Grants:PEG/Wikimedia Community Ireland/WLM 2016/Report
- Report accepted
- To read the approved grant submission describing the plan for this project, please visit Grants:PEG/Wikimedia Community Ireland/WLM 2016.
- 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 status edit
- Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
- YES
- Is your project completed?
- YES
Activities and lessons learned edit
Activities edit
- We held four (4) in person events for the 2016 contest:
- Launch event-27 August-To launch the two photo contests
- Writing event-NUI Galway-September 28-Upload images and write articles for the writing contest
- Writing event-Dublin-18 October-to upload images and write articles for the writing contest
- Awards event-November 22-To award the prizes for the photo contests
We had originally planned to hold a seperate upload event but we struggled to find a venue so we incorporated uploads into the two writing events.
Lessons learned edit
- What worked well?
- Our voting process was much more streamlined this year. We used Google Photos as a voting platform and that worked well for our judges, especially since they had 2 separate contests to judge.
- We were pleased with the turnout for our writing contests, the first one we have ever held. Many of the articles that came out of the contest were of good quality, highlighting Irish monuments and historic people that previously could not be found on Wikipedia.
- What didn't work?
- The two writing events did not have very many participants. This is something we have struggled with in the past. We have found that events in conjunction with one of our partner universities are much more successful than events we hold ourselves. The extra publicity that we get through University channels is probably the reason. This is something that we plan to address as part of our Simple APG grant.
- The expanded PR did not work as we had anticipated. Though we expanded the remit and the budget for this item, we did not see an increased return. We do not think this was the fault of the PR company but more due with lack of excitement around the contest, as this is the third year we have run it. We tried to combat that by including a sub-contest focused on the 1916 centenary, which had decent turnout, but didn't seem to bring more participants to the main contest. We will not conduct PR via most legacy channels for the 2017 contest. We had moderate success using Facebook promotion and that is something we will explore for 2017.
- What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?
- One of the biggest changes were are planning to make for 2017 is to import the Irish Monument list onto Wikipedia instead of on our website. We could not do this before, as there were copyright issues with much of the information, but those copyright issues have been mostly resolved with the hard work of several of our volunteers. We are requesting funds in our Simple APG grant to hire a contractor to import the monument database to Wikipedia, create a numbering system (which it does not currently have) and make the information available for use on Wiki Data.
Learning patterns edit
Outcomes and impact edit
Outcomes edit
- Provide the original project goal here.
- As in previous years our goal is improve the quality and quantity of images of Irish monuments on Commons. We will run a writing contest in conjunction with the photo contest to improve the quality and quantity of articles on Irish monuments on English Wikipedia and Vicipéid.
- Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 short paragraphs.
- Overall, we did not reach the goals set out for the 2016 photo contest. We did not have an increase of images uploaded to Commons, but we did see an increase in the quality of the images that were uploaded. We also did not increase the number of participants, though the number of returning participants was a strong 24% with 76% new users. As this was our third year running this event excitement was not high. We also had issues with our website early in the contest, which could have discouraged some participants. We plan to address this in 2017 by moving the monument database onto Wikipedia for use during the contest.
- For the writing contests, though we did not reach our goals, we were pleased with the turnout for our first time running this type of contest. The issues that kept us from having a better turnout is the PR issues mentioned above and the small amounts of editors in Ireland.
Progress towards targets and goals edit
Project metrics
| Project metrics | Target outcome | Achieved outcome | Explanation |
| We will increase participation by 10% from 2015 to 323 participants, with 75% of new users | We had 119 Participants (-59% from 2015) with 90 new users (76%) | We had issues with our website at the beginning of the contests, which may have discouraged some participants. Though we did not reach our participants goal, we did reach our new user goal. We have scaled back our goals for the 2017 contest. | |
| We will increase the number of uploaded images by 20% from 2015 to 2000 images | We had 710 images uploaded (-57% from 2015) | With a drop in participants there is a corresponding drop in images uploaded. This issues with the website and also a decrease in back catalogues is probably what caused this drop. | |
| We will hold at least one upload event during the contest period | We held 2 upload events during the contest period | We had originally planned to hold a seperate upload event in Dublin. As we struggled to find a venue, we incorporated upload training into our two writing contest events-one in Dublin and one in Galway. | |
| We will increase usage of WLM images to 15% | As of Feb 2017 3% of the images uploaded during the event are being used | Though we did not reach our goal, this is an increase on how many images were being used 4 months after the contest in 2015 (2%). We plan to address this in 2017 by running a themed event on how to use images on Wikipedia and target the use of WLM images. | |
| We will have at least 25 participants/groups over the 3 writing contests | We had 3 participants over the 3 contests | While not a large amount, we are pleased with this turnout. We realise now that 25 was overly optimistic. | |
| We will hold at least 2 edit-a-thon events to target editors of Irish content on Wikipedia and on Vicipéid | We held 2 writing events to write articles for the contests | We reached this goal by holding 1 event in Dublin and 1 in Galway. | |
| There will be at least 15 new articles created on Irish monuments/1916 people and places | There were 14 new articles created on Irish monuments/1916 people and places | We were one article off from reaching this goal. We are pleased with this result. | |
| There will be at least 10 new articles created on Vicipéid | There were 0 articles created on Vicipéid | Finding editors on Vicipéid in Ireland is an ongoing struggle for us. It's something we are hoping to address in the context of the Celtic Knot Conference in Edinburgh in July 2017. | |
| There will be 10 articles on Irish monuments/1916 people and places improved | There were 0 articles on Irish monuments/1916 people and places improved | Lack of participants kept us from meeting this goal. | |
| There will be at least 10 articles improved on Vicipéid | There were 0 articles improved on Vicipéid | Finding editors on Vicipéid in Ireland is an ongoing struggle for us. It's something we are hoping to address in the context of the Celtic Knot Conference in Edinburgh in July 2017. |
Global Metrics edit
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.
| Metric | Achieved outcome | Explanation |
| 1. # of active editors involved | 26 (24% of total participants) | |
| 2. # of new editors | 90 (76% of total participants) | |
| 3. # of individuals involved | 119 | This is down 59% from 2015. The reasons are outlined above. |
| 4a. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages | ||
| 4b. # of new images/media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Optional) | 710 images uploaded | This is down 57% from 2015. The reasons are outlined above. |
| 5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects | 14 articles added to Wikipedia as part of our writing contests | |
| 6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects | 18511 Bytes added |
- Learning question
- Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?
- The contributors that we interacted with at our in person events were very interested in future projects and events we are running as a group. Several events planned for March 2017 came directly from interactions at our in person events.
Impact edit
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? Our WLM writing contest engaged editors that would not be interested in photography events but are interested in editing and creating articles.
Option B: How did you improve quality on one or more Wikimedia projects? Though the number of images uploaded during the event was lower than in 2015, the quality was much better.
Option C: How did you increase the reach (readership) of one or more Wikimedia projects? At one of our in person events we made contact with someone who was interested in running a workshop about editing Vicipéid. That has led to scheduling an event in March 2017.
Reporting and documentation of expenditures edit
This section describes the grant's use of funds
Documentation edit
- 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
Expenses edit
- 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 | Office Supplies | Winning Images Posters | 1 | 14 | 20 | 280 | 325 | EUR | Under budget by 45. Though we had to print one extra poster due to a tie in the 1916 contest, the posters were on sale. |
| 2 | Office Supplies | Flyers | 500 | 1 | 37.50 | 37.50 | 25 | Flyers | Over budget by 12.50. The cost for this item was under-estimated. |
| 3 | Office Supplies | Postage | 48.45 | 100 | EUR | Under budget by 51.55. | |||
| 4 | Office Supplies | Certificates | 1 | 25 | .16 | 3.99 | 10 | EUR | Under budget by 6.01. We used a free online template so the only cost was the paper. |
| 5 | Awards | Cash Prizes | 400 | 550 | EUR | Under budget by 150. We could not get in contact with the winners in 2nd place (100), 5th place (25) and 9th place(25). | |||
| 6 | Awards | Bags | 1 | 25 | 6.51 | 160 | 200 | EUR | Under budget by 40. We went with a new supplier this year which reduced the cost. |
| 7 | Awards | Calendar | 1 | 25 | 9.50 | 237.50 | 250 | EUR | Under budget by 12.50. This items was on sale when we ordered it. |
| 8 | Awards | Books | 1 | 9 | 12.37 | 111.25 | 204 | EUR | Under Budget by 92.75. Books as prizes for writing contests-we needed 3 less books as we had no entrants in the Vicipéid contest and the books were less expensive than anticipated. |
| 9 | Catering | Venue Rental | 397.25 | 400 | EUR | Under budget by 2.75. Launch venue rental. | |||
| 10 | Catering | Refreshments | 230.30 | 300 | EUR | Under budget by 69.70. As part of the awards ceremony. | |||
| 12 | Media | PR | 1476 | 1500 | EUR | Under budget by 24. | |||
| 13 | Miscellaneous | Contingency | 0 | 100 | EUR | Under budget by 100. We did not use the contingency. |
- Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
- 3424 EUR
- 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)
- 2464 EUR
- Total amount spent on this project
- 3382.24 EUR
- Total amount of Project and Event grant funds spent on this project
- 2328.24 EUR
- Are there additional sources that funded any part of this project? List them here.
- 1000 EUR grant from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht for PR coverage.
Remaining funds edit
The funds remaining from this grant in the amount of 135.76 EUR were deducted from another grant payment for Grants:Simple/Applications/Wikimedia Community Ireland/2017.
- 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.)
- 135.76 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.
- We are happy to return the reaming funds to the foundation or deduct them from our Simple APG grant...whichever suits.