Grants talk:PEG/WM CZ/Presentation & Outreach II/Report2014-2

Thanks so much for this detailed and thoughtful grant report. We have a number of questions/comments and look forward to your responses:

I will be happy to answer them. At this time, Czech Outreach is operated by me and Jagro, Petr Novák, whom you addressed in the e-mail, is no longer active in this. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

1. It sounds like the 2014 wikiconference was a well attended event and it's great that the presentations have been viewed so many times! The report says about 60% of the survey respondents were passive Wikipedia users. Do you have any sense if their participation in the projects increased after attending the event? Are there any instances where one of these more passive user decided to come to future events, join the chapter, or start editing?

   Sadly, tracking if individual visitors come to other events, join chapters or start editing, would be impossible due to administrative and personal data reasons (we do not run a system with all our event visitors that would allow us to give a unique identifier to each visitor and collect data about him or here; also, if we wanted to know whether they become editors, we would have to know what their username would eventually be). We can only assume people experiment with Wikipedia and I have several cases of people who did so after attending Wikiconference. More importantly, new collaborations are often started during Wikiconferences (such as with Masaryk University alumni during the 2014 conference - their chair then became our active member).--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for this info. Updates about new collaborations and the anecdotes about people that continue to experiment with Wikipedia is useful for our understanding. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

2. It's great to read that you're testing out new ways to engage people during your more general outreach events, such as the Autumn Book Fair. Collecting emails and follow-up is definitely useful. Has there been additional follow-up since then? We are trying to better understand the value of these types of events and since WMCZ has conducted these types of exhibitions for a number of years, it would helpful to know more about why you think they are worthwhile -- is it improving general awareness about the projects (and less about introducing people to editing), about targeting a specific audience you think would be more inclined to participate in the projects? Any additional information will help us increase our understanding since we know they are valuable, but it is difficult to explain and evaluate!

   Sorry, I don't know this particular thing. I have asked the people behind the Autumn Book Fair and someone will get back to you here.--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

   At the Autumn Book Fair we have distributed 20 T-shirts. Four months later we asked all recipients, if they had edited Wikipedia. We received only five responses. Two of them said yes, two no and one yes, but another wiki (not Wikipedia). We know it is not a good result so we will try a little different strategy for the rest (or second portion) of these T-shirts during the Silesian Museum Night. --Packa (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for the update. Agreed that it's good to think about other strategies for these general events, especially in terms of follow-up. Perhaps signing them up for the mailing list or sending a quarterly newsletter would help. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

3. Can you tell us more about the cooperation with Dejvické divadlo? Do they provide space or other resources? The agreements with the National Heritage Institute and National Technical Library sound promising. What type of partnerships are you hoping to set up?

   There were many pictures uploaded, including portraits of the actors and actresses and photographs from the plays. Some articles on Dejvické Divadlo were also improved.

   Agreements: Funnily enough, the agreement with National Heritage Institute has just been signed a few days ago (also here). We are hoping to train the employees in Wikipedia editing (they are interested in such a thing) and better integrate their historical heritage categorization into Wikipedia. National Technical Library agreement is still being negotiated but some progress has recently been made. Thanks to our bonds with the library, we will be able to install a Wikipedia stand during the "Museum Night" taking place in National Technical Library and also do an exhibition of Wiki Loves Monuments pictures. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

   Great to hear the agreement was signed!

4. Congrats on a successful year of the education program!
5. Great job getting so many partners for WLM 2014. The addition of the architecture photography workshop sounds like it was very beneficial. The report says there were 5,000 photos contributed, but according to the Glamorous Tool, there are 8,679 files in the category: Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 in the Czech Republic. Of those photos, 22% (1,910) distinct images have been added to Wikimedia projects, which is quite high! Did the organizers do any special activities to encourage integrating photos into articles? If not, this is something you should consider for future photo competitions.

   Actually 5,000 was the target outcome, 8,589 was the result, as correctly stated in the report. The percentage of images used is indeed very high, I myself am surprised by it because I did not generate the metrics from WLM 2014. To my knowledge, there were no activities aiming on usage of these pictures on Wikipedia (but I will ask the organizers to be more sure about it).--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

   Update Actually there is a group of Czech Wikipedians who use tools to categorize the Wiki Loves Monuments pictures and insert them into appropriate articles. --learning pattern needed-- --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

   That explains it : ) Would it be possible to share this tool so we can let others know about it? Or if one of the volunteers could create a Learning Pattern about this (in Czech if needed), that would be great!. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

   Hi Vojtěch Dostál, can you help me reach out to the Czech Wikipedians who worked on the WLM categorization tools? There is a new learning pattern on increasing images in use that would benefit from their experience. Let me know if you have any questions.--KHarold (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

   Hi Kacie, according to my colleagues, it was predominantly ŠJů who did these categorizations (I do not have his email). He speaks English. I will be happy to help if you do not succeed in contacting him. Best regards, --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

6. Sorry to hear that the student-created videos did not work out, but it's good to see that you were able to find an alternative solution -- the videos look very professional.
7. We really appreciate the level of detail in your Lessons Learned section. We hope you find writing this section as useful as we finding reading it.
8. In terms of the global metrics for new editors -- this number is actually just the number of new accounts created during the grant period, so your total should actually be much higher.

   Good to know. Actually I have never presented the number of accounts created because that number does not really say anything. If anything, that would be a number of people who learned how to set up an account :-). --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

9. From the report it sounds like you did not print additional copies of the magazine, however the expense table shows spending of almost double what was budgeted for the magazine. Can you please clarify?

   I will ask about this.--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

   I'll accept the report now, but it would still be good to have an update on this question.

   This is an omission in my initial budgeting of the grant. In October 2013, we printed one batch of the magazine, mainly for exhibition in Havlíčkův Brod. This was intented to be included in the original P&O grant (it's even mentioned in its report), but we did not reimburse it within that grant, and counted the ticket towards P&O2 instead (it's likely that P&O was already closed by that time). The payment was processed on 15th Nov 2013, which is when I discussed budget reduction for the magazine with Asaf. Ultimately we agreed upon doing one more issue for the conference, which is included in ticket 435 and discussed in this report. When I was making the changes in the proposed budget, I forgot to include the October batch which "fell through" from the previous grant. This is why there are two batches in the totals instead of one. I have checked the first grant expense report against its financial totals in tracker and the October magazine batch is in neither of those, so it's really a case of paying P&O item from P&O2 grant. I don't really know why this happened, but I guess we should be more careful with stuff that take place around the end/beginning of successing grants. --Petr Novák / che 19:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

10. The remaining grant funds were deducted from the Czech Outreach Grant.

Thanks again, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)