Content Partnerships Hub/Financial support/WMF grant 2021–2023/Report

WIKIMEDIA SPECIAL SUPPORT FUND FINAL REPORT FORM – Wikimedia Sverige (G-GR-2106-05648) FY 2021/2022/2023 (extended grant)

Improving the Wikimedia movement’s work with content partners

– A service for the Wikimedia movement to reduce thresholds for underserved communities, improve efficiencies and bring large amounts of high value content online

Wikimedia Sverige (WMSE) is intending to coordinate and support stakeholders around content partnerships. As such WMSE will provide a service to the global Wikimedia movement so that Wikimedia affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) can work more efficiently to bring high value content from partner organizations to the Wikimedia platforms, e.g. GLAMs. This will empower affiliates and support a thriving movement across the world, as thresholds to bring content from partners are lowered. In the long term, the goal is to develop and maintain key infrastructure needed for content partners to engage willingly and effectively with the Wikimedia movement.

WMSE has gathered experience from multiple internationally oriented projects, as well as hundreds of successful partnerships over the years, including those with intergovernmental organizations, e.g. UN. The team has developed and contributed to small tools, e.g. Pywikibot, and community wishes and MediaWiki extensions. For the last three years the organization has prepared for an international expansion of its work. The association has especially worked to build capacity around batch uploads and batch editing – a set of technical and community skills that is rare amongst the affiliates.

Initial pilot project

Initially the work planned will be executed by WMSE's existing team members. The staff members will utilize their vast experience from their nationally focused work into global initiatives – and we are prepared to start directly in July 2021. Later in the pathfinding pilot, if funding allows, further staff members will be hired from across the world to complement the team.

Work will be done in close collaboration with teams at WMF and other affiliates. A diverse committee of experts from affiliates and content partners from across the world will provide insights and guidance for priorities – eventually to be aligned with the Technology Council and the Global Council when they are fully established. A special focus will be on ensuring that the committee has a strong understanding of the needs in the Global South and the needs of emerging communities.

A key part of the hub's service is a helpdesk. The helpdesk will provide support for Wikimedia organizations (including WMF) that have, or are intending to form, a content partnership, especially for emerging Wikimedia communities; furthermore, developing high value content partnerships with e.g. IGOs/INGOs or strategically important case studies, e.g. around SDC, are prioritized. WMSE’s team will support such partnerships with knowledge and technical capacity to do batch uploads and batch editing, resulting in significant amounts of content added or improved through the effort. For underserved communities long term support for capacity building around content partnerships is offered. Knowledge sharing, documentation and exchange activities are key components.

WMSE will then utilize the experience from the helpdesk to simplify and effectivize technical solutions, e.g. tools, improved documentation, training material and more. Coordination and community consultation is key to gain support. The aim is that the problems the helpdesk handles in the beginning will help guide the software development starting in early 2022. Communities across the world will be empowered by more consistent support for tools essential to the batch upload process. Long term maintenance of existing and future key tools will be prepared for. The work is intended to increase incrementally and expand over multiple years to come.

WMSE has an ongoing exchange with WMF Advancement around fundraising, initiated through a previous grant from WMF Product. The local fundraising capacity will continue to evolve with the aim to over time develop significant funding streams to cover a large part of future initiatives around content partnerships.

REPORTING QUESTIONS

Introduction

It is worth stressing that Wikimedia Sverige received an unrestricted grant, with the full authority to adjust the plans as deemed necessary. In the contract the goals are stated simply as:

“With the funds provided, Wikimedia Sverige will make preparations to actively support the implementation of the 2030 Strategy for the Wikimedia movement, especially around Thematic Hubs.

The funds will allow Wikimedia Sverige to better prepare the organization and to support the wider Wikimedia movement around content partnerships in numerous ways; which could include, but is not limited to, software development, capacity building, partnerships, knowledge sharing, fundraising and more.”

When first discussing this project WMSE prepared a document “Wikimedia Sverige's plan for content partnerships FY2021/22 – Executive summary”, intended as a basis for initial discussion with the team at WMF. During the following negotiations it was jointly decided that the objectives and KPIs presented there were not intended to be hard deliverables or reported towards. The questions below are based on the KPIs in the Executive summary and as such have limited bearing on the final shape of the project. However, the questions in this reporting template do provide a framework to analyze our work and to share our experience and the work done. We have therefore tried to answer the questions while also providing further clarity and outlining what was done and what was left out and the rationale behind the decisions.

When we set up the project we decided to organize it around one initial research task, a needs assessment, followed by the continuous development of five separate pillars, or areas of work. Namely:

1. The Helpdesk
2. Capacity Building
3. International partnerships
4. Software tools
5. Strategic Data uploads

During the span of the project we worked on identifying where the overlaps between these areas of work existed and how they could create synergies for each other. This is reflected in the design of the current MSIG project.

The work enabled through this grant has had a deep impact on the association as can be seen in the various ways in which it got presented in our Annual reports on the years of its execution, see complete list in Appendix A.

1. Expert Committee

1.1 Please explain how the Committee of Experts was set up and operated during this period to guide the work of the WM Sverige staff, and how regional content priorities were defined and discussed? (referring to Objective 1, KR 1: “1,000,000 SDC statements are added to Wikimedia Commons files by Wikimedia Sverige through batch editing, and 100,000 new media files with structured data from a globally diverse set of content partners are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Content is selected and prioritized through an inclusive governance process. The results are documented and disseminated.”, and “Work will be done in close collaboration with teams at WMF and other affiliates. A diverse committee of experts from affiliates and content partners from across the world will provide insights and guidance for priorities”).

The Content Partnerships Hub has to date been developed with the idea that there is a need to showcase what a thematic hub could contribute to the Wikimedia movement – and that a big, costly bureaucratic superstructure that will take over responsibilities from the Wikimedia affiliates is not the outcome. Through this initiative we want to show that thematic hubs can develop value on a global scale from the start and at a fairly low cost. What is needed for that is thoughtfully developed areas of work that are refined through ongoing experiments and that are rapidly adjusted and iterated based on feedback and experiments. This is in line with Strategic recommendation 10. Evaluate, Iterate, and Adapt.

Based on our discussions with different Movement actors and our needs assessment the conclusion was that the governance model should follow when there is a shared understanding on what the hubs could and should work on and when the work done had shown real value for the Movement and free knowledge. We have arguably been able to show hands-on examples and already been able to deliver outcomes that are in-line with the Strategic recommendations.

We were also very aware that most of the other hub initiatives had the exact opposite plan – with creating elaborate governance structures first, allowing the affiliates to jointly decide what should be worked on. Both approaches have value and different benefits. To do experiments with both arguably have added value and insights for the other initiatives as the theoretical framework developed in the strategic recommendations becomes more understandable and accessible. The Content Partnerships Hub now has a handful of other hub initiatives to learn from regarding the governance structures. Discussing and learning from these initiatives will allow us to save resources and to avoid mistakes that have already been made.

Regarding governance a major part of our thinking was that as soon as we had developed an idea and a clear concept that could be communicated we should work to allow other Movement actors to get involved and ensure that any strategic decisions are not done solely by staff at Wikimedia Sverige, but by the global community, with a strong focus on volunteer empowerment. The Expert Committee was developed with this in mind. To be able to attract great minds from the Movement we developed a concept for the Expert Committee.

We decided to organize the committee with as little overhead as possible and to initiate the work with a selected group of representatives. The idea is that they will help us to develop the structure of the committee itself and the process on how to choose new members and what the Committee should work on. The first Expert Committee organized consisted of content partnerships experts from around the globe, contributing in a volunteer capacity. The participants are from eight countries spanning five continents (Asia (1 person), Africa (3), South America (2), North America (1) and Europe(1)), with 75% of the participants from the Global South. The languages spoken by the Committee members cover more than 1.6 billion people. There is a 50/50 division between persons identifying as women/men.

One important purpose with the Expert Committee has been to provide input, experience and guidance on how to carry out the projects that have been requested through the Helpdesk. Hub staff might have expertise on technical implementation of projects and project management, but not necessarily on localization, Wikimedia alignment and how to create the largest possible value for global communities. Thus the committee has proven to be of vital importance. One crucial insight that the Expert Committee has provided, and that has forced us to adapt and iterate the concept, is that support through the Helpdesk is not separated from Capacity Building (as initially envisioned). All Helpdesk projects carry a vital capacity building aspect, where we need to work closely with communities and volunteers requesting support to make sure that they learn from the projects (and that others also can learn from the efforts!), that they can implement the results from it, and are able to do similar projects themselves ahead. This has led to concrete capacity building among requestors, but also means that all projects need to take place over longer time periods than we might have initially envisioned.

Content uploads and the Expert Committee

The Expert Committee has been empowered to guide the work of the staff by prioritizing what requests to the Helpdesk (see next section) should be worked on and have also provided valuable guidance both to the person requesting support and to the supporting staff. As the Helpdesk is reactive and responding to requests the outcome was pretty much impossible to anticipate the first year it was organized. It turned out that we received a lot more requests around data than uploads than we had expected. This was further enhanced by the significant work done within the part of the hub focusing on Strategic Data Uploads. Through the work done as part of both the Helpdesk and the Strategic Data Uploads, we focused our work on several subject areas:

• Enriching photos uploaded within the Wiki Loves Monuments and Wiki Loves Earth competitions in several countries with SDC
  • 34 countries
  • 1,242,336 enriched photos
  • 2,305,609 added SDC statements
• Enriching files previously uploaded by WMSE to Wikimedia Commons through GLAM partnerships with SDC; we focused on material we knew well to quickly gain insights into the possibilities and challenges of SDC in relation to various types of content partnerships, this provided us with a valuable space for experimenting with tools and workflows, making us better prepared for supporting others.
  • 7,244 files
  • 12,132 statements
• Uploading files to Wikimedia Commons based on Helpdesk requests
  • Smart Servier medical illustrations: 2,858 files
• Uploading monument data to Wikidata to facilitate the execution of Wiki Loves Monuments
  • 4 countries
  • 17,164 items
• Uploading data on protected natural areas to Wikidata to facilitate the execution of Wiki Loves Earth
  • 8 countries
  • 1,963 items

In summary:

• 2,858 new files were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons
• 1,249,580 files were enriched with 2,317,741 SDC statements
• 19,127 Wikidata items were created or improved

Our work with data uploads was directed by the community. The Helpdesk requests we received made it clear that there is a lot of interest in making the content on the Wikimedia platforms more interconnected and structured. The Wiki Loves competitions have been running for years; in many cases, it's possible to convert the information about what the photos are depicting to structured data. By doing this, we're making this huge documentation of the world's cultural and natural heritage easier to search, analyze and reuse. At the same time, our work has made us more aware of the challenges the Movement is facing when working with data, especially heritage data. After all, the prerequisite for large-scale Wikidata uploads is that the source data exists in the first place, that it's well-structured and freely licensed. There are vast differences in the availability of cultural heritage data in different parts of the world. Furthermore, there's only so much we, a small, mostly English-speaking organization can do. For the data to be improved and used, it needs attention from the communities that have expertise in the subject matter. What we've done is to create a stepping stone for the Movement that we hope will be used. It's much easier to start contributing to Wikidata when basic items for monuments and natural areas already exist, even if they only contain rudimentary information. Especially in smaller communities, lowering the threshold to contributing is crucial to create engagement.

1.2 What worked well, and what did not in this period regarding the Committee Work? What are the key lessons learned?

For us the Expert Committee was the first international committee Wikimedia Sverige has organized and it was a steep learning curve.

What worked well:

• We did our due diligence to ensure that we learnt from other international committees and developed a concept paper for the Expert Committee.
• We managed to form a committee with a diverse group of members, who together speak a large number of languages that ensures that the work can reach a larger audience.
• The committee has been empowered to decide what to prioritize, and to provide guidance on how to implement the project(s) for both hub staff and the person or organization requesting support.
• Their prioritization and guidance, on various aspects such as data granularity, community involvement and metadata improvement, when it comes to project implementation have been invaluable for successfully, qualitatively and adequately carrying out the projects.
• The committee has provided us with valuable thoughts and ideas on the general structure of the committee itself, the hub and the synergies between the different strands of the hub, which in turn have enabled us to adapt and iterate for a more successful Helpdesk concept.
• In that context, their insights have also guided some of the work done around capacity building, such as developing resources needed for Wikidata integration and emphasizing the importance of working with the Let’s Connect initiative (which was later realized as part of the MSIG project).
• There has been a lot of engagement and the Committee has worked together for two years with meetings nearly every month.
• The Committee has quickly and effectively responded to requests.
• The team at WMSE has ongoingly been able to support the work of the committee for this entire period.

What could still be developed:

• Increase the scale of the efforts: Due to a lack of secured funding the work has been significantly slowed, which has resulted in less active communication and thus fewer requests being submitted to the Committee.
• Communicate about other options to influence: The Expert Committee’s size is limited for practical reasons, and many highly skilled experts in the Movement could not be offered a seat. We need to clearly communicate our rationale and what other options exist for engagement, e.g. to engage in the Working Groups that support the preparation, development and execution of Helpdesk requests.
• Find a way to include WMF: Wikimedia Foundation is currently not represented in any capacity, which arguably has weakened the visibility of the work of the hub within one of the key players in the Movement. That has probably also had a negative effect on external visibility of the work as WMF has communicated less about the efforts. An observatory role might be relevant to include in the future.
• Further develop the Expert Committee: The Committee has not yet reached its next state of development regarding the size, election and composition of members. The initial concept had an end date, after which the concept was to be evaluated and improved by the staff and committee members. The unclear situation of funding opportunities and the future of the Hub initiatives in general has forced us to maintain the same composition, as we have lacked the time and capacity to conduct a comprehensive review.

• Ongoingly consider minority representation: It is important to ongoingly find ways to enable minorities (e.g. non-binary, people with disabilities, indigenous people, etc.) involvement in the work of the Hub, including the Expert Committee.
• Consider expansion and scope of the Expert Committee’s role: The Committee’s role regarding other areas of work in the Hub is not yet clearly defined. I.e. should they also be involved in prioritizing what IGOs to work with, what tools to develop or what strategic datasets to upload? How would these tasks be divided with a future board for the Thematic hub?
• Improve documentation: We need to take care to ensure that the insights from Expert Committee meetings are documented, shared and lead to concrete actions. Notes from the meetings are collected and made available, but they need to be condensed, made understandable for an external audience, and shared in a way that the insights inform the work across the movement.

Lessons learnt:

• There is a great amount of knowledge in the Movement and we need to continue to develop new ways for people to be able to contribute to the Hub initiative.
• It is important to separate the decision making process from actual practical support. We have therefore decided to develop working groups that can help to answer the requests received in practical terms.
• You can never communicate enough. The Movement is huge, there are language barriers, there are no central communication channels used by everyone, and the work is often performed over long timelines. We need to remind volunteers and affiliates about the possibility of support ongoingly. This demands dedicated staff time that is not insignificant.
• The Hub has executed many requests successfully, but as the Expert Committee has repeatedly stated, the execution of a request through the Helpdesk (such as in the form of a data upload) is not the end point of the work but rather the starting point. Further steps are done by the community that submitted the request to ensure maximum value for free knowledge, e.g. improving Structured Data on Commons and metadata in various languages, adding media and material to Wikipedia articles or successfully running Wiki Loves competitions based on Wikidata. This must be part of the plans before executing the request. We need to work with other actors in the Movement to ensure that proper material exists for communities to perform this next step.

2. Helpdesk

2.1 Please provide an overview of the impact of the helpdesk during this period, in terms of: A) the number of requests received, B) the nature of these requests, C) The services provided by WM Sverige. While there is a documented helpdesk projects’ page, most of this work is in 2023, and we would like to understand what types of requests were received and handled between 2021-22. Are there other requests that are not resulting in projects? What is the trend in uptake of the HelpDesk’s services?

The first order of business before launching the Helpdesk was to establish the Expert Committee and to define the process of its work. We did a soft launch and shared information about the opportunity during conversations with different stakeholders and during presentations at a few Wikimedia conferences. The official launch of the Helpdesk was on 2 September 2022, when we actively communicated about the opportunity on Diff.

It is worth noting that each of the requests that we receive to the Helpdesk can include multiple different tasks. The requests from Wiki Loves Earth International Team to support with Wikidata integration of natural heritage sites have for example been 1 request that included work on data for more than 10 countries (we view the work with each dataset as individual tasks).

Each task also often involves several steps. In the first major upload, for example, the batch upload of medical graphics was only one of the steps. Structuring metadata, working with the requester to improve the metadata, identifying ways of crowdsourcing better statements for SDC and Wikidata, and communicating with interested audiences to make sure that content got reused was also needed. As part of the MSIG project (which we worked on in parallel during the last six months of this project) we also revisited some of these requests to identify and review existing capacity building material, and in some cases also created missing pieces of material. It is thus important to note that one request involving many tasks and large amounts of content can take less time, if metadata and structure is in good order, than one request with only one task and small amounts of content if the underlying data needs a lot of cleaning-up. Comparing the outcome of the work done by the Helpdesk in a given time period therefore demands a more qualitative and deeper analysis of the result. For that reason we develop short documentation pages for the more complex requests received (example).

Number of requests received: 17

Number of requests answered by the Expert Committee: 17

Number of tasks included in the requests: 29

Number of tasks worked on: 29

The strong interest and multiple requests proves that the Helpdesk fills a real need and that there is a strong need for this type of service. With limited resources and the understanding that we need to establish opportunities for other affiliates and Movement experts to participate we decided to not communicate more widely about the service until we have established working groups. Due to limited resources and other commitments we are currently aiming for the working groups to be established in the first half of 2025.

2.2 Can you please explain how the Helpdesk projects are selected, are you responding to all requests for projects or have developed selection criteria?

The process is described on the Hub portal on Meta.

2.3 How is the work with external entities organized? E.g. Are these entities approached by the Helpdesk, or the Helpdesk is advertised widely and they approach the helpdesk? Do you sign cooperation agreements or MoUs with these partners? How many external partnerships did you develop in this reporting period (that are specific to the HelpDesk and not part of your General Support Fund grant’s implementation)?

Up until the end of the project all of the partnerships with IGOs were organized with funds from this unrestricted grant and no money from the General Support Fund grant was used.

The work done with Intergovernmental organizations was not done through the Helpdesk. Support through the Helpdesk is available for Wikimedia affiliates and volunteers rather than for external partners. Within the context of the Helpdesk the local affiliates and volunteers are the ones that own the partnerships and the Helpdesk only supports them in preparing, forming or executing such partnerships.

The work with intergovernmental organizations is a separate program organized as part of the Content Partnerships Hub. These partnerships are initiated by staff working with the Content Partnerships Hub (currently hired by Wikimedia Sverige). Wikimedia Sverige has had conversations with IGOs, especially UN agencies, for more than a decade and has had the opportunity to present about the Wikimedia movement at various IGO events, including with the IGO Open Access Working Group, and has developed different pilot projects to showcase the joint opportunities. We have different types of partnerships that have reached different levels of maturity. During the project we had in-depth conversations with 11 IGOs. With some we are still in the early stages of planning and discussion, while with two IGOs we have signed MoUs in place. In a couple of cases we are in the process of developing Partnerships agreements which would open up further opportunities but also demand more resources from us. As we are resource constrained we have paused the efforts around Partnerships agreements and are focusing more on the pilots and MoU development. In both the discussions, the MoUs and the Partnerships agreements we ensure that the partnerships should not be limited to Wikimedia Sverige, and that they should clearly state that other Wikimedia affiliates are key to include. The work with the IGOs have continued after the project ended, as part of the MSIG project, and Wikimedia UK and Wiki in Africa are now actively involved.

As resources are limited but opportunities are not, we have made the strategic decision to focus on gender, health and climate as focus areas during this initial part of the hub work. This has resonated with the IGOs, as all IGOs work on gender and climate and many started doing so in relation to and after the pandemic. As a way of tying these strategic decisions and opportunities to the long term development of the hub initiative, we have developed an IGO concept that guides us in our work and our priorities.

All of the five pillars in the hub are however connected and there are many synergies and opportunities gained by coupling them closer to each other. This way of thinking holistically increases innovation and flexibility which is the reason why we really do not want to reduce the number of pillars, even though that on paper would reduce complexity. One exciting opportunity that ties the work with IGOs to the Helpdesk, is that the IGO collaborations have enabled us to support Wikimedians who want to get in contact with people within the UN agencies, and thus act as a bridge between the Wikimedia movement and the IGO sphere. This has both led to new content on the Wikimedia platforms and contacts between IGOs and Wikimedians. On several occasions, Wikimedians have reached out to the Helpdesk with requests specifically aimed at IGOs, and our IGO experience has enabled us to deliver on their requests. There has thus been cross-pollination between the two pillars, though they are separate at a management level. There are also possibilities for the Helpdesk to serve Wikimedian in Residence that are working at the IGOs if they submit a request. Lack of organizational support when getting stuck with something as a WiR is something that has been highlighted during our research and interviews regarding WiR positions and the Helpdesk with its future working groups could be a good support structure to reduce this problem.

The procedures for forming these partnerships have looked a bit different and have changed over the years, and one concrete feedback from the IGOs is that their structures and processes for partnerships and collaboration vary a lot depending on the organization. Our aim, however, is to start with designing and developing a jointly executed small pilot project together, so as to understand each other better. At the end of the pilot we can then provide the IGO with hard numbers (often the view count), which has been a powerful tool to show the reach of the Wikimedia platforms and the value of working together. In several cases, it has been possible to combine data from Wikimedia platforms with statistics from the IGOs’ websites, which have given interesting insights about the audiences created by the collaboration. One such insight is that IGO content partnerships do not lead to less traffic to the IGO websites, but rather lead to completely new audiences for the IGOs. This has been a very powerful argument. Having data that can be shared internally helps to keep them engaged and to prioritize working with the Wikimedia movement.

2.4 How do you plan to build on the needs assessment?

The needs assessment, which we did at the beginning of the project, was not part of the Helpdesk but was preparatory work to ensure that we could identify areas needing support and to develop our thinking around them.

Through our early conversation with Movement stakeholders we were aware that in the worst case a thematic hub could be seen as a bureaucratic addition, or create a fear that the thematic hub would take away things from you that you were already working on or in other ways limit you.

We therefore decided to start the work by performing a needs assessment to get a more full understanding of the current knowledge, needs and challenges of the community members (volunteers and staff) that are working on content partnerships. Based on this we further developed the concepts, derived from previous conversations, for what the hub should focus on. Our thinking was that this would help move the thematic hub from a theoretical exercise and an unclear idea into something tangible and hopefully exciting.

The assessment was also done to ensure that the infrastructure we developed would maximize the benefits for as many in the Movement as possible. It further helped us to prioritize what to dedicate the most resources to. Based on the issues and ideas surfaced from the needs assessment (which intentionally took place in parallel with us developing the concepts for the five pillars of the hub) we ongoingly adjusted our work and plans. The team met biweekly during the project to share insights and to discuss next steps.

In the needs assessment we intentionally focused on the non-Western affiliates and volunteers as we felt we already had a solid understanding of the needs amongst European and US affiliates and volunteers (60% of the interviews are outside NA/NWE; and amongst the ones from NA/NWE we focused on groups or individuals that we had limited interactions with before).

What we have less understanding of is how these very knowledgeable and active stakeholders would like to engage with the hub initiative. We see a real value to further investigate how they would like to be involved, how and to what extent they think that they can contribute, what resources they would need, how they view different governance options, how they see the overlaps with other hub initiatives etc. This is research we would love to be able to focus on next to further deepen our understanding and plans. That effort is also likely to create engagement and increase understanding of the initiatives amongst the people and organizations that we interact with during this second needs assessment.

2.5 What worked well, and what did not in this period regarding the Helpdesk? What are the key lessons learned?

In addition to the Helpdesk we also cover the Needs assessment in the responses below. The answers for the NGO/IGO partnerships are presented in a separate heading.

What worked well:

• The launch and the work of the Helpdesk garnered a lot of interest and was welcome by the community.
• Support was provided to several affiliates, as well as volunteers, and we managed to contribute to their work with both advice and practical help.
• The experience we have combined in the staff team and the Expert Committee has to date been enough to both answer and fulfill the requests we have received.
• There was great interest in participating in the needs assessment and we were happy about the diversity of the respondents. It was additionally a further validation for the need of coordinated intra-affiliate action in this area.

What could still be developed:

• Improve the processes and methods: Coordinating an international group of people takes a lot of time and communication. A lot of work needs to be done both before and after each committee meeting, to make sure our time together is being used effectively. Together with the Expert Committee we are improving our processes and methods. These insights should be shared with the wider Movement.
• Improve communication: To encourage more people to request support from the Helpdesk we must communicate much more extensively and in different languages.
• Initiate Working Groups: When a request has been prioritized support has to be provided. Up until this point this work has been provided by WMSE’s staff, but we think that this approach has a number of limitations. Thus, we want to explore how we can implement so-called Working Groups in the work. They will consist of movement experts and will help with answering the requests received through the Helpdesk. The Helpdesk’s Working Groups is a structure that will increase coordination across stakeholders and has the potential to become a structure that facilitates the connection/matching of peers across the Movement for teaching and learning new skills, and to increase mentoring and peer-to-peer support.
• Develop options for quick support: Smaller questions must be possible to ask without it turning into a full application process. Asking the question and processing the question/request should not take longer than answering it. New formats to engage with the Helpdesk should be experimented with further (e.g. set meeting times where you can join and ask questions to the members of the Working groups).
• Create a process for the Helpdesk to guide capacity building priorities: When looking to answer a request to the Helpdesk we have realized the significant shortcomings of available materials to point to. A model and process for how specific requests to the Helpdesk can guide long-term and ambitious capacity building efforts should be developed. I.e. if we receive a request about an issue the discovered resources should be cataloged and where there is no documentation, learning material etc. to point to, this request could provide guidance that developing such material should be a priority. We also want to develop a plan for how such material could be created not just by the hub team (currently WMSE) but through dedicated resources provided to other affiliates to encourage joint efforts. This work will help our internal knowledge management but also expose areas where no material exists and where new capacity building material will be of value for the entire movement to allow it to keep on innovating.
• In depth needs assessment: While we used the needs assessment to get a very broad view of the needs in the area similar initiatives could be used to explore facets of content partnerships such as the needs around first initiating partnerships. To some extent the collected responses may also be mined further for some of these more nuanced needs.

Lessons learned:

• The Expert Committee is core to the Helpdesk and well worth the investment. WMSE and staff of the Hub initiative have technical expertise, but requests have involved difficult questions on e.g. how granular geographic data should be in potential war zones or how to reflect map data in conflicting border zones. For such discussions, the expertise from global GLAM and content partnerships experts in the movement has been central for us to be able to respond to the request in an adequate manner, taking into account the expected challenges and impact. In the same way, we need to develop and explore more and better means for other chapters, affiliates and volunteers to support in the work too, to increase the capacity but also ensure good and adequate responses to all requests. Working groups are a needed addition to the Helpdesk.
• We need to take a holistic approach to the requests, which sometimes takes longer time than initially anticipated and expected but create greater values and make it more sustainable. This involves proper documentation and implementation within communities and active work to engage volunteers to use the new material on the Wikimedia platforms.
• We need to invest more and spend more time working multilingually, to reach further with the work. This is however hard to do while materials are still under development. Working in more languages has high priority within both the Wikimedia movement and among IGOs, meaning that our work can function as a bridge towards content in more languages, if we build the necessary structures.
• It was very valuable to have access to the results from the needs assessment already during the design stage of the hub. Thanks to that we got validation for some of our initial assumptions and had the chance to adjust other plans.

2.6 What worked well, and what did not in this period regarding the International Partnerships (IGOs)? What are the key lessons learned?

What worked well:

• There is a very strong interest from IGOs to work with the Wikimedia movement and the Content Partnership Hub. We have managed to keep high-level officials across the UN agencies and other IGOs highly engaged and interested in our work over multiple years. We have gained respect and are well known by many major IGOs, most notably among the UN agencies but also IGOs such as the OECD and the World Bank. At this point there is no issue for us at all to secure partnerships with IGOs and the limit is the amount of resources we have at our disposal to execute on them, bring their content to the Wikimedia platforms and design other ways for them to engage in a constructive way.
• Through collaboration with the IGO Open Access Working Group, we have trained and informed 30–40 IGOs on Wikimedia and Wikipedia collaboration. In collaboration with the hosts of the Working Group, we have developed in depth plans and ideas for a Wikipedia working group within the IGO sphere. We have also had the opportunity to present Wikimedia topics at the IGO Publications Inter-Agency Meeting, to inform IGOs about opportunities for collaborating with Wikimedia. This has gaged a large interest in collaborations, and led several IGOs to start developing Open Access policies with the Wikimedia platforms in mind.  
• Many IGOs, more than we have been able to support at this point, have been interested in developing positions for Wikimedian in Residence at their headquarters or regional offices. This is an opportunity to deepen the relationship in several ways, such as establishing it and building connections in more parts of the organization, ensuring that the relationship gets more long term, and securing support higher up in the hierarchies. It is also an opportunity to add more high-value content to the Wikimedia platforms, to generate funds for the Wikimedia movement and the Hub and more.
• Our pilot projects with IGOs are not only meant to lay a foundation for long-term partnerships, but we have designed the work to ensure that there have been concrete outcomes and that valuable content has been added to the Wikimedia platforms. This includes batch uploads of datasets, media files, graphics and reports. The very high number of page views show that the content has been very well received by the online communities that have added the material to Wikipedia articles in numerous languages.
• The IGOs have supported Wikimedia campaigns. This includes support for WikiGap with lists of notable women, which has generated a lot of interest from volunteers to write articles. They have also supported the Wiki Loves campaigns with prizes for the winners and with communication efforts to their large online following.
• We have already managed to create opportunities for WiRs at IGOs, efforts that are currently ongoing.
• Discussions with other affiliates about ways to engage in the work have been positive and productive. This is crucial for the success of some of the pilot projects, but especially for when we aim to scale the work with the IGOs in the years to come.

What could still be developed:

• Fund work to take advantage of current opportunities: Our resources are too limited to be able to handle all the requests from the IGOs. These are massive organizations with huge amounts of staff and great content that is important to share through the Wikimedia platforms to reach a larger audience. We will have to secure more funding to scale this work. To handle all requests that we currently receive, multiple full time positions would be needed.
• Improve coordination of the work within Wikimedia: We need to work to develop plans for cross-affiliate activities. This includes working with the content from the topic areas, but also to discuss and coordinate around if these are suitable topic areas also the following year to achieve maximum impact. We need to further develop clarity around roles and responsibilities with respect to the WMF Partnerships team and the Content Partnerships Hub. As of now there is overlap with the work and no real coordination. We would like to further discuss this and reach a mutually beneficial agreement.
• Deepen bridges between Wikimedians and IGOs: There is an interest both among Wikimedians and IGOs to work more actively together, IGOs in finding ways to make it easier for Wikimedians to make use of their content on the Wikimedia platforms, Wikimedians in identifying good resources and content and how to get it under a Wikimedia compatible license. We have started to explore ways of connecting Wikimedians and IGOs in better ways, but much more could be done in both ways, to ensure the best possible bridges between the two parties.
• Ensure a proper understanding between Wikimedians and IGOs: Many IGOs want to work on English Wikipedia, which has very strong principles and sometimes a critical environment, especially around core principles such as conflict of interest, non-advertising language, objectivity and a neutral point of view. While this resonates with the IGOs, it might be hard, both for Wikimedians in Residence and IGOs, to understand how to follow these principles in all situations. Active collaboration is needed to ensure that the amount of mistakes is minimized and that relations are good between the communities and the IGOs, as well as supporting IGO partners if or when something negative happens on the platforms. This is time-consuming but crucial, and can be the difference between a successful partnership and losing support from the online communities.  
• Develop a Wikimedian in Residence program for IGOs: We have had multiple requests from the IGOs for a WiR that we have been unable to support to the extent we would have liked. They often want Wikimedians that master a specific language, that are experts on a specific Wikimedia platform or that are from a certain country/region. To fulfill their needs and be equitable about this opportunity we would need more WiRs to be trained and prepared for this possibility. This demands a ready list of candidates, a tailored training program for IGO WiRs, establishment of a fiscal sponsorship scheme and other kinds of structures and processes. If done right this could mean a steady flow of resources to hubs, affiliates and volunteers across the world and thus help us to increase the sustainability of our movement. In addition, a WiR is an excellent foundation for a deeper cooperation with external content partners such as IGOs, and for establishing an appreciation and understanding of Wikimedia methods and culture in their organizations. The training and support to WiRs in strategically important international content partners also helps to develop skills and develop new leaders across the world and as such support a more equitable Movement.

Lessons learned:

• Further investments in this area are needed in the near-term, as the interest is very large and the opportunities exist now. The door is open but if we do not progress with tangible results the interest will fade and it will eventually close.
• To ensure an ever higher reuse of the content made available through the work there is a need to engage more affiliates and hubs in campaigns etc.

3. Capacity Building

3.1 What progress was made in capacity building, and in knowledge exchange through the Grand Tour of Wikimedia? (Ref to Obj. 1, KR 3: Training, capacity building and knowledge sharing is provided to 250 staff members and/or volunteers in the Wikimedia movement or representatives from partner organizations. New initiatives for knowledge exchange between affiliates are developed.)

We developed a 10-page concept paper for the Grand Tour of Wikimedia. We approached and discussed the concept with a number of Wikimedia affiliates to further develop it and to investigate their interest in participating in the implementation. We also presented the concept a couple of times at conferences and meetings. The interest from other affiliates was large and we therefore started looking into how to fund the work. The concept paper provides a strong foundation to rather quickly develop applications for funding.

The project funding available through the Erasmus+ funding structure was identified and we discussed the concept with the funder on a couple of occasions with strong encouragement to apply. EU funding is very generous in size, but very demanding to secure and there is a steep learning curve. To even be able to apply for funding there is a lengthy and complicated application process which we have not had the time to go through. We will look into this again in 2025 and hope to launch the Grand Tour in 2026.

3.2 In which ways the learning materials were actively disseminated in the movement? Which languages were they translated into? How were these languages decided? (ref. Objective 1, KR 2: Information and learning material connected to content partnerships is compiled and when needed updated or developed. Multilinguality of key material is supported and the material is actively shared across the movement.)

During the span of the project we put a lot of effort into understanding how the thematic hub could add value around capacity building. The larger strategic issues that we believe that the thematic hub can contribute to with regards to capacity building are of three types:

1. How do we identify what material we need to invest in to benefit as many affiliates as possible?
2. How do we find what is out there? So that we do not duplicate work or are unaware of what knowledge already exists?
3. How do we share the knowledge we have? Both in person through exchange programs, events and networks, but also asynchronously.

We decided to focus mainly on developing ways to contribute to these issues, rather than creating specific training material etc. This focus meant that less training material was developed and the translation work etc. became less of a priority at this stage. For the content that we did produce we ensured translatability. For example the Content Partnerships Hub portal pages are available for translation and a few volunteers have engaged and contributed to it. We had an idea to engage a few interns that are training to become professional translators in the work, but were sadly unable to secure any such interns during the span of the project.

We have also had conversations with a few affiliates around their support with translations (e.g. for Spanish and French) but have not yet moved forward with this work due to other priorities at this stage. We see an interesting opportunity to collaborate with the language hubs around translations of key content.

For the compilation of material we decided to not only add it to the portal, but to make a serious effort to make the content findable through a structured multilingual database of everything Wikimedia related (e.g. all projects, events, people, learning material, blog posts, video recordings etc.). We decided to focus specifically on content partnership related material, but hope to invite other hub initiatives, affiliates and volunteers to add other types of content. Therefore we named the platform Metabase.

During this project we managed to (1) secure external funding from the Swedish Public Employment Service to cover 80% of the salary cost for a half-time position during the span of 2024 (and possibly also longer!) and (2) to invest in the technical preparations needed to launch our new initiative Metabase, a structured database of the activities and documents of the Movement,on the Wikibase Cloud service. The work on adding content to Metabase became an integrated part in our MSIG application. Metabase is a multilingual database and we intend to engage affiliates and volunteers to contribute to it by both adding more data and translating labels and descriptions.

As part of the project we also worked on identifying a suitable e-learning platform and multilinguality was a key feature we sought after as we wanted it to be useful for both WMSE specific learning modules and for all future hub learning modules we envision. After a thorough review of the available platforms we decided to use learn.wiki.

3.3 What worked well, and what did not in this period regarding the capacity building efforts? What are the key lessons learned?

What worked well:

• Affiliates and volunteers are already doing a huge amount of work regarding capacity building and we tried hard not to initially focus on producing material but on finding areas of work that would complement already existing efforts and help to improve areas of coordination, findability and searchability. With the work around Metabase, learn.wiki and the Grand Tour of Wikimedia exchange program we believe we identified suitable areas to scale initially.
• By utilizing the work done at the Helpdesk – the requests received and the problems which sometimes arise when answering them, due to a lack of information material – we believe that we have found an innovative way, a natural feedback loop, to pick capacity building material to focus on that are currently in demand (prioritizing what to start with could otherwise take a very long time and a lot of work).
• We built a solid project plan for the Grand Tour of Wikimedia that has made the idea tangible and understandable for affiliates across the world. The interest has been substantial and multiple people from across the Movement have made valuable contributions to the concept. We believe that the Tour is very likely to secure external grants.
• The new platform Metabase was successfully initiated during the project and we secured funding to start adding content to it.

What could still be developed:

• Increase the scale of the efforts: Based on the interviews for the needs assessment one of the most sought after areas of support was capacity building and training. Support for staff and volunteers to effectively work with content partnerships is obviously in huge demand and capacity building work is a core component in answering this demand. We would have liked to do more in this area but were limited by staff capacity being tied to other commitments.
• Secure external funds for the Grand Tour of Wikimedia: The ambition around the Grand Tour of Wikimedia was high but we did not have capacity to develop it into an application. This was unfortunate as the idea of mentorship and in-person exchange was highlighted in multiple conversations during our needs assessment and the broader set of conversations we have engaged in.
• Develop a pedagogical approach for the Grand Tour of Wikimedia: A plan for the pedagogical approach used by the Grand Tour needs to be developed. We also need to encourage more Wikimedia affiliates to commit to act as so-called hosts and to align their Grand Tour work with the developed pedagogical approach.
• Improve our understanding of Metabase’s implications: We need to understand:
  • The costs of running a platform such as Metabase – to compile the necessary amount of data, to host it and to develop it further – including with better tools;
  • The tangible benefits of such a platform – does the structured data create new opportunities to find material to develop capacities, for data analysis to understand our movement, to reduce reporting costs etc.
  • How volunteers and affiliates can be engaged in further development of the plattform – if the analysis shows that the identified benefits are likely to outweigh the costs.
• Develop a content plan for learn.wiki: We are in contact with the Community Development team at Wikimedia Foundation and have started experimenting with the e-learning platform learn.wiki. While we currently have a detailed plan for basic learning modules aimed at our non-hub work we have not yet developed any specialized learning modules for the Content Partnerships Hub’s needs. Other chapters, the WMF and experts in the Movement need to be engaged to co-create the content for these learning modules. With the right learning modules and incentives people across the Movement can improve their skills and develop into strong leaders and specialists.

Lessons learnt:

• There is no lack of things that need to be documented better, training that needs to be created or updated, supporting video materials that would enhance the learning experience etc. However, it is very important to acknowledge that capacity building is an area where a lot of work is already happening and where there exists a strong feel of ownership from various stakeholders. The goal should be to add value by focusing the work on areas that could not easily be done on the affiliate or volunteer level, where scale, resources, time and coordination are limitations. We believe that we have been able to identify a few such areas and are keen to discuss how similar initiatives could be executed by other hubs within their focus areas and how they could contribute to the initiatives we have been launching.
• The Helpdesk can function as a tool to identify missing capacity building resources and as a platform to coordinate the development of these resources through the Working Groups.
• Working with a Wikibase platform, to develop Metabase, has provided a lot of valuable skills and understanding to our staff. We see opportunities to use the knowledge and experience in many future partnerships with content partners.

4. Technical Support

4.1 Please explain what was done in this period regarding the reduction of the complexity of batch uploading in general, and regarding the inclusion of SDC functionalities:

• by the extension of one community-prioritized tool for novice and small-batch contributors
• by the extension of OpenRefine serving use cases prioritized by the global help desk committee
• by the extension of Pywikibot together with the Pywikibot developer community.

In addition to the hands-on work on technical support an important component of our work was a dialogue with the community involved in content partnerships. The first step in this work was to produce an inventory of the tools being used and at what stage in the partnership they are used. At the end of 2022 this inventory was used as the basis for a survey investigating the needs of the content partnerships community and prioritizing among the tools. The survey was translated into multiple languages and received 77 responses, the results were published in a report. In 2023 we conducted a further meeting looking at how the failure of metric tools impacted the content partnership community, with the input then being compiled and published.

We also wanted to better understand the ways in which the volunteer developers could be supported. This was done by performing interviews with multiple key actors in this space as well as hosting discussion meetings, the largest of which was the Volunteer developers discussion at Wikimania 2022. The plan was to follow up on this with a survey and summarizing the learnings in a report but unfortunately staff changes prevented this from being finalized.

We worked on two separate initiatives around Pattypan. The first was to assist in re-enabling the tool, which had stopped working for most users, by packaging it with the right version of Java. The second was to develop a stand-alone executable file for Windows in direct response to a request from a network of French GLAM institutions. The goal was to make the software easier to run, regardless of the technical expertise of the user. Pattypan is widely used by both volunteer Wikimedians and GLAM staff to upload large numbers of files to Wikimedia Commons, so keeping the threshold to start using it as low as possible is extremely important for the Movement's content partnerships.

Throughout the duration of the project, we were in close contact with the team developing OpenRefine. The software is widely used by Wikidata editors, and additional work was being done in 2021–2022 to extend it with Wikimedia Commons support (file upload and SDC editing). WMSE are not only active users of the software, but also train others, including GLAM staff, which is why it's important for us to keep track of its development. We were able to support the developers by sharing our experiences, participating on the advisory board, testing the new functions early and engaging our GLAM partners – those we knew were interested in innovations in the Wikimedia ecosystem – to start using OpenRefine in their Wikimedia Commons work.

We decided to postpone the envisioned work with Pywikibot. This was based on the findings from our survey of usage of the tools. Instead we decided to work on the ISA Tool, as it was used by underrepresented communities.

The ISA Tool, developed by Wiki in Africa, facilitates SDC enrichment of Wikimedia Commons files through gamified campaigns. In close partnership with Wiki in Africa we made a number of improvements to the tool. We started by fixing a couple of critical security issues with the tool which was at risk of being shut down. Our contributions made the ISA Tool more user-friendly and robust. We also supported a research project led by Beat Estermann at Bern University to implement new features based on image recognition and by extracting data from the metadata (see final report). This experimental version of the ISA Tool has yet to be fully released but is publicly available for testing.

4.2 How were these technical updates communicated to the wider community?

We presented the work we had done, the needs around maintenance and continuous technical development of strategically important tools for content partnerships at WikidataCon 2021, Wikimania 2022, GLAMwiki coordinators meeting 2022 (which we helped to co-fund), and at a first and second meeting with the ED Group. The goals with the first two events was to create awareness and to engage developers and GLAMwiki staff in the discussions. At many of the events we also presented about the Helpdesk and our capacity building initiatives and had numerous conversations about the hub initiative. With the two ED meetings we hoped to create awareness of the need to invest in this work and explore different funding models together.

Additionally we ongoingly published updates to the Content Partnerships Hub portal as well as communicating through our own blog, the Diff blog, the This Month in GLAM newsletter and on relevant mailing lists and wiki talk pages.

4.3 How has the community benefited from these technical improvements so far?

It is hard to give a definite answer to the community benefits of our support for the tools. In both the case of the ISA and the Pattypan tool the tool had stopped working, or was at risk of stopping, when we stepped in to provide support. While we cannot say that another actor wouldn’t have stepped in, we can state with some confidence that without our support the tools would have been unavailable to the community for longer than they were.

Similarly with OpenRefine it is not possible to definitely state the impact of our support. We would argue that our involvement helped to further improve the tool and also it led to a discussion on how we could work closer together in the long-term.

In all three cases the tools have been very actively used by the community (for SDC in the case of OpenRefine) since our contributions. When tools go down this adds a lot of stress to volunteers and affiliates working with content partnerships. Broken tools prevent effective work and could sometimes damage the relationship between the content partner and the Wikimedia actor due to the unexpected limitations and difficulties it creates (i.e. preventing a joint project to be executed in time or data to be gathered for an important report).

As for the new features added. The version of the ISA tool supporting image recognition would not have been possible without our support and while it has not been officially released yet we hope to be able to continue to support it to reach this stage. The Windows executable for Pattypan was warmly received by GLAM-actors and prominent Wikimedia advocates to the GLAM sector. GLAM actors often work on managed machines where they have limited possibilities of installing their own software, a stand-alone executable enables them to start working with the tool without a lot of the overhead bureaucracy. The addition of this feature did however have some unforeseen negative consequences, as described in the next section.

4.4 What worked well, and what did not in this period regarding the Technical Support Work? What are the key lessons learned?

What worked well:

• During the span of the project, we made a number of positive contributions to the technical infrastructures that Wikimedians rely on, making sure that important software tools work and are improved. Not having functioning tools is adding a lot of complexity and stress to end users and those advocating for GLAM to interact more with the Wikimedia movement.
• Through the project we had the opportunity to research and discuss the current challenges faced by volunteer developers, concerning mostly the lack of structured support. It became clear that many volunteer developers would welcome such support, and that there's an opportunity for both affiliates and other organizations to work on developing and implementing new solutions. There are many open questions concerning the future of software development in the Movement, and we hope that our work can inspire other affiliates to think about how they can support volunteer developers.
• Through the project we did show that a small team at a Wikimedia affiliate can indeed provide hands-on support with tool maintenance and development. We also believe that we showed that with our specific expertise with content partnerships we could also add value when prioritizing features and testing the software. The thematic hubs should be empowered and encouraged to work on the software within their thematic area.
• By engaging in technical work around tool support we have been able to form new partnerships and secure external funding. Even if these are small scale efforts and early experiments this showcase that distributed software development has the potential to create direct financial value for the Movement. Such a change is not only about equitable decision making and distributed power.

What could still be developed:

• Ensure longer term financing options: The uncertainties around financing made it hard to invest as much resources as we would like into the technical work. Ideally, tool development and maintenance should be thought of as a long-term project, but unfortunately we had to limit our scope and focus on some selected areas. We will investigate further how we can secure funding for this work in different ways.
• Develop paths for sharing responsibilities for technical development: We strongly believe that there is a need for the Movement to distribute more responsibilities for technical development to the hubs. The uncertainties regarding the division of responsibility – which Movement actors should do what – and the role of hubs, as well as the extent of possible support from the Wikimedia Foundation, also posed a challenge to our work, leading to miscommunications.
• Create a shared planning process with the volunteers: An issue we struggled with when we tried to provide support with one of the tools was the differences in timelines, ways of communicating and what platforms and tools to use. Despite our intent to add value and provide a service for the volunteer developer, with the hope of reducing stress and pressure we instead, unintentionally, did the opposite and managed to frustrate the volunteer developer.

Lessons learnt:

• It is crucial to set clear expectations from the start and communicate clearly when working with different actors within the Movement, listening to the volunteer community – both developers and tool users.
• When working to support volunteer developers it is especially important that from the beginning jointly decide on how we will communicate, what the timelines are, what channels we are using, what rules we follow etc. to avoid confusion and failures in communication. The demands from the volunteers have to trump the organization's SOP. All this has to be agreed upon before engaging with the practical work.

1. Other work

Coordination and support for other hubs

As the development of the Content Partnership Hub is not happening in isolation it was crucial for us to try to find ways to engage with other hub initiatives. We participated in multiple international Wikimedia events to discuss our work, including with CEE Hub, Wikimedia Europe, WikiFranca and the Language Diversity Hub initiative. This included participation at the General Assembly of Wikimedia Europe where we led a session focusing on hub coordination. We also had numerous calls with actors to discuss their work and things we could do together.

We actively applied for joint funding with two different hub initiatives (see below). For us joint funding applications were a really interesting way of exploring potential synergies between hub initiatives, especially between regional and thematic hubs.

Fundraising

As part of the project we also investigated different fundraising options to secure funding for the hub work. We worked on clarifying our communication about the international work done by Wikimedia Sverige in our reporting, our membership communications and on social media. The idea is that highlighting the positive effects and outcomes created by the hub initiative and framing our work as an international organization that is deeply connected with the international Wikimedia movement could help us to open up new opportunities around e.g. aid funding for project grants or donations from individuals. This turned out to be a wise move.

During the project we managed to secure our first grant with the Swedish Institute to work with Wikimedia Uganda, securing 400,000 SEK (around 38,000 USD) and also to prepare for another application with their regional hub initiative EARTH. We also developed and secured a third application that included the CEE hub, securing 400,000 SEK (around 38,000 USD). This also indicated how inter-affiliate and inter-hub collaboration around fundraising could lead to diversified revenue streams for the Wikimedia Movement, tapping into types of funding previously underused in many Wikimedia contexts. In January 2024 (shortly after the project finished) we submitted a successful application to join the organization ForumCiv, which grants us the right to apply for funding for aid projects supporting civil society in different countries. Joining ForumCiv was a complicated process that would not have been possible or reasonable to undertake without this grant.

We also worked to develop better information material and methods for our efforts to secure more member fees and gifts from donors. This includes developing material for our experimental Face2face fundraising efforts where we tried to highlight the international work in different ways. It also includes setting up the framework needed to receive bequeathed funds. This work has been done with support and ongoing exchange from the WMF fundraising team.

5. Financial Reporting

5.1 Please provide a spending report of your Hub’s activities, and explain how you separate and monitor staff time and direct costs spent on running the helpdesk from activities in your General Support Fund work?

When answering this question we have assumed that the question is limited to only the funding for the Hub received through this particular grant. Similarly the reference to the Helpdesk is interpreted as referring to the overall spending for all of the pillars in the project, and how these are kept separate from our General Support Fund grant.

Within WMSE we implement a project structure where all costs, and each hour worked, is associated with a single project. This grant was managed within the scope of such a project, Content partnerships support 2021, which in addition to the funding from this grant was also supplemented by some internal funds in 2021.

This was not the only project supporting the Content Partnership Hub 2021–2023. The others focused on different aspects and some of the other projects were funded through the General Support Fund (as per instructions).

Spending

Approved Budget: SEK 3,344,000.00, $393,588.80

Expense	Costs (SEK)	Costs (USD)	Cost specification
Staff costs	3,317,800.64	390,505.14	Staff cost incl. staff on consultant contracts (outside of Sweden).
Direct costs:
Travels/events	71,357.14	8,398.74
Overhead	33,531.79	3,946.69	Software, postage, translation and legal services and Upwork fees.
Misc	46.00	5.41	Banking costs.
	SEK	USD
TOTAL	3,422,735.57	402,855.98	In addition to the approved grant the project was also supplemented by 9,267.18 USD (see above).

Appendix A – Impact of the grant as seen through the annual reports

2021:

• Story: Establishing The Grand Tour of Wikimedia
• Story: Starting to support volunteer software developers
• Story: Investigating what the Wikimedia movement is wishing for regarding partnerships
• Story: Developing a Helpdesk for the movement's content partnerships
• Story: Opening up the UN to the Wikimedia movement
• Story: A structured effort on Structured Data on Commons
• Story: Continuing the work to document the world's cultural heritage sites and GLAM institutions

2022:

• Story: Finding out what to focus on – a needs assessments for the hub

• Story: Launching a Helpdesk for the Movement’s content partnerships

• Story: Development and improvements of strategically important tools

• Story: Working with international bodies outside the UN

• Story: How new partnerships with UN have resulted in more free knowledge on Wikipedia

• Story: Improving search and useability – Continuous data uploads and improvements

• Story: Wikibase as an information management system for content partners
• Story: Could Wikibase destroy the joke “It’s on Meta!”?

• Fail fest: Too much to handle – UN agencies are keen to share knowledge

2023:

• Story: The Helpdesk Is Increasingly Supporting More Projects
• Story: Support with Various types of Datasets on Cultural Heritage from Ukraine and Uganda
• Story: Intersection of Regional and Thematic hubs
• Story: New Opportunities for Open Access through the UN
• Fail fest: Trying to Find Ways to Provide Support, but There Are Challenges with a Reactive Helpdesk

Thank you for taking your time to report on your activities!