We have many years of running these very similar projects. It should
be possible to compare the value of outcomes against each other to see
if some use better practices than others, and then to help assess
future grant proposals for their potential value against estimated

I agree that outcomes are more than quantity of images, and the large
WMF programme evaluation training had precisely the aim of ensuring
that all funded projects would apply non-subjective measures of
value (i.e. investment per image, investment per new editor,
investment per new article are all measurable). One issue raised
was the poor quality of a significant number of images, and quality
should be part of the measurability of claimed outcomes. The original
post in this thread mentioned that 86 photographs have been used on
Wikipedia, this is a reasonable measure of quality, though investing
$11,000 for this outcome is probably an unfair comparison, so others
are needed.

When programmes include competitions with prizes, then this requires
special attention at the grant stage due as, again, we have
experienced several controversies around programmes reliant on this

We may wish to change the thread title, but the governance questions
raised are relevant and are best not dismissed with "stop wasting our
time on an email thread which should be about good PR".


On 31 October 2015 at 11:28, Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31.10.2015 12:12, Fæ wrote:
>> On 31 Oct 2015 11:00, "Ilario Valdelli" <valde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 31.10.2015 11:46, Fæ wrote:
>>>> Hang on. Could I have an independent reality check; is that really $7
>>>> per photograph?
>>>> Fae
>>> 30.000 is exact, but they are 30.000 Real which means 11.000 USD.
>> Cool. So about $2.50 per image.
>> This looks expensive compared to my upload projects (the last 500,000
>> images have cost $0.00 in total) but perhaps the benchmark is better when
>> measures against other WLM projects.
>> Anyone have the numbers to show comparative value?
>> Fae
> Using a bot to collect images in internet probably would have been lesser
> than 0$ per image.
> Anyway the real calculation of an impact of a project is not so simple.
> Because if we would use the same parameters, people reading this thread have
> spent more than 5 minutes, and calculating the sum of people reading this
> thread we can calculate a big time waste.
> We can say that this thread is really time-expensive without producing a
> real impact. But we know that this mailing list is done to help the
> communication and not to calculate the time waste, so a thread like this is
> accepted.
> I have put the links, it's sufficient to read the measures of the success to
> know that the aim of the project is not to produce only images.
> Kind regards
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH

fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to