Grants:PEG/Wiki Loves Monuments international team/2016 coordination/Report
- Report accepted
- To read the approved grant submission describing the plan for this project, please visit Grants:PEG/Wiki Loves Monuments international team/2016 coordination.
- 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.
- Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
- Is your project completed?
Activities and lessons learnedEdit
- Initiation of the project and setup of the international team
- Contact with all potential participants
- Invitation to all local communities to participate to WLM
- Setup of the banners in Wikimedia projects
- Setup of the upload campaign in Commons
- Update of the Commons commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2016
- Update of the international website 
- Contact with all local teams
- Definition of the essential tools
- Inventory of the jury tools, development of the jury tool
- Definition of the jury
- Collection of the winning photos in each country
- Selection of the winners through the international jury
- Planning of the announcement of the winners
- Production and publication of the official jury report
- Announcement of the results in social media and through Wikimedia channels
- Delivery of the prizes and diplomas
- Documentation of the international jury process
- Closure of the project
- What worked well?
- The international team managed the organization of the international contest giving to all national team the support they needed. A jury tool has been available for all participating countries, one of the steps in the process that was identifies as a bottle neck. The team increased the number of team members, adding several volunteers with specific backgrounds, leading to a more stable team and a more concrete plan and vision.
- What didn't work?
- Nothing specifically. The team did not have an explicit mission or a strategy, and this has been discussed and addressed in the retreat of February 2017.
- What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?
- The team organized a number of surveys to identify potential improvements, and had a team retreat in February 2017 to define all these points. There is a general satisfaction about how the project has been managed and improved, and more points for improvement have been identified as part of the outcomes of that retreat.
Outcomes and impactEdit
- Provide the original project goal here.
- 30 countries participating in the contest in 2016 (due to the grant program's changes we consider that the number of countries may decrease)
- 80% of the countries will start in time
- 80% of countries will communicate the winners in time
- All technical aspects which are necessary for the start will be set before 1st September
- The international team will monitor that the main tools for the event will be ready (stats tool, monument database & erfgoedbot, and the jurytool)
- Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 short paragraphs.
- All project goals have been achieved with a relevant increase of the metrics (i.e. 44 participating countries).
Progress towards targets and goalsEdit
|Project metrics||Target outcome||Achieved outcome||Explanation|
|30 countries participating in the contest in 2016||43||8 countries participated for the first time|
|80% of the countries will start in time||97%|
|80% of countries will communicate the winners in time||100%|
|All technical aspects which are necessary for the start will be set before 1st September||Achieved|
|The international team will monitor that the main tools for the event will be ready (stats tool, monument database & erfgoedbot, and the jurytool)||Achieved|
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.
- Next to each required metric, list the actual outcome achieved through this project.
- 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.
|1. # of active editors involved||NA||The International team does not impact these numbers directly in the global metrics but there is an indirect influence. The local organizers benefit of the organization of the International Team because the aim is to support and to improve the local contests. The international team feels that it would be unfair to present the numbers as if they were its direct impact. A report describing global metrics of the whole Wiki Loves Monuments ecosystem has been published here.|
|2. # of new editors||NA||See above|
|3. # of individuals involved||NA||See above|
|4a. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages||NA|
|4b. # of new images/media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Optional)||NA||See above|
|5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects||NA||See above|
|6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects||NA||See above|
- Learning question
- Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?
- The international team created a survey for national organizers. While the results of the survey were not necessarily representative, it did indicate that the responding national organizers felt supported by the international ecosystem and the international team in their work, that they were generally motivated to organize or recommend organizing the competition next year and that they consider the contributions of their work to be positive.
What impact did this project have on WMF's mission and the strategic priorities?
Option A: How did you increase participation in one or more Wikimedia projects?
Option B: How did you improve quality on one or more Wikimedia projects?
Option C: How did you increase the reach (readership) of one or more Wikimedia projects?
- The Wiki Loves Monuments international team supported the national organizers to organize activities that increase the number of images of built heritage and involve new contributors in Wikimedia projects. The long preparation of some organizing teams to hire someone or create a working group is a signal of the importance of this event and how it is considered as an high impact event by some countries.
- The international team enabled the national competitions to surface the best images by providing and supporting an infrastructure.
- The international team helped 8 new countries to organize the competition for the first time. One goal of the international team is to motivate the local teams and to support them in the organization.
- The international team can not influence the metrics directly, but indirectly the work is to build a right framework to get other countries to increase these metrics.
Reporting and documentation of expendituresEdit
This section describes the grant's use of funds
- 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.
|Number||Category||Item description||Unit||Number of units||Actual cost per unit||Actual total||Budgeted total||Currency||Notes|
|1||Prizes||1st prize||Prize||1||1'000.-||1'000.-||1'000.-||EUR||Voucher for Foto Meyer/Berlin, paid on 22.02.2017 via EUR account|
|2||Prizes||2nd prize||Prize||1||1'000.26||1'000.26||1'000.-||EUR||Voucher for Amazon.co.uk, paid on 08.02.2017 via VISA card, GBP 853.-/CHF 1'105.66 according to VISA account statement, exchange rate: EUR 1'000.- = GBP 852.778970 dd. 08.02.2017|
|3||Prizes||3rd prize||Prize||1||504.34||504.34||500.-||EUR||5 vouchers (1 x GBP 25.-, 4 x GBP 100.-) for Wex Photographic/Norwich, paid on 09.02.2017 via VISA card,GBP 425.-/CHF 548.21 incl. fees according to VISA account statement, exchange rate: 1 CHF = 0.9366 EUR|
|4||Prizes||4th prize||Prize||1||2'000.-||2'000.-||500.-||EUR||Winner has chosen as prize the trip to Wikimania. As the winner has her domicile in Italy, Wikimedia Italy volunteered to taking care of the handling of the prize attribution, we therefore forewarded the amount of EUR 2'000.- to WMIT. Paid on 24.02.2017 from our EUR account|
|5||Prizes||5th prize||Prize||1||497.65||497.65||500.-||EUR||Voucher for B&H Photo Video/New York, paid on 08.02.2017 via VISA card, USD 525.-/CHF 537.09 incl. fees according to VISA account statement, exchange rate: 1 CHF = 0.9366 EUR|
|6||Professional or administrative support||Jury Tool||Reimbursement||1||260.93||260.93||2'000.-||EUR||Reimbursement for the work on GUI of Montage (Jury tool), invoice date: 28.09.2016, advanced by developer: NZD 400.-, reimbursement by WMCH: USD 275.-/EUR 260.93. The development has finally been for free.|
|7||Professional or administrative support||Administrative costs||Hours||14.33||48.38||693.32||1'000.-||EUR||Grant agreement administration, ordering of vouchers, payments|
|8||Unforeseen||Costs for Diplomas||Reimbursement||1||269.50||269.50||1'000.-||EUR||Printing of diplomas, envelopes & plastic covers, registered mail, advanced by project member in Feb. 2017, reimbursement by WMCH on 08.03.2017|
- Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
- EUR 11'000.-
- 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)
- EUR 11'000.-
- Total amount spent on this project
- EUR 6'226.-
- Total amount of Project and Event grant funds spent on this project
- EUR 6'226.-
- Are there additional sources that funded any part of this project? List them here.
- The amount reserved for the development of the jury tool has been partially used because the developers offered their help and the time for development "pro bono".
- Are there any grant funds remaining?
- Answer YES or NO.
- 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.)
- EUR 4'774.-
- 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.
- Unused funds will returned to WMF in order to have the green light for the application of the grant for 2017.