Grants talk:PEG/Shared Knowledge/Wiki Loves Earth 2014 in Macedonia

GAC members who approve this grant request

1. Ok for me, it's not the first time that WM MK organizes an event like this. --Ilario (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Very good, I find the request well thought and hope WMMK achieve success with WLE Macedonia. NLIGuy (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
3. This grant proposal is very reasonable. Don't forget put attention in the metrics part. Good luck Macedonia! --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Seems to be OK, although some clarification how "compenstation" and for what exactly is still needed. Polimerek (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Tony (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

GAC members who oppose this grant request

1. Not happy yet. See below. Tony (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

GAC members who abstain from voting/comment

1. I refrain from voting and commenting because of being a contact person for this grant request.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions from NLIGuy

Dear WM Macedonia and Kiril, thanks for this submission. I want to ask two questions:

1. Metrics: I understand the concerns in defining metrics for a program for the first time. But still, I would love to hear what you estimate in terms of how many participants, how many photos would you find as sufficient in terms of defining success. I find that setting out goals is good, so you can, for example, motivate yourselves to get more people involved in WLE if you define success in having 50 participants and got only 40. Also, since you already possess some experience in WLM, you should have a general idea of what to expect.
2. Project management: While I am supportive of "time lost compensation", this is roughly 30% of the grant funds and is still a bit unclear: will this amount be distributed to many people (all the people involved in organizing), or mostly to the project lead?

Again, many thanks for the submission! NLIGuy (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi NLIGuy and thanks for your questions. I've amended the section with the measures of success by including numerical information based on the results we obtained from organising Wiki Loves Cultural Heritage 2013. The expenses for project management will be distributed to all people who will have to spend significant time and resources on this project. However, it is one of our main duties to be very careful and keep the spirit of our movement, so we will not pay people for their on-wiki activities on creating the necessary pages and categories, and fixing the problems that may occur on Wikimedia Commons during the competition. From our previous experience in organising one such project, I can tell you that we had two main organisers who received compensation for their efforts and several other community members who contributed on-wiki. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kiril, thanks for your answers. I re-reviewed the metrics and read your answers. I find the proposal to be very good, and wish you success! NLIGuy (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Tony1 comments

Hi, looks ok in principle, but I have a number of queries:

1. Project management payments. You wrote in response to NLIGuy above that "we will not pay people for their on-wiki activities on creating the necessary pages and categories, and fixing the problems that may occur on Wikimedia Commons during the competition". So what are you planning on paying out for the time of organisers? The budget item states: "The compensation for the organisers is intended to pay for the time that they will have to spend out of work for and the resources they will have to bring up in order to carry out the project. Some of the expenses omitted in the budget (e.g. transportation, telephone services and post services) that will be borne by the organisers are included as well. Importantly, the amount also includes taxes." (my highlight)

   I'm uncomfortable in principle about the notion of paying chapter members for work—where will it end? And why is it expressed so vaguely? I want to know who (or at least how many), what tasks, when, estimated number of hours, and monetary compensation per hour; then we're in a better position to form an opinion. Could you update the budget overleaf, and let us know here when you've done so?

2. Video tutorial. This is in principle a great idea—the type of thing I've been suggesting occasionally for some time. But videos need to be done reasonably professionally nowadays, or they'll not be taken seriously, or will have much reduced impact in terms of skill and knowledge acquisition. I'm not happy spending just €100 on "expenses" and "resources"; and surely you won't be "taping" it? That's 20th-century technology. I want details, and I'm not prepared to fund it at all unless there's detail and planning for a good product. Will "the person" have experience in videoing? Will it be a talking head, and if so, who? Will it be (largely) scripted? What themes will be treated ... tips on how to take good photographs? What to avoid? Uploading process? Will the video be edited? Will there be on-screen grabs of mousing, clicking, writing description pages, etc, if the uploading process is included? What is the estimated duration?

   So, if this is done well, it could be useful for years and provide a model for other chapters, and I'd even countenance an increase in your total budget if you had the planning right. I'd be willing to put more money into it, some of it taken from stuff I don't like in the budget (see next).

3. Other labour. I'm surprised that a PR person will be hired; but maybe. I note that it's double the entire expense for the video, and producing a video is more challenging than selecting, writing, and organising advertising, for people who should have experience in editing the Macedonian Wikipedia. Web design cost seems low (and again, I want the number of estimated hours and the hourly rate ... how can you come to a total estimate without this?). €100 for each jury member: is this just to compensate for their travel expenses, or is it partly payment for services? I'd be inclined to expect them to do it for nothing in terms of their time, since they'll receive the publicised honour of being jury members.
4. Prizes. You know me: I always want the first prize to be larger, to dominate the prize expenditure. Why? Because a fat first prize gives it great motivational, iconic, and PR value. I'd be inclined to make first prize €600 or more, second prize down to €100 like the others, and perhaps three, not five, "best contributors". Any vouchers, even small amounts, for behind-the-scenes best contributors to sorting, categorising, improving description pages, on Commons (so important)?
5. Other. I'm fine about the catering and certificates (and really, why bother everyone with a total of €3.75 for name tags ... just include in in your incidentals, please). I am not in favour of trinkets like pens and mugs (fortunately no t-shirts in your budget). Do ensure the posters are high-quality reproductions of the winning pictures.

Tony (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tony and thanks for your comments. Please take a look at our report from a similar project that we've successfully completed few months ago. There you can find most of the answers on your questions and it will surely help you make a better comparison to guess the things that have been changed and improved. It's also worth mentioning that this application does not differ too much from that one and we think it'd not be a good idea to make drastical changes to something which was successful in the not-so-distant past. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for being unable to bring more thorough thoughts and give you extensive answers to your questions (note that this, however, doesn't inflate the value of the report mentioned above). Please find them in turn:

1. Project management payments. Your concern on the method used to calculate the monetary compensation holds and we're going to improve that part in the budget to present how the amount of this item was calculated. For the practice of paying chapter members for their work, we may have divergent opinions on this. My humble opinion on it is that there should be no problem to pay people if their work is well distinguished from the "orthodox practices" of our movement. That's why we're not going to pay people for creating and editing pages, categories and templates on Wikimedia Commons and the other projects (fortunately, you referred to this part in your comment above that explicitly answers your question). In the same fashion, we'll never consider paying someone for giving a lecture on anything related to our movement or participating on a conference. However, there are always activities relating administration, design thinking, negotiations and many others, which are both time- and resource-consuming and it's simply impossible to do the "orthodox practices" without coming across these other things. To illustrate it better, the Wikimedia Foundation with its paid staff is a very good example of what I'm talking about. The idea, of course, is not to make our movement a source of money for those who are interested to participate, but to fuel the things going towards more productive goals without having in danger the editing process. Finally, the reason why we don't plan to hire employees for this project is just to make it cheaper and more flexible.
2. Video tutorial. Please see here how the video tutorial looked like for our previous project. We really don't plan to produce an expensive animated film with no value-add. This one worked very well, all the interested were able to understand it fairly well and it thus is a good starting point to tape a similar one for the same purpose.
3. Other labour We can reveal how this was calculated if you really insist on it. The importance of this item compared to the video tutorial is greater for us, because it directly produces outreach that helps inviting more people to take part in the competition. Having a video tutorial is not so important without wide outreach. I find it a greater success if 100,000 people view our medium-quality video tutorial rather than 10,000 people viewing one of an exceptionally high quality.
4. Prizes. Thanks for your opinion on this. Once again, we already have a model which was successful and we, therefore, don't think it should be changed. In addition, your own opinion on how should the things be arranged unsupported with practical examples is not a very strong reason to oppose something. As for the reduction in the number of prizes for best contributors, it might be an expensive experiment which will lead to a significant change in the number of uploaded photographs. Don't forget that one of our primary goals after all is to increase the number of freely licensed files.
5. Other. I really cannot imagine something without a merchandise, especially when it's not very expensive. People always want to get something that will remind them on the thing that was promoted. The production of mugs to promote our project was deliberately made to make some distinction from the numerous other attempts to promote something by producing T-shirts.

That's all for now. Feel free to ask additional questions if you find it necessary. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Rejoinder

• (1) I believe PEG applications that say, essentially, "pay me", should be strongly discouraged unless an exceptional case is made. Wrong scheme: IEG is down the corridor. Let's see the details, but I'm inclined to object. "'Orthodox practices' of our movement haven't been defined, either here or at large by the movement. I don't like the slippery-slope danger here.
• (2) The vid from last October—very nicely done: that's what I'd call professional standard, short of actual videos of a person talking. Three suggestions:

  I find the pace a little too fast in some sequences, where the arrow flits here and there second after second. A short pause between each arrow move would give viewers time to absorb the sequence; and the narrator could slow their pace a bit, although I think the narrator is excellent generally (one of your people?). 3 mins' duration could be 3.5 mins. You're experts: don't underestimate newbies' propensity for info meltdown.

  You might consider not printing quite as much when it's already being said aloud by the narrator. People are listening, so you have the opportunity to combine aural and visual deftly: the more on-screen text clutter they see and the more oral–written duplication, the more redundancy and dilution of viewer concentration (some things are good in both simultaneously, of course, like the web address—but if a new theme is announced orally, why print it as well? Shift their attention back and forth from listening and reading, rather than forcing both at once). It requires more concentration and faster processing to read AND listen, and the result is often less efficient absorption.

  Would it be difficult to video a brief intro of the narrator talking to cam, perhaps just at the start for 5–10 seconds, to increase the personal "feel"? Just a thought, and if it multiplies the challenge of the task, don't do it.

• (3) Yes, I would like hours, hourly rates, and tasks, please. It should be essential to your planning, and the more specific you are, the more we'll understand if you need to tweak it as you proceed.
• (4) I don't mind, but "a model which was successful" seems vague, and doesn't negate the idea of improving it. No further response required to this or the next point, but I don't agree with your initial responses.
• (5) How will mugs and pens improve WMF sites? If attendees need "something that will remind them on the thing that was promoted", may I suggest that the presentation was ineffective.

Tony (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I would like to answer the questions of yours. About payment for organizers: the amount is approximate 100 hours, 5 euros each hour. We planed to have two organizers. Please consider the fact that amount of money for organizers includes real costs as: telephone bills, transport, taxes, coffee etc. Two organizers would have to spend time (out of Wikipedia tasks) for: calls, meetings, go to shop and back for posters, pens, printed photos, and schedule everything goes well. Our experience shows that there were days when organizers had to spend at least 12 hours a day in order to set everything.

About mugs and pens and how they improve WMF: the people who will use them after competition, are somewhat "walking" advertising for us. Regards --Violetova (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you missed his question about the jury members? ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry a lot, ImperfectlyInformed you are right, I missed the question about the jury members. The €100 for each jury member: is not to compensate for their travel expenses, but mostly for their time and expert services. Our intention is to get professionals, as last time we did. And professional person has to be payed for their spend time on task, at least.

What I missed also is to thanks a lot to Tony for kindly words about video tutorial from last October. Tony, I sent your words to the guy who did it last time, altogether with your suggestions, and the guy said he will give the best. --Violetova (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. If paying the jury members, you might get quotable comments out of them for your press release. And in terms of providing advice to photographers generally in the Macedonian community: how can quality be improved next time? Have you negotiated with them the criteria for judging? Usually it's motivational to set your photographers the goals ... take a look at the WLM criteria, which might be adapted for your circumstances and wishes. It's all about the Macedonian Wikipedia, I presume, so where are the gaps in terms of pics on that site? Tony (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. Yes, we'll set criteria what is acceptable for contest and we will announce in public the criteria. So photographers who want to get a part of the contest, will know what is the main goal. But jury members, especial "president of the jury" (as we called him last time: man with long CV as professional in art photography), are guarantee that awarded photos would be with the high quality. In that part, we give the jury members a free hands. Last December, on the day of award ceremony, jury members answered many questions about photos of the photographers who were and who were not awarded. Their comments were useful for us, also.

About the gaps in terms of pics on Macedonian Wikipedia - of course we have gaps. We want a large amount of freely licensed photos that can be used in Wikipedia articles. --Violetova (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Violeta. So I guess my point was that you might get together and decide on some guidance as to areas on the Macedonian WP (and, indeed, Commons) that are seriously in need of images, and those that are not. You might or might not decide to build this into the criteria, perhaps as a special prize for best photograph (or most significant multiple contributions) in a set of areas that you list ... without wishing to constrain people, a motivational aspect might be a way of maximising benefits to the online site. Or you could simply list areas in greatest need that your team has identified for this year's competition, without being exhaustive, of course. I'm keen to create close and direct links between your very good efforts and the WMF sites. At the same time, you probably don't want a sixth photograph of a forest in X national park. In your guidelines to photographers, it would be great if you were able to add a short, simple note about checking what is already covered. Originality is important! Just ideas for you to consider ... Tony (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Tony about idea to list the areas we need the most. We'll make a list for sure. Regards --Violetova (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm new to this, but here's my two cents following up on Tony: as Tony said, it looks OK in principle but I appreciate his questions. I also thought the video looked good although I agree it seemed fast (then again, I don't understand the language). Payment for work I don't think is unreasonable as long as it is an amount is in line with the scope of the project, but it sounds like the committee may want to explore how to handle it and how much specificity is required. I understand the applicants can't predict exactly the work required on the front-end and I don't want to get too deep into micromanaging so there's a balance that has to be struck. On top of this rambling I think the jurors' compensation seems a bit high and I'd like to know a little more about how much time they're expected to put in. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi ImperfectlyInformed, thanks for your comments. About how much time the jury members are expected to put in, I can confirm that jury members spent at least active 10 hours last time, plus time for first consulting meeting with organizers, plus time for being present on the award ceremony and answering the questions about the awarded and non-awarded photos. In this very moment we are waiting response from WM Ukraina, if they are able to send in Macedonia one jury member. Regards --Violetova (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response and the work you put into this project, Violetova (talk · contribs). ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from WMF

Thank you for your proposal and for your engagement with the GAC so far. We have a few comments below and would appreciate your response.

1. Is there a list of natural heritage sites in Macedonia? If yes, have you obatined the list and published it on-wiki yet? As you discussed with Tony above, listing and targeting the most needed photos is important to maximize impact on wiki projects. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Do you have activities planned and metrics associated with your goals of "improving Wikipedia content with photos" and "supporting the creation of new articles"? These are great goals to have for a photo competition, but you might need to build in complementary activities (editing workshops, edit-a-thons) to encourage the integration of photos onto wiki projects. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Have you discussed the issue of the jury with the international team? We understand the desire to have more professional jury members, but there might be international volunteers with photographic experience who would be happy to be on the Macedonian jury for free. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
4. The budget includes 100 pens and 50 notebooks for ~140 people at the award ceremony. How will these be distributed? Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Please confirm that you would be able to receive funds in a joint bank account and it's acceptable to the organizing team to use that account. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alex. Thanks for the questions. Here are the answers:

1. I am not sure if there is full list of natural heritage in Macedonia, but our intention is to make one for the contest's purpose, including Wikipedians suggestions.
2. Yes, we have planned many activities for the current year. Some of them will be editing workshops, which would help us to integrate the photos onto new articles.
3. We haven't discuss the issue of the jury with the international team. That is a good idea, and we could get somebody from the neighborhood countries. We'll give you feedback about the decision of the Board on this issue.
4. Last December at the award ceremony we shared pens, notebooks and tea cups for free to the jury members, awarded photographers, guests and members of Wikimedia who were present. We intend to do the same this time: pens and notebooks for free on the award ceremony. But I am not sure if we'll have ~140 people. Last December there were around 50 people, including the organisers, prize winners, Wikimedians and participants.
5. Yes, I can confirm that two persons have access to the bank account of the organization.

Regards --Violetova (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding #2: Great. Please be sure to mention those in the activity section of the proposal (even if funding for those activities are not included in this budget) because it helps us understand the larger impact of the grant. Also, please include a few metrics for these two project goals. What percentage of photos do you aim to have integrated on wiki projects? How many articles do you hope to create about natural heritage sites in Macedonia? You can use baselines from previous photos competitions and edit-a-thons to create these metrics. Please let us know if you need any support. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Alex. We'll update our proposal soon. --Violetova (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Done --Violetova (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Approved

Thank you and the GAC for your engagement on this request. The grant is approved with the following notes.

1. The line item for jury compensation is still included in the budget. However, we hope you can identify qualified volunteers (local or international) who can serve on the jury at no cost. Reaching out on the WLE mailing list was a good first step. Please let us know if you would also like our support with this. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
2. In addition to the signed receipt of funds submitted last year for project management, please have managers track their hours spent on the project. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)