Claudia, I share your concerns about reducing subtle things to a few
numbers.  Data can also be used in context-sensitive ways.  So I'm
wondering if there are any existing quantitative summaries that you find
useful? Or qualitative descriptions that draw from  more than one project?

Figuring out what ideas are repeatable, scalable, or awesome but one-time
only, is complex. We probably need many different approaches, not one
central approach, to understand and compare.

I'm glad to see data being shared, and again it might help to have many
different datasets, to limit conceptual bias in what sort of data is
relevant.
 On May 6, 2015 9:59 AM, "Claudia Garád" <claudia.ga...@wikimedia.at> wrote:

> Hi Sam,
>
> I am sure there are figures and stories that the various orgs collect and
> publish. But they are spread across different wikis and websites and/or
> languages. E.g. many of the FDC orgs are looking into ways to demonstrate
> these more qualitative aspects of our work (e.g. by storytelling) in their
> reports.
> But these information does not get the same attention and publicity in the
> wider community as the evaluation done by the WMF. Many WMAT volunteers and
> I myself share the concerns expressed by Romaine that these unidimensional
> numbers and lack of context foster misconceptions or even prejudices
> especially in the parts of the community that are not closely involved in
> the work of the respective groups and orgs.
>
> Best
> Claudia
>
>
>
> Am 06.05.2015 um 13:40 schrieb Sam Klein:
>
>> Hi Romaine,
>>
>> Are there other evals of WLM projects that capture the complexity you
>> want?
>>
>> Perhaps single-community evaluations done by the WLM organizers there?
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi all,
>>>
>>> In the past months the Wikimedia Foundation has been writing an
>>> evaluation
>>> about Wiki Loves Monuments. [1]
>>>
>>> At such it is fine that WMF is writing an evaluation, however they fail
>>> in
>>> actual understanding Wiki Loves Monuments, and that is shown in the
>>> evaluation report.
>>>
>>> As a result on the Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list a discussion grows
>>> about the various problems the evaluation has.
>>>
>>> As the Learning and Evaluation team at the Wikimedia Foundation already
>>> had
>>> released the first Programs Reports for Wiki Loves Monuments, we are now
>>> put as fait accompli with this evaluation report.
>>>
>>> Therefore I am writing here so that the rest of the worldwide Wikimedia
>>> community is informed that this is not going right.
>>>
>>> Wiki Loves Monuments is not just a bunch of uploads done in September,
>>> the
>>> report is too simplified without actual understanding how the community
>>> is
>>> doing this project.
>>>
>>>
>>> Romaine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2015/Wiki_Loves_Monuments
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to