Lily goes over what we want to achieve by the end of the day. Stephen reviews the team's mission statement, survey themes discussed on Day 2, and the summary of SWOT analysis.
Each individual or groups of at most 2 people are then encouraged to spend the following 20 minutes to identify one problem that they think it is important for the international team to work on in 2017.
A set of tools and programs to move monuments data to Wikidata, and then encourage people to enrich this data before the competition in 2017.
Why
We need it for the contest
Partners/press/pr will love it (Creates visualizations opportunities)
Make participation easier
We need for better stats
How
We need to assess what we currently have on Wikidata
Wikidatathons (people who can do a lot of work in a small amount of time)
We need to assess the tooling
We should integrate Wikidata into heritage bot
Impact
Heritage:
better insight and accessibility into the photos we have now and will get.
New way we can work with traditional organizations.
Contributions to WM projects:
Encourage more users/edits on Wikidata
We can generate lists for Wikipedia, replacing the existing complex template-powered system
Address quality concerns: better statistics, identify if there are issues at all.
Bolstering local communities:
reduce the pain of dealing with lists and data, thus hopefully reducing burnout
new ways to contribute (another low-barrier way to join)
Challenges
Monitoring changes inside Wikidata will be difficult. Lots of changes and description changes. May need a separate tool
Double work before full switch. We need to maintain the old heritage bot system.
It's new complexity to the system.
Not everyone has opportunity to photograph in their neighborhood, when they find out about the competition for the first time. A little bit of help would be welcome.
We want a dashboard for national organizers, with a notification system (uploaders and organizers), and integrated with the jury tool
Why
We want problematic/suspicious/tricky images to be flagged early on
We want to be notified of events on Commons (nomination, deletion)
How
Mostly focused on organizers
Sometimes images disappear, and so we want to help organizers do something about it by noticing when a file is nominated for deletion.
On Facebook, people asked whether their photos were entered into the competition. It would be helpful to tell participants tell if they are uploaded.
Want to be sure that someone has entered.
Can be integrated with the jury tool.
Want to ensure it's a good image.
& This would need be integrated with Wikimedia Commons
Impact
Good content would not be deleted (more oversight)
Helps local organizers with a good tool, this avoids burnout
Enables national organizers to build a better relationship with Commons community
There are tools that do part of this, but nothing that does everything.
Challenges
Must be usable − can be difficult to be entirely wiki-based
Other thought: we could also include progress into the next phase in the jury process, if images are nominated etc: communicate that also to the participants.
I like the idea from the perspective of the jury tool, if we are going to build, let's not half-build it and it should work with the back-end of the jury tool. We can discuss further if we want to provide further details about where their photo is in the pipeline.
As a national organizer, I want problematic/suspicious/tricky images to be flagged to me early on, so that I can fix it.
(eg, an image without license ; resolution too low ; copyright in the EXIF != username ; no metadata at all ; present on other websites [via reverse image search])
-→ How to mark an image as checked? Talk page?
As a national organizer, I want to know when an image from the competition gets nominated for deletion, so that I can help sort the situation out − either fix it, or intermediate between community and uploader.
As a national organizer, I want to know when an image from the competition got deleted, so that I can follow-up on this particular image (reuses) and identify patterns.
As a national organizer, I want images with invalid (not wrong) monument identifier flagged so that I can take action (fix/remove from competition).
As a national organizer, I want images images whose geocordinates do not match the ones of the monument flagged so that I can take action (fix coords/fix the DB/remove from competition).
As the international jury coordinator, I want to ensure technical quality & formal criteria of the international nominees.
As an uploader, I want to have a confirmation at the end of the contest period if/which images will definitely participate so that I can fix a forgotten/excluded image.
As a power-uploader (not using UploadCampaign), I want to make sure that my images participate so that I can fix an excluded/forgotten one
Main source of funding - wikimedia foundation + others + long term sponsors
Secure additional funding (separate from WMF) for prizes, additional projects, expanded focuses
Fund international prizes that will attract pro photographers- so that WLM can compete with the big photographic competitions and attract pro photographers-
How
Short term strategy around financial needs based on immediate goals for 2017 (being developed now)
Apply for 2017 grant to WMF
Research, develop case studies and approach potential sponsors, partners, and facilitating networks (for 2017, with the idea of developing long term relationships)
Research the development of similar projects to assess possibilities, opportunities, (and perhaps collaboration)
Create, consult and develop on a long-term (3, 5 and 10 year) strategy - including making key decisions around fiscal sponsor vs. independent entity vs. thematic group
Implement long-term strategy by approaching WMF with plan, and identified grantmaking bodies, key stakeholders and Corporate Social Responsibility entities
Impact
Ability to fund and proceed with long term projects (wikidata, brand management, funding and partner relationships, etc.)
Allow for institutional stability (long term planning, documentation, brand custodianship, institutional memory)
Provide a solid (long term) entity for funders and partners to engage with year long, rather than just during the contest
Be able to identify alternative and strategic sources of funding and partners (and country teams)
Be able to plan, scale and expand key areas for the growth and influence of the project
Providing attractiveness to the contest year round
Challenges
Keeping a high level of attractiveness for partners and sponsors
providing the infrastructure (formal or informal) for year-round engagement
developing the correct identity (balanced)
Focus on metrics and results
Management of more key stakeholders
Retention and attraction of professional photographers
Comment: What if grant is turned down: you look elsewhere, but you have a plan at least. There is precedent on education front.
Comment: Education is outside the movement, which means different relationship with the community. There are troubles also with funding Wikimania etc.
Comment: How to approach? That should be discussed in setting up the plan. The strategy should look at both extremities.
Comment: Approaching externals needs a very clear project, strategy. Long term planning to assure an external grant.
Comment: In the long run, you may want to consider developing either a long term relationship with an organization like a chapter, or set up your own.
Comment: What is the value an entity would add (i.e. holding assets, talking to partners). Attaching formalities might also impede flexibility.
‘’Comment’’: What do we need assets for? We need to figure out if we need a strategy to ask for money, before starting the strategy discussion we need to figure out what we need the money for. The primary thing that we need funding for is this meeting and prizes. If you think we need funding beyond these two, let's discuss those.
Comment: A lot of stuff depends on volunteers, but if you want to have someone who does communications or community interventions, you may want to have someone who does it as part of a paid position.
Comment: I agree that some of the things we may be able to cover by volunteer sources, but we can for example increase the prizes significantly. Regarding entity: we can think about thematic entity.
Comment: I see some options for other WL competitions to be included perhaps. Difference is that Wiki Loves Monuments may be completely separated from affiliates. Infrastructure requirements are similar.
Comment: This is the kind of conversation that happened in WMUK some years ago, or other professionalizing chapters: there are things staff do that volunteers can't do. there will be pain that you have to go through before being able to enjoy the benefits of mixing it. Although you're relying on volunteer capacity, you will start to try to do things that go beyond what is possible. Once you start bringing paid staff, you will lose some of that motivation, you will see receding of volunteer involvement. Looking towards getting more money is a good thing when you start thinking about a good vision as you try to balance the two.
Comment: In 2016 we got 2000 USD for jury tool development - we didn't spend most of it, because it would impact the dynamics in the wrong way. It's a tricky area, and if we want to get into it, we need a very strong reason. A big plan like this means basically locking things down for 2-3 years.
Comment: We need a long term plan, loose or locked. As long as everyone is on board, details will be worked out. We don't know yet where it would go. Even if you apply by yearly grants, you could benefit from a bigger plan.
Comment: Example: WMCH financed Kiwix is going to be an international project. Now it'll be an independent association, because it's getting so big and different that it makes sense to separate. WLE is now a project from WMUA, but it could split.
Comment: Strongly agree that long-term vision is important. The current world is focused on one-year terms. How can we change one-year thinking? By approaching people and asking. We can seek multi-year funding.
Whatever we do in terms of partnership and sponsorship should be derived from the goals of this group.
Global:
Make and share a plan!
Identify main offerings and messages for partners
Map other global players in the built heritage field and reach out
Opportunities arising (like ECHY - special prize, bring EU affiliates together, EU-wide activities like photo exhibitions, go on EU political level, and so on?)
Reach out to prominent existing partners (UNESCO, Europa Nostra, etc.)
Seek help from the Movement: WMF, WMF, etc.
Local:
Create documentation to help local organizers get sponsors and partners (overlaps with comms)
Map main partnerships happening on a local level
Why
Partnerships should be a derivative of the international team goals
There are existing partnerships that could be leveraged
Local organizers are under-supported
How
Publish a draft plan, receive comments from international team members
Work on website, partner packet
Document everything we're doing
Impact
Advancing at least on international team goal in a measurable way
Improving capability (and attitude) of local organizers to get sponsors and partners
Comment: ECHY (European Cultural Heritage Year), initiated by European Commission/Parliament and calls upon member states to give attention to cultural heritage. WMDE is involved with german activities, and germany is at the center of this initiative. Planning already started. Good opportunity to set up partnerships with all kind of organizations (for example, Deutsche Bahn). Would like to spread to European level. Advisorship to European Commission perhaps, deadline next week: http://www.voicesofculture.eu/ . How to involve the European community here.
Comment: We need to see how this ^ ^ fits in our strategy. We have to make a choice whether we as a team should take advisory roles, or encourage a local organizer group (like WMDE) to do that. We should give a clear "call to action" that partners can unite around, such as create a unified list of monuments and building visualization on top of that. Think we should have one main goal and not a few, so that we can get actual things done.
Comment: It's a fantastic opportunity for the international team to think about 2018, I know WMDE is running pilots in 2017 to prepare. As Germany started first, it will have a lot of influence, but should keep in mind that other countries might have different needs / directions.
Comment: Maybe ECHY is not limited to the EU, but the Council of Europe, which means it includes many more countries (like Russia for example).
Comment: : Maybe we need to find a topic from the international team? We can find a common theme, maybe not every year, or every few years that can connect lots of national cultures. (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Europeana/1914-18)
Comment: Here is one suggestion: define what we need from partners, and what partners can offer and what they get back.
As one example:
Promotion = Support the goals of their organisation, promoting awareness of built cultural heritage
Money =
Prizes =
Data = Combine their data with other datasets (authority control) + Pawel's tool on their website
Photos = Views on Wikipedia
All = Recognition/association with WLM
Comment: At a low level, we can make people we aware of opportunities.
Question: Is ECHY something we can already use to go to national institutions, are they aware? Depends on the country. Could be subsidies available, opportunities. We could as international team at least make a one-pager about this. WMDE offers help with this.
ACTION: Martin will share the application to the European Commission Advisory Board with the international team, 5 days for reviewing it requested. Deadline to apply is 20 February.
Comment: In theory no bad things happen. But they will. So let's make sure they are not so bad, expected and anticipated. Primary goal is that the teams have the resources/guidance to look into the submissions. There may be an outcome you can't help avoid - but you could at least explain it in a less combative way. From fight to understanding. Make the national team feel happy about participating rather than burdened.
Comment: How does this combine with a negotiating role with the community to get requirements etc from them, arrive at a solution. The people in the conversation to get the requirements are not necessarily the decision makers. Map who currently handles relationships, in which roles etc.
Comment: Admins on commons are used to handle people on an individual basis - a liaison role clarifies, should hopefully make it easier to find before cascade. One approach is also to help prepare the new organizers for what to expect, and get the right and necessary network to find their way. Clarify channels, but make sure that this person does not become a bottleneck. Also a risk if the commons community would start to rely too much on them.
Comment: Commons community may feel that we don't care enough about Wikimedia Commons. That we don't really want to mingle.
Comment: The question is how the national organizers approach commons. Illario knows his way. Find problems proactively.
Comment: There are two levels of issues under discussion:
Individual problem, let's fix this. (best for local, says someone with the username Lokal_Profil)
Generic problems, let's set up a system to handle it. (this is a role for the international team)
Let's consider doing some work on the latter in the international team. Let's also encourage as much as we can do with the local organizers. The former can also need someone matchmaking national organizers with Commons volunteers caring about a given cou
Lists are stored on Wikipedia, hard for third parties to contribute.
Access to lists
Allows third party experts to contribute and enrich data for all countries (e.g UNESCO, World Monuments Fund, Global Heritage Fund etc can contribute data and specialist knowledge on their databases). Adding their data to Wikidata provides a lot of value for them because Wikidata will act as authority control for their lists. Also it provides a worldwide monuments database on an established platform, which doesn’t currently exist anywhere.
More uniform tooling for importing data into Wikidata, allows existing Wikidata contributors to help with collating WLM lists.
Undervalued: Difficult to gauge the impact of the project, exploration of images
We have created the largest built heritage database in the world but not many people know about it.
The possibility of visualisation, easier to reuse and explore the data and images, this is very valuable to partners who are data producers, connect their databases to open license photos of the sites.
Data goes on being reusable even after a country stops doing WLM. Makes it easier to reuse images outside Wikimedia
Discoverability of data, Google search uses Wikidata.
Documentation of bespoke lists, breaks if one person leaves, language specific
Sustainability, institutional knowledge is made less likely to fail through data being available on Wikidata rather than bespoke lists. More likely for definitions to pass to the next generation of organizers - preserve institutional knowledge.
Technical requirement
Different technical hurdles but not necessarily lower, however the uniform platform means getting help should be easier (as compared to multiple languages and projects)
Language specific platforms for lists
Easier to discover and discuss changes to existing data
Allows people to contribute to many language wikis
How
Make our existing processes work of either Wikidata or existing lists - don't work from the assumption that everything is on lists
Request/require new participating countries go via Wikidata (first) - actively guiding
Ensure one Wikidata item per monument (for existing lists)
Question: How to deal with incremental updates through edits? We already have the issue now with lists but having now in a database raises the expectations. Ideally, we would limit the number of columns and whether they can be edited? Perhaps we could also look at how official organizations could give updates officially? Think about reducing out-of-datedness.
Comment: Good and important conversation, but real complicated.
Comment: Challenge: conflicts of data.
Question: What are the community and social aspects? Technically, we should allow both for now. It'll take some years.
Comment: We need also clear documentation, and make sure we have a good plan for monuments that are no longer in the official monuments list, but have been previously.
Today we don't know what percentage of monuments have complete coverage? Let's fix this.
Why
To be able to direct attention/effort where it's needed the most
For example, there are many photos of the Taj Mahal, but how can we tell which photos are still missing?
How
This work requires working with Wikipedians/Commoners/Heritage experts to qualitatively define completeness. It is unclear at this point what defines 'completeness' from an encyclopedic and/or media point of view.
It also requires mapping those qualitative metrics to quantitative ones.
I expect a lot of technical development to be needed in this area but it's hard to articulate before going through details of what is completeness. (photo similarity detection, ...)
Impact
It will help with creating motivation in countries that think they are done. What could still use photos: other aspects of the building etc.
Potentially reducing the incentives for bringing photos to Commons for which we already have a lot of (almost exact ones), something that is requested by the Commons community.
Potentially can help us improve quality: again, an issue raised by Commons community
It helps diverting attention where it's really needed (in terms of completing world's free knowledge) instead of focusing on /just/ participation
Communities can use this measure to allocate their resources better. If a country's list of monuments is "complete", they can move onto other projects that need their attention.
Question: What defines quality? This is a hard problem.
Question: Wondering about scalability? Maybe we focus on most wanted rather than complete.
Question: What is 'complete' (in the sense that it is no longer worth the effort)? We will never be really complete in the sense of perfect high quality. Much opportunities there! We should be careful how we talk about completeness - there is also a risk that we define a measure when people can think that they are done.
Comment: we also could rethink what metrics we stress. For example, not looking for number of uploaded photos but number of monuments covered by photos. Also: a building is not 'documented' if you have one photo. Perhaps we should offer prizes for internal and external.
Question: The idea that the competition is about one photo. Perhaps we can provide a prize for a set of photos?
Question: How do we want to measure? There are good suggestions about sets and inside, but some people have some complications. What has already been built? What has already been used? We should talk to national teams that may already do stuff here.
Question: What do we want to do with that information, what initiatives to we want to develop? Inside of a building, series of photographs are great, but may also make the concept more complicated.
Question: What is enough? This will depend on who you are asking, and a lot of other factors. Who do you want to satisfy here? We should talk to different stakeholders. We need a lot more data for every monument to make some of the ideas work well. The great thing about this is that it would allow us to measure progress, and keep track of that.
Monumental (demo, code) is work-in-progress software to query and visualize information about monuments from wikidata within a territorial entity. The bigger goal if the project is to integrate this view into a Wikidata client, so it's easier for new people to edit and upload using a common interface. We can add a button to upload images. We already have a category set visible from within Monumental. We can create a description and filename based on the Wikidata ID.
Comment: This is the frontend for the world heritage register that UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICROM, Global Monuments Fund etc want. It is a very clear mechanism to get data, text and images from partners, your stuff appears on this website. We do not have any equivalents available right now. We could act as an authority control between different partner databases, this is a huge benefit to them, too. Shared on partners websites showing only items in their databases. An equivalent tool for natural heritage is Protected Planet.
This project was a combination of the two proposals shared earlier in the day. Currently, the data is stored in the Monuments Database, which connects unstructured lists on wiki pages with the stats tools and other aspects of Wiki Loves Monuments.
The monuments list for Wiki Loves Monuments exist primarily in three places:
Official data, often, but not always, published by a governmental authority
The per-country tables within the Monuments Database, which is largely a structured version of the data scraped from Wikipedia lists
Note: These tables include some inconsistent columns based on the data available. There are some validation steps when this table is generated.
A master table within the Monuments Database, which is a processed version of the per-country table
Note: This table has less data than the per-country tables, since some columns are dropped or normalized to make everything standard.
Note: There are approximately 100 country configurations at the moment. There is overlap, since some countries may have multiple tables, or may have data that is harvested twice for multiple languages.
In this structure, the master table in the Monuments Database is a mirror of the data that is edited on Wikipedia. It is sync'ed between Wikipedia and the Monuments Database via a bot (User:ErfgoedBot). The configuration and other code for this system is available on Gerrit. Campaigns, as run in UploadWizard, do not rely on or sync with any of these tables in the Monuments Database. We don't track the external features that rely on the Monuments Database. We use it for image categorization, reporting of statistics, reporting images used, and reporting for broken templates. We also maintain an API on top of the service, but it's not clear who uses that and how. Other external tools on Labs can read the database directly.
The current project has four components:
Migration to Wikidata: Taking existing data from the lists (via the per-country tables) and syncing it with Wikidata, including an import tool and data collision handling.
Backport Wikidata adaptor for the Monuments Database: Feed the Wikidata version of a monuments list back to the master table in the Monuments Database to not break current tooling (and consider dropping it in the future if deprecated)
Native Wikidata monuments tools: Building out the tools that make use of this new Wikidata storage backend for monuments (perhaps, Monumental)
Data acceptance: Building a path to import new original monument lists into Wikidata or update the old data into Wikidata
Monitoring: Once lists are in Wikidata, provide some system for validation or monitoring the list (possibly using an external authority if possible), so that we can tell if, for example, all French monuments are on Wikidata.
Comment: We should not assume WD is more granular than the lists, sometimes it's not the case. One identifier may be about a set (« Protected houses of Street X ») that would be mapped to several WD items (individual houses).
Comment: We want to get to a point to be able to say that the list by country x is 100% captured. This can help us with our stats.
Comment: For monetary and detection of issues, this can be useful, too.
Comment: It's going to be messy.
Some countries have already started migrating (note, this may not be up-to-date) their monuments lists to Wikidata:
The idea is to avoid the situation that images get deleted while they shouldn't be, new users have to go through the bureaucratic process while national organizers can help, detect massive deletions that they may/may-not be aware of, to signal if the image is not part of the competition. The concept is to build a dashboard with three main views.
Organizer view: What happens to the images in my campaign? What is the quality, are they being deleted, how can I notify users that images have problems.
Participant: What is the status of my entry?
Reader: Provide a general report at the end of a campaign.
The dashboard should empower the national organizer. The biggest problem atm is that organizers don't know there is a problem. First we were thinking of making a lot of notification tools, then we were thinking of consolidating them and making them more compact.
There was no strong opinion on how/whether the dashboard should write back to Wikimedia Commons. If someone is using the dashboard, should they be able to do the same tasks outside of the dashboard? It depends on the type of information. Some type of information may be exclusive to dashboard, and some to multiple path entry option.
It would be nice to have the dashboard go leave a note on the talk page.
There are two levels to partnerships: global & national.
For the national partnerships, the international team could provide some support:
We could develop some document with guidelines; overview of resources.
We should not do their work for national teams, but support them to do it themselves.
We could use the global network partners where possible
When helpful, the international team could provide a letter of support as recognition.
For the international partnership opportunities:
Use the European Cultural Heritage Year as opportunity.
Overview of the national partners would be helpful (to avoid clashes), but history suggests this is hardly done & maintained.
The international team (through Ido) is responsible for the global partnerships.
We should start by thinking global, and focusing on long term partnerships. We can identify partners and striving to meet them. WMDE has a 3 year methodology with strategic partner - 1st year meet, 2nd year small scale pilot, 3rd year bigger project / funding. Works with funders mostly. There are partners where it's "All or nothing", and you have to start big immediately in the first year. Also, there are quite a few partners that have some experience with our work through the national events or other Wikimedia activities.
The biggest hurdle is perhaps explaining what Wiki Loves Monuments is. We need to be up front about what it is, be proud of the great photos. We need to rework the WLM website, so that it reflects both the quality of the photos and the impact / statistics / facts about WLM. John can share the summary that he has done in making a summary of WLM for UNESCO.
We need some kind of prioritization. Whatever we do with partner/sponsors, we should make a choice in the types of partners we approach. What are we looking for, what is the image we want to have? Partners need to fulfill a need we have.
We need to make our intentions transparent, so that local teams can get information and help. Usually approaching sponsors is something we limit the circulation of. In approaching local sponsors both national and international team can be involved. If possible confirm existing partners early so that we can display them on the website, this will help with getting additional sponsors/partners.
We should develop a direction to go with partners?
Directions can be opportunity based, so we can approach local partners for connection, or focused on what we want to achieve the coming years.
We must define what we want, so that this can inform partnership seeking activity, for example:
Continental prizes - find partners with a regional/continental connection.
We should to define what we can offer for partners:
Something like Monumental (a cool visualization) can explain how it's possible to re-use images and promote the competition so their map gets better.
We could in the future create a package of photos that partners can re-use after the competition has ended, including appropriate attribution etc.
Consider data partnerships, can we deliver integration of partner's data into Wikidata currently? Probably not in the capacity of WLM international team
Possibility: discuss moving WLM website to another service (such as Squarespace). To be discussed.
Work on front page changes to WikiLovesMonuments.org to make an obvious case to potential partners as well.
After considering the international team's mission, we went around the room to discuss where we see Wiki Loves Monuments in five years:
With the world record, one goal is achieved. We can accelerate that to the universe. For me it's not just a photo competition: it's a tool for getting new editors involved. I would like to see more sustainability so that there is more communication/post-mortem after the competition, that users can easily add images to articles without having to know several lines of code to do that: improvement of tools and services. Also partnerships: the record was achieved without partners, some millions of monuments are not covered, missing lists, and moves in the EU to potentially make it harder to contribute. It's running pretty well in Europe, but we should look elsewhere. We should make sure we are in new places so that we can increase understanding of culture and heritage (not just monuments). If WLM can help, great!
Wiki Loves Monuments is a worldwide contest that all people can participate in, creating a worldwide heritage. People should be able to take part on their phones. Many big built heritage groups support it. WLM is so financially secure, it's able to plan in the future. Also, some sort of 3d. Scanners and lasers.
I see WLM as the largest programmatic engagement that the movement does. I'd like to see it more effective at bringing people in. I'd like to beat the record again. Wiki Loves Monuments represents the movement. Be even better than it was.
Most exciting thing is a vibrant community of developers around WLM. Can bring a lot of positive value around the projects. At the international team, and also all the organizers. I'd like to see the central database of all the world's cultural heritage.
Finding a way to cover all the monuments in all the world. All monuments in Wikidata. Strong local communities.
I hope in a few years time, it's a stable and ongoing effort. from the outside it may look like that, but from the inside, it doesn't always feel like that. Communities be able to organize the contest without so much effort (infrastructure). I don't exclude the possibility of tapping into things other than monuments. I hope that monuments database is used by heritage organizations and it has a value of its own. I hope the competition be an effective method to bring people in the Movement, welcoming 10,000 new people each year with a significant percentage of people who stay around after that.
It will be possible to run a local version in every country. Finish migration to Wikidata. I think that WLM will establish a formula that will be an influencer for Wiki Loves Art, Earth, Music.
Whatever learning we do in the next five years is replicated in the Wikimedia movement. Communities always join back because the costs for organizing are real low. Build the universal monuments catalogue. Some innovative way of browsing. We would like some recognition of the competition itself − e.g. exhibited in major museum
Wiki Loves Monuments should be the obvious source for information whenever you see/want to discover built cultural heritage anywhere in the world. If you are not happy with the information, you can add to it. Self sustaining ecosystem that doesn't rely on a single person or small groups of people.
I agree with a lot of everyone's vision: sustainability, Wikidata. A few concrete goals for the next five years: (1) Be in over 100 countries. (2) Accept photos from outside of Wikimedia (social media: instagram, etc.). (3) Consider if this team is about the "Wiki Loves" model generally, or Wiki Loves Monuments only -- this is a good strategic question. (4) Have ways to generate revenue not based on grant applications (this may be more than 5 years to figure out).
Wiki Loves Monuments is frictionless to join − both as a country and as individuals. Funding is sustainable. Infrastructure can power other WL* initiatives. Clear picture of state of WLM worldwide
Migration on Wikidata will be complete. We need Wikidata to do a lot of things like maps, apps. Contests like WLsomething help to change the world in a better way regarding politics.
A contest which is contributing to build the largest open repository and collection of data and media of cultural heritage ("heritage" considered at large including immaterial). Several tools and people will continue to populate it and to document the objects and several other people will start to link and to use it and to build web services up to it and the repository will be perceived as a common good.
This has been a great discussion. We have a lot of interesting questions to discuss for our longer strategy: what will do beyond a photo competition and the data-base holder/maintainer? The focus of this year will be in part very much on wikidata. Our mission will remain the same, but we need to think about a theme and focus. This would also be helpful in efforts like partnerships.
Following the meeting, the international team should write out a bit more about what Wiki Loves Monuments is all about, and why it works. We had a good meeting, and we are on a good path. Some discussions will need to continue after this, and they will!
