Jump to content

Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Deutschland e.V./Progress report form/Q1

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) 01/01-12/31
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]

CHANGES:

  • The budget item "Wikidata2" which is to be found in the proposal and which was amounting to EUR 765,000 has been withdrawn as large donor funds were not aquired so far and we do not anticipate they will be. We have adjusted the project plan and funds for Wikidata in 2013 accordingly. In the revenues section the budget item "Transfers from Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft (direct donations to WMDE)" has been adjusted by Supervisory Board resolution in order to allocate additional funds totaling EUR 140,000 to secure the continuation of Wikidata. The budget item has been changed from EUR 1,500,000 to EUR 1,640,000.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • The most important highlight for Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) in the first quarter of 2013 was the improved collaboration and communication with the communities. This improved collaboration was reflected in various achievements, which included the following: WMDE organized a first successful networking meeting of volunteers active in the GLAM sector; community members launched three projects funded by the community project budget; we were involved in the discussions on the Article Feedback Tool pilot phase; and we moderated talks between the German community and the Wikimedia Foundation.On the other hand, it has become clear that certain challenges typically faced by an organization at our level of development were not sufficiently taken into account in the annual planning and the project planning process. These challenges include the upheavals caused by the switch to goal-driven planning processes and the induction of two new department heads. As a consequence, including the community in our planned projects proved to be far more time-consuming than initially expected.We have learned from these developments and will take them into account in upcoming reviews of this year’s planning. This will also mean adapting goal deadlines.
  • In addition, we face the new challenge of systematically monitoring and evaluating our work. We firmly believe that monitoring and evaluation – along with our new goal-oriented planning processes – are essential building blocks that will ensure that we can continually improve our work on behalf of the movement. Therefore, in the first quarter of 2013, the new Evaluation Unit was commissioned to develop a sustainable evaluation concept for WMDE. This concept will allow the association to pursue its declared goal of providing the best possible support to the global Wikimedia movement in its promotion of free knowledge. The concept will reflect WMDE’s needs and strategic planning processes, as well as the unique local context (e.g. taking into account the current status of German-language Wikimedia projects and the cultural, social, and political framework). The evaluation concept must fulfill internationally recognized Impact Evaluation standards and be implemented gradually over the next few years. The design phase has already begun, and a roadmap for implementing the concept will be published during 2013.

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 following explains the process that gave rise to this document. After each round of reporting, the process is to be evaluated (not least on the basis of feedback from the FDC) and further developed in order to improve the quality of the content for the movement and to make the report drafting process more efficient.

The financial section in this document has been drawn up on the basis of data from the Finance and Reporting department. Information on January and February is based on data from Accounts. Since accounting data for March is not yet available, we have used budget control data for that month.

The content of this document was drawn up using questionnaires that were sent to all WMDE department heads. The heads of each department (Politics & Society, Education & Knowledge, and Communities Team) were each given three working days to fill out two forms ("Progress report" and "Lessons learned"),which contained the questions from the FDC Progress Report, translated into German. In addidtion, the respective project managers provided information on the special projects, Wikidata and RENDER. All the forms were duly checked for completeness.The Communications Unit edited the answers to ensure that the information provided is as comprehensible as possible for the international movement. As a result, answers that did not relate to the actual question were deleted or repositioned.

Since each department answered the questions on lessons learned separately, responses first had to be compiled, condensed and weighted according to their relevance for the movement. This was managed by the International Affairs Unit. The "overview of this quarter" section (Executive Director’s office) is based on the lessons learned. The final steps were: The Evaluation Unit documented the evolution of this document and the Executive Director’s office approved the final document for translation.

Financial summary

[edit]

Revenues for this quarter

[edit]

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 Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft (direct donations to WMDE) EUR 1,640,000 1,417,975 1,417,975 2,132,000 1,843,367.50
  • This budget item has been adjusted by board resolution in order to allocate additional funds for Wikidata.
  • The anticipated amount reflects the donations expectation at the end of the fundraising period (June 30, 2013).
FDC funds EUR 1,400,000 1,376,923 1,376,923 1,820,000 1,790,000
  • USD 30,000 were cut from WMDE FDC funds.
Corporate Social Responsibility EUR 75,000 0 0 97,500 0
  • Planned for later this year
Royalties EUR 25,000 0 0 32,500 0
  • Planned for later this year
Membership fees EUR 150,000 5,105 5,105 195,000 6,636.50
  • Most of these fees are being collected in April.
Interest EUR 5,000 12.77(WMDE)
12,147.24(WMFG) 		12.77(WMDE)
12,147.24(WMFG) 		6,500 16.60 (WMDE)
15,791.41 (WMFG)
Third-party funds EUR 200,000 0 0 260,000 0
  • Planned for later this year
Wikidata EUR 0 38,216 38,216 0 49,680.80
  • Additional funds from Allen Institute for Artificial Inteligence
  • Large donor funds were not acquired so far and we don’t anticipate they will be. We have adjusted the project plan and funds for Wikidata in 2013 accordingly. Aside from the remaining donor funds from 2012, WMDE decided to dedicate up to EUR 140,000from its budget to secure the project continuation.
House of Free Knowledge EUR 600,000 0 0 780,000 0
  • Funds were not acquired in the 1Q.
EU funds for TAO EUR 20,000 0 0 26,000 0
  • Funds are to be received later this year.
EU funds for RENDER EUR 75,000 0 0 97,500 0
  • Funds are to be received later this year.
Toolserver grants EUR 35,000 10,000 10,000 45,500 13,000
  • Funds received from WMCH.
Other EUR 0 2,999 2,999 0 3,898.70
  • Among other factors, due to insurance reimbursement.

* 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.)
Expense Currency Budgeted Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Budgeted ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Percentage spent to date Explanation of variances from plan
Administration EUR 395,000 94,423 94,423 513,500 122,749.90
Volunteer Support EUR 780,000 43,400 43,400 1,014,000 56,420
  • Most of the projects expenses are planned for later this year; please see the program progress below for details.
Education & Knowledge EUR 240,000 26,813 26,813 312,000 34,856.90
  • Most of the projects expenses are planned for later this year; please see the program progress below for details.
Politics & Society EUR 230,000 15,564 15,564 299,000 20,233.20
  • Most of the projects expenses are planned for later this year; please see the program progress below for details.
Wikidata EUR 80,000 11,604 11,604 104,000 15,085.20
RENDER EUR 30,000 3,827 3,827 39,000 4,975.10
PR EUR 180,000 7,236 7,236 234,000 9,406.80
Fundraising EUR 90,000 (WMDE)
140,000 (WMFG) 		1,532 (WMDE)
16,477.24 (WMFG) 		1,532 (WMDE)
16,477.24 (WMFG) 		117,000 (WMDE)
182,000 (WMFG) 		1,991.60 (WMDE)
21,420.41 (WMFG)
International Dialogue EUR 275,000 2,217 2,217 357,500 2,882.10
  • Large part of the budget is reserved for Wikimedia Conference support. We do not expect to spend the anticipated amount on WCA but on other international projects, e.g. Chapters Dialogue.
Evaluation EUR 75,000 190 190 97,500 247
Monitoring & Controlling EUR 15,000 0 0 19,500 0
Event Management EUR 30,000 0 0 39,000 0
House of Free Knowledge EUR 550,000 0 0 715,000 0
  • The project hasn’t started yet, which is due to the specific requirements that suitable office spaces need to meet. Putting possible locations for the House of Free Knowledge under scrutiny is crucial, and hasn’t yet led to a decision.
Supervisory Board expenses EUR 90,000 9,805 9,805 117,000 12,746.50
Staff Costs EUR 2,600,000(WMDE)
140,000(WMFG) 		509,829(WMDE)
34,961.79(WMFG) 		509,829(WMDE)
34,961.79(WMFG) 		3,380,000(WMDE)
182,000(WMFG) 		662,777.70(WMDE)
45,450.33(WMFG)

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Comments on the finances section
  • The typical expenditure pattern should be taken into account when evaluating the financial statements: As it is anticipated that most of thematerial costs will be incurred not at the beginning but later in the year (much like the activity curve that also rises as the year progresses), the level of costs in the first quarter should not be used as an indicator for the whole year. Another factor to be considered is the delays involved in the payment cycle: Many of the invoices related to the costs incurred in the first quarter will not be issued, paid and recorded until the second quarter.
  • To ensure that the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) receives a better overview of larger chapters’ expenditure, we propose that starting with the next quarter they will be required to include the figures planned for all four quarters and, where necessary, clearly communicate how these compare with the adjusted budget at the time of the report. If the difference between the budget from the FDC proposal and the adjusted budget should be greater than 20%, they would then be required to provide an explanation for this discrepancy. We plan to provide more extensive information on this proposal, including a graphic presentation, on the FDC’s feedback page.

Progress toward this year's goals/objectives

[edit]

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
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
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • WMDE now takes an active part in community debates in order to increase its sphere of influence. WMDE staff are now able to modify their communication with the community autonomously or to adapt it by liaising with the Communities Team. The community has accepted this procedure and is collaborating productively and constructively with WMDE staff.
  • Close monitoring and support of individual projects, as well as of their communicative and collaborative nature, has provided us with valuable insights into the role that WMDE can play as a part of the community.
  • Staff: 0.5 FTE
Activities conducted.
What worked and what did not?
  • The internal support and the Communities Team’s feedback to staff proved helpful in communicating with the community.
Changing the working climate
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Increase motivation within communities (the motivation of participants increases significantly.)
  • Project: DE.WP
  • Staff: 0.1 FTE

This goal was postponed, as additional community needs are to be taken more fully into account in the planning process.

Changing support mechanisms
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.)
  • Projects: DE.WP, Wikimedia Commons, DE.Wiktionary

Note: The activities summarized in "Changing support mechanisms" account for most of the Communities Team’s work and expenditure (over 80 percent). These include the ongoing support of smaller activities (community budget), funding opportunities for larger projects through the community (CPB), and the operation and migration of the Toolserver.

Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The community’s communication methods were streamlined and used in a faster and more effective way. The community budget is working well. In comparison with last year, significant progress has been made as regards reliability and speed.
  • Staff: 1.8 FTE, 2.2 CPB scholars, and approximately 400 volunteers
Activities conducted.
  • The supply of technical equipment, help with organizational matters or accreditation, and the funding of travel expenses made it possible to support eight separate volunteer projects via the community budget. These included writing, photography, and infrastructure projects.
  • Over 20 authors were given access to literature and libraries for their voluntary projects.
  • Along with general WMDE funding opportunities the RENDER tool (developed by WMDE) was presented to community members and other audiences during a tour of six German cities.
  • A team comprised of WMDE and Wikimedia Foundation members was set up to replace the Toolserver with Wikimedia Labs/Tool Labs in the medium term. WMDE is responsible for coordinating the preparations for this change. It ordered the hardware required for the further operation of the Toolserver. An extra part-time employee was hired as a Toolserver co-administrator.
  • Community members initiated and ran three CPB projects. These included a project on establishing consensus on paid editing, a photography project in state parliaments in Germany, and a photography project on music festivals.
What worked and what did not?
  • On the whole, the above-mentioned WMDE support measures are very helpful in the community-building process, the administration of German-language Wikipedia, and the direct generation and qualitative improvement of free content. They have also simplified the process for making contact, improved communication, and increased opportunities for discussion.
  • The hardware ordered for the Toolserver in the first quarter of 2013 was not particularly helpful. In the long run, it would be very helpful to have more staff to manage the Toolserver; however, the recruitment process is still underway. The joint coordination with the Wikimedia Foundation on the Toolserver is very helpful. As a relatively large-scale project, Labs/Tool Labs has already proved appealing prior to completion, as a large number of community members are active in it.
  • The three projects launched as part of the CPB are all very helpful in themselves. The structure of the CPB has, however, created major difficulties.

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
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
  • Staff: 0.1 FTE

The first measures in support of this goal are scheduled to begin in the second half of 2013. However, this depends on whether we manage to recruit the necessary extra staff.

Changes for diversity
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Develop a concept to create more diversity in Wikipedia (a promising concept is developed).
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The kick-off event for the research and development project enabled us to identify problem areas such as the low level of female participation in Wikipedia, to focus on project goals, to discuss the project participants’ individual responsibilities, and to draw up a detailed annual plan. The collaborative project between WMDE and Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin increases the effectiveness of the project (e.g. participation in an international conference) and provides it with scientific support. An open-innovation format has been devised to enable volunteers to join the project throughout the year.
  • The analytical report helped us to identify key points in the diversity concept and to develop potential pilot schemes. A revised version of the report will be published in the second quarter of 2013.
  • Staff: 0.8 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • The research and development project "Diversity for Wikipedia" was launched with a kick-off event in cooperation with Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin. The first achievements include participation in an international conference on e-society in Lisbon, where Professor Buchem (Beuth University) gave a talk with the title "Towards the Democracy of Knowledge: Bringing Gender Diversity to Wikipedia", and an analytical report on diversity, gender, participation, and Wikipedia.
What worked and what did not?
  • The kick-off event enabled us to set up the project team, to define the goals, and to develop a shared vision.This fostered a positive atmosphere and boosted motivation among the participants.
  • In future collaborative projects with universities we should bear in mind that the decision-making process at universities can be lengthy.
  • The analytical report enabled us to approach the project in a very structured way.
Changing participation
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).
  • Projects: DE.WP, Wikimedia Commons, other Wikimedia projects
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The detailed analysis and evaluation of our activities to date have given us a good basis on which we can restructure our educational projects.
  • Staff: 3 FTE and 21 volunteers
Activities conducted.
  • A target-group oriented evaluation of WMDE’s educational activities to date was conducted and recommendations for action were drawn up.
  • Three projects involving the production of teaching and learning materials were started: firstly, teaching materials on the topic of Wikipedia in schools; secondly, material to raise awareness on the issue of Wikipedia and gender; and thirdly, motivational material called "Be a part of Wikimedia."
  • A job vacancy for the production of teaching and learning materials has been advertised.
What worked and what did not?
  • The analysis and evaluation of our activities in the educational sector to date will help in the restructuring of WMDE’s educational services. However, this restructuring has met with some resistance on the part of volunteers.
  • It makes sense to combine the development of new teaching and learning materials in one position. However, the advertised vacancy has not yet been filled.


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

[edit]
Changes for readers
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).
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The Article Feedback Tool was generally rated as a very useful means of gathering reader opinions. The work by WMDE staff on the pilot phase helped to spread and enhance awareness about this aspect of the tool.
  • Staff: 0.2 FTE and 25 volunteers
Activities conducted.
  • A discussion was held during the pilot phase of the Article Feedback Tool and the community feedback was evaluated.
  • We are currently looking for volunteers to carry out a meta-study on the topic of Wikipedia readers and their interests.
What worked and what did not?
  • Discussion on the Article Feedback Tool was very much encouraged, and this led to some intense debates on reader interests among authors. In turn, this has shown us that reader opinions widen the community’s horizon to include new aspects or issues that have received insufficient attention so far and that the quality of the feedback is important.
  • In order to truly understand the topic of Wikipedia readers and to close the research gaps, it would be helpful to assess the current state of our research.


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
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: general
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The aim of these measures is to bring together different actors working in the OER field. For this purpose, it is important to analyze existing OER activities and to build up on them. The first networking events in this field and the invitation to the OER conference will join up discussions that have been conducted separately to date. Subsequently, the first joint pilot schemes will be launched.
  • Staff: 0.7 FTE and 20 volunteers
Activities conducted.
  • WMDE took part in various events on open educational resources (OER), including the 13th Gauting Internet Meeting. Other activities included a workshop called Wikimedia meets the School of Open and the presentation of the Schulbuch-O-Mat project, which aims to compile a free school book.
  • WMDE is also planning its own OER conference. This will include drawing up a detailed event program, acquiring partners, devising a communication strategy, and issuing invitations to the conference. For further information on OER at WMDE, please see:
What worked and what did not?
  • Organizing and participating in OER projects has proved helpful in creating a network.
  • Organizing an OER conference in September 2013 is a useful way to link German-speaking OER actors.
Changes for state-owned works
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: Wikimedia Commons
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The desired changes will only be brought about if WMDE can present a workable regulatory proposal. We will only be able to do this if we can back up our argument with reliable statistics in all areas related to state-owned works, as well as to their current licensing policies and the financial parameters. By the end of the first quarter, WMDE had far more information than it did at the beginning of the year. This has enabled us to start establishing links with other actors interested in this issue, with whom we intend to join forces in presenting and propagating our regulatory proposal on state-owned works.
  • Staff: 0.7 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • WMDE started its own blog on copyright to provide information on the issue of state-owned works and to create a basis for discussion on this topic. The aim is to establish links with other actors working on the issue of state-owned works and related fields such as open government data and freedom of information.
  • Research on the current licensing policy of state-owned works has begun. This includes talks with political actors aimed at obtaining official figures, especially via minor interpellations. The findings were made available to the general public in the form of blog postings, as described above. These findings will also form the basis for drafting the necessary amendments to Section 5 of the German Copyright Act, to which WMDE’s regulatory proposal will most likely lead.
What worked and what did not?
  • The blog has proved very useful. It has attracted a respectable number of visitors in a short space of time, without any active advertising activities. The Google Webmaster Analysis tool has confirmed that our blog appears in many of the search hits for key terms and that it has aroused interest. The goal of being constantly active was met by regularly posting news items on the blog.
  • The research activities and the publication of research findings have also been very helpful. We are already benefiting from these findings as regards the quality of the contents of our articles; we are getting more people interested in the issue; and we will be able to build on these results in Phase 2 of the change goal.
  • Many aspects related to state-owned works are addressed in ongoing discussions about open (government) data. Contributing to these discussions and joining forces to find solutions helps to create alliances in this field and to combat unfavorable developments in policy and administration.
Changes at the European level
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: all Wikimedia projects related to the European legal area
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Work in the first quarter was mainly dedicated to finding our feet in the labyrinthine world of Brussels politics (commissioning an external report, analysis of EU dossiers), joining a working monitoring system (EDRi), and actively contacting Wikimedians in Europe who are interested in politics. These activities have created a basis from which we can expand the circle of active fellow campaigners in the second quarter, create a solid working structure, and increase the exchange of ideas via Meta and specialized mailing lists. The current status quo is already very different from what it was at the beginning of the year. We now have the core staff needed to form a future advocacy team. The results of the event held in Brussels were reported at the Wikimedia Conference 2013 in Milan, Italy:
  • Staff: 0.2 FTE and seven volunteers
Activities conducted.
  • An external report commissioned by WMDE analyzes the political arenas at the EU level that are relevant to the issue of free knowledge.
  • WMDE successfully applied for observer status with the Brussels-based NGO European Digital Rights (EDRi) (http://www.edri.org/) and has already taken part in the organization’s annual general assembly.
  • WMDE organized an international networking event for Wikimedians in Brussels. This included planning the program. Invitations to the event were sent out via the international mailing list wikimedia-I on February 19. The event took place on 5 – 7 and is documented in Meta-Wiki at:
What worked and what did not?
  • It is very useful to have an expert report. This report means that for the first time, interested groups have a very concise overview of the most recent EU legislative procedures that affect the Wikimedia mission. The text also explores a variety of options for a future type of advocacy group.
  • Networking is helpful. Integration in the EDRi information system enables WMDE and the movement as a whole to monitor EU dossiers professionally. For example, EDRi is currently taking an active part in the Licenses for Europe consultation process, a preparatory measure for a new Copyright Directive.
  • Building up resources and clarifying responsibilities is constructive. The aim of the volunteers’ meeting in Brussels was to define the modus operandi of a future EU policy group in the Wikimedia movement. Forming such a group and creating a corresponding platform on Meta is a vital step towards generating greater publicity for the initiative and getting more volunteers on board.
Changes in partnerships
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, Wikimedia Commons
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The aim of the Wikidata meets Archaeology event and the limes map project was to convince further leading scientific and cultural institutes of the usefulness of collaborating with WMDE. Both projects met with great acclaim and successfully demonstrated the enormous potential of collaborative projects between leading research institutes and citizen science activists. For example, volunteers can take on specific tasks (geo-referencing objects, updating metadata, writing articles) that are not within the scope of the institutions specialized in this area due to organizational or budgetary constraints. The role-model nature of this collaboration has already had an impact on many discussions and negotiations with other GLAMs. Success stories like these should be widely publicized in order to inspire other Wikipedians and institutions to follow suit and embark on similar collaborative projects. We will focus on this in the second quarter of 2013.
  • Staff: 1.5 FTE and 66 volunteers
Activities conducted.
  • A scientific symposium called Wikidata meets Archeology was held in March. The event addressed the process of linking up and visualizing geo-referenced data on the Roman limes. The program included a presentation of an interactive limes map – this was a citizen science project in the RENDER project, Wikidata, the Wikipedia community, and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI).
  • The first networking event for Wikipedians from Austria and Germany who are active in the GLAM sector, de.GLAMWiki 2013, was held in the first quarter of 2013. In future, we plan to hold such coordination meetings every six months in order to bring people and their work closer together.
  • The text for a German-language GLAM brochure (A4, 20 pages) has been drafted. The brochure will present practical examples of how institutions can usefully cooperate with Wikipedians (e.g. allowing backstage access for photography, QR codes, writing competitions, etc.). The brochure will be printed in the second quarter of 2013.
What worked and what did not?
  • Reaching out to leading research institutes is helpful. The collaboration with the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut resulted from a six-month Wikipedian-in-residence program, which gave us the idea of working more closely with experts. The limes map drawn up with the help of volunteers is a tangible result that has also been very well received in other research institutes.
  • The idea of setting up a workflow between volunteers and supporting chapters is helpful. The first networking event of this kind was important and productive in terms of sharing information on current activities and providing an opportunity to co-plan and discuss future initiatives, such as an improved structure for the GLAM portal in the German-language Wikipedia.
  • The idea of creating a communication tool for the target group of cultural institutions is helpful. In their various digitization strategies, institutions will be grateful to be able to use materials that have been made accessible by the world of Wikimedia.


Any additional details:


Special programs

[edit]

Wikidata

[edit]

Wikimedia Deutschland will continue to develop Wikidata. The goal of the Wikidata project is to create a free database that can be accessed and updated by people and machines alike and hence improve quality and encourage innovation within the Wikimedia projects.

The objective of Wikidata is to enable information to be entered into the system in a way that allows a computer to process it. Computers can then provide this information in a variety of languages, produce overviews, lists, and diagrams or answer questions that could not be automatically generated before. The data is provided under an open license and used within the Wikimedia projects as well as outside.

In the first year, we centralized the language links on Wikipedia and Wikidata went live with that on all Wikipedias in March 2013. Further we started to develop a system to collect data that is being made available to the infoboxes.

As of April 2013, Wikidata has collected more than 10 Million items and more than 27 Million links, thus covering basically all Wikipedia articles in all languages. The community has collected 3.8 Million statements about these items using almost 300 properties. There have been more than 3.4 Million edits by more than 7000 human editors. Including the about two dozen bots, there are more than 24 Million edits. This makes Wikidata one of the most active projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Links

RENDER

[edit]

This project is concerned with the reflection and leverage of knowledge diversity in different settings and applications. The project team at Wikimedia Deutschland is developing tools that enable Wikipedia editors to find, understand and cure biased and non-neutral articles. During the first quarter of 2013 the team improved the supporting tools and fixed several bugs. They released the beta version of the supporting tools under Wikipedia:Helferlein (ASQM and TLG).

In February and March, a combined Team Communites and RENDER tour paid visit to six German cities to present the RENDER tools and to discuss their functionalities and ideas for further improvements.

Additionally, both tools were tested with the thinking aloud method and questionnaires with a small group of users. Wikimedia Deutschland ist going to use the testing results and the city tour's feedback comments in order to improve the tools and to create the final RENDER version.

As part of a collaboration between RENDER, Wikidata and the German Archaeological Institute, the RENDER team worked on a tool to visualise the limes (Roman fortification) in relation to location and time. They presented the beta version of this dynamic limes map during the symposium "Wikidata trifft Archäologie" which took place in the Department for Foreign Affairs (Berlin) in March.

Links

Lessons learned

[edit]

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

[edit]

The following highlights relate to the goal of focusing on the communities:

The following highlights relate to the goal of increasing diversity of knowledge:

  • The evaluation of educational activities to date and the ongoing restructuring measures that resulted from this have been a great impetus for WMDE’s work.These developments allowed us to devise new formats that can reach a greater number of people. We have learned that improving our approach involves having the courage to rethink old habits and projects and to give new ones a chance.

The following highlights relate to the goal of establishing free knowledge in society:

  • Cooperation with cultural institutions such as the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut has enabled us to support the activities of dedicated Wikipedians. Expert scientists contribute their knowledge to our projects, allowing us to create the right conditions for improving the quality of the content on Wikipedia.
  • The Digital Openness Index project and our blog on state-owned works have brought us into regular contact with other civil society organizations in German-speaking countries that are concerned with open government data,including the Open Knowledge Foundation in Germany, Digitale Allmend in Switzerland, and Freie Netze, Freies Wissen in Austria.

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

[edit]
  • The community projects budget (CPB) is a recurring source of major tension between the community, the CPB's volunteer board and the WMDE office, which is due to its partly inefficient structure. Moreover, the number of applicants for project funding went down to a low of 11 people in the most recent CPB round. Some projects were not implemented at all, even though they had been approved in advance. There have been intense discussions about the issues, none of which has so far resulted in sustainable solutions.
  • It is difficult to determine time and effort in advance when working collaboratively with volunteers. Experience shows that the motivational and activity cycles of Wikipedians are rather spontaneous, especially in comparison to fixed working conditions of office staff. It takes more time than we had expected to coordinate community efforts within WMDE projects and their implementation. As a consequence, we will need to adapt some deadlines significantly.
  • In Q1 we were looking to hire additional qualified staff for the implementation of some of our projects, e. g. new educational materials. Unfortunately, these positions are still vacant, resulting in the delay of some projects.
  • As concerns the development of the WMDE office, it has grown continuously over the past years. At the same time goal-driven planning processes were introduced. The accompanying changes demand continuous learning, as well as adapting workflows and processes. Analyzing challenges that come with growth and developing promising solutions draws on personnel and budgets – which, in turn, cannot be used for project work.

What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?

[edit]
  • The enthusiasm, expertise, and pioneering spirit of the communities have been key to the success of many different projects. Our highly motivated, excellent partners and our contacts with actors in the field of free knowledge have also helped us make our work more successful and extend our sphere of influence.
  • The WMDE team is particularly inspired and motivated by its enthusiasm for promoting free knowledge. We communicate respectfully and empathetically, which helps us in our work with one another and with the communities.
  • Our culture of cooperative, participative, and transparent working processes also benefits us when planning our objectives together. Thanks to our open, constructive feedback process and the options for critical intervention, WMDE staff are in a position to continually improve project management methods and approaches. These include targeted, moderated meetings; the clear allocation of responsibilities; and breaking processes down into small, manageable steps.
  • The new Evaluation Unit devises impact analysis processes for WMDE; it also advises on planning, reflection, and revision processes in all departments.

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

[edit]

Work with volunteers

  • It is not always possible to predict the precise amount of time and effort required for our participatory collaboration with volunteers. Experience repeatedly demonstrates that Wikipedians tend to work rather more spontaneously and at different times than our full-time office staff, who generally work from Monday to Friday. Their activities are thus subject to a more haphazard, less "planable" dynamic. Including the communities in project implementation tends to take more time than was initially expected.
    • Proposed solution: Busy periods must be managed more effectively; more effort must be made to promote mutual understanding.
  • Community advocacy: Unforeseen circumstances that suddenly become urgent – be they of a political, legal, or Wikipedia-internal nature – will be prioritized over other tasks, and will take time away from these.
    • Proposed solution: Adaptation of schedules and deadlines
  • Preparing complex contracts with institutions and synchronizing workflows with various stakeholders often takes more time than originally presumed in the project design.
    • Proposed solution: We are currently looking for a solution to this problem.
  • Research findings are difficult to implement in practice.
    • Proposed solution: We are currently looking for a solution to this problem.
  • Technical disruptions and blockages – particularly in the case of Toolserver or Tool Labs – are a normal part of everyday life, although they come unexpectedly in each case. Procurement processes are lengthy.
    • Proposed solution: Lengthy procurement processes will be calculated into Toolserver projects and requests will be given higher priority.

In the WMDE office

  • Some of the staff positions required for implementing planned projects, such as the creation of educational materials, could not be filled with appropriately qualified individuals during the first quarter. This has led to delays in the implementation of these projects.
    • Proposed solution: We are currently looking for a solution to this problem.
  • Restructuring of and changes to the projects did not take community input sufficiently into account and were not accompanied by intense dialogue.
    • Proposed solution: The planning process for projects that require close interaction between paid staff and volunteers is undergoing revision. WMDE is trying to promote understanding for the way it works so that we do not lose sight of our common goals.
  • Internal processes have not yet been fully developed, and in some cases our planning was over-ambitious.
    • Proposed solution: The scheduling and scale of the goals planned for 2013 will be adapted to fit in better with the available resources, and the prioritization of intended changes will be made more transparent.

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

[edit]

Please see "proposed solutions" in previous section.

Additional information

[edit]

Please find our monthly summary reports for the period of this progress report below:

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) 16:59, 30 April 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/Q1&oldid=15333348"