Grants talk:Project/To realize aerial views in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais

Eligibility comments

Hi Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick, this is Chris Schilling, the program officer for Project Grants. Thanks for your proposal to capture aerial views of places in your community. I wanted to bring your attention to the eligibility criteria concerning equipment purchases that are eligible for funding:

Equipment to be shared amongst Wikimedia community members (cameras, laptops, book scanner, wifi hotspot/dongle, etc.) with a plan for use and content integration

Small scale equipment purchases for Wikimedia affiliates to be shared among multiple volunteers. If no affiliate is available to host the equipment, a single active volunteer in good standing may serve as the coordination point for shared equipment.

...and what is not eligible for funding:

Personal equipment, including books, and equipment for non-Wikimedia affiliates

While I understand the rationale for requesting the equipment, in order for the proposal to pass eligibility and be reviewed, these criteria should be addressed.

• Who will own this equipment after this work has ended?
• Have you considered a plan for sharing the equipment among Wikimedia community members? One possibility is to reach out to Wikimedia France to see if they would be willing to act as sponsors of the equipment after the grant period.

Please respond to these questions before the December 11th deadline for eligibility decisions. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chris. After the completion of the third phase, after which more than 50,000 files should have been made of the region in three phases, the wish is that the material will come back to Wikimedians who in turn will have developed a project of drone shooting elsewhere in the world. The goal is for this material to get a new life and continue to be used to enrich projects. To make a simple comparison, it's a bit like using a rental car that then continues its own life. Regarding the second point, it is expected that the material will be used every week during three phases, desired in view of the number of places to illustrate. In line with what was explained earlier, we prefer when the work is done to return the material to the Wikimedia Foundation (who should be the owner of the material) who will then decide to allocate it to a team that will do similar work elsewhere. The Wikimedia Foundation then can decide to attribute the material at Wikimedia France who will use it as it wants. Discussions have taken place between us, and following the crisis that took place in 2017 at Wikimedia France, we do not want our project to be considered as a Wikimedia France project. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: I'm glad to hear you are interested in sharing the equipment with other Wikimedians who might develop similar projects in the future. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia Foundation is not resourced to be able to physically retain and redistribute equipment from grant-funded projects across the movement. In order for this proposal to pass eligibility, I would recommend reaching out to affiliates who may be willing to sponsor this equipment and be able to share it amongst community members who are interested in these kinds of aerial photography projects. If no affiliate is available, your community standing and contribution history would make you a good candidate for hosting the equipment, but I would need to know how you plan to inform other Wikimedians that this equipment would be available for them to use. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF): I can contact Wikimedia Deutschland, I am interested to receive the email from the person most concerned by the subject. Wikimedia Deutschland has a very good reputation established over many years, and has already worked on projects of aerial views as indicated on this page. To inform other Wikimedians that this material is available especially during less busy periods such as the end of autumn or winter, several solutions can be considered. One is not necessarily better than the other. But considering that the files would be categorized in Wikimedia Commons, entered as declarations in Wikidata and therefore automatically visible in the versions of Wikipedia that reuse this data, putting a banner specifying these informations in the description of said files should allow any Wikimedian to find and refind information easily. For proof, writing this message to answer the questions, I remembered that a village located forty-five kilometers from my home (where I never go) had been illustrated by a drone, it was possible for me to find very easily the photograph placed in the infobox, and then go back to the informations presented. The banner is a template, which has the advantage of being translated very easily. In the past and still now, I have had to contact different speakers to request the translation of the data in order to make more informations about cycling easier to understand by a greater number. In any case, the communication to be done is easy. Various means are valuable to maximize the possibility of being read. It may even be possible to leave a free field in the template to fill dates/periods of availability quoted previously (with the Template:Date which is one of the most internationalized). Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: Thanks, it sounds like WMDE's past involvement with this work might make them a good fit to sponsor the equipment. I'm not sure sure who specifically on WMDE's staff would be best to reach out to, but contacting their Volunteer Support team at communitywikimedia.de might be a good place to start. Their public mailing list might also be a good way to bring this proposal to their attention. Please reach out to them as soon as you are able to gauge their interest. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF): Done. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the status of the proposed drone's ownership and care status for after this grant, in the case it gets awarded? I did not see how this question that was raised earlier was resolved, Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick. Additionally, can you provide a proposed schedule for this work, both in time as well as in venues? --- FULBERT (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @FULBERT:. Sorry for the late, I just discover now this message. Fast response, I take my train in few time : we consider the drone must be the property of the Foundation, and the Foundation decide of the future destinations of the drone once the project will be done. We consider us as users of a material. Plan is to start in 2019 by arrondissements of Douai and Valenciennes. The schedule is the realisation of the photos, once the number is reach, it is good for the year. Unfortunately, I cannot predict the weather and the blue skies. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

To give more informations, there are 146 communes in these two arrondissements. Each has interesting things to illustrate but it is also possible to illustrate other places not very far. My experience of Wikimedian show it is impossible to predict where doing photos in advance. Just before starting we can have an idea of place to illustrate, go at this place, remember a place is not very far, and continue... I just can say phase 1 will stop when 15000 files will be done, we will can see the count thanks to a hidden category. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick. Have you received agreement by somebody at WMF or WMDE that the drone will indeed be accepted and owned by the Foundation once this proposed grant period ends? --- FULBERT (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi FULBERT. In this project the drone will always be the property of the Foundation, never us property. But for the moment, the project is just a project. The main idea in revenge is to send directly the drone to a team that will use it in another part of the world once the work will be done, but the attribution will result from a decision of the Foundation, not from us. We consider us just as users. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick. --- FULBERT (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2018

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2018 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through January 2, 2019.

The Project Grant committee's formal review for round 2 2018 will occur January 3-January 28, 2019. Grantees will be announced March 1, 2018. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Size and type of the drone

Hi Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick I hope it's okay if I ask a few questions, too.

• Why exactly did you choose this special type of drone. The Octocopter is quite big an heavy (and expensive) vehicle and this may lead quite some difficulties concerning transport, operation and approval of the drone flights.

• Have you informed yourself about the general conditions and regulations for such drone flights? I am not familiar with the drone legislation in France, but in Germany a drone of that size (>5kg) would not only require a licence for each operator but also approval by aviation authorities for each mission. And this would be time consuming as well as expensive (Expenses that a not included in the grant jet). In addition a special insurance is required for drone operations due to the danger of accidents (which may cause more harm the heavier the drone is).

• Wouldn't it be better too use a much lighter drone with an integrated camera, that can be operated by a single person with out too much regulation and transported in a normal backpack? Nowadays semi-professional Drones like the Dji Mavic 2 Pro (<1kg) deliver a really good image quality at a fraction of the expenses listed in your grand.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to talk you out of it – on the contrary. I would like to recommend you a cheaper solution with which you might achieve comparable results with significantly fewer problems. Best wishes. // Martin Kraft (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Martin Kraft:.

• The legislation was studied well in advance of the development of the project, and a watch was kept to keep abreast of its evolution, especially since there have been some variations recently. In this request, the choice was made to focus on what we wanted to achieve and not to detail the cuisine interne of the project. We assume that security must take precedence first and foremost. It is therefore perfectly normal that safeguards are put in place, and that various guarantees are taken. Dura lex, sed lex. We believe that complying with the laws in force ensures our safety and that of others, regardless of whether it has a cost, because it will always be lower than that caused by an accident. Receiving a 100-gram drone on one's head can be deadly, as much as a drone of five kilograms. The rules are very different between France and Germany. I discover at the moment that Belgium (not far from us) also has completely different legislation.
• The size and the weight of the drone here do not pose any particular problem with regard to the transport. Regarding the cost, the choice was made not to take a salary, and for some of us to work this autumn and winter to no longer depend on an employer this summer while maintaining a decent standard of living (similar process used in 2011 to illustrate the mining basin). Another choice, more importantly, has been to provide for the production of a very large number of files in several phases. In this way, the cost per file produced becomes extremely low, about 30 cents. In parallel, there are also potential resources: some pages evoking Wikimedia projects are followed by very many people. The publication of a photograph and a call for donations for example could probably be enough to generate a surplus of donations that could even be used to properly repay the sums invested in this project. Aerial views fascinate the public. This point has been quite detailed, because I doubt that the question should come back. At its scale, each Wikimedian represents costs, but also gains well above these costs. The choice of the drone is motivated by the quality of the work produced (fortunately) and by a certain comfort of use. But what has tipped the balance in its favor is the after-sales management. During my Wikimedian life, I realized and put online several tens of thousands of photos, plus those still to be published, and several cameras have become deficient or unusable, which has regularly caused some problems on the planned work. Cordially, Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick, but I think, you didn't get the point of my questions. Although I doubt the direct link between some photographs and den donations acquired by the WMF, you don't have to convince me that Wikipedians should have reasonable equipment to deliver reasonable results. As you can see on Commons I am regularly using such equipment as well as a drone myself.

The point is, that there are significant practical problems in using the aforementioned drone. Beside the legal and logistic problems mentioned above, professional OctoCopters are a lot harder to handle than integrated systems.

Do you have any experiences with drones so far? I would recommend to gain experience with a smaller UAV before switching to a demanding professional one. The most sophisticated product is not necessarily the one the fits the needs. E.g. the guys at Wikipedia:Lokal_K/Drohnenfotografie are thinking about switching to a smaller drone for practical reasons. // Martin Kraft (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A few questions

Hello Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick! I am Sandra Fauconnier, Program Officer for GLAM and structured data at the Wikimedia Foundation. I've read your application to check if everything was clear to me!

In addition to Chris' and Martin's questions (which I also had), I have a few additional questions.

1. How do you decide and prioritize what will be photographed by drone? Do you look at the Wikimedia Commons community's wishes, at existing gaps on Wikimedia projects, and/or do you plan to have a system of community requests in place?
2. Besides using the right equipment, good drone photography is also something that requires specific skills. Do you intend or plan to pass on that knowledge in some form, for instance documentation, so that other Wikimedia Commons photographers can learn from your knowledge?

Thank you for your input, for all the contributions you do on Wikimedia projects, and wishing you lots of inspiration and sunshine in your upcoming work :-) SandraF (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @SandraF (WMF):.

1. The normal operation of the project will be to illustrate all that deserves to be (in the sense of everything that can have a category on Wikimedia Commons) starting in our communes and then moving away as time goes by, thus describing a kind of spiral. This is what was achieved this year during the shooting on the ground. We think that a historical monument should not be given priority over a small chapel, that they are two interesting to be illustrated and must be. The region of Nord-Pas-de-Calais has very few views in height, we are located in a region that is quite flat, so there is a lack of such illustrations for the vast majority of categories, which is why the number of views to be made is very important and that's what makes the project interesting. If the project comes to fruition, a banner will be placed in the description template. It is perfectly possible to place a sentence (translatable with LangSwitch) suggesting to the readers to indicate us places of the region to illustrate, they can have special needs. From experience, Wikimedians sometimes take contacts to illustrate different points. In 2010, I went to illustrate Caudry whose article in French was going to be proposed quality article. More recently these are old or current railway stations that have been illustrated. One day, a Wikimedian had sent me to find a grave in a cemetery in the Lille area, unfortunately without success. In the wake of several quality articles, I illustrated two subway lines, including one by video. Finally, a year ago, I had spent a day illustrating a closed railroad in 2015 to show IRL that reopening is possible and desirable. The thorns of brambles have subsequently punctured the tires of my bike several times... In general, there is very often a close connection between what Wikipedians do and what Wikimedians illustrate. On the Dutch-speaking Wikipedia, contributors have written articles on all the cemeteries where there are Commonwealth graves, which now allows me to illustrate them, and to share them with the articles of this language. An article not illustrated is an invitation to move to do it.
2. Yes, we plan to write a short illustrated guide showing how we worked during the realization of specific reports. The idea is that other Wikimedians around the world are doing similar projects, and that we can from our office chair admire the work they do over the weeks. Here, the drone should be used in the region between six and eight months a year over three seasons, in order to achieve its goals. It would be fun to follow his adventures the rest of the year in another place of the world, as if somehow going on vacation and sending us very often postcards. In addition, for example, we could provide advice on how to make their work potentially understandable by all (via Depicted place and Wikidata Infobox), then directly translations. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of ineligibility

Hi Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick, and thank you for your proposal to capture aerial views of places of interest in France using drone technology and incorporate them into Wikidata and on Wikipedia articles across several languages. I appreciate the effort you have put into researching aspects of risk, quality, and and legal consideration to pursue this kind of project, and your engagement with reviewers has been helpful. Unfortunately, this proposal is not eligible and will not be reviewed for funding for two reasons:

1. Specific to this proposal, the project rests on the assumption that the Wikimedia Foundation will retain ownership of the equipment after the grant period is over. I already have explained that this arrangement is not possible, because we are not resourced to be able to retain and redistribute grant-funded equipment across the movement. I know you have attempted to reach out to other affiliates to seek support, and I appreciate your effort in doing so, but were unable to secure a sponsor for the equipment. We are only able to provide funding for grants where there is a concrete plan that addresses this important responsibility, which includes being able to design and maintain a system that not only allows, but actively encourages sharing and mission-aligned use of this equipment with other Wikimedians interested in the same kind of work.
2. Based on these comments from a prior grant application in 2016 related to your conduct in a grant from Wikimedia France, and a subsequent decision by the chapter to remove you from membership, there is sufficient concern that you are not in good community standing. As stated then, we respect the decision made by the local chapter because community assessments of applicant behavior (whether it is online or offline) are an important aspect of our eligibility criteria.

I appreciate the work you have put into developing this proposal, but due to these eligibility conflicts, we will not be able to review it further. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I JethroBT (WMF) I take note of this answer. And that reassures me a little insofar as if I had planned that my contract ends at the end of December 2018, it was to my surprise prolonged by several months, which would have caused a very big delay in the realization of this project, at best. I note however that not being in good community standing in 2015 doesn't mean not being in good community standing in 2018, 2019, or 2025... especially since I remember very well having read "at this time" on the aforementioned page. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Après presque trois mois d'attente, je note que je n'ai toujours reçu aucune réponse, je m'en doutais d'ailleurs. Je remarque donc qu'au début du projet, après qu'on ait passé un mois à regarder tout mon travail, je suis en suffisamment good community standing pour qu'on me confie du matériel valant le prix d'une voiture neuve, et à la fin finalement je ne le suis plus du tout pour une affaire vieille de trois ans et demi dont je suppose que de mauvaises traductions ont été fournies. Je remarque aussi que je demande un matériel (d'ailleurs déjà financé par les dons issus du travail que je réalise depuis des années) dont j'ai besoin de toute l'année, qu'on cherche à m'imposer un partage très actif au risque de ne pas l'avoir le bon moment ou de le recevoir cassé ou en retard, alors que les moyens financiers disponibles (on parle de dizaines de millions d'euros) permettent déjà de doter les principaux Wikimédiens de tout le matériel dont ils pourraient avoir besoin. Je note que de manière plus globale les Wikimédiens n'ont pas les moyens nécessaires pour faire leur travail de manière optimale. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)