Microgrants/Gibbons Stamp Monthly Digital Archive 1890 - 2009

Overview

Purchase of a DVD archive of Gibbons Stamp Monthly for use with general article creation in the philately area but specifically to enable the creation and expansion of articles relating to the British Library Philatelic Collections, an ongoing GLAM project with the BL to improve the coverage of that department online which has the support of the Curator of the Department, David Beech. Fae is aware of the project which involves the creation of a total of about 60 articles on named British Library Philatelic Department Collections.

The collections are poorly covered in mainstream sources and I need greater research and referencing firepower to create the new articles and expand the existing ones as my existing sources are inadequate. The archive covers over 100 years of this journal, which is the key UK publication in philately, recording information available nowhere else. Due to the age of the material there is no realistic alternative way of accessing this information.

See: http://www.stanleygibbons.com/stanleygibbons/view/content/sg_shop_catalogues_gsm_archive

Budget

£199.96 but I might be able to get it a bit cheaper than that.

Timeline

Indefinite as the archive has permanent benefits for the articles I create. Can report on the British Library project in 6 months.

Expected outcomes

As above.

Who I am

Philafenzy. I am in the GLAM project, philately project.

Discussion

Hi Philafrenzy. Apologies for not getting back to you quicker about this. This sounds like a great project. Could you confirm a couple of things? I presume there wouldn't be any problem with referencing the material, since you'd be able to reference back to the original monthly issues? Also, is the use that you plan to make of the DVD permitted by Stanley Gibbons and any EULAs that come with the DVD? Thanks. Mike Peel 21:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I don't know what the EULA agreement says but I can't see that it would place any restriction on this sort of use. What is on the DVDs, as I understand it, is pdf versions of the old journals combined with an electronic search function. I don't intend to upload the pdfs to the encyclopaedia or anywhere else (even though many years would be out of copyright now). The journals will be used to expand and reference existing articles and to create new ones. As far as the British Library side is concerned, the Curator has actually recruited a further collaborator who is retired and can visit them regularly to help with this project and I am visiting the Library soon to meet him and get him registered on Wikipedia. I am in the process of creating the stubs that we will jointly work on. I notice that this product is on eBay at the lower price of £179.95 plus £3.50 but I don't think it is likely to fall in price any further. Philafrenzy 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And it seems to have gone down to that same price on the link above too. Philafrenzy 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. If you do upload PDFs, or directly copied text, then please confirm that the original copyright owners are happy with this before doing so, even if the material is now out of copyright, particularly to avoid any dispute about copyright relating to original vs. scanned documents.

I'm happy to be able to approve this microgrant. :-) I see that Stanley Gibbons are now selling it for £179.96 (with £20 off) - unless it's substantially cheaper then that elsewhere, then it's probably best to get a copy direct from them. There's two ways forward here. If you are happy to purchase this directly, then we can reimburse you for it if you send the receipt to the Office. Or we can purchase it directly for you, in which case please email me with your postal address. Thanks~ Mike Peel 22:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I will go ahead a buy it and send in the invoice. Philafrenzy 23:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Further reduced to £163.16 when I bought by 10% discount for new customers. Philafrenzy 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

NB: Paid by the office now. Richard Symonds (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Completion

Is your project completed?

Answer YES or NO.

Yes or No does not apply to an open ended project!

Have you submitted all receipts for any expenses paid?

Answer YES, NO or N/A.

Yes

Activities and lessons learned

This section describes what the grantee did, and what the grantee learned from implementing the project. This section should be useful to others implementing similar projects and is an opportunity for the grantee to reflect on the project's performance.

Activities

Provide a brief list of activities performed to complete this project, and descriptions of these activities. This section should also include links to pictures, blog posts, or videos from the project or event if appropriate.

The journal archive has been used to expand and reference articles relating to philately using materials back to 1890 that could not otherwise practically be accessed or interogated.

Lessons learned

What lessons were learned that may help others succeed in similar projects? Consider the following questions and respond with 1 - 2 sentences.

What went well?

Got the item, which I use regularly in researching this area. Searching through the indexes of 100 year old periodicals is practically impossible to do well, even assuming that you have the hard copy available and it was correctly indexed in the first place. The ability to search electronically is a huge advantage.

What did not go well?

The cost took rather a long time to be reimbursed which may be an issue for some users with more expensive items like this. It wasn't in my particular case but there was still a fair amount of chasing and sending of duplicate paperwork required. Processes have no doubt improved since then. It may be better to insist on WMUK buying the item direct in order to reduce that, however, that may cause costs to be higher as WMUK may not be aware of the lowest price available for specialist items. In this case I got a discount that might not have been available to WMUK.

What would you do differently if you plan a similar project in the future?

See above.

Expected outcomes

This section should reference the expected outcomes and measures of success described in the approved grant submission.

Provide the expected outcomes here.

The creation and expansion of articles relating to philately and postal history.

Did you achieve the expected outcomes? How do you know the outcome was achieved?

Yes, numerous articles have since been created and the Archive used as a reference source. The Archive has been a direct and background source, and sometimes it confirms the non-existence of something too. I have tried to mention WMUK in my edit summaries. This is an ongoing matter and I expect to continue to use the Archive whilst I remain active on Wikipedia and interested in philately, so probably indefinitely.

Impact

This section ties this project to Wikimedia UK's broader goals, and shows what the project accomplished.

What impact did this project have on WMUK's mission and the strategic goals?

It improved Wikipedia's coverage in this area.

Reporting and documentation of expenditures

Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to the office? Answer "Yes" or "No".

Yes

Final comments

The whole micro-grant process is a little time consuming, there is this report for instance. It all makes sense as a charity has to use its funds wisely and account for them but I suspect that one of the reasons that there have been few applications for micro grants, apart from lack of awareness and the very small membership base, is because it just isn't worth the trouble for smaller items. Most of the applicants seem to be insiders testing the process. Don't get me wrong, I am very grateful and this was definitely worth the trouble for this £163 item, but would it be worth it for a £16 item? Possibly not. A streamlined process of some kind might help. Given the amount of money that WMUK is now raising, the fact that more micro grants are not made is a pity. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)