[Wiki Loves Monuments] 'evaluation'

Wed May 6 09:17:50 UTC 2015

Hi all,

I noticed that on the talk page of the evaluation WMF is only collecting
"questions". It annoys me very much that they leave out the actual feedback
we have given here.

WMF is in my opinion failing in understanding and describing Wiki Loves
Monuments. They fail in write a good evaluation and they fail in responding
in a suitable manner to our feedback here. They live in an ivory tower
without taking us seriously enough.

Therefore I have started on the talk page of the evaluation a collection of
problems. See:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015/Wiki_Loves_Monuments#Problems_with_this_evaluation
There I have tried to rephrase both our feedback and my own feedback from
elsewhere. I would like to invite all of you to comment on the issues I
have tried to address in this section. Feel free to add other problems
under a new sub section and feel free to expand the comment I added with
other perspectives that  that are also relevant for the described problems.

Thanks!
Romaine

2015-05-05 14:12 GMT+02:00 Roel Balingit <roel.balingit at wikimedia.org.ph>:

> I believe that calculation is unfair because it prejudices communities
> where free knowledge isn't widely accepted as well as countries which have
> limited Internet penetration. Just a general statement.
>
>
>
>
> *ROEL BALINGIT*
> *Treasurer*
> *______________________________________________________________*
> *WIKIMEDIA PHILIPPINES*
> *G/F Gervacia Center, 152 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati
> City*
> *T: +63-2-8123277  | F: +63-2-8127177 | M: +63-917-8807635 *
> *W: **www.wikimedia.org.ph <http://www.wikimedia.org.ph/> |
> E: roel.balingit at wikimedia.org.ph <roel.balingit at wikimedia.org.ph>*
>
> *******************************************************************
> ********************************************
> This e-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you
> are not the addressee you
> may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have
> received this message in
> error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender
> immediately by
> return e-mail.
>
> Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error
> or virus-free. The
> sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
> *******************************************************************
> ********************************************
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> To be clear. Here the benefits are not calculated because we consider
>> that a single upload is a benefit.
>>
>> What is missed is the time of the volunteers.
>>
>> If we calculate the overload of the community to check photos or to look
>> for copyviol,  this relation changes.
>>
>> It an important parameter because a volunteer to filter a huge amount of
>> poor photos or of copyviol has a negative impact in other activities.
>>
>> Basically these parameters are not realistic.
>> Il 05/Mag/2015 13:59, "Ilario Valdelli" <valdelli at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>
>>> It's un unclear.
>>>
>>> A god shot on the market costs more than 50 dollars.
>>>
>>> Everything in high quality is a benefit.
>>>
>>> So the aim is not to calculate a cost per shot but the relation costs
>>> benefits.
>>>
>>> Basically the delta.
>>>
>>> If there is the need to evaluate the success considering the poor
>>> relation costs per upload, there is no sense to have a photo contest. An
>>> editathon will produce more results.
>>>  Il 05/Mag/2015 12:21, "Ivo Kruusamägi" <ivo.kruusamagi at gmail.com> ha
>>> scritto:
>>>
>>>> I've collected photos for Commons with cost lower than 0.01 $ per
>>>> image, so I don't like claims, that "A god shot of a professional
>>>> artist doesn't cost 0.90 dollars". Considering the fact, that average
>>>> upload in WLM is usually out of rather poor quality and will not find
>>>> itself a place in an article, then thous things aren't that easily
>>>> comparable.
>>>>
>>>> I specially like the comment about Romaine, and I have taken somewhat
>>>> similar approach. Only if I'm able to provide constant work for the
>>>> newcomers there is some chance of keeping them with the program. Getting
>>>> images vs getting users are two rather different aims. I have also set
>>>> interest towards getting quality images as we have so many contributors per
>>>> capita in Estonia, that it isn't very likely to get an increase there
>>>> without some rather desperate means. But just focusing on images could help
>>>> to get significantly better quality contributions.
>>>>
>>>> As of this evaluation I'd actually like to get some selected examples,
>>>> that would explain somewhat on what others have done and what kind of
>>>> differences there are. For instance, if someone spends thousands of dollars
>>>> for this campaign, then I'd like to know where the money went, as I can't
>>>> personally think of any places on where to spend that much. Or what kind of
>>>> outreach approach was taken to achieve the x goals etc.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Ivo Kruusamägi
>>>>
>>>> 2015-05-05 11:06 GMT+03:00 Ilario Valdelli <valdelli at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> To specify what I am saying:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015/Wiki_Loves_Monuments/Outputs
>>>>>
>>>>> In the paragraph "Content Production and Quality Improvement" it's
>>>>> not mentioned any paragraph about the quality of the photos.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a photo contest and the photo contest gives a prize to the best
>>>>> photos not to the biggest uploaders.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an example of divergence between the real aim of the projects
>>>>> and the measures of the evaluation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably there is a misunderstanding in same place.
>>>>>
>>>>> A god shot of a professional artist doesn't cost 0.90 dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>> To measure the success the best approach is to consider that a god
>>>>> shot can costs around 50-100 dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Replying to people that agree that the measure is to cover articles, I
>>>>> agree with them but I also agree that there is no sense to have bad photos
>>>>> even if these photos are not "descriptive".
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Lodewijk,
>>>>>> it's not the fisrt time that I am saying that the measures of the
>>>>>> evaluation are able to measure quantities and not qualities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the aim of Wikimedia is to improve also the qualities, it's clear
>>>>>> the direction that the movement is taking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that measuring quantities is easier, but it's not an
>>>>>> evaluation, are simple numbers without a clear "strategy".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it seems that the WMF evaluation department has once again put
>>>>>>> together an evaluation of Wiki Loves Monuments. Out of curiosity, were any
>>>>>>> of the organizers involved in this? A quick glance suggests some factual
>>>>>>> errors, and again a big focus on assuming WLM is a consistent project, that
>>>>>>> is similar in each country (while in reality it is a diverse collection of
>>>>>>> projects, tailored to the needs of each country, by its community) and with
>>>>>>> a focus towards number crunching.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Statements that begin with 'the average Wiki Loves Monuments
>>>>>>> implementation/contest' make my eyes bleed... Did anyone make a more
>>>>>>> thorough analysis of the report?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Lodewijk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
>>>>>>> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
>>>>>>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ilario Valdelli
>>>>>> Wikimedia CH
>>>>>> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
>>>>>> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
>>>>>> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
>>>>>> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
>>>>>> Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario>
>>>>>> Skype: valdelli
>>>>>> Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli>
>>>>>> Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli>
>>>>>> Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli
>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469>
>>>>>> Tel: +41764821371
>>>>>> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ilario Valdelli
>>>>> Wikimedia CH
>>>>> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
>>>>> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
>>>>> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
>>>>> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
>>>>> Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario>
>>>>> Skype: valdelli
>>>>> Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli>
>>>>> Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli>
>>>>> Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli
>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469>
>>>>> Tel: +41764821371
>>>>> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
>>>>> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
>>>>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
>>>> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
>>>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
>> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikilovesmonuments/attachments/20150506/b33d8200/attachment-0001.html>