In the logic model tables you will find within each of the program logic model links you will also find a number, or question mark within parentheses next to each logic model/theory of change component listed. The number refers to the mean (numeric average) rating of the perceived difficulty in measuring that component in cases where you were able to rate those with sticky dots in Budapest. The Numeric scale is:
1 = Relatively Easy - you would likely be ready to move forward with a strategy
2 = Somewhat Difficult - you may need help devising a strategy if you wanted to capture/measure the component
3 = Difficult – you find the component tricky to measure and would definitely need assisted devising a strategy if you wanted to capture/measure the component
Program Name: GLAM Content Donations
Theory of Change Vision: GLAM content donations aim to improve the quality and coverage of Wikimedia Commons with existing material and enabling its dissemination.
Theory of Change Concepts:
Quality = High resolution metadata
Coverage = Filling gaps
Inputs
Participants
Activities
Direct_Products
Short_Term_Outcomes i.e. Change to Learning and Motivations
Medium_Term_Outcomes i.e. Change in Action
Long_Term_Outcomes i.e. Change to the Conditions
Contacts to GLAMs (?)
Developer Time – T (?)
Curators, Archivists, Librarians, Historians – T (?)
Volunteers from Wikimedia – T (?)
GLAM Coordinator – maybe (?)
GLAM volunteers (?)
Uploader tool (?)
Legal advice – pro-bono or board (?)
Needs assessment (?)
Servers/Computers – Scanner – M (?)
Venues for hackathon, conference, etc. (?)
Space at GLAM for events (?)
Social Media accounts and blogs (?)
Software (?)
Lessons learned/best practices from former/other projects – T (?)
Wikimedia Commons Volunteers (?)
Wikipedia Users (?)
People working for the GLAM (?)
Wikisourcers (?)
Chapter Staff (?)
Wikimedia colleagues (?)
GLAM volunteers (?)
Like-minded organizations (OXFN, CC) (?)
Hackers and developer staff (?)
Journalists (?)
Policy-makers (?)
Government agency in charge of managing/monetizing GLAM content(?)
Artists and estates (?)
Inviting GLAMs to GLAM-Wiki Con (?)
Have meetings with the GLAM (?)
Presentations and info talks for community (?)
Researching GLAMs – who, what, where (?)
Write/draft/review contract/agreement (?)
Workshops on free license, WikiCommons etc (?)
Build tools to help with curation (?)
Helping to build the environment (legal) where GLAMs CAN donate content (?)
Help/have GLAMs figure out licensing (?)
Map metadata to commons templates (?)
Convert audio/video (?)
Create partnership page and the partnership templates (?)
Gather metrics (?)
Promotion of content – blogs, social media, press release (?)
Do the categorization (?)
Case Study (?)
Uploaded content to commons (?)
GLAM contests – competing against each other (?)
Edit-a-thons about media subject (?)
Hack-a-thon (?)
Contests – Wikipedia content with images (?)
Picking up GLAMs – networking etc. (?)
Shared goals/Mutual Understanding (2)
Built trust (3)
Learning about free licenses (2.5)
GLAM sees other GLAM blog about licenses and decides to proceed on open license (3)
Volunteers at GLAM grow confident in using upload wizard (2)
Director decides open licensing is the future and likes the idea (1)
Wikimedia volunteers are willing to work on GLAM collections (1)
Upload happens (1)
GLAM standardizes metadata (2)
Volunteers give feedback on quality, usefulness, etc. (2)
GLAM uses feedback for their internal processes (2)
Wikimedians build templates (1)
GLAM staff chooses content (?)
Scan images (1)
Release content under a free license (2)
Provide metadata (1)
Signing agreement/contract (1)
GLAM volunteers commit on long-term cooperation (3)
Some illustrated Wikipedia articles (1)
Contributors curate the new content donated (1)
GLAM blogs and tweets (1.5)
Wikimedians blog and tweet about the donation (1)
Multiple images become featured/quality in Commons (1.5)
Increased coverage of subjects (1.5)
GLAM presents at conferences about donation (2)
GLAM Institution enabled to carry out self-sustaining projects (2)
Wikimedia is considered a reliable and trustworthy partner for GLAM (3)
GLAM financially, or with staff time, supports better upload infrastructure (?)
Cultural change within GLAM Institutions = pro open content (3)
Law is passed so that GLAM content is freely licensed by definition (2.5)
GLAM performance is also measured on their openness (3)
Broader use of free licenses (2)
Free licenses become “standard” for GLAM digitization projects (2.5)
General public expect GLAMs to freely license/open donate their content (3)
Other GLAMs are doing similar projects (2)
Permanent page on GLAM website about partnership/licensing (1)
Assumptions
External Factors
That all staff wants “you” there opening content (?)
That we have common goals/mission (?)
We are the good guys (?)
The current situation regarding open-content is not satisfactory (?)
That the public cares about cultural content (?)
That WM community will help (?)
GLAMs have metadata – and if so, that it is standardized (?)
GLAM content is useful (?)
GLAM content is appropriate to be donated in its scope (?)
GLAMs content is digitized or is digitizable (?)
Main GLAM–contact is not available (e.g., longer illness) (?)
Budget cuts (?)
WMF infrastructure (?)
Legal framework in respect to copyrighted materials
