Jump to content

Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Opening Natural and Cultural Heritage in Indonesia:Bogor and Depok (ID: 22361972)/Final Report

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Opening Natural and Cultural Heritage in Indonesia: Bogor and Depok
Rapid Fund Final Report

Report Status: Under review

Due date: 2024-06-03T00:00:00Z

Funding program: Rapid Fund

Report type: Final

Application

This is an automatically generated Meta-Wiki page. The page was copied from Fluxx, the grantmaking web service of Wikimedia Foundation where the user has submitted their midpoint report. Please do not make any changes to this page because all changes will be removed after the next update. Use the discussion page for your feedback. The page was created by CR-FluxxBot.

General information[edit]

  • Applicant username: RXerself
  • Organization name: N/A
  • Amount awarded: 2629.32
  • Amount spent: 1541.31 USD, 25069465

Part 1: Project and impact[edit]

1. Describe the implemented activities and results achieved. Additionally, share which approaches were most effective in supporting you to achieve the results. (required)

We undertook the breadth of the project with varied data completeness from the official sources. As such, in more than one instance during our preliminary survey, we were impeded by the scarcity of accessible pre-existing data which made us navigate the uncharted. Public footages of the sites on the Internet are ample, but half of them are captured with personal travel documentation in mind, not descriptive. We relied on the fewer descriptive ones and Google Maps reviews to assist our survey. Public past surveys and documentation efforts also have proven valuable since the descriptions available have helped us in navigating and handling the documentation process.

Our approach to our visits involved the mapping of locations and then grouping these locations based on their access and proximities. 7 groups of locations in the regency and 5 groups of locations in the cities were created therefore we took 7 days of itineraries for the regency and the tentative "at minimum" 5 days of itineraries for the cities. The latter were then extended to its maximum of 7 days after the exhausting visits we experienced during the survey for the regency region. In additions, each locations are divided roughly into two groups based on the optimal method for the documentation process: extents and objects. Objects are straightforward to document, as they are tangible at hand and quantifiable. This principle is most relevant for inscriptions, which also need more handling in itself for its locational context and inscribed text. For location extents and wide view, the need for dimension put us in a challenge as it sometimes cannot be observed at eye level particularly for natural protected areas (NPA). Consequently, our attention was directed to gathering tokens of presence: signages, surrounding areas, distinctive features, etc. The process of locating such tokens was not as straightforward as we had initially presumed, as most locations in this category such as NPAs are often almost featureless, have no signs of designations, and often located in deep, often hard-to-access areas. Unpredictable rains and fog also hindered us from reaching such tokens, often making us go back to our car. At this point, we learned that we have to shift our next itinerary for the cities further to March towards the dry season. Pocket umbrellas are useful in calm conditions but their utility is diminished greatly as bad weather doesn't help in image qualities. We had hoped, and recommends, that similar future programs conducted during the dry season, as we had learned that overcast clouds present challenges for us to process the images.

On the other hand, for the objects category, the process of documentation is straightforward, relying on our preliminary survey which made us able to conduct the visits in a timely manner. The primary challenge lies in obtaining permission to photograph the sites, not because of legality concerns, but because some locations are behind fences and walls. Most of the sites like inscriptions, some government buildings, are open to the public. Some can only be visited during less busy times like the Zebaoth Church. Some of the sites like Purwakalih, Gedung Blenong, and Batutulis had no caretaker available on-site. For some places, this made us only be able to take several pictures from angles that we can reach. Unavailability of the caretakers would mean that people need unnecessary efforts dealing with official channels to know or contact them which in some way make us wonder about the management of the maintenance of these heritages, not being that much open for people.

We really wished to get another opportunity to document the places and objects with more straight methods, longer time period, and better equipment. Prior knowledge of the sites, opportunity to get a suitable access to remote workspace, and more resources to anticipate the constraints would have been beneficial and we thought those are something we wished to have beforehand. Our inability to obtain relevant equipment due to constraints we have not been aware of compromised the organisation of the project. Furthermore, it is also the time we learned that project discussions and preparations are better conducted collectively in-person settings and should be proposed in the Grant.

2. Documentation of your impact. Please use space below to share links that help tell your story, impact, and evaluation. (required)

Share links to:

  • Project page on Meta-Wiki or any other Wikimedia project
  • Dashboards and tools that you used to track contributions
  • Some photos or videos from your event. Remember to share access.

You can also share links to:

  • Important social media posts
  • Surveys and their results
  • Infographics and sound files
  • Examples of content edited on Wikimedia projects

Additionally, share the materials and resources that you used in the implementation of your project. (required)

For example:

  • Training materials and guides
  • Presentations and slides
  • Work processes and plans
  • Any other materials your team has created or adapted and can be shared with others

3. To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the work carried out with this Rapid Fund? You can choose “not applicable” if your work does not relate to these goals. Required. Select one option per question. (required)

Our efforts during the Fund period have helped to...
A. Bring in participants from underrepresented groups Not applicable to your fund
B. Create a more inclusive and connected culture in our community Not applicable to your fund
C. Develop content about underrepresented topics/groups Strongly agree
D. Develop content from underrepresented perspectives Strongly agree
E. Encourage the retention of editors Agree
F. Encourage the retention of organizers Agree
G. Increased participants' feelings of belonging and connection to the movement Not applicable to your fund
F. Other (optional)

Part 2: Learning[edit]

4. In your application, you outlined some learning questions. What did you learn from these learning questions when you implemented your project? How do you hope to use this learnings in the future? You can recall these learning questions below. (required)

You can recall these learning questions below: We are hoping to learn the possible on-site difficulties which may have caused the low number of documentation of these places as several places are located in the countryside or rather in an enclosure. This may range from distances from big cities, unapparent marking, or when the places left unkempt.

Most of the natural protected areas (NPA) and stone inscriptions were located far from the cities. This meant that we had to depart early in the morning. They took the longest travel time among targeted sites and everytime we arrived back from them it was always late afternoon and we were always exhausted. Not to mention possible obstacles from weather and road conditions which would extend the time needed. If this were to be replicated, we recommend only targeting one site per day for far away sites from cities.

The Yanlapa forest, Cikaniki research station, and Dungus Iwul Nature Reserve were the farthest sites that we reached. Yanlapa forest was located in the middle of rural cassava plantations, fortunately with concrete road from main road but it split into dirt road to reach the forest. We asked our driver to stop by a t-junction where the dirt road began and continued just by ourselves on foot. Unsurprisingly we were walking on really slippery and sticky loam-clay dirt, and caught many on our shoes and pants. We got back just in time it started to rain heavily and it took us around 3 hours via awful asphalt road, notoriously unkempt by the local government with many sand-carrying trucks passing by. The road to Cikaniki was even worse, it was unpaved rocks for at least 10 km and our car's second front bumper got stuck in them. There was actually a shorter access via south but it was still the bumpy rock surface road. We felt pity to our driver to have to drive 6-8 hours like that. Dungus Iwul was located close to a national road but there were a lot of mosquitoes so we had to limit the time we spent there. We recommend to check local mountaineering rental shop for proper gear, bringing rain coats, and to be facilitated in the budget so we are able to tip the driver.

Some of the heritage sites in the cities had their own obstacles. Rumah Cimanggis was being closed off with steel plates for a recent renovation and was located in a closed private compound. Dhanagun Temple was preparing for a Ramadan bazaar and built a tent already on its court, blocking natural light. Bogor Cathedral was also preparing for Easter and we were not allowed to go in their court. We still managed to capture relevant pictures for these sites but it could be better. We hoped that we can add perhaps a half of total days of taking pictures to be able to mitigate this properly. However, we moved the days to take the pictures for the cities from February to March 2024 and we were lucky to have consecutive sunny days.

5. Did anything unexpected or surprising happen when implementing your activities? This can include both positive and negative situations. What did you learn from those experiences? (required)

It was our first view of the stone inscriptions and we were surprised that the in situ conditions of some of the text were worse than we expected. Kebon Kopi I Inscription was the most weathered. To help with the production of the facsimile, we had to look up at the Pallava character tables and try to "reread" them. It was by no means scholarly endeavour, but we found that some of the publicly available transcription differred from what we read. Many photos of the inscription were in the wrong orientation while displaying the whole stone and the inscribed part. We think to annotate these findings in Commons.

We were lucky to come to Muara Cianten that day because, according to the kuncen (caretaker), the inscribed stone could be underwater when it rains heavily, making approaching it impossible. It was the best luck since it was still in the rainy season and the Cisadane and CIanten River where it is located on their confluence, fluctuate easily.

We discovered that some of the NPA like Dungus Iwul and Yanlapa had no clearly marked designated boundaries or proper signage readable by passers by from the main road. We often were unsure whether we were inside the area or not. These two (along with Pancoran Mas) are the remnants of the specialised purpose lands of Dutch era (Dungus Iwul explicitly stated this on its signage). In our opinion, the locations of them are too small to be an impactful NPA.

Proper preliminary survey was proven useful at navigating the sites, particularly for the ones in the regency where we would have known the proper routes, location, and the order of visit. This will make room for more surprises on the actual visit and minimise the likelihood of them to hinder the project. We usually spent less than an hour for each site in the regency as a lot of the time we were on the road.

It took a lot of personal time and resources in arranging the selection, upload, transcription, etc. We recommend that this be proposed to be supported further via the grant funds like with travel/accommodation for in-person meet-up with the team. There are also some informal fees we ecountered such as tips or additional fees for car rent (we learn directly now that Indonesian rental cars mostly burden the lunch fee of the driver to the customer and there was that time we need to traverse hours on rocky roads). We have to say that some parts of the project is underbudgeted (like hotels, number of days), not budgeted (like driver's fee), or a bit overbudgeted (petrol).

Oh and one of us got stung by a bee and the other one bitten by a leech-worm so there is that.

6. What is your plan to share your project learnings and results with other community members? If you have already done it, describe how. (required)

We reached out to the people at another rapid fund proposal that should they need anything that we can help with, we are available. We actually wonder whether we should go to Bandung with the remaining funds to be able to help them directly. We need to still give some little touch to the Meta dashboard and after it is ready, we plan to announce it at the Indonesian Wikipedia village pump.

Part 3: Metrics[edit]

7. Wikimedia Metrics results. (required)

In your application, you set some Wikimedia targets in numbers (Wikimedia metrics). In this section, you will describe the achieved results and provide links to the tools used.

Target Results Comments and tools used
Number of participants 2 2
Number of editors 2 2
Number of organizers 2 2
Wikimedia project Target Result - Number of created pages Result - Number of improved pages
Wikipedia 16 0 28
Wikimedia Commons 275 391 0
Wikidata 34 7 29
Wiktionary
Wikisource
Wikimedia Incubator
Translatewiki
MediaWiki
Wikiquote
Wikivoyage
Wikibooks
Wikiversity
Wikinews
Wikispecies
Wikifunctions or Abstract Wikipedia

8. Other Metrics results.

In your proposal, you could also set Other Metrics targets. Please describe the achieved results and provide links to the tools used if you set Other Metrics in your application.

Other Metrics name Metrics Description Target Result Tools and comments
Project Dashboard A dashboard for presenting the finished project results to the community 1 1
Number of Commons categories edited Number of edited category pages in Commons 34 42

9. Did you have any difficulties collecting data to measure your results? (required)

Yes

9.1. Please state what difficulties you had. How do you hope to overcome these challenges in the future? Do you have any recommendations for the Foundation to support you in addressing these challenges? (required)

We tried using two tools: Outreach Dashboard and Event Metrics. Both cannot count contributions in category namespace in Commons (ex: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/ONCHI/ONCHI_Commons_categories_(2024)/home ). So we have to count manually. Adding that function would be great.

Part 4: Financial reporting[edit]

10. Please state the total amount spent in your local currency. (required)

25069465

11. Please state the total amount spent in US dollars. (required)

1541.31

12. Report the funds spent in the currency of your fund. (required)

Provide the link to the financial report https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oeYSKsUCCEQj1qLNOhjtSiTNOdVewksqSJWPNlTYJEk/edit#gid=591066270


12.2. If you have not already done so in your financial spending report, please provide information on changes in the budget in relation to your original proposal. (optional)

Initial $12.56 for co-working space is re-budgeted for intercity train tickets at $18.00 (with the remainder taken from the rest of the Travel and Accommodation slot).

13. Do you have any unspent funds from the Fund?

Yes

13.1. Please list the amount and currency you did not use and explain why.

Unspent funds: IDR 15,959,897.50

The ratio of our spending is 61%. Most of the spending for petrol were at 40% price of the proposed, with extra 3 days. Car expenses were at 75% price of the proposed, with extra 3 days. The rest come from all the remainders from other expenses particularly Equipment and Tools since after problems with official documents, we decided to use our own cameras rather than renting.

13.2. What are you planning to do with the underspent funds?

B. Propose to use them to partially or fully fund a new/future grant request with PO approval

13.3. Please provide details of hope to spend these funds.

There are two programs in mind.

We can use part of it for a training or direct assistance for the Wiki Cagar Budaya grant project in Bandung and Sumedang. This will need further coordination with the people involved. Budget will be allocated for travel/accommodation.

With the remaining funds, we can also continue on to the other places in West Java which are Bekasi and Karawang with several of the oldest temples in Java located in Karawang. The budget will be similar to this project.

If this is possible, we can arrange the budget for both and see how big the scope can be.

14.1. Are you in compliance with the terms outlined in the fund agreement?

Yes Your response to the review feedback. 14.2. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement?

Yes

14.3. Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement? In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the WMF mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.

Yes

15. If you have additional recommendations or reflections that don’t fit into the above sections, please write them here. (optional)


Review notes[edit]

Review notes from Program Officer:

N/A

Applicant's response to the review feedback.

N/A

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Rapid_Fund/Opening_Natural_and_Cultural_Heritage_in_Indonesia:Bogor_and_Depok_(ID:_22361972)/Final_Report&oldid=26867528"