Grants talk:Project/Wiki Loves Monuments international team/2018 coordination

Evaluate the framework

Have you thought of introducing a set of requirements that would cover the minimum information/data necessary to conduct WLM in a meaningful way? We've come across this when trying to expand WikiDaheim to different regions/countries. It's a good idea to talk with volunteers in countries not yet involved in WLM (or where they're struggling), but in my view there are certain technical requirements that have to exist in order to upload meaningful contributions to Commons and other projects. The main question here probably is: could the international team for example create a series of templates (website, campaign, generate lists on Wikipedia via Wikidata) that would make it easier for local organisers to take part and focus on the tasks that can only be done locally? Braveheart (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are indeed good thoughts and directions. We were thinking in a similar direction as part of making WLM future proof: providing helpful documentation (not just walls of text, but thinking a bit more creatively than that), templates etc. I'm not sure if the international team would always have to 'create' these resources (sometimes we may have to, sometimes local teams are better placed), but this year we would want to focus a bit more on facilitating that effort. Hope that answers your question. Effeietsanders (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance work

This part does seem to take up a lot of time - I think it would be helpful for organisers and other Wikimedians if you could link to a page or document that details the maintenance work involved. I definitely appreciate all the time and effort you put into this part :-) Braveheart (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the best overview for that is linked in the grant already under the project plan section, linking to the meeting notes of our meeting earlier this year which includes a quite extensive overview of the work we did in 2016. We did not update this for 2017, but the big picture should be similar. Is this what you'd be looking for? Would you have expected it somewhere else? Effeietsanders (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Project goals / project impact

• The chapter on project impact currently contains most of the information on the project goals too. That makes the project goals look a bit lacklustre, when in reality there is quite a lot of information on them later on.
• The European Year of Cultural Heritage is a great opportunity to connect with institutions on the EU level. Has there been any contact with organisations like Europeana? Do you think that a EU grant application would be feasible?
• I guess the whole idea with targeting tourists that are visiting countries with no local community to contribute to WLM is off the table?
• Total participants: From an international perspective this of course makes sense - on the other hand, the only way to know how WLM is doing overall is on the international level. Adding metrics on participants and pictures uploaded would give a sense of the overall participation levels and trends, e.g. are less users taking part but uploading more pictures? How many monuments didn't have a picture before? etc. etc.
• The basic goals could use some more ambition, but I guess that's down to realistic expectations of what's doable and what isn't? Since the budget also includes travel costs, maybe it would be helpful to tie these costs to a specific goal?
• I can't find any mention of issue of fracturing country/province lines. Think it would be helpful to mention it to illustrate the growing demands within the international community

Hope my feedback is helpful, feel free to comment directly underneath each bullet point :-) Braveheart (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks also for this portion. I found it indeed hard to separate the goals entirely from the impact they have - and maintained only the high level goals for the goals section. I'm afraid that otherwise we're going to duplicate a bit too much, which will then slightly deviate from each other, and become ambiguous. I hope this is sufficient, but I agree it is suboptimal.

I agree that the ECHY is a great opportunity. Wikimedia Deutschland is taking the lead in coordinating these European efforts. As I understood, grants are primarily available on a national level. Either way, because of the nature of the international team, we would most likely not be able to receive such grants - national organizers could. As the international team, we have chosen not to focus too strongly on this, but to support national teams where needed.

Allowing submissions from countries with no national organizers (I assume this is what you're referring to with your tourists-question) would be part of the evaluating the framework. It's a complicated change, that should be discussed. It will depend on that conversation (and how timely it can take place) as well as other parallel conversations (with perhaps conflicting outcomes) whether solutions, if any, can be implemented this year, or in 2019. The same is true for the conversation on (re-)evaluating what constitutes a national competition in our framework. For me that all falls under the 'evaluate the framework'. I tried not to mention them explicitly though because that raises expectations with regards to framing that may or may not be valid. For the grant, it might be distracting.

As for the metrics, we already collect all kind of metrics, and people are free to review them. However, we consider it such that improvements in these participation, coverage etc metrics are primarily the achievement of the local teams. We don't feel it fair to officially report them, especially as there is such a dependency on other actors (and it would create double entries). We typically do include metrics that are helpful in trend discussions in our presentations and conversations - and consider that a more helpful forum.

This year we elected to actually lower expectations with regards to the number of countries. We made the choice to *not* actively engage new countries to participate this year - efforts will be aimed for optimal participation in future years. Given this context, I personally believe that 40 countries might actually be ambitious. I do agree that the goals tied to the travel (and the meeting) could perhaps be fleshed out a bit more. I'll try to improve on that. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Important: Change your proposal status from "draft" to "proposed" to submit by deadline

User:Wiki Loves Monuments international team and User: Effeietsanders,

Please note that you must change your proposal status from "draft" to "proposed" to submit by your proposal for review in the current round. You have until end of day today to make the deadline.

Good luck!

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2018

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2018 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through March 12, 2018.

The committee's formal review for round 1 2018 will occur March 13-March 26, 2018. New grants will be announced April 27, 2018. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Questions and Comments

Hi friends! Thank you for taking the time to draft such an extensive proposal. WLM is an incredible project and has led to some amazing contributions to free knowledge. After reviewing your proposal, I do have a few questions and comments:

• Why is it you say the international team positioned to take care of this? If you could explain this a bit more, it would be greatly appreciated.

• How can you be sure this will be “future proof”? What is the definition of future proof? I strongly encourage you to think about how to assess the challenges of organizing Wiki Loves Monuments in new countries. I would imagine this is something you all might already have information about or have you no historical notes on organizing in new regions or countries?

• Considering the importance of being more global, does your international team plan to have outreach conversations with Wikipedians or other interested parties in emerging communities regarding organizing Wiki Loves Monuments events? I see the composition of the International Team is mostly from Europe. I worry without the participation from people in emerging communities, some things in the future proof plan might be missed. I strongly urge you to consider reaching out to people in emerging communities and giving their comments and concerns significant attention.

• You mention European Year of Cultural Heritage. How do you plan to ensure this has broader impact that strictly in Europe?

• I see that you mention activities and budget items. Do you have a more specific timeline?

I look forward to your responses and I do hope my comments are helpful. Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jackie,

Thanks for your questions. Some are aligned with our thinking process, and we're always happy to share more on that.

As the international team for Wiki Loves Monuments, we feel some responsibility to make organizing Wiki Loves Monuments easy and accessible for local communities. This is an ongoing challenge, with new facets every year. We try to provide, support or suggest infrastructure that are helpful to multiple countries.

As a global federated photo competition, Wiki Loves Monuments relies on each local team to consider their local opportunities and needs when planning for and organizing Wiki Loves Monuments. This means that a lot of tasks required to organize a successful Wiki Loves Monuments are taken care of locally. There are some tasks for which a global view of all local competitions and resources would be beneficial, and for those, the intentional team is best equipped to take actions based on the learning from all local competitions. This can, among other things, assure more efficiency across Wiki Loves Monuments organizations as a whole.

By reducing the effort it takes to organize WLM, and by supporting impact, we believe it helps the long term of the competition. To do this properly, we had to choose between focus areas. This year, we're particularly focusing on the longer term, while still supporting the competition in 2018. Obviously, those infrastructure elements will in particular be helpful to countries that do not have a stable staff or experienced volunteer basis.

In the grant, we tried to make the case that our goal is to identify and hopefully fix areas that can clearly break our ability to have a future proof model, as well as improving some areas that can help us be more future-proof. As you mention, it is impossible to guarantee that we can build full future proof models, as over the years, new challenges and opportunities are introduced to our ecosystem. If there are specific parts of the report that can be updated to reflect this more accurately, please let us know.

We have just started the efforts to analyze which challenges exist in which countries. This is something we're trying to do with as little as possible pre-defined outcomes. While I may hold some personal expectations what challenges are likely to surface based on my previous organizations, I would not want to claim that as the finding of the team, or prime the conversations with that. We did identify (e.g. 2016 evaluation) before that different regions in the world seem to deal with different challenges. This is one of the reasons that we are already paying extra attention to the (sub-Saharan) African countries, where we feel in particular that benefits could be reaped with regards to more participation and increased impact. My participation in WikiIndaba 2018 should, while technically part of the 2017 grant, be viewed in this light (report follows in the next week(s)).

In that respect, it should be noted that the Wiki Loves Monuments international community is much broader/wider than the international team alone. We depend on a network of volunteers that often organize WLM in their own country. The international team 2018 is still being solidified, its members live mostly in Europe or North America (currently 4 members happen to live in North America). The team members have roots in several different language communities though. Disparities can probably be partially attributed to the fact that the WLM community is strongest in those countries, and it is easiest to find volunteers that can focus on international work without damaging local work. As mentioned before: I don't see our work limited to the team. The vast amount of the work happens by hundreds of volunteers in the national teams. I don't expect this to change.

As for the European Year of Cultural Heritage, this is an initiative of the European Commission and a great opportunity we welcomed. It provides an opportunity to work more closely with many national governments by the national teams. I'm grateful for the work Wikimedia Deutschland has invested into this. The European Year is not 'organized' by us, and we do not determine its scope. If a comparable initiative would unfold in other parts of the world, we would be equally supportive.

Finally, as for the timeline I would encourage you to look at our previous reports to get an impression of when we typically execute which activities. The proposal also links to the documentation from our 2016 evaluation. Effeietsanders (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Scheduling Project Grant Interview

Hello User:Wiki Loves Monuments international team and User: Effeietsanders, I will be reaching out shortly to set up your project grant interview. Can you please send your email address to me at lmiranda wikimedia  · org at your earliest convenience? Thank you! LMiranda (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(for archive happiness: I responded via email) Effeietsanders (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wiki Loves Monuments international team/2018 coordination

Scoring rubric	Score
(A) Impact potential Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both? Does it have the potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	8.5
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	8.5
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe? Is the budget realistic/efficient ? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	8.8
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	8.3
Additional comments from the Committee: With this proposal, WLM shows its ability to change, self-reflect, and continue to be relevant to the Wikimedia movement 2030 strategy. WLM set standard, not just in the wiki word, but in general. There are also many records and other projects that came out of the basic idea. In some countries there was a saturation of the project while in some enthusiasm. it is very important to continue to support ideas and projects as a whole Excellent fit with strategic priorities and very high impact potential. I especially appreciate focus on identifying challenges and barriers that are likely to increase geographic diversity of the event. I am excited this project plans to simplify the WLM organizational efforts. This could have a broad impact, depending on what specifically they address and make accessible for emerging communities, as the needs are varied and diverse. the project has clear and proven methods of measuring success A very high-quality iterative project that keeps bringing good results year after year. The plan seems to be efficient, my minor concern is measures of success as international team is also well-positioned to help local team improve their results (and thus might have impact on that as well). The desire for expansion is encouraging and very exciting. This expansion can be measured with quantifiable metrics. The proposed WLM structure (to be developed) can be examined and tested to check for a successful outcome. I, however, do not see any circular checks with the community regarding follow-ups with organizers after events and a debriefing to further improve process. This is highly important for new organizers and new areas. the budget is realistic and I am particularly pleased that I do not see the "manager fee item" which in some projects is multiple (and unjustified) big in relation to the entire project The international team is well-positioned and experienced enough to accomplish this, the budget is reasonable as well. While there were good reasons to oppose the international meeting as too costly and not impactful enough last year, we now have clear reasons to hold it which also means the budget is efficient. This group is experienced in hosting events and executing the WLM program. Their past projects show this. My only concern is they may not involve as many people from the broader community in meaningful roles. These would be people outside of Europe and North America. Involving the broader community in a meaningful way would make the plan highly impactful and certain that a more complete plan could be developed within the timeframe. this project has clear community support. WLM has a high community engagement with a lot of local communities involved. The international team is taking specific steps to support diversity. The community engagement is established by using existing mailing lists and some social media platforms, but I worry this might lead to stagnation or minimal recruitment. I would love to see the organizers add an outreach aspect to their project to include GLAMs or educational institutions. I fully support the proposal and the team. It is very important that they continue to support existing participants and animate those who have not yet joined to do it This year the proposal is very well written, with clear focus and clear reasons to hold an international meeting. For me this is a good reason to support full funding. I am encouraged to see the considerations for prizes and travel, but I wonder if those costs could be reduced. Perhaps by reaching out to outside organizations for sponsorships for the prizes and not meeting in-person as often could reduce the budget. I would love to see more focus on recruiting participants from GLAMs, educational institutions, or other cultural/heritage organizations.

This proposal has been recommended for due diligence review.

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal and recommended it for due diligence review. This means that a majority of the committee reviewers favorably assessed this proposal and have requested further investigation by Wikimedia Foundation staff.

Next steps:

1. Aggregated committee comments from the committee are posted above. Note that these comments may vary, or even contradict each other, since they reflect the conclusions of multiple individual committee members who independently reviewed this proposal. We recommend that you review all the feedback and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page.
2. Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on Thursday, May 27, 2021.

Questions? Contact us at projectgrants wikimedia  · org.

Round 1 2018 decision

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for a Project Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, 32,000 EUR

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is glad to support the WLM international team in running the 2018 iteration of this high profile contest. We especially look forward to the results of your work to make this project more supportive to emerging communities.

New grantees are invited to participate in a Storytelling Workshop on June 5 and a publicly streamed Project Showcase on June 14. You can learn more and sign up to participate here: Telling your story.

Next steps:

1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
2. Review the information for grantees.
3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
4. Start work on your project!

Upcoming changes to Wikimedia Foundation Grants

Over the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has been undergoing a community consultation process to launch a new grants strategy. Our proposed programs are posted on Meta here: Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021. If you have suggestions about how we can improve our programs in the future, you can find information about how to give feedback here: Get involved. We are also currently seeking candidates to serve on regional grants committees and we'd appreciate it if you could help us spread the word to strong candidates--you can find out more here. We will launch our new programs in July 2021. If you are interested in submitting future proposals for funding, stay tuned to learn more about our future programs.