Thanks for the questions. The Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list would have
made a very logical starting place to ask for initial feedback. But also
sending an email to the people who shared their data with you to work with
in the first place, or people who worked on internal evaluations in these
The feeling has been created that right now, the 'damage is done': the
report is published, you have done all you could to make sure that all
community members are as much aware as possible of what you consider the
conclusions. That means that any feedback now, becomes somewhat moot. We
have seen this before with Foundation publications (i.e. statistics on the
chapters), once it is announced to the community at large, feedback often
doesn't get incorporated any more (I hope this time it does!) and even if
it is, the "facts" already found their place into other publications like
the signpost. Asking feedback is most valuable *before* you announce it,
and proactively. You could (even better) consider involving those
stakeholders even earlier in the process, which makes it less of a black
I strongly believe that it would improve the quality of the work you do.
Still some of the basic flaws will remain due to the basic setup of the
evaluation framework (assumptions that all WLM are comparable etc.) but
others could be managed better.
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Edward Galvez <egal...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi Lodewijk,
> Thanks for your feedback about the process. It's been very valuable.
> I have a few follow up questions below:
> > Sure, the team did reach out in the collection phase - after all, without
> > the data such evaluation would be impossible. But after that, the
> > conclusions were drafted and shared with the wide community, rather than
> > with the stakeholders involved to discuss interpretation.
> Can you say more about which stakeholders? Do you have ideas how we might
> include them in the future, for example, through the Wiki Loves Monuments
> mailing list, or were you thinking in some other way?
> Either way, all communication seemed to be aimed to announce the
> > evaluation, rather than to ask active input on whether the analysis made
> > sense, whether there were misunderstandings, etc. But maybe you have had
> > lot of follow-up discussions with the people you collected data from on a
> > 1-to-1 level, which would be admirable.
> We tried to encourage input and questions through the next steps and in the
> talk page, but it sounds like this might not have been enough. How do you
> think we can do this better next time? Anything specific that stands out to
> you, beyond sharing with stakeholders beforehand?
> Thanks so much,
> > Again, I do appreciate the effort, I don't agree with the approach and
> > process.
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimediaemail@example.com
> > <
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> Edward Galvez
> Program Evaluation Associate
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: