Jump to content

Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Deutschland e.V./Progress report form/Q3

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki



Purpose of the report

[edit]

This form is for organizations receiving Annual Plan Grants to report on their results to date. For progress reports, the time period for this report will the first 6 months of each grant (e.g. 1 January - 30 June of the current year). For impact reports, the time period for this report will be the full 12 months of this grant, including the period already reported on in the progress report (e.g. 1 January - 31 December of the current year). This form includes four sections, addressing global metrics, program stories, financial information, and compliance. Please contact APG/FDC staff if you have questions about this form, or concerns submitting it by the deadline. After submitting the form, organizations will also meet with APG staff to discuss their progress.

Global metrics overview - all programs

[edit]

We are trying to understand the overall outcomes of the work being funded across our grantees' programs. Please use the table below to let us know how your programs contributed to the Global Metrics. We understand not all Global Metrics will be relevant for all programs, so feel free to put "0" where necessary. For each program include the following table and

  1. Next to each required metric, list the outcome achieved for all of your programs included in your proposal.
  2. Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome.
  3. In addition to the Global Metrics as measures of success for your programs, there is another table format in which you may report on any OTHER relevant measures of your programs success

For more information and a sample, see Global Metrics.

Overall

[edit]
Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved
2. # of new editors
3. # of individuals involved
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects


Telling your program stories - all programs

[edit]

Please tell the story of each of your programs included in your proposal. This is your chance to tell your story by using any additional metrics (beyond global metrics) that are relevant to your context, beyond the global metrics above. You should be reporting against the targets you set at the beginning of the year throughout the year. We have provided a template here below for you to report against your targets, but you are welcome to include this information in another way. Also, if you decided not to do a program that was included in your proposal or added a program not in the proposal, please explain this change. More resources for storytelling are at the end of this form. Here are some ways to tell your story.

  • We encourage you to share your successes and failures and what you are learning. Please also share why are these successes, failures, or learnings are important in your context. Reference learning patterns or other documentation.
  • Make clear connections between your offline activities and online results, as applicable. For example, explain how your education program activities is leading to quality content on Wikipedia.
  • We encourage you to tell your story in different ways by using videos, sound files, images (photos and infographics, e.g.), compelling quotes, and by linking directly to work you produce. You may highlight outcomes, learning, or metrics this way.
  • We encourage you to continue using dashboards, progress bars, and scorecards that you have used to illustrate your progress in the past, and to report consistently over time.
  • You are welcome to use the table below to report on any metrics or measures relevant to your program. These may or may not include the global metrics you put in the overview section above. You can also share your progress in another way if you do not find a table like this useful.
Target Last year (if applicable) Progress (at end of Q2) End of year (projected or actual) Comments
Example Example Example Example Example

Revenues received during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)

[edit]

Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.

Table 2 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

  • Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.
Revenue source Currency Anticipated Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Anticipated ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Explanation of variances from plan
A B C D E F G H I J K

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Spending during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)

[edit]

Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.

Table 3 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

(The "budgeted" amount is the total planned for the year as submitted in your proposal form or your revised plan, and the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year. The "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative amount spent over the budgeted amount.)
Expense Currency Budgeted Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Budgeted ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Percentage spent to date Explanation of variances from plan
A B C D E F G H I J J2 K
TOTAL B C D E F G H I J J2 N/A

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Compliance

[edit]

Is your organization compliant with the terms outlined in the grant agreement?

[edit]

As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.

Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Grant funds as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

Signature

[edit]
Once complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes.

Resources

[edit]

Resources to plan for measurement

[edit]

Resources for storytelling

[edit]


Basic entity information

[edit]

Table 1

Entity information Legal name of entity Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Entity's fiscal year (mm/dd–mm/dd) 01/01 - 01-12/31
12 month timeframe of funds awarded (mm/dd/yy-mm/dd/yy) 01/01/13-12/31/13
Contact information (primary) Primary contact name Pavel Richter
Primary contact position in entity Executive Director
Primary contact username User:Pavel Richter (WMDE)
Primary contact email pavel.richter@wikimedia.de
Contact information (secondary) Secondary contact name Kasia Odrozek
Secondary contact position in entity Assistant to the Executive Director
Secondary contact username User: Kasia Odrozek (WMDE)
Secondary contact email kasia.odrozek@wikimedia.de


Overview of this quarter

[edit]

The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of this report. Please use no more than 1-2 paragraphs to address the questions outlined below. You will have an oppurtunity to address these questions in detail elsewhere in this report.

CHANGES:

  • We have adapted the budgeted figures for 2013 based on our current expectations. These figures still have to be officially approved by the Supervisory Board. We have explained the budget adjustments in the last columnin the financial section.

HIGHLIGHTS: What were 1–2 important highlights of the past quarter? (These may include successes, challenges, lessons learned.)

  • At Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE), we undertook many events and extensive planning during the third quarter.
  • For the first time, we drew up the new annual plan with a focus on the FDC proposal. As part of this process, we developed a cross-departmental change model for our work, subdivided into three programs. The models were based on many self-critical review processes of ongoing goals, projects, and activities.

Our successful participation in Wikimania also contributed to this process.

  • Wikimania gave many people an opportunity to present their projects and to obtain feedback and ideas on their work. The Chapters Village and the Chapters Dialogue enabled us to establish two cross-chapter projects for networking and discussion on an international level.
  • The OER conference (Open Educational Resources) was a highlight of this quarter. The event helped to raise awareness of OER and Wikimedia projects among its many participants from the education sector and to initiate a network of OER actors.
  • Other highlights of community work in the third quarter included progress on aspects of the structural framework for voluntary work, such as the new web pages for volunteer projects, insurance for community events, and our communication strategy on WikiCon.

WIKI-FOCUS:

  • German-language Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia projects involving the German and European legal areas

GROWTH:

  • Directly after completing the donation process supporters of Wikimedia Deutschland's 2012 online fundraising campaign were shown an option to become association members. This contributed to a substantial growth of memberships in Q1. The membership total grew from 2,618 (1,201 active and 1,417 sustaining members; as of December 31, 2012) to 5,292 (1,507 active members and 3,785 sustaining members; as of March 31, 2013).

About this document

[edit]

The heads of the departments Communities Team, Education and Knowledge, and Politics and Society are responsible for the content of this document. With this report for the first time long-term responsibilities have been specified for the reporting procedures in the departments. Due to time constraints, however, the kick-off meeting and the new cross-departmental editorial meeting, which had both been planned for this quarter, did not take place. The process that gave rise to the document is described below: We drew up the content of this document using questionnaires that were sent to all Wikimedia Deutschland department heads. The Politics and Society, Education and Knowledge, and Communities Team departments were given 13 working days to provide the required information. The questionnaires contained the questions from the FDC Progress Report, translated into German. The project managers also provided information on the special projects Wikidata and RENDER. The Evaluation Unit, Communications Team and International Affairs Unit provided feedback during the editing process. We checked that all of the forms had been filled out and made only small editorial amendments. In a final step the Executive Director approved the final document for translation.The Evaluation Unit documented the evolution of the document.

Financial summary

[edit]

The FDC requires information about how your entity received and spent money over the past year. The FDC distributes general funds, so your entity is not required to use funds exactly as outlined in the proposal. While line-item expenses will not be examined, the FDC and movement wants to understand why the entity spent money in the way it did. If variance in budgeted vs. actual is greater than 20%, please provide explanation in more detail. This helps the FDC understand the rationale behind any significant changes. Note that any changes from the Grant proposal, among other things, must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Revenues for this quarter

[edit]

Provide exchange rate used: 1,3$= 1 EUR

Table 2 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

  • Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.
Revenue source Currency Anticipated Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Anticipated ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Explanation of variances from plan
Transfers from the Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft (direct donations to WMDE) EUR 1.522.222 1.417.975 0 104.247 1.522.222 1.978.888,60 1.978.888,60
  • (Previously budgeted: 1.640.000) Just a slight variance.
Funds from the FDC EUR 1.376.923 1.376.923 0 0 1.376.923 1.790.000 1.790.000
  • (Previously budgeted: 1.400.000€) Not all funds were approved by the FDC for 2012/2013.
Corporate Social Responsibility EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
  • (Previously budgeted: 75.000€) The attempts to generate revenues in this area were not successful. We will not pursue it in the future, concentrating rather on grant-making foundation and third-party-funds.
Licensing income EUR 15.703,71 0 11.145,84 4.557,87 15.703,71 20.414,82 20.414,82
  • (Previously budgeted: 25.000€) The previous licensing agreement expired. We don't expect any further revenues in this area.
Membership dues EUR 309.134 5.105 276.018,75 28.011,25 309.135 401.875,50 401.875,50
  • (Previously budgeted: 150.000€) The memebership has developed much better than expected. In Q4 we will not collect any fees any more.
Interest EUR 25.400 12,77(WMDE)
12.147,24(WMFG) 		271,05(WMDE)
5065,68(WMFG) 		78,97(WMDE)
3.821,82(WMFG) 		362,79(WMDE)
21.034,74(WMFG) 		33.020 471,62(WMDE)
27.345,16(WMFG)
  • (Previously budgeted: 5.000€) Our expectations were very conservative and the interests developed much better than expected.
Third-party funding EUR 161.000 0 0 161.000 161.000 209.300 209.300
  • (Previously budgeted: 200.000€) Support from Yandex (150.000 Euro) for Wikidata was transfered in Q3, as well as small grants for the OER- conference.
Wikidata EUR 38.216 38.216 0 0 38.216 49.680,8 49.680,8
  • (Previously budgeted: 0€) Except for the rest funds from Allen Institute transferred in Q1 and the above mentioned Yandex support, we don't expect any more funding for Wikidata.
House of Free Knowledge EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0
  • (Previously budgeted: 600.000€) We do not expect to acquire any funds in this area in 2013, the concept was dismissed.
EU Funds for TAO EUR 28.019,07 0 0 28.019,07 28.019,07 36.424,79 36.424,79
  • (Previously budgeted: 200.000€) EU rest funds from 2012 were transferred in 2013 causing a raised revenue in this area.
EU funds for RENDER EUR 26.374,80 0 0 26.374,80 26.374,80 34.287,24 34.287,24
  • (Previously budgeted: 75.000€) We do not expect any funds in 2013 any more as they will be transferred n 2014 Q1.
Toolserver grants EUR 10.000 10.000 0 0 10.000 13.000 13.000
  • (Previously budgeted: 35.000€) Because of the planned migration to WMF Labs, we didn't attempt to raise any more funds.
Other EUR 11.025 2.999 802,25 3.224,28 7025,53 14.332,5 9.133,18
  • (Previously budgeted: 0€) Additional revenues e.g. from Wikipedian in Residence contract, insurance reimbursement and other.

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Spending during this quarter

[edit]

Table 3 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

(The "budgeted" amount is the total planned for the year as submitted in your proposal form or your revised plan, and the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year. The "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative amount spent over the budgeted amount.)
  • Please note: The Q2 figures are now complete. Starting with the Q2 report, we have used use the following procedure: We report the figures available from the Accounting Department at the time the report is produced; we then correct the information retrospectively in the next quarterly report should there be any discrepancies due to subsequent accounting. However, we state that we do not expect any major discrepancies, as only a booking period of approximately two weeks needs to be added, as well as any invoices that are submitted late.
Expense Currency Budgeted Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Budgeted ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Percentage spent to date Explanation of variances from plan
Administration EUR 427.444,17 93.776,93 120.491,55 93.175,69 307.444,17 555.677,42 399.677,42 71,93%
  • (Previously budgeted: 395.000€) The costs are a bit higher than expected due to audit costs for the annual accounts balance 2011 (the audit was conducted retrospectively in 2013).
Change of role of the association EUR 7213,8 0 3.538,52 1.275,28 4.813,8 9.377,94 6.257,94 66,73%
  • (Previously budgeted: 15.000€) We expect significantly lower expenditure than previously planned (Our approach to cause a change of role by simply adapting it led to extensive discussions with the community on various occasions. This was very instructive, though unplanned and we have experienced that this is more a learning-by-doing issue)
Improved motivation in the communities EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
  • (Previously budgeted: 80.000€) The project has been put on hold and will not be pursued in 2013 (a volunteer from the German community started an initiative with the same goal (“Non-administrative conflict solution”). In order not to start a parallel, competing initiative we have put our project “on hold”).
Improved support for communities EUR 387.170,99 67.883,74 42.480,63 64.807,62 175.171,99 503.322,28 227.723,58 45,24%
  • (Previously budgeted: 515.000€) The largest unspent item (250.000) is the Community Projects Budget (CPB). The general assembly in Q2 decided on restructuring which means that the further development of CPB and the related expenditure are therefore still open and the funds will not be spent in 2013.
  • Regarding the expected expenditures for Q4: we expect relatively high costs for the largest German-speaking community event (Wiki Convention).
Support structures for new active contributors EUR 10.305,04 0 0 305,04 305,04 13.396,55 396,55 2,96%
  • (Previously budgeted: 100.000€) The biggest expenditure for the Tea House initiative will take place in Q4. Besides the Tea House, no more expenditure are expected for 2013 therefore the adjusted budget.
Taking reader interests into account EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
  • (Previously budgeted: 70.000€) Due to the Article Feedback Tool (which will not be introduced by community decision), only personnel expenses have been incurred in this area. No other activities are foreseen for 2013, therefore the adjusted budget.
Diversity concept EUR 57.535 10.140,30 2.262,71 9.761,88 22.164,89 74.796 28.814,35 38,52%
  • (Previously budgeted: 60.000€) No major adjustment was needed; as planned, the biggest expenditure will happen in Q4 (Diversity Conference).
Encouraging participation EUR 89.381,66 16.176,89 9.781,14 25.057,63 51.015,66 116.196 66.320,35 57,08%
  • (Previously budgeted: 112.000€) A slight adjustment was made to reflect the delay in starting the materials development.
Linking up OER actors EUR 65.148 802,78 5.703,28 34.876,02 41.382,08 84.692,5 53.796,70 63,52%
  • (Previously budgeted: 68.000€) Minimal adjustment. Projects and spending are on schedule.
Free access to state-owned works EUR 30.409 827,28 3.940,30 11.641,89 16.409,47 39.532 21.332,31 53,96%
  • (Previously budgeted: 80.000€) Remaining experts’ fees will be incurred in Q4. In general we expect expenditure to be lower than planned, therefore the budget adjustment.
Representing our interests at EU level EUR 19.402,63 1.819,19 6.491,03 7.092,41 15.402,63 25.223,41 20.023,41 79,38%
  • (Previously budgeted: 60.000€) Further expenditure on fees for a freelancer in Brussels, a legal consultation on freedom of panorama and organizational expenses will be incurred in Q4. In general we expect expenditure to be lower than planned, therefore the budget adjustment..
Continuing partnerships and identifying new ones EUR 62.986,63 11.070,29 12.638,04 10.778,30 34.486,63 81.882,61 44.832,61 54,75%
  • (Previously budgeted: 90.000€) Organizational expenses (e.g. Conference "Zugang gestalten", GLAM on tour in Goerlitz) will be incurred in Q4; disbursements are largely as planned however some realistic adjustment were made.
Wikidata EUR 80.179,47 11.581,28 25.892 3.956,19 41.429,17 104.233,31 53.858,31 51,67%
  • (Previously budgeted: 80.000€) Minimal variation.
RENDER EUR 22.480,55 3.670,45 4.026,54 4.783,53 12.480,55 29.224,71 16.224,71 55,52%
  • (Previously budgeted: 30.000€) We have estimated the travel costs to be a bit higher than they actually were hence the adjustment of the planned budget.
Public relations EUR 109.389,09 5.375,33 25.028,43 18.985,33 49.389,09 142.205,81 64.205,81 45,15%
  • (Previously budgeted: 180.000€) The Communications Department faced a series of organisational and structural challenges throughout the year hence many positions remained unfilled. Many centrally planned expenditures have been taken over by the respective departments and external freelancers (webdesign and graphic)has been commissioned with a delay.
Fundraising EUR 40.690,05 (WMDE)
146.663,26 (WMFG) 		2.835,83 (WMDE)
26.016,89 (WMFG) 		17.064,03 (WMDE)
88.415,28 (WMFG) 		5.790,19 (WMDE)
30.268,57 (WMFG) 		25.690,05 (WMDE)
146.663,26 (WMFG) 		52.897,06 (WMDE)
190.662,23 (WMFG) 		33.397,06 (WMDE)
190.662,23 (WMFG) 		63,14% (WMDE)
100% (WMFG)
  • (Previously budgeted: WMDE: 90.000€, WMFG: 140.000€) The costs for WMDE were lower than expected while the costs for WMFG a little bit higher. No large expenditures are foreseen for Q4 except the usual costs.
  • Note that due to the fact that WMDE also benefits from the work of the Fundraising Unit (management of memberships, direct donations to WMDE etc.) WMDE bears its costs (both personell and material costs) in Q4. Thus WMFR will not have any costs in Q4 as they will be included in WMDE costs.
International affairs EUR 89.534,41 2.530,15 44.248,66 22.755,60 69.534,41 116.394,73 90.394,73 77,66%
  • (Previously budgeted: 275.000€) The costs have been so far higher than planned as we started the (originally not planned) Chapters Dialogue. On the other hand the costs for WCA didn't occur (except for costs for the German WCA representant). All this is reflected in the budget adjustment.
Evaluation EUR 37.426,03 288,34 4.734,44 2.403,25 7.426,03 48.653,83 9.653,83 19,84%
  • (Previously budgeted: 75.000€) Missing positions were filled with delay, the work was mainly conceptual (with no software application) therefore the budget adjustment.
Monitoring & controlling EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
  • (Previously budgeted: 15.000) We have revisited the plan to establish this department and decided against it. Instead we have an external audit, twice a year a cash audit by volunteers and an employee responsible for controlling only from 2014 on.
Eventmanagement EUR 28.074,27 0 1.616,92 1.457,35 3.074,27 36.496,55 3.996,55 10,95%
  • (Previously budgeted: 30.000€) In Q4 we expect costs for setup of community- and event spaces in the new office space (see below for details).
House of Free Knowledge EUR 177.914,84 512 1.047,13 1.355,68 2.914,84 231.289,29 3.789,29 1,64%
  • (Previously budgeted: 550.000€) The planned concept of the House of Free Knowledge will not be implemented. However, since we are moving to a new office space (planned for long-term and equiped with a community-and event space) some setup investments will be needed there the budget adjustment.
Supervisory Board EUR 95.680 17.189,68 25.396,81 19.800,71 62.387,20 124.384,26 81.103,36 65,20%
  • (Previously budgeted: 90.000€) The costs will be altogether slightly higher than expected due to higher Wikimania costs and consulting/moderation fees for the strategy process. In addition, the costs for the Supervisory Board assistant are part of the personnel costs.
Personnel costs EUR 2.133.915 (WMDE)
101.697,96 (WMFG) 		520.416,86 (WMDE)
34.911,39 (WMFG) 		485.489,09 (WMDE)
33.397,10 (WMFG)) 		551.714,86 (WMDE)
33.389,47 (WMFG 		1.557.620,81 (WMDE)
101.697,96 (WMFG) 		2.774.090,55 (WMDE)
132.207,34 (WMFG)) 		2.024.907,05 (WMDE)
132.207,34 (WMFG) 		72,99% (WMDE)
100%(WMFG)
  • (Previously budgeted: WMDE: 2.600.000€, WMFG: 140.000€) Expenditures lower than expected due to problems with filling planned positions throughout the year (therefore the budget adjustment).
  • Note that due to the fact that WMDE also benefits from the work of the Fundraising Unit (management of memberships, direct donations to WMDE etc.) WMDE bears its costs (both personell and material costs) in Q4. Thus WMFR will not have any costs in Q4 as they will be included in WMDE costs.

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Comments on the finance section

  • We have adapted the budgeted figures based on our current expectations. These figures still have to be officially approved by the Supervisory Board. We have explained the budget adjustments in the last column.

Please note: The Q2 figures are now complete. Starting with the Q2 report, we have used use the following procedure: We report the figures available from the Accounting Department at the time the report is produced; we then correct the information retrospectively in the next quarterly report should there be any discrepancies due to subsequent accounting. However, we state that we do not expect any major discrepancies, as only a booking period of approximately two weeks needs to be added, as well as any invoices that are submitted late.

Progress toward this year's goals/objectives

[edit]

This section addresses the impact of the programs / initiatives* and objectives your entity has implemented over the past quarter and the progress your entity is making toward meeting this year's goals. We understand that some metrics may not be applicable in this quarterly report, so please add metrics here if they are applicable.

*In the past, the FDC has used the term 'initiative', but we are using the term 'program.'

Program 1:Wikimedia Deutschland will simplify and improve cooperation with and within the communities on a permanent basis to increase participation and motivation within the projects.

[edit]
Change of role (Communities Teams)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Take a new and more active role in debates and support decision-making processes (we help define themes, disseminate facts, and objectively and regularly reassess our own position.)
  • Project: DE.WP, Commons, Meta
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The key actors and contact persons in the communities came to the fore, particularly in the Kurier (village pump) discussion on, for example, free licenses, which formed part of the discussion about Wikipedia photographers being denied access to a Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR) press conference.
  • The focus of our communication approach was on providing background briefing in offline and online discussions. As our participation in the discussion on WikiCon 2013 demonstrates, this is an improvement. We were cautious in presenting our offer to support this community event and the discussion was mainly led by the community. In this way, we have redefined our role: we see ourselves as supporting the community without interfering in its decisions. Finally, the venue for WikiCon 2013 was decided through a detailed, internal procedure in the community. Our involvement in the event is limited to its organization.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: about 50 volunteers (participation in discussing WikiCon 2013; deciding on the event’s venue)
    • Paid staff: 0.8 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • A procedure on which we had consistently agreed internally helped us to make progress on the targeted change. A decisive breakthrough came in the form of a communication strategy developed by the Communities Team suggesting that a self-determined and consensual decision is best reached through discussion with the community. Our discussion and communicative dialogue with the community on WikiCon 2013 serves as an example of how to achieve our goal of getting involved and supporting decision-making.
What worked and what did not?
  • A public discussion on the accreditation of non-professional photographers at the WDR conference took place between the Communities Team and other departments without having been coordinated. This should have been better coordinated and a communication strategy should have been collaboratively developed in advance. The discussion took a very visceral course and saw, in part, highly contradictory positions being adopted (also in relation to our understanding of our role).
  • Supporting the decision-making on WikiCon turned out to be a lengthy process, but we were able to encourage a lively and thorough discussion within the community by making information available and providing various facts on venues. This discussion resulted in positive feedback from the community on our association and support structures.

Any additional details:


Program 1:Wikimedia Deutschland will simplify and improve cooperation with and within the communities on a permanent basis to increase participation and motivation within the projects.

[edit]
Changing the working climate (Communities Teams)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Increase motivation within communities (the motivation of participants increases significantly)
  • Project: DE.WP, Commons
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • As a result of community activities that are still planned, and due to changes in personnel, it is not possible to report on activities in this area.
  • Staff:
    • Paid staff: 0.1 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • -
What worked and what did not?
  • There will probably be no further opportunity to work extensively on this area in 2013. The subject should have already been pursued on a continual basis, irrespective of community activity, through the increased integration of community endeavors, rather than allowing this prolonged period of inactivity to occur. The subject will continue to be of importance next year within the context of “social processes”.


Changing support mechanisms (Communities Team)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Provide even better support for volunteers (greater number of volunteers use our support structures and have received positive feedback for their contributions.)
  • Project: DE.WP, Commons
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The funding programs were well received and we were are also being asked to assist with community events that are not directly funded, such as providing information material and giveaways. In order to further develop the community project budget in collaboration with community members, we established a working group comprised of 12 members and published the results of a qualitative survey of relevant actors on the approach that the program has taken so far.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: events with organizational teams of 1-3 people, six volunteers for the redesign of funding pages
    • Paid staff: 2 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • We provided over 180 Wikimedians and Commons contributors with financial and organizational support in 32 activities ranging from meeting on the arbitration panel and editing to photography projects. We also allocated funding for eight equipment loans, business cards and e-mail addresses for 13 people, 14 literary scholarships, and eight accreditations.
  • There was great demand for the insurance for community events (accident and third-person liability) announced in March 2013. It was used for 26 events (with 442 participants). Among these, one accident was handled as a damage event.
  • We redesigned the web pages for the funding programs of all organizations in German-speaking Wikipedia.
  • Projects supported by the community project budget continued their activities in the third quarter. Over 10,000 photos of 69 festivals by 32 photographers are now available under a free license in the festival summer; the state parliament (Landtag) project in Schleswig-Holstein had ten participants and produced over 800 photographs; and the second round of the debate comprising eight local discussion events took place as part of the “Acceptable Limits of Professional Writing” project.
  • Support:
    • Insurance for community events (accident and third-person liability) with 442 participants
    • Online presence of funding programs
    • Festival summer: 69 festivals, 32 photographers, 10,000 photos
    • The “Acceptable Limits of Professional Writing” project with eight local discussion events
What worked and what did not?
  • The insurance for community events was very well received. Volunteers had already asked about the launch of the funding page in the first quarter and, accordingly, the launch was positively received. This was a case of picking up on demand and responding to it.

Any additional details:


Program 2: Wikimedia Deutschland will increase the diversity of knowledge in Wikimedia projects to enable adequate representation of different perspectives in the projects.

[edit]
Changes for new Wikimedians (Communities Team)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Provide attractive support mechanisms to encourage new Wikimedians to stay on board (support structures encourage more Wikipedians to remain involved in the projects).
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • We are in the process of drafting adjustments in collaboration with volunteers and are planning to produce a development exercise book for preparing a solution that should ideally be applicable in many languages.
  • At the end of the reporting period, the workshop in Cologne was imminent. It is expected that collaboration between the nationwide network of active volunteers and WMDE representatives at the event will create motivation and practical ideas for local work.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: 1
    • Paid staff: 1 FTE


Activities conducted.
  • Volunteers want to introduce the Teahouse project, which is currently only available on the English Wikipedia, to the German Wikipedia. An inspection revealed that significant software adjustments would be needed in order to make this feature available on Wikipedia pages in other languages. We will facilitate these adjustments and undertake the necessary technical developments.
  • We have made further progress in setting up local activities. We have completed the preparations for the concepts and organization of the event in Cologne (end of Q3), establishing all necessary contacts and pooling information.


What worked and what did not?
  • -


Changes for diversity (Education and Knowledge)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Wikimedia Deutschland will develop a concept to bring more diversity into Wikipedia
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The working paper “Gender – Diversity – Wikipedia” forms the basis for the creation of a diversity concept for Wikipedia. In the working paper, action points for achieving greater gender diversity in Wikipedia were identified. These action points will be consolidated in the form of a catalogue of measures drawn up in collaboration with the German Wikipedia community. In the fourth quarter, we will focus on the detailed preparation of this catalogue of measures through numerous open-innovation formats.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: five structured interviews were conducted with Wikimedians for the working paper “Gender – Diversity – Wikipedia”. The diversity concept was discussed at a workshop with 20 volunteers at Wikimania and in a topic meeting with five volunteers. The content and organization of the conference were discussed by 16 Wikipedians on the conference’s meta page
    • Paid staff: 2 FTE, 0.3 external FTE
Activities conducted.
  • The working paper “Gender – Diversity – Wikipedia” was published. This represents another milestone on the road to the diversity concept for Wikimedians and serves as a basis for further discussions with the community. The paper focuses on the systematic evaluation of findings on gender diversity, interviews with Wikimedians from the German community, as well as action points and examples of measures. The 19-page working paper was produced in cooperation with Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin and its Gender and Technology Center.
  • Activities related to the Wikimedia Diversity Conference focused on informing the international community about the conference; planning and putting together the conference program; and coordinating organization between WMDE, Wikimedia UK, Wikimedia Nederland, and the Wikimedia Foundation. Two key topics were agreed on: gender diversity and geographical diversity. In addition, scholarships were provided in order to enable international volunteers and representatives of chapters with insufficient funds to attend the conference.
  • Prof. Ilona Buchem of Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin presented and discussed the gender-diversity project at Wikimania. There was also a presentation on the state of play of the concept to increase gender diversity in Wikipedia. In the meet-ups that took place separately, brainstorming sessions based on these earlier presentations were held on developing measures to increase gender diversity in Wikipedia.
What worked and what did not?
  • The coordination of the Wikimedia Diversity Conference and the identification of key topics for the event should have occurred much earlier and faster. The coordination processes between four international partner organizations and the community are time-consuming, and this must be taken into account in the joint decision-making process. In addition, the discussion on the topic and contents of the conference that took place among the community on the conference page in the event’s Meta-Wiki showed that diversity has many dimensions and that it would be worthwhile to significantly extend the discussion phase.

Any additional details:


Changing participation (Education and Knowledge)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Develop a range of offers that will encourage a wider variety of groups to participate (many new formats have been tried out and the successful ones will be replicated on a wider scale).
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?

The Women Edit project is helping to improve gender diversity in Wikipedia. So far, the project has generated a predominantly positive response from the community and it has already gained ten supporters. The increase in senior contributors through the Silberwissen project has also helped to boost diversity among Wikipedia authors and to generate new content. Attracting senior authors from various backgrounds has also furthered the diversity of topics. In the third quarter, 34 participants from eleven Wikipedia workshops were motivated to get involved.

  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: 35 volunteers for Women Edit (project manager, supporters, critics, feedback providers, and contributors), one volunteer to produce educational materials, two volunteers for the Silberwissen (Silver Knowledge) project.
    • Paid staff: 2 FTE, 1.3 external FTE


Activities conducted.
  • The Women Edit project was set up to encourage women to actively take part in Wikimedia projects. To achieve this, many events will take place throughout Germany to motivate women to get involved, e.g. by writing articles for Wikipedia, uploading audio and video files onto Wikimedia Commons, updating travel information on Wikivoyage, or joining in discussions with the community. By contacting over 20 active female authors, we were able to lay the foundations for a nationwide network. In addition, the project was presented to the public during Social Media Week – Germany’s largest free web conference.
  • The EU project Silberwissen (a sub-project of the EU project Third Age Online) was concluded. In the third quarter, the final eleven Wikipedia workshops with senior citizens took place in Hanover, Potsdam, and Neuhaus. The aims of the workshops were to provide an introduction to working with Wikipedia, to help participants to take their first steps, and to explain how to upload photos onto Wikipedia Commons and make them available as free knowledge. In addition, the closing event of the TAO project took place in Bern. The project has been evaluated and documented, and the results will be available in German and English in November.
What worked and what did not?
  • It is a big achievement for Women Edit to have the project coordinated by a very motivated community member. Knowledge of internal processes and developing an extensive network were and still are prerequisites for improving diversity. It is also necessary to contact local community members directly and to hold information events in order to raise awareness of the topic and to encourage women to get involved.
  • It is also clear from the EU project Silberwissen that contacting local people directly has very positive results. It emerged that courses with small groups held over a period of three to six weeks are very worthwhile in terms of encouraging older people to get involved with Wikimedia projects on a long-term basis. Holding one or two meetings without guaranteed support afterwards has not proven effective, as participants are left with too many unanswered questions and still feel uncertain about collaboration and writing articles.

Any additional details:


Program 3: Wikimedia Deutschland will enable readers to bring their personal perspective into the Wikimedia projects.

[edit]
Changes for readers (Communities Team)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Our objective is to collect data on reader interests and to ensure these interests are being heard in Wikimedia projects (we gather and process information on reader interests and regularly bring our findings into the communities).

Due to changes in personnel, it is not possible to report on activities in this area.

  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • -
Activities conducted.
  • -
What worked and what did not?
  • -

Any additional details:

  • -


Program 4: Wikimedia Deutschland will form new cooperations to establish the concept of free knowledge on a broader basis.

[edit]
Changes in the educational sphere (Education and Knowledge)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Link up players to make free knowledge a reality in the area of education (free educational content is on the agenda of key actors in school education and the first pilot schemes have been tested).
  • Project: Commons, DE.WP, Wikiversity
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Thanks to the coverage the conference received in the media and the support of its patron and partners (German Commission for UNESCO, mabb, Co:llaboratory, the Federal Agency for Civic Education, and Creative Commons), we were able to raise awareness about OER far beyond the event. OER now have a much higher profile, and political and institutional decision-makers understand their great relevance. Our analysis of the conference revealed that a high proportion of participants came from schools and universities. This fact in particular shows that the event was clearly successful in establishing OER in the education sector and that it has created a basis for freeing content in the coming year.

Volunteers: 30 volunteers and over 50 speakers at the OER conference; ten volunteers organized a joint workshop with the Berlin-Brandenburg Broadcasting Media Authority (mabb), which promotes diversity in broadcast media in the states of Berlin and Brandenburg.

  • Staff:
    • Participants: 300
    • Paid staff: 1.15 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • The first OER conference for German-speaking countries took place in Berlin on September 14 and 15, 2013. Over two days, 300 participants exchanged views on the current and future state of OER in Germany. Discussions focused on international input and on how governments and institutions can promote OER in the future. The conference patron was the German Commission for UNESCO, and the event was organized in collaboration with a network of partners from all over Germany.
  • We have established a network of OER actors which began working on a new project in the last quarter.
  • The Berlin-Brandenburg Broadcasting Media Authority (mabb), which promotes diversity in the broadcast media in the states of Berlin and Brandenburg, has made OER one of the focuses of its projects. This has resulted in a joint pilot project called OER Training for Teachers.
  • Our work on OER and open education is improving long-term access to free knowledge in Germany by creating a new culture of sharing and openness in the education sector. Through our activities and measures, we are creating a cross-sector network that is putting this issue on the agendas of a wide variety of different people and organizations. Increasing awareness in the education sector of the issues of reusing and creating content has encouraged more people to use Wikimedia projects and attracted different target groups to them.
What worked and what did not?
  • Our collaboration with a network of high-profile partner organizations helped us to bring the topic into the public arena. However, we had difficulties in finding someone from the political sphere to take part in one of the panel discussions, most likely because the issue is still relatively unknown.
  • To encourage more political actors to take part, we adapted the conference format to include an open bar-camp format alongside the chaired events. This innovation gave participants a chance to network and share ideas formally and informally.

Any additional details:

mabb’s work on OERs


Changes for state-owned works (Politics and Society)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Use our political lobbies to make state-owned works freely accessible for use (our own regulatory proposal for the use of state-owned works attracts the attention and support of the general public).
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Digital Openness Index: The original deadline for completing the collection, evaluation, and presentation of the data has been extended. The first phase of the project involves collecting data from 46 local authorities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The deadline was extended to mid-October, partly in response to requests from respondents who wanted to be able to provide more detailed information.
  • State-owned works: While conducting research for our proposed amendment to the German Copyright Act with regard to state-owned works, we published a report on the revenues currently being generated at the federal and Land level from granting usage rights to state-owned works and pointed out a discrepancy between the government’s expected and proven revenue from this source. Aside from geographical data and fees for using government archives, the state does not generate any significant revenue from state-owned works. In our view, this means that the government is not justified in denying access to these works on the basis of a supposed loss of revenue. The survey in Berlin (and the realization that a large amount of the revenue comes from publicly owned companies) directly resulted in the state of Berlin announcing in the third quarter that it would make all geographical data freely available – and specifically that these data could be used in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Although not written into law, this new regulation represents a clear success for the commons.
  • Staff
    • Paid staff: 0.5 FTE
    • Volunteers: 53 people completed a questionnaire to rank in order of priority the questions in the catalogues of key questions sent out to politicians in the run-up to the German general election. Given the topic, this was a very good response rate. The project can therefore serve as a model for similar activities in the future. Another survey dealing with the upcoming European Parliament elections took place in the period after Wikimania until September 30, 2013.
Activities conducted.
  • The Digital Openness Index project began collecting data in the third quarter. The first phase will involve surveys of 46 local authorities (particularly cities and municipalities) to see how they measure up to a list of criteria. Three different methods will be used to carry out the survey: an online questionnaire, website research using support staff, and telephone or e-mail surveys. We provided the project with support in developing and managing the online questionnaire.
  • In the third quarter, we worked with a law firm to draft an amendment to German copyright law that would make it easier to reuse state-owned works. The draft takes into account all the relevant rulings by the German supreme court on Article 5 of the German Copyright Act and puts forward a cautious amendment. It also proposes removing an inconsistency within the Act, the ban on editing state-owned works in the public domain, which makes it practically impossible to reuse them freely.
  • Two state elections and a general election took place in September 2013. We sent out catalogues of key questions to politicians in the run-up to these elections and published their answers along with our comments.
  • Through these three activities, we are helping to improve the conditions for free knowledge. The Digital Openness Index is providing the first-ever empirical basis for measuring and comparing access to state information and the infrastructure for open-content platforms. On the basis of this evaluation, relevant actors (and third parties) will be better equipped to draw up recommendations for action in these areas in the future. One recommendation for action is our own draft amendment on state-owned works that aims to extend access to state-owned works under German jurisdiction. The catalogues of key questions are also an effective tool for opening up dialogue with people in the political sphere and raising awareness about the steps that need to be taken to guarantee the principles of free knowledge in a variety of areas (e.g. copyright law, data-protection law, and OER).
What worked and what did not?
  • We are still in great need of expertise to develop our own software tools to assist work in all departments. Our experiences in previous and existing software-development projects led to the establishment of a centralized unit within Wikimedia Deutschland to coordinate the production of software and the resources necessary for this on behalf of the various departments.

Any additional details:

  • While collecting the data for the draft amendment on state-owned works, we attempted to gain insight into the revenue that the federal and Land governments derive from granting usage rights for state-owned works. Following a minor interpellation in the Land parliament about the revenue received by the state of Schleswig-Holstein, one of the parliamentary groups tabled a motion to make all state-owned works freely available via Creative Commons zero licenses. This request is currently being reviewed by the Land parliament’s Committee for Internal and Legal Affairs. As part of this parliamentary review, the Finance Ministry of Schleswig-Holstein has written to the Committee for Internal and Legal Affairs confirming that the state generates no significant revenue from granting usage rights to state-owned works, other than income from geographical data and fees for using the archives. The committee minutes mention the possibility of a joint motion by all the parliamentary groups in Schleswig-Holstein to achieve a unified free licensing policy.


Changes at the European level (Politics and Society)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Establish the preconditions to represent our interests at EU level (in cooperation with partners, we succeed in developing and implementing a sustainably funded model that guarantees our presence at EU level).
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Directly addressing potential contributors during and after Wikimania proved more successful than originally expected. It is of vital importance to the project that we support communities and chapters. This is the only way that we will be able to tackle longer-term goals such as establishing a sustainable organization for advocacy groups and dealing professionally with policy content.
  • We need to participate regularly in meetings with experts, roundtable discussions, and consultations in order to make our work better known and to establish ourselves in the medium and long term as a serious, reliable partner for EU institutions.
  • The FKAGEU’s mission statement is the founding document that covers the tasks involved in this area. It will also help us to get other chapters involved (organization).
  • In the fourth quarter, we will intensify our work on content relating to key issues, starting with a comparative study on freedom of panorama in EU member states.
  • In this way, we are helping to improve the conditions for free knowledge. Free licenses are merely a compensatory strategy for bypassing copyright restrictions in the education sector, the cultural sector, and the public authorities; they are not a solution to the underlying problems. Advocacy groups and links with other actors play a crucial role in preventing legislative actors from adopting future legislation that effectively blocks the collection, dissemination, and editing of content in society. This is precisely why one of our affiliate organizations, Creative Commons, recently executed a change in strategy.

Staff:

    • Volunteers: around 30 volunteers attended discussions on the goals and measures of the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU (FKAGEU) at Wikimania in Hong Kong.
    • Five volunteers helped to organize and promote the survey on our policy goals. Two volunteers helped to collect the contact details of the permanent representatives on the Council of the European Union.
    • Paid staff: 1.0 external FTE


Activities conducted.

The project was presented at Wikimania in Hong Kong, and Wikimedia UK officially joined the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU (FKAGEU). A preliminary stakeholder roundtable discussion with EU institutions also took place on topics such as Net neutrality and the TTIP . The FKAGEU drafted a statement, which was checked by seven European chapter representatives and the WMF.

What worked and what did not?
  • Participation in roundtable discussions with experts is already paying off through the establishment of new contacts. Although the issues discussed in Brussels are not fully congruent with our main goals, these events give us the opportunity to exchange contact details not available in the public domain with individuals who could open up many doors for us in the future. For example, networking on the [directive on collective rights management http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/management/index_en.htm] led to seven Members of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) taking an interest in our work. (We aim to increase this number to over 20 members.)
  • It is not always feasible to draft an internal mission statement online using Etherpad or e-mail. This approach leads to an array of conflicting arguments and comments that not only slow the process down, but actually make it impossible, partly due to the decentralized communication structure. In the fourth quarter, therefore, the online preparatory work will be finalized during a real-life meeting.

(The most important point for Wikimedia in this directive is the author’s right to place individual pieces of music under a Creative Commons license, but still entrust their rights to collecting societies, as appropriate.)

Any additional details:


Changes in partnerships (Politics and Society)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Continue our partnerships in the cultural sector and find new fields in which we can effectively demonstrate the benefits of free knowledge (new partnerships come about as a result of direct inquiries from our association and there is demand for our consulting activities).
  • Projects: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?

Our activities in this quarter only indirectly pursued the goal of instituting new partnerships. In the third quarter, we placed greater emphasis on preparing the field for potential partnerships. Staff:

  • Volunteers:
    • A) The Imagine 2022 panel was made up of six people, four of whom were volunteers. 45 volunteers took part in the survey. The audience consisted of over 200 people. One volunteer actively contributed to the GLAM presentation, which around 50 people attended.
    • B) Ten people, seven of whom were volunteers, took part in the meeting in Hannover.
    • C) The mailshot was sent to 7,000 association members.
    • Around 25 Wikimedians regularly took part in the ZDFcheck.
    • Paid staff: 1.5 FTE
Activities conducted.

The goal of the partnerships is to constantly improve the accessibility and reusability of GLAM institutions’ collections and knowledge. To achieve this, GLAM institutions must use free licenses and be open to concrete collaboration with local Wikimedians. Our work therefore focuses on advising GLAM institutions on Creative Commons licensing models and on organizing events where Wikimedians and representatives from GLAMs can work together on specific projects. Examples of such events include GLAM on Tour and the workshop for ZDF staff, which was held as part of the ZDFcheck project with public broadcaster ZDF. We select the GLAM institutions either on the basis of recommendations from members of the community or because an institution is particularly representative (e.g. ZDF). Details on the concepts of both these programs can be found in the 2013 Annual Plan.

  • A) Wikimania Hong Kong from the GLAM perspective

Wikimania in Hong Kong was definitely the highlight of the third quarter. As well as providing a forum to discuss other chapters’ experiences in the GLAM sector, both at WikiSym and Wikimania itself, two crucial points emerged. The first point, which was widely supported, was that Wikipedia needs to allow the use of interactive maps such as the limes map, which was the result of collaboration with the German Archaeological Institute (DAI). This project was introduced at the Hackathon and generated much discussion, especially because the map was immediately blocked. Now we must wait to see whether the WMF can come up with a swift solution (as planned) to allow the incorporation of interactive maps into Wikimedia projects. The second key point was the evaluation of Wikipedia’s future, where crucial trends were discussed with the international community in the form of a panel discussion held in the central event hall at Wikimania. The predominant feeling at the Hong Kong event was one of optimism. For work in the GLAM sector, a non-representative but insightful survey showed that the majority feels that with an increase in professional contributions we will see an increase in conflicts of interest, but also greater diversity of authors and topics. It is clear, therefore, that we must communicate more clearly in our collaboration with GLAMs to ensure that we preserve the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia achieved with the “neutral point-of-view” principle.

  • B) Planning 2014 with volunteers

At the second German-language GLAM meeting in Hannover, exchanges on the year’s various projects were followed by discussion of the 2014 Annual Plan. It became particularly clear that there are still not enough active intermediaries or ambassadors in the GLAM sector, and that these activities require, on the whole, a fair amount of patience. Regular discussions between active individuals were generally viewed as positive. The following were identified as key topics for the coming year: the comprehensive support of local GLAM initiatives; making collections from GLAMs accessible by integrating them into Wikimedia Commons; and providing information on the opportunities for and forms of participation, both for Wikimedians and GLAMs.

  • C) WMDE’s Cultural Initiative outreach campaign

As well as the GLAM on Tour program, we also contacted our association members in the third quarter in an outreach campaign. The main goal of the campaign is to encourage association members to actively get involved to support free knowledge in the GLAM sector. At present, there are not enough Wikimedia volunteers actively engaged in the cultural sector to provide the necessary advice and information about the promotion of free knowledge. It is for this reason that we decided to send an information flyer to almost 7,000 of our members, explaining all the different forms of collaboration between Wikimedia projects and GLAMs and inviting them to become “ambassadors for free knowledge” in the cultural sector. We are also using a questionnaire to gather information on members’ links to a local cultural institution. In addition, we are providing members with information about the mentoring program and Wiki Loves Monuments if they express an interest in getting involved as an author or photographer. The idea for the campaign originated at the GLAM meeting in Kaufbeuren, and was then presented and discussed further at the second GLAM meeting in Hanover. Following consultation with active members in the GLAM sector, we decided that the flyer would be based on an information leaflet for Wikimedia projects with the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis. We will present the evaluation during the next quarter.

  • D) Collaboration with ZDF

The German general election took place on September 22. This meant that ZDFcheck, which assessed statements by 25 politicians for their credibility from May to September, came to an end. Each check involved an average of 20 contributions from the online community. We will present an evaluation of the project in the fourth quarter. You can read the initial results on the project page. In August, we held a lecture and workshop for fifteen journalists from ZDF’s Berlin studio. The purpose of the event was to teach the participants how to use Wikipedia as a research tool and how to upload content onto Wikimedia Commons.

What worked and what did not?
  • A) The response to the survey on the future of Wikipedia should have been communicated even more forcefully at Wikimania.
  • B) We had to schedule an appointment during the summer holidays in order to be able to include the results of the meeting in the official annual planning process. More time for a wider discussion would have been desirable.
  • C) & D) The output of these activities is still under evaluation and will be made public in the fourth quarter.

Any additional details:


Special programs

[edit]

Wikidata

[edit]
  • This quarter, the Wikidata team integrated the first two sister projects – Wikivoyage and Wikimedia Commons – into the Wikidata project. Commons and Wikivoyage will now draw their interwiki links from Wikidata. Wiktionary already has access to the Wikidata data, such as airport codes and country-calling codes. The team also published an analysis of all the recommendations for integrating Wiktionary.
  • The team also significantly improved search rankings and approved a popular new data type (URL), which, among other features, allows users to provide a link to the source of their statements. We also launched the Paper Cuts campaign in order to make Wikidata more user-friendly; this campaign allows users to suggest small improvements that can have a major impact.
  • This project has already attracted plenty of suggestions and is showing its first signs of success (see link).

IBM Research also donated the prize money for the AAAI Feigennaum Prize for Watson to the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikidata.

Additional information


RENDER

[edit]

In the third quarter, our work on the RENDER project focused on the evaluation of support tools – the Article Monitor and the Article List Generator. Alongside these data, we also analyzed the tool testers’ requests so that we could formulate statements about their use of and satisfaction with the tools. We documented the results and insights obtained in two comprehensive final reports on RENDER. At WikiSym 2013, we presented the paper “Involve the users to increase their acceptance – an experience report”, spoke with those present about our experiences with dealing with the Wikipedia community during the RENDER project, and shared our lessons learned.

Additional Information

Lessons learned

[edit]

Lessons from this quarter

[edit]

A key objective of the funding is to enable the movement as a whole to understand how to achieve shared goals better and faster. An important way of doing this is to identify lessons learned from entities who receive funds, and to share these lessons across the movement. The purpose of this section is to elicit some of these insights, which will be shared throughout the movement. Please answer the following questions in 1–2 paragraphs each.

What were your major accomplishments in the past quarter, and how did you help to achieve movement goals?

  • At WMDE, we enable volunteers to carry out their projects and provide infrastructure support. Examples of collaborations of this type include WikiCon and the Women Edit project.
  • WikiCon is the biggest community event in German-speaking countries and, after Wikimania, the second biggest regular Wikimedia movement event in the world. It was uncertain if the event, which had previously been organized entirely by volunteers, would take place in 2013 because of a lack of volunteers to arrange it. We supplied personnel from the Communities Team and the Events Team to collaborate with the community on organizing WikiCon. Now the event will take place in Karlsruhe between November 22 and 24, 2013.
  • The Women Edit project is aimed at getting women to actively take part in Wikimedia projects. The project is being coordinated by a very motivated project manager from the community and is so far being supported by around ten community members. We are also providing support on this process, as creating links within the Wikipedia community and developing an extensive network for improving diversity are vital concerns of ours.

What were your major setbacks in the past quarter (e.g., programs that were not successful)?

  • As the WCA dropped off, the budget that had been allocated to it was not called up, thus impairing our ability to act in relation to international chapter projects. It was only in the course of the third quarter, thanks to the start of the Chapters Dialogue, that we were able to invest in chapter projects. This step should have been taken much earlier.
  • Staff fluctuations and delays in recruitment meant that important projects for supporting the community (such as the restructuring of funding mechanisms, local contact points, and services for new Wikimedians) could only be implemented on a rudimentary level, if at all. The department will be completed as regards to staff at all. The department will be completed as regards to staff in the near future, which was an important step to solve most associated problems in the future.

What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?

  • At Wikimania, our departments were able to share their experiences during presentations and one-on-one conversations, and to receive feedback on their work. In addition to this, we were able to gather new ideas and approaches for future projects. By taking part in the event, we succeeded in presenting ourselves as an open and transparent partner organization. Our stand in the Chapters Village, a project that we ourselves initiated, enabled us to further expand our network and to exchange ideas with international actors in the field, to the ongoing benefit of our day-to-day project work.
  • For the first time, specific formats allowed the scholarship holders who attended the event to network with one another as well as with WMDE office staff. The scholars provided a continual flow of information to the community in Germany through regular reports and thus helped to raise awareness there.

What unanticipated challenges did you encounter and how did this affect what you were able to accomplish?

  • Challenges arose in communicating with the community about complex issues such as the Article Feedback Tool, the Visual Editor, and the migration of tools to Tool Labs. The focus here was on communicative dialogue without ready-made solutions. As a result of the above-mentioned personnel situation in the Communities Team in the last quarter, we have not yet been able to assign tasks to staff. This can be solved by establishing a permanent group for communications activities within the Communities Team and appointing permanent contact persons.
  • There were no overarching challenges in this quarter, since the focus was on the parallel implementation of major events planned for this period, as well as on completing pilot projects that have spanned several years; drafting the 2014 Annual Plan, which also involved applying to the Funds Dissemination Committee; and producing the quarterly report. This all drew heavily on our resources, requiring much personnel, organization, and time.

What changes might you make in executing your initiatives into the next quarter?

  • The solution is to form a permanent group dedicated to communications activities within the Communities Team and to appoint permanent contact persons.

In addition to this, we are continuing to set up fixed monitoring structures. Our aim here is that establishing a routine procedure will make reporting processes more effective.

Additional information

[edit]

Provide any other relevant information that may be helpful or relevant for the FDC (e.g., links to any media coverage, blog posts, more detailed reports, more detailed financial information).

Compliance

[edit]

Is your organization compliant with the terms outlined in the grant agreement?

[edit]

As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.

Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

  • Yes

Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Grant funds as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

  • Yes

Signature

[edit]

--Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Progress_report_form/Q3&oldid=15333355"