Grants talk:PEG/Wiki Loves Monuments international team/2013 coordination/Report

Thank you for this thorough report. We appreciate the activity details you provided, which can serve as good resources for future photo competitions. And thank you for the fiscal sponsorship templates you developed -- we will definitely provide them to future grantees. We have a few remaining questions below and look forward to hearing your response.

1. What kind of follow-up do you envision for the survey? Since 24% responded that they are interested in editing Wikipedia, it would be great to have some kind of mechanism to follow-up with those participants. We don't expect the WLM international team to do the follow-up, but a plan for sharing the data would be good. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Please provide the survey raw data. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
3. How do you plan to measure the number of active contributors 9 months after the event? Are you using Wikimetrics? If yes, can you run the analysis now and then again in a couple months. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Were there any other factors that made the management of technical logistics difficult besides the delay in funding? Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
5. We understand that the grant approval process was lengthy and hope this experience encourages future grant applicants to start the proposal process earlier rather than later. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
6. Please follow these instructions for returning the unspent funds. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the above. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

Answering a few factual questions (preliminary) from the top of my head:

1: There are two angles relevant here. a) we asked if people would be interested to receive further communication, and they could leave behind their email address for that. We have shared those with the national teams and/or chapters where relevant. It is up to them to find the most suitable way to actually give this follow-up. If people missed this, they can contact Beat or me. b) there are the general questions whether people think they will become more active etc - this will not be linked to personal data, so this will not be acted upon. Effeietsanders (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

2: You can find all survey results to the extent they are available under 2013_Survey. Maybe more will become available, but I'm uncertain to what extent (privacy considerations). Effeietsanders (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

3: Like last year, we are in communication with Erik Zachte about measuring the active contributors. As we would like to have data comparable with the data we measured before, this seems most relevant. At this point, I'm uncertain if the tool you referred to is useful for this purpose. Effeietsanders (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Effeietsanders. In terms of measuring active contributors, how was this done last year? If you have the usernames of the contributors, then you can run their names through Wikimetrics and see their contributions x months after an event. The group of users (cohort) can be saved and you can run the anylasis again at a later date. It is the easiest way to track editor contribution and retention. Please let me know if you have questions about the tool. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alex, here's the answer to the questions no. 4:

4: the requirements and consequent goals pertaining to the position were not set clearly at the beginning, so in the end this led to further delaying the whole research process and ultimately to questioning the need itself to hire somebody. Luckily Multichill, which developed most of the tech infrastructure for WLM in the past years, has helped us in the moment of need. I would also add that if the need of hiring somebody, in future I would suggest this to be done with his oversight. Also, things would have probably been more smooth if the process could be done by a chapter since it was burdensome to the team (2 people involved), while a chapter would have more capacity and experience to go through the process, this is currently not possible in the scope of fiscal sponsorship. -- CristianCantoro (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate (to use an euphemism) that the grant bureaucracy impaired WLM so much. I have no idea how to express the gratitude we owe to the heroic volunteers who filled the gaps once again. --Nemo 10:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Report Approved

Thank you for your responses and many thanks to Multichill for all his support. This report is approved.

We do recommend you check out the Wikimetrics tool to measure contributor activity. The tool is quite different from what Erik Zachte used in the past and would allow the team to easily track a cohort of usernames at multiple points in time. Please let us know if you're interested and plan on using the tool. We are happy to provide technical assistance in retreiving the usernames if needed. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think wikimetrics does any crosswiki analysis of a global user, does it? --Nemo 10:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nemo. Wikimetrics can do crosswiki analysis of a global user. Please see the information on cross-project cohorts. The Program and Evaluation Design team has also developed a feature to expand cohort lists to include all instances across projects and it is currently in code review and deployment scheduling. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)