Gerard, This "you" is for me? Right?
Well I'm really asking here for whom this was successful, and tried to explore the several layers that could be impacted by this. My point is not important here, but this is a conversation, so: Measure of success: Wikimedia Commons receiving a good impact by this, new active volunteers that understand "free" "elaborative" "volunteers", new good quality images, new documentation to facilitate the penetration of new comers.  At least 100 featured pictures for each 1'000 USD invested, and at least 10% of retention with those characteristics listed. Wikipedia having a bunch of articles illustrated, with good quality image, and receiving more volunteers willing to help, increasing not only the illustration of the article, but also the article it self.  At least 10 featured articles or 30 four stars articles, of those National Parks mentioned for 1'000 USD invested. For being a Featured Article amd fou star at WP-pt, images are a must have. "off-line", this activity involving several volunteers that would create activities to spread the Wikimedia Movement outside the Wiki word, facilitating the journey to get in the Free Culture. And the more 30'000 USD that I was referring was about WLE 2014/15 and WLE. WLE 2014 they talked about 20'000 USD in this event, and we will not have a clearance on that, because they use the Brazilian Program to burn this money, and we don't have any serious report, and evaluation from the community, see the report . Fae, I did some raw comparatives for this WLE 2014: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Bad_usage_of_money_in_Brazil And tried to bring the readers to the local reality, this waste of money was totally ridiculous. WLM made this comparatives also. We can put some "price" to that. I started this email before Padula's answer, "we receive more international community support than local support ", because the local community know you, don't trust in you, they isolated you, and some of them have very strong opposition to your permanence in Wikimedia Movement.  But we are not talking about you.  I would like to see Wikimedia Commons volunteers be involved in the process, to create more clear, précised, and aligned rules for the contest, otherwise they will use Commons as a uploader, ignoring the community, and creating some issues, as massive deletion necessities. Also they have participate in Commons community, because during those contests volunteers of Commons had to help their contester, not knowing what is going on, or having a unexpected demand, as several questions in Portuguese in help cafes, and none volunteer who speaks pt ready there (I tried to help, but I'm not omniscient and omnipresent). (Same happened for Mexico contest). And they did not oriented about Wikimedia Commons, the legacy left by the contest was a ocean of "humm... okay", or over-processed downsized images. The ones that received the quality approval of the community, normally had to be edited by us. New volunteers, new documentation, quality images or else, nothing was created.  I know how much cost me to produce a Featured Picture, and it's something very close to that. Lets take the first five images of the contest, and their respective articles: 1° - https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajedo_de_Pai_Mateus 2° - don't have a article for that. (image not in use) 3° - don't have a article for that. 4° - article about the city: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Jos%C3%A9_dos_Ausentes (image not in use) 5° - https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambaba (image not in use). All of those had images to illustrate the article before it shows up, and 3 of 5 are not in use in any WP... 3 of 5 in the winners, less then 2% in total are in use, and normally just adding one more photo to the article, not illustrating the article, or receiving better images. This would be avoid, if the coordination had a conversation with the local community and listed articles without any picture, or very poor ones. Most of those stills with none image... samples: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parque_Nacional_da_Amaz%C3%B4nia https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parque_Nacional_Serra_da_Mocidade https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parque_Nacional_da_Serra_da_Cutia https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parque_Nacional_de_Paca%C3%A1s_Novos https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parque_Nacional_de_Serra_das_Lontras .... check: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_parques_nacionais_do_Brasil, see the number of red links and just for fun, try to open the first articles about beaches in this list: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_praias_de_Santa_Catarina Understand four star articles. https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predefini%C3%A7%C3%A3o:Escala_de_avalia%C3%A7%C3%A3o  the only report https://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Earth/2014 values on this report 13.000 + 6.950,00 + 13.900,00 + 2*( 2.500,00 + 1.500,00 + 1.000,00) = 43'850 BRL ~ 20'000 USD at the time. So 11'000 + ~20'000 = 30'000 USD! and how long it takes to WMF gating 30'000 USD? Any one know how much Latin America donated to WMF? 30'000 USD is money. some samples of local community interacting with Padula's "ideas": https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Brazilian_Group_of_Education_and_Research/User_Group_Proposal https://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Rodrigo_Padula follow the thread: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2014-August/015754.html ... On 31 October 2015 at 09:52, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > costs. > > 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 > method. > > 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". > > Fae > > 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: > 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> > -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>