Grants:Project/Rapid/UG LV/Wiki Loves Earth Latvia 2017/Report

Report accepted

This report for a Rapid Grant approved in FY 2017-18 has been reviewed and accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

• To read the approved grant submission describing the plan for this project, please visit Grants:Project/Rapid/UG LV/Wiki Loves Earth Latvia 2017.
• 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 rapidgrants at wikimedia dot org at any time if you have questions or concerns about this report.

Goals

Did you meet your goals? Are you happy with how the project went?

We manged to successfully run both Wiki Loves Earth 2017 photo competition and microgrants program. However we did not meet many of our quantitative goals set in grant proposal.

Outcome

Please report on your original project targets.

Wiki Loves Earth Latvia 2017

Target outcome	Achieved outcome	Explanation
1000 photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons	571 photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons
30 participants uploading a photo	24 participants uploading a photo
15 newly registered participants	12 newly registered participants	We did not meet the goal, but it was half of the participants as predicted
15% distinct photos used in Wikipedia articles	13% distinct photos used in Wikipedia articles
mentions in 5 different web sites	0 notable media mentions, several less notable websites	Our press release was not published in any media outlet. We got only a few mentions in regional websites.

Microgrants project

Target outcome	Achieved outcome	Explanation
8 microgrant projects submitted and accepted	3 projects submitted and accepted (one was withdrawn)	All projects were wiki-expeditions.
4 distinct users completing a project	2 users completed a project

Learning

Projects do not always go according to plan. Sharing what you learned can help you and others plan similar projects in the future. Help the movement learn from your experience by answering the following questions:

Wiki Loves Earth Latvia 2017

• What worked well?
  • We had the best jury quality-wise we have ever had (comparing to two editions of Wiki Loves Monuments), we hope to work with them in future contests.
  • We held a nice awards ceremony with most of winners attending.
  • Top 10 images which qualified to international contest seemed competitive.
  • Montage jury tool worked well, although we still neededto explain some of features.
• What did not work so well?
  • Jury work took much longer than expected, delaying awards ceremony.
  • The number of uploaded images was much lower than expected.
  • We attracted just a few people who contributed really high quality images and most of them uploaded just a few of them.
  • We did not manage to gain any press coverage at all.
  • WLE related article contest was not a big success, attracting only 2 participants who wrote a few articles.
  • We decided to skip WLE related photo expeditions (we had these for 2 editions of WLM), because our driver was quite busy at the time and also during planning phase we did not consider that it would not be possible to cover that many objects per day compared to WLM.
• What would you do differently next time?
  • It seems that prize fund was too small (I received such comments in photography discussion groups and private conversations).
  • More attention should be paid to quality and attractiveness of press release about contest, to increase likelihood of it being published.
  • More promotion could be done among environmentalist groups in Latvia.
  • We will not plan having a photo expedition during WLE but will run it separately with other goals., covering other types of objects.
  • We will work with developers to have Montage jury tool translatable (if possible).

Microgrants project

• What worked well?
  • The framework for whole program worked fine (this was second term for it) and does not require major changes.
  • Accepted projects were well executed with results exceeding expectations and people working really hard during all-day photo expeditions. Reporting was very well done.
  • Running the program required very little effort, most of the time was spent promoting it.
• What did not work so well?
  • Number of applicants was still very low.
  • There were applications only for photo-expeditions, no interest for other kind of activities.
• What would you do differently next time?
  • It seemed that in person discussions revealed more interest in program than it was seen online. More work should be done discussing with potential applicants.
  • Other ways to use this funding should be promoted, examples from other communities should be provided.

Finances

Grant funds spent

Please describe how much grant money you spent for approved expenses, and tell us what you spent it on.

Funds were spent mostly for prizes of competition and some amount was reimbursed for microgrants.

Budget

All costs are displayed in EUR. Sums in USD calculated using exchange rate the 1st October 2017.

Item	Planed	Actual	Comments
Wiki Loves Earth 2017
Awards for participants	300	320.83	Gift cards (2 types) + envelope
Gifts for jury members	60	51.05	Gift card + envelope
WLE photo expedition	50	0	Decided to not do it
Venue for awards ceremony & snacks	60	44.88
Miscellaneous	45.49	7.56	Bank fees and transfers
Microgrants project second term
Funds for microgrants	200
VS 2017-3		24.92	Successful photo-expedition
VS 2017-4		42.23	Successful photo-expedition
Bank transfers		0.72
Total EUR	715.49	492.19
Total USD	844.71	581.08

Remaining funds

Remaining funds from this grant have been returned to WMF in the amount of 223.30 EUR.

Do you have any remaining grant funds?

223.3 EUR (263.63 USD) remaining.

Anything else

Anything else you want to share about your project?