/WM ZA/WLM-ZA-2014/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.


WLM ZA 2014

Hello! Did you read the current instructions for submitting a grant report at the Grants:Index?
Please answer "Yes!" or "No!"
If your answer is "No," please take a moment to review the current instructions before returning to this question.''

Yes

The basicsEdit

A. Compliance:

Did you comply with the requirements in your grant agreement?
Yes

B. Completion:

Did you finish your project? If not, please explain.
Yes

C. Documents:

Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to grants at wikimedia dot org, according to the guidelines?
Filed in Dropbox - shared with Foundation

D. Unused funds:

Amount of grant funds not used:
Yes - ZAR 8 596.39 / USD 648.79


Unused grant funds must be returned to WMF immediately unless you have submitted a request for reallocation (only possible for amounts less than US$500.00 or its equivalent) or unless you are retaining the grant funds with WMF's written permission.


Goals, activities and measures of successEdit

Project goalEdit

Please list the goal(s) you defined in your grant submission. Did you meet your goal(s)?

 
Winner - Leanri van Heerden
 
2nd Place - Robbie Aspeling
 
3rd Place - Chris Snelling


The aim of this project was to encourage and facilitate the capturing and upload of photographs of South African heritage sites or monuments under free licensing during heritage month. We also wanted to encourage those who upload photographs to write about their monument on Wikipedia in their local language choice.

A secondary objective was to increase the quality of photographs submitted, and increase the number of participants.

We believe that we were successful in achieving our goals.

This year, a total of 94 participants in the South African leg of the competition submitted a total of 4 032 photographs to Commons. This constitutes 15177.7 MB of data. The top contributor submitted a total of 1 093 photographs.

The quality of photographs has increased slightly every year. We consider the quality of this year's submissions the best in terms of quality since the start of the competition in South Africa in 2012.


ActivitiesEdit

Please describe in detail what you actually did. Provide links where applicable.


WMZA actively promoted the Wiki Loves Monuments Competition with the following :

  • Several Press Statements to various media houses, radio stations and mailing lists
- Celebrating SA Heritage one picture at a time
- Mid Event Update Press Release
- End of Competition Press Release
  • Advertising the competition through the ORMS mailing list ans social media which has a substantial number of photographers
- ORMS Mailshot
- ORMS Direct Facebook Page
  • Interviews with radio stations
- Fine Music Radio Interview
  • Interview on Espresso, a morning TV show
- Wiki Loves Monuments on Expresso
  • Social Media & Website Advertising
- Facebook
- Wiki Loves Monuments ZA
  • Contact and presentations with photographic societies / clubs to promote the competition
  • 'Scavenger Hunts'
We hosted several 'Scavenger Hunts' or 'Wiki takes (name of town)' events throughout the month of September. Heritage enthusiasts were invited to meet up at various sites to take photographs of monuments in the area. At the end of the day, participants got together at a central venue to upload the photographs.
Events were held on 20 September at the V&A Waterfront, 24 September (heritage day) in Simon's Town and on 27 September in Franschoek.


StrategyEdit

In 2014 we sought to increase the quality of submitted photographs even at the expense of number of submitted photographs. Key to achieving this goal was targeting photographic societies and increasing the profile of the competition amongst the photographic community in South Africa. A community that is largely concentrated in and around Cape Town which is also the largest concentration of registered heritage sites in South Africa. To achieve this we focused on publishing the competition with photographic societies, directly talking to photographers about the competition, and also leverage the 16,000 contacts in the photographic community that our event partners ORMS (one of the largest retailers of photographic equipment in Africa). A number of higher quality pictures were submitted by individuals who found us through ORMS whilst the only 'valued image' submitted in 2014 was submitted by a photographer who was directly contacted and invited to participate by the organisers. Normal media outreach and coverage through radio and newspapers was also expanded in 2014 thanks to the logistical support available due to the hiring of Wikimedia ZA's administrator.

Given the increased number of photographs that caught the judges attention we have concluded that we have been successful in attracting more photographers and hobbyist photographers to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments and plan to pursue a similar strategy in 2015.

Measures of SuccessEdit

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 8 A number of active editors participated in this competition, ranging from edits counting 1 511 to 43 899
2. # of new editors 72 These are participants who have contributed to a wiki for the first time. Although some have only uploaded photographs to Commons, there are those who have visited the en.wikipedia to make minor changes.
3. # of individuals involved 94 A total of 94 individuals participated in this competition
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 4 032 A total of 4 0 32 images were submitted during this competition, totally 15 177.7 MB of data
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 335 images Although some people were introduced to the Wiki's for the first time, we note that a few have made minor changes to the en.wikipedia. A total of 335 images have been used to date according to GLAM Tools
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 15 177.7 MB of images added One of the images submitted has been assessed under the valued image criteria and is considered the most valued image on Commons within the scope: RML 9 inch 12 ton gun.
Learning question
Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?
This year saw the increase in the number of participants showing an interest in not only contributing to Commons, but only contributing to Wikipedia. We want to build on this enthusiasm with various projects planned for 2015.


  • Increase the quality of photographs submitted in comparison to entries from the 2013 event.
This year's submissions were the best we have had in terms of quality since the start of the competition.
We attempted to compile a qualitative score so as to try and measure the 'average quality' of submitted pictures so as to see if the 'average quality' increase over the past year. We feel the results were misleading at first. If the total scores for the top 20 photographs in 2013 and 2014 are compiled then 2013's score (score: 463) was higher than the score for 2014 (score: 454). This would lead one to the mistaken conclusion that the average quality of the top 20 photographs had decreased by 9 points between 2013 and 2014. What transpired is that there was a greater number of high quality photographs submitted in 2014 meaning that many photographs in 2014's top 20 did not get a score as a number of photographs did not receive the judges attention. In short there were fewer photographs worth scoring in 2013 this meant that the few that were of high quality were concentrated in the top twenty and were guaranteed to receive a score from the judges whilst the large number of high quality images submitted in 2014 meant that the majority of photographs in the top 80 only received a score from one judge instead of all of them. If we compare the scores for 2013's top twenty in comparison to 2014's top forty photographs we get a score of 463 to 740. As such the numerical scoring system we used to work out quality quantitatively was not effective and the results were inconclusive. We have however received considerable qualitative feedback from numerous sources that 2014's winning photographs were of a higher quality than 2013. Unfortunately none of the submitted photographs in either 2013 or 2014 were rated as 'quality' images on Commons whilst 2014 did see one 'valued image' whilst 2013 produced no valued images.


  • Increase the number of participants submitting photographs in comparison to the number of entrants from the 2013 event.
We have increased participants from 89 in 2013 to 94 this year
  • Increase the diversity of pictures of monuments taken so that a larger total number of monuments in South Africa have a picture.
We have seen the upload of a wide variety of monuments to use on Commons. We feel that this could have been higher but due to the Copyright Act of 1978, some photographs were prohibited. This is discussed further in the report. Submissions ranged from breathtaking shots of South Africa's natural monuments such as Table Mountain, to action shots of heritage objects such as the 9 inch gun at Simon's Town being fired. This is the only one of its kind on Wikipedia and is now categorised as the most valued image on Wikipedia of such a gun.
  • Secondary metric of success: achieve 5 000 or more uploaded photographs of South African heritage sites during the month of September 2014. This objective is secondary to the above two. So if fewer than 5 000 photographs are submitted but over 80 people competed and the quality of the top twenty photographs has increased then it will be a success.
Although only 4 013 photographs were submitted, the number of participants were increased.
If you were to plan a similar project or similar activities, would you make any changes to the way you defined your measures of success? You may answer "No" if you would not make any changes.
No


Media CoverageEdit

We received very good coverage in the Media during the competition

 
Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 SA interview on Expresso

2014-09-02Edit

Help Wikimedia South Africa with photos and win prizes, htxt.Africa

2014-09-03Edit

Aspiring photographers, get clicking, Rebecca Jackman, Cape Times

2014-09-04Edit

Upload our heritage to Wikipedia – and win!, Cape Town Partnership.

2014-09-08Edit

Fine Music Radio interview, Fine Music Radio, 1:45pm.

2014-09-15Edit

2014-09-23Edit

Wiki Loves Monuments on Expresso, Expresso Show, SABC 3 (Television), 7:33am.

2014-10-20Edit

2014-10-21Edit

Award CeremonyEdit

The Wiki Loves Monuments Award Ceremony took place on Saturday, 1 November 2014 in Cape Town.

This event, held at the Slave Church in Long Street (a heritage site), celebrated the winners of the 2014 competition and included an exhibition of the winning photographs.

 
Best Submission - Western Cape
 
The Winners of the 2014 South African competition
 
Thanking one of the Judges

Lessons learnedEdit

What went well, and why?
Active media engagement to promote the competition. Our partnership with ORMS also provided a good platform to reach out to photographers around the country.
What did not go well, or what would you have done differently?
  1. We were disappointed that we could not accept photographs of recently built monuments. Most of these monuments commemorate South Africa's struggle against Apartheid, and it is very unfortunate that photographs of these important historic places cannot be submitted or used on Wikipedia. This is due to the ambiguous way in which the Copy Right Act of 1978 has been written. We are working with Creative Commons South Africa to get the law amended allowing everyone to fully celebrate the heritage of all South Africans.
  2. In 2015, with the assistance of ORMS, we would like to offer workshops to photography enthusiasts with the aim of improving submissions in 2015. This would also reduce the 'barriers' to participate whilst increasing the possible participation pool of accomplished photographers. It would also allow us to more effectively and directly communicate with possible future participants.
  3. We would like to organise large public events in the month preceding the competition to encourage people to enter into the competition.
  4. We believe that this Competition gives us the most impact as a Chapter. We consider this competition a good marketing platform. We need to focus our efforts in expanding the competition because we feel that there is still room for improvement. We are also considering a uniquely South African competition similar to WLM.
  5. Achieving these updated future goals will require that we start preparing for the competition even earlier in the year than we have done traditionally. Traditionally we started preparation for WLM in July, in 2015 we will need to start in May.

Strategic alignmentEdit

A. Outcomes:

What were the results of your project? Include planned and unplanned results here.
  1. We have managed to increase the reach of Wikimedia and the competition through various partnerships. We were able to advertise the competition more broadly and have created an interest in contributing to Commons.
  2. The category for Best Submission from the Western Cape was well received and we want to see if we can encourage other provinces to follow suite.
  3. Although we did not reach the 100 user target initially set up, we believe that 94 is a good number, an increase of 7 users.
  4. Although hampered by the Copyright Act as mentioned above, the competition saw the upload of various heritage sites around the country and we feel that the quality has been the best since the inception of the competition.
  5. We were able to raise awareness of the competition through social media - the Wiki Loves Monuments page for SA has a total of 1 531 followers
  6. We have strengthened our relationships with various sponsors and stakeholders


B. Impact:

How will the results of your project contribute to the movement's strategic priorities now or in the future?
We have been able to raise great awareness for not only the Chapter but also about the benefits of contributing to Commons. We hope that through this introduction, people will be motivated to start contributing to Wikipedia.


C. Contribution to movement learning:

As a result of this project, was anything learned that might help the broader movement? If yes, please share your learnings and use links when needed. You may also answer, "No."
Yes - Investigate any legislative constrictions to photographs being submitted. We also learned how to more effectively communicate and connect with communities (in this case the photographic community) about participating in a Wiki related project. We are finding that connecting with the right communities of people to help facilitate events and make them a success.
Would you recommend to others that they do a similar project? If so, what advice would you give them?
Yes - Place the emphasis on quality of submissions and not only number of submissions. Also focus on your 'target audience' or group of people you would like to see participating in the your event even more. Then build a strategy around communicating and connecting with them as effectively as possible to best include them in the project. Make sure that the group you target will serve the overall goal of your project. So to increase the quality of photographs involve more photographers in the competition by connecting and establishing partnerships with organisations representing professional or hobbyist photographers for example.


D. Community discussion:

Did you share the results of your project with any relevant communities? If you did, please link to these discussions here and / or share any important feedback. You may also answer, "No."
No


ExpensesEdit

Please provide a detailed breakdown of project expenses according to the instructions here. Grantees are subject to line-item scrutiny of expenses. Changes to the approved budget beyond 10% in any category must be approved in advance.


A. Project expenses

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.


ExpenditureEdit

Qty Rate Total (Rand) Total (US Dollars) Notes
Bill No. 1 - Preliminaries and General
1.1 Postage 1 500.00 500.00 47.44
1.2 Telcom costs 1 1,500.00 1,500.00 142.31
1.3 Incidental costs & contingencies 1 2,500.00 2,210.00 209.68
1.4 Project Management 2 5,000.00 10,000.00 948.77
1.5 Media and event promotion 1 5,000.00 5,000.00 474.38
TOTAL BILL Number 1 R 19,210.00 $ 1,822.58 [1]
Qty Rate Total (Rand) Total (US Dollars) Notes
Bill No. 2 - Prize giving event (Target: 100 People)
2.1 Event catering 50 200.00 9,782.74 928.15
2.2 Printing of winning photographs for display and future exhibition 1 4,000.00 6,912.00 655.79 [2]
2.3 National Prizes 1 25,000.00 21,583.18 2,047.74
2.4 Transport (Incl flights + Car rental)
2.4.1 Flights 6 3,000.00 15,161.14 1,438.44
2.5 Accommodation (1 night)
2.5.1 Single rooms 6 1,500.00 14,764.55 1,400.81
TOTAL BILL Number 2 R 68,203.61 $ 6,470.93 [3]
  1. There was a calculation error on the grant application. The Total for Bill 1 should have been ZAR 19 500.00 / USD 1 858.00 - see Budget Variance below
  2. Supplier overcharged on printing but gave a discount on the prizes
  3. There was a calculation error on the grant application. The Total for Bill 2 should have been ZAR 66 000.00 / USD 6 248.60 - see Budget Variance below

SummaryEdit

PROJECT BILL OF QUANTITIES PRICE SUMMARY PAGE
1 BILL NO. 1 : PRELIMINARY & GENERAL R 19 210.00 $ 1 822.58
2 BILL NO. 2: PRIZE GIVING EVENT R 68 203.61 $ 6 470.93
3 TOTAL EXPENDITURE R 87 413.61 $ 8 293.51

Budget VarianceEdit

Nr Line Item Budget Requested (ZAR) Correct Amount (ZAR) Budget Requested (USD) Correct Amount (USD)
1 Bill No 1 : Preliminary and General 31 500.00 19 500.00 3 017.70 1 850.09
2 Bill No 2 : Prize Giving Event 66 000.00 66 000.00 6 138.60 6 261.86
3 Totals 96 010.00 85 500.00 8 942.30 8 111.95

Variance Amount = ZAR 10 510.00 / USD 830.34


B. Total amount spent on this project in your budget's currency and in US dollars:

In your budget's currency:
ZAR 87 413.61
In US dollars:
USD 8 293.51


C. Amount of grant funds spent in your budget's currency and in US dollars:

In your budget's currency:
ZAR 87 413.61
In US dollars:
USD 8 293.51


D. Other funding:

Did you receive any funds from a source other than this grant for this project?
Please list the amounts and currencies received, as well as the revenue sources here. If you did not receive funding from other sources, please answer "No."
Western Cape Heritage - ZAR 15 000.00 / USD 1 423.15 who supported the competition in the Western Cape


Unspent FundsEdit

Amount of grant funds not used:
ZAR - 1 913.61 + ZAR 10 510.00 variance = ZAR 8 596.39
USD - 181.56 + USD 830.35 variance = USD 648.79

To be returned to the WMF