Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/Wikimedia UK/Progress report form/Q3

Purpose of the report

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

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

Next to each required metric, list the outcome achieved for all of your programs included in your proposal.
Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome.
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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

Resources

Resources to plan for measurement

Global metrics are an important starting point for grantees when it comes to measuring programmatic impact (Learning Patterns and Tutorial) but don’t stop there.
Logic Models provide a framework for mapping your pathway to impact through the cause and effect chain from inputs to outputs to outcomes. Develop a logic model to map out your theory of change and determine the metrics and measures for your programs.
Importantly, both qualitative and quantitative measures are important so consider both as you determine measures for your evaluation and be sure to ask the right questions to be sure to capture your program stories.

Resources for storytelling

WMF storytelling series and toolkit (DRAFT)
Online workshop on Storytelling. By Frameworks institute
- The origin of storytelling
- Story frames, with a focus on news-worthiness.
Reading guide: Storytelling and Social change. By Working Narratives
- The uses of the story.
- Case studies.
Blog: 3 Tips on telling stories that move people to action. By Paul VanDeCarr (Working Narratives), on Philanthropy.com
Building bridges using narrative techniques. By Sparknow.net
- Differences between a report and a story
- Question guides and exercises.
Guide: Tools for Knowledge and Learning. By Overseas Development Institute (UK).
- Developing a strategy
- Collaboration mechanisms
- Knowledge sharing and learning
- Capturing and storing knowledge.

Basic entity information

Table 1

Entity information	Legal name of entity	Wikimedia UK
	Entity's fiscal year (mm/dd–mm/dd)	02/01-01/31
	12 month timeframe of funds awarded (mm/dd/yy-mm/dd/yy)	02/01-01/31
Contact information (primary)	Primary contact name	Jon Davies
	Primary contact position in entity	Chief Executive
	Primary contact username	Jon Davies (WMUK)
	Primary contact email	jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk
Contact information (secondary)	Secondary contact name	Richard Symonds
	Secondary contact position in entity	Office & Development Manager
	Secondary contact username	Richard Symonds (WMUK)
	Secondary contact email	richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk

Overview of this quarter

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 opportunity to address these questions in detail elsewhere in this report.

CHANGES:

There were no changes to the budget or plan in Q3.

HIGHLIGHTS:

Wikimania took place in August! With 2,014 attendees and more 10,000 people visiting the exhibition area containing the community village it was a busy period. On top of that, there was a host of meetups and fringe events around the core of Wikimania itself to facilitate focused working groups (such as Education fringe event in June 2014, which was picked up at Wikimania, and then followed through at EduWiki 2014 in October). The charity employed four people specifically to help deliver Wikimania, and saw 180 people volunteering at Wikimania for a total exceeding 4,500 hours. More than 100 positive media items were published about Wikimedia, and more than 20,000 tweets were made about the conference. Community Village, organisation of which was supported by Wikimedia UK, was in a sense a heart of the conference, and allowed many projects and chapters to connect with a very wide audience. The report is available on the UK wiki and contains much more detail.
This year the UK took part in Wiki Loves Monuments for the second time. Altogether 525 people entered photographs into the UK branch of the competition, with 7,300 images uploaded in September. As of writing, 10% of images are used in the mainspace of Wikimedia projects and more than 250 have been recognised through the Quality Image process.

WIKI-FOCUS:

Commons: In Q3 the majority of uploads to Wikimedia Commons which were supported by Wikimedia UK were related to Wiki Loves Monuments 2014. 7,300 images were uploaded by 525 people; 7 have been recognised through the Featured Picture process, 4 Valued Images, and more than 270 Quality Images (some of which were promoted in Q4). The Photographing UK cathedrals project grant which was approved in Q2 continued to have an impact on our metrics in Q3 with the promotion of 11 Featured Pictures.
cy.wp: 2,000 new articles created, each with an image: English language books based on Wales, since 1996
en.wp: We ran 17 editathons or editor training events in Q3 with a focus on the English Wikipedia. As well as this, a university course at University College London led to the addition to Wikipedia of 1.5 million bytes of information. Wikimedia UK sponsored prizes for the Stub Contest of en.wp which resulted in 362 stub articles being expanded and the addition of at least 148,500 bytes of information.
Wikidata: Wikimedia UK organised a training workshop on 11 October 2014 to offer volunteers an opportunity to deepen the understanding of Wikidata and develop practical skills in relation to its possibilities. It is a part of an effort to widen the skills of our community.

GROWTH: How did your entity grow over the past quarter vs. the previous quarter (e.g., Number of active editors reached/involved/added, number of articles created, number of events held, number of participants reached through workshops)?

18 editing and training events held (including five Wiki Wednesdays)
9,172 files uploaded with a Creative Commons licence
5,802,530 bytes of information added to the article space
Featured Pictures increased by 24
Quality Images increased by 262
Valued Images increased by 4
150 people attended editing and training events in Q3
362 stub articles expanded to a different class on en.wp as part of the Stub Contest

Financial summary

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

Provide exchange rate used:

£1 = $1.66020

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
Incoming Grants	GBP	353000	88250	88250	88250		264750	586051	439538	No variance.
Donations	GBP	240000	63846	60433	57612		181891	398448	301975	No major variance.
Membership Income	GBP	0	799	275	25		1099	0	1825	Not budgeted for in plan.
Gift Aid Claims	GBP	0	0	15000	[Awaiting figures]		15000	0	24903	Not budgeted for in plan. In addition, we're still processing figures for Gift Aid Claims, as it has only been two weeks since our third quarter ended, so we can't estimate a figure here.
Discounts Allowed	GBP	0	(14)	0	(16)		(30)	0	(50)	Not budgeted for in plan.
Conference Income	GBP	0	150	430	Estimate of 500.		580	0	963	Not budgeted for in plan. In addition, we're still processing Q3 invoices so can only estimate a figure for Q3.
Bank Interest	GBP	0	152	193	104		449	0	745	Not budgeted for in plan.
Gifts in Kind	GBP	0	0	0	44578		44578	0	74008	Not budgeted for in plan. Note the increase in Q3 after we reallocated staff time towards obtaining gifts in kind. We are not sure if this is sustainable in the long term but we hope it is!
Other Miscellaneous Income	GBP	0	0	39250	0		39250	0	65163	Not budgeted for in plan, but reflects incoming Wikimania reimbursements from the WMF.

* Provide estimates in US Dollars

Spending during this quarter

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
Community	GBP	247476	63339	135378	119878		318595	410860	528931	129%	Wikimedia UK is absorbing a proportion of the costs for Wikimania - this includes salary for some UK-based staff and also any expenditure where a UK office or UK credit history are required. This accounts, in part, for the much higher Q2 and Q3 spends. The rest can be attributed to the 'Wikimania Fringe' events which were paid for by Wikimedia UK.
Promoting Free Knowledge	GBP	251892	36850	34465	80820		152135	418191	252575	60%	Less staff time has been available - due to Wikimania - to run our major projects (such as Wikimedians in Residence). This in turn has led to less expenditure on these major projects. However, in Q3 we launched several new projects, which we have gone into in depth below.
External Relations	GBP	64624	24667	14709	17320		56696	107289	94127	80%	No major variance.
Fundraising	GBP	73444	15348	14731	21415		51494	121932	85490	70%	No major variance.
Governance	GBP	169760	15400	14692	18371		48463	281836	80458	30%	Governance costs are markedly down this year, in general because board meetings have become more strategic (and thus less frequent) and legal expenses are much lower. We view this as a good thing!
Total	GBP	807196	155604	213975	257804		627383	1340107	1041571	77%	No overall variance.

* Provide estimates in US Dollars

Terminology

The text below is copied from wmuk:WMUK activities and volunteers. It defines terms used in the following report.

Extended content

The charity and its activities

WMUK activity

A WMUK activity is an activity or event that is arranged by, carried out, hosted or run in conjunction with WMUK, or which WMUK has significantly sponsored or paid for. To count as a WMUK activity, the charity or its volunteers, staff or trustees must have taken some leading role: merely attending is not enough.

The charity does not claim as a WMUK activity external events or activities that fall outside the above definition, even if WMUK staff, trustees or volunteers attend or are involved in a non-leading capacity. That is the case regardless of whether the individuals attend or are involved on behalf of WMUK.

Examples:

UK Wikimeets are mostly not WMUK activities, as they are not arranged by, carried out, hosted or run in conjunction with the charity, and the charity does not sponsor or pay for them. That is so even though some, many or even all of the attendees may be WMUK volunteers.

An OpenStreetMap conference (run independently of WMUK) does not count as a WMUK activity merely because the charity pays for a volunteer to attend, or merely because it sends a staff member.

The Wiki Loves Monuments contest 2013 in the UK was a WMUK event as WMUK volunteers were closely involved in running it, with staff support, and the charity sponsored the prizes.

Tracking of volunteer activity

Activity units

Rather than tracking the raw number of activities that the charity and its volunteers get involved with, without regard for their size, we instead focus on a measure of personal engagement that we call an activity unit. An activity unit is defined as one person attending one event. So, a score of 5 units may represent one person attending five separate events, or five people attending one event. For this purpose, no distinction is made between people who lead or help to lead an event, and those who simply attend.

If the event is a WMUK activity, then all attendees contribute one activity unit to the overall count.

If the event is a non-WMUK activity, we count only the activity units contributed by volunteer attendees who are working with us in some way for that activity.

Activity units at advocacy events are given a 0.1 weighting.

As we are primarily interested in external volunteer engagement here, we exclude the activities of WMUK staff or trustees when they are acting in their professional capacities. However, the following are not in themselves reasons to exclude from our activity counts:

The contributor has a grant, scholarship, or is claiming expenses from WMUK or any other organization for the activity
The contributor is being paid to contribute by some other organisation (eg as an employee)
The contributor is a staff member or trustee of WMUK, provided that they are contributing on a voluntary basis outside the scope of their professional duties.

Examples:

A WMUK GLAM editathon that attracts 10 editors is jointly run by one WMUK staff member, one GLAM staff member, and a volunteer. That is recorded as 12 activity units (all those who are involved apart from the WMUK staff member each contribute one activity unit).
WMUK pays the expenses of one volunteer to attend an externally-run open knowledge event. That is recorded as one activity unit.
Two WMUK trustees help to organize the Wiki Loves Monuments contest, with support from three staff members. 500 people submit entries. That is recorded as 502 activity units (the staff support is not counted as it was contributed by staff acting in their professional capacities. The trustee activity is counted, as the trustees were acting not in their professional capacities but as volunteers).

Leading activity units

A leading activity unit is defined as one person taking a leading role in one event. That may include running or helping to run the event, or being one of the lead organisers of an online activity.

Leading activity units are recorded as a subset of activity units, so a person taking a leading role is counted as contributing both one activity unit and one leading activity unit.

Examples:

A WMUK GLAM editathon that attracts 10 attendees is jointly run by one WMUK staff member, one GLAM staff member, and a volunteer. That is recorded as two leading activity units (all those who take a leading role apart from the WMUK staff member each contribute one leading activity unit).
Two WMUK trustees help to organize the Wiki Loves Monuments contest, with support from three staff members. 500 people submit entries. That is recorded as two leading activity units (the staff support is not counted as it was contributed by staff acting in their professional capacities. The lead trustee activity is counted, as the trustee were acting not in their professional capacities but as volunteers).

WMUK volunteers

A WMUK volunteer is a person who has, at least once during the preceding 12 month period:

Contributed at least one activity unit, and
Has provided us with contact details, including at least an email address, to allow us to record them as a unique individual on our database.

Examples:

A WMUK GLAM editathon that attracts 10 attendees is jointly run by one WMUK staff member, one GLAM staff member, and a volunteer. All involved (apart from the WMUK staff member) are asked for contact details, and those who supply them are included in the WMUK volunteer count for one year after the date of the editathon. People who attend but who decline to provide contact details are counted as contributing one activity unit but are not counted as WMUK volunteers.

WMUK leading volunteers

A WMUK leading volunteer is a person who has, at least once during the preceding 12 month period:

Contributed at least one leading activity unit, and
Has provided us with contact details, including at least an email address, to allow us to record them as a unique individual on our database.

Ref	Term	Definition	To do	Notes
[1]	Positive edit size	Sum of edit sizes in characters where text content has been added overall to the mainspace of a Wikimedia wiki.		We are here measuring quantity not quality of educational text content. We ignore all edits where content has been deleted overall, on the basis that deletions cannot generally be equated with the negative addition of content by that editor. We are aware that such an approach is relatively broad-brush, and will actively seek improved tools/measures in this area.
[2]	Institution reputation rating	Our estimate of the external reputation of each GLAM, education organisation or learned society that we work with.		This information is solely to enable us to track our own charitable impact consistently, and we will not be publishing the values we use for individual organisations
[3]	WMUK volunteer	WMUK:WMUK activities and volunteers#WMUK volunteer
[3a]	Leading volunteer	WMUK:WMUK activities and volunteers#WMUK leading volunteer
[4]	Activity unit	WMUK:WMUK activities and volunteers#Activity unit
[5]	Leading activity unit	WMUK:WMUK activities and volunteers#Leading activity unit
[6]	Annual survey capability score	To be defined	Questions to be written	Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK
[7]	Leading volunteer drop out rate	The proportion of our leading volunteers volunteers that drop out (no longer remain actively engaged with us) annually		Determined for each volunteer one year after first activity, two years and so on.
[8]	Tracking/measuring systems	The manual and automated systems by which WMUK tracks outputs/outcomes in accordance with the strategic plan
[9]	Transparency score	To be defined	Questions to be written	Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK
[10]	Transparency compliance	As measured by Govcom against published transparency commitments	Commitments to be defined
[11]	Scans of QRpedia codes	The number of times QRpedia codes are used to direct to a Wikipedia article	This a is a subset of (15)
[12]	Awareness score	To be defined	Questions to be written	Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK
[13]	Shared activity units	A count of the number of units contributed by volunteers (not necessarily WMUK volunteers) on shared activities (14)		With technology-based groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK
[14]	Shared activities	Activities that WMUK jointly lead with some other group		Does not include activities run by other groups that WMUK volunteers or staff simply attend or engage with. Depending on context, the other group could be Wikimedia-related (eg a chapter) or could be external to the Wikimedia movement (eg OpenStreetMaps)
[15]	Uses of tools	The number of times in aggregate a WMUK tool is used.
[16]	Eval measure	A best-judgement evaluation on a scale of 1 to 5 (5=best)		Used in lieu of a objective metric where such a metric is impossible or currently impracticable to obtain
[18]	WMUK activity	WMUK:WMUK activities and volunteers#WMUK activity

Progress toward this year's goals/objectives

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 'programme.'

Key

Outcome (from our Strategic Goals)	Outcome Measure
Green	Annual target expected to be met; or good outcomes
Yellow	Some issues but annual target should still be achieved; or reasonable outcomes
Pink	Annual target in danger of being missed; or outcomes require urgent attention
Grey	KPI not yet being tracked, or is no longer considered useful

Notes and definitions

For explanatory notes and definitions (reference numbers in second column) see wmuk:Strategy monitoring plan#Notes and Definitions.

Report card for this quarter

The number in squares brackets refer to the definitions above

Outcome (from our Strategic Goals)	Outcome Measure	2014 target (to 31 Jan 2015)	Results Q1 2014 (Feb to April)	Results Q2 2014 (May to July)	Results Q3 2014 (August to October)	Current notes
G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase	Number of uploads	Report only	37,715 images (650.7GB) to Commons this quarter	21,036 images (946.1GB) to Commons this quarter	9,172 images to Commons this quarter	By far the biggest contributing factor to Q3's upload statistics is Wiki Loves Monuments 2014. Some 7,300 images of the UK's protected historic sites were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase	TEXT - Sum of positive edit size [1]	Report only	4,382,374 bytes this quarter	1,790,824 bytes this quarter	5,802,530 bytes this quarter	Q3 saw a course take place at University College London in which 139 students were asked to edit a stub article on Wikipedia. This resulted in 1,532,590 bytes of information being added. A second course with Students 4 Best Evidence took place in September; the 10-person course resulted in the addition of 3,230 bytes of text. The creation of 2,042 new articles on the Welsh Wicipedia this quarter resulted in the addition of 3,134,634 bytes of information. It should be noted that this does not take into account information added to existing articles on the Welsh Wicipedia as we are not yet able to measure that increase. However, when it comes to the impact report it will be easier to report on and the figure will be higher. The Stub Contest took place throughout September 2014, with prizes sponsored by Wikimedia UK. The aim was to improve stub articles so they were at least 1,500 characters long in terms of readable prose. We do not currently have access to a tool which takes a list of articles and compares the change in size between revisions of two specified dates. We can however provide a lower-bound estimate of the amount of information added as points were awarded depending on how much text was added. As a rough guide, a minimum of 148,500 bytes of information were added. In total, 362 stub articles were expanded. For the editathons and training sessions that we have organised this quarter, the participants added 983,576 of bytes of information.
G1.2 The quality of open knowledge continues to improve	Percentage of WMUK-related files (e.g. images) in mainspace use on a Wikimedia project (excluding Commons)	13%	6.5% this quarter^[1]	3.1% this quarter	Uncertain, see narrative	CatScan 2.0 is currently being replaced by CatScan 3.0. As of writing, extended information such as file usage across Wikimedia sites is not available. However, as a rough guide of the 7,300 images uploaded to the UK branch of Wiki Loves Monuments 10.1% are currently in use in the main namespace of a Wikimedia site^[2] National Library of Scotland's work with Wikimedian in Residence also achieves encouraging usage results (see here). The work of the resident is an important element of increasing file usage - she can promote the collection to the community and internally within the Library, highlighting the relevant media. Additionally, once more material is released onto Commons, an appropriate collection will be identified to feature as part of an edit-a-thon intended to insert images in relevant Wikipedia articles and improve the content of those articles. This focused activity is an effective way of improving image usage. Cancer Research UK Wikimedian in Residence project should be highlighted here. As at November 6, CRUK images were used 198 times in the English Wikipedia, and 8 times in 6 other language versions. Altogether 181 (43%) of the now 419 images ([1]) released were being used, an exceptionally high figure after such a short time (or after any period for a large donation). In addition the images have started being re-used elsewhere. Analysing the monthly views from August to October of the articles containing the CRUK images, 390 diagrams released from CancerHelp had total monthly page views of 1,410,218 in September, and 1,430,348 in October. They received 1.1 million page views in August, traditionally a month with quietest web traffic. The high image usage could be judged to be due to the important content gap that this material covers.
	Number of files (e.g. images) that have featured status on a Wikimedia project (including Commons)	20	2 in year to date	8 in year to date	32 in year to date	Eight Featured pictures on Commons have been a result of the the Photographing UK cathedrals project grant. Seven images which gained Featured status in Q3 were uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments. Of the additional twelve images Featured on other Wikipedias but not Commons, ten gained Featured status in Q3 and all are the work of User:Diliff, again through the Photographing UK cathedrals project grant. This includes a set of six images of the interior of Wells Cathedral. Rather than taking this set to amount to one Featured picture, all six have been counted towards this particular metric.
	Number of files having quality image status on Commons	70	53 in year to date	61 in year to date	328 in year to date	The increase of 267 Quality images promoted in Q3 is due almost entirely to Wiki Loves Monuments (while contributed 266 Quality images as of 3 November 2014). This has been a great success, far beyond the expectations of the charity. Proportionally, this is an enormous increase from 2013. Last year's competition produced 72 Quality images, so 0.6% of photos entered into the UK branch of the competition were recognised as Quality images. For 2014 this rose to 3.6%. For context, 0.3% of all the images on Commons are Quality images.
	Number of files having valued image status on Commons	50	46 in year to date	51 in year to date	55 in year to date	All four files were uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments. Last year, WLM 2013 was the primary contributor to this metric in Q1. While the increase as not been nearly as pronounced as with Quality images, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in Q4.
	Number of new articles started on a Wikimedia site (eg any of the encyclopedias), excluding Welsh Wicipedia	200	341 in year to date	437 in year to date	682 in year to date	The course at University College London resulted in the creation of 155 new articles on the English-language Wikipedia, while Students 4 Best Evidence produced 4. A further 61 were created by people attending WMUK-run editing and training events. In addition, 25 were created on the English Wikipedia as a result of the Living Paths! project.
	TEXT - Number of new articles started on Welsh Wicipedia inspired by WMUK	10,000 over the course of the project	2,182 in year to date (3,353 overall)	3,250 in year to date (4,428 overall)	6,293 in year to date (8,224 overall)	This figure covers articles related to Living Paths! and those created about books in the English-language on the topic of Wales since 1996. The queries to arrive at this number (avoiding double counting) are here: 1, 2, 3
G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge.	Sum of reputation ratings [2] of organisations that we are working in partnership with, or were working with no more than than two years ago	693 (5% increase)	497	708	1204	To date, we have partnered with 143 institutions. The considerable increase is due to contacts created at Wikimania, work of some Wikimedians in Residence who forge institutional links, and, to a degree, continually improved coverage of reporting. A valuable project in this area is the the Yorkshire Network project. It's A unique Wikimedian in Residence activity, regional GLAMwiki project aiming to engage some of the 150 registered museums in the Yorkshire and Humber region through the Museums Development service based at York Museums Trust. It has started at the end of July 2014, and will continue for a year ([2]).
	Awareness score in annual national survey of public opinion [12]	n/a	Not collected	Not collected	Not collected	This is the same survey as in G3.2. The Board discussed the potential value of the survey of public attitudes set out by our strategic goals (but not yet implemented) in October 2014. The expense and utility of such a poll and the need to ensure it can be repeated annually to present good trend data has been questioned. The Board agreed that this must be done properly and with proper professional input, even if that means a further delay in getting these goals fully set up. We may need to do it next year in order to allow adequate planning time.
G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers.	Number of friends	420	176	833	925	Consistent rise thanks to Wikimania.
	Number of volunteers [3]	250	187	360	719	Throughout this volunteering section, we saw the effect of Wikimania and bringing people in to build the conference together. Some volunteering data was gathered and consolidated after the event, so preparatory activities that took place in Q2 are now counted in Q3.
	Number of leading volunteers [3a]	140 (30% increase)	54	104	271	A significant number of volunteers involved in Wikimania were people that took leading roles of organising particular aspects of the conference. We also counted volunteers who were involved in running the event in August in these statistics.
	Number of activity units [4]	1200 (24% increase)	663 in year to date	1,470 in year to date	2,204 in year to date	There were 330 activity units associated with attending events (including training sessions and editathons). A significant increase is due to the leading activity units over Wikimania.
	Number of leading activity units [5]	145 (5% increase)	115 in year to date	418 in year to date	822 in year to date	People coming to the office in the period leading to Wikimania, leading on areas of the conference, added significantly to this number. It shows what immense amount of work it was to deliver the event.
	Leading volunteer [3a] drop out rate [7]	<10%	No data yet	No data yet	No data yet	The drop-out rate is based on year-to-year figures, so cannot be determined until the end of the year.
G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.	Proportion of activity units [4] attributable to women	20%	35% in year to date	41% in year to date	55% in year to date	(basing on the data that is available).
	Proportion of leading activity units [4] attributable to women	15% in year to date	19% in year to date	25% in year to date	30%	We have attracted many lead female volunteers over Wikimania. Roberta Wedge is making an impact with the Gender Gap Project, building up a volunteer community. Additionally, AdaCamp Berlin 2014 was a particular opportunity for Wikimedia UK to support UK female volunteers, allow them to run un-conference sessions and develop their skills as community leaders. For an account of the event from Roberta Wedge, Gender Gap Project lead, see here.
	Activity units [4] in activities to encourage other diversity or minority engagement^[3]	15	5 in year to date	9 in year to date	11 in year to date	In Q3 Fabian Tompsett gave a talk on the topic of 'Open Knowledge and the Memorialisation of Slavery'. This was attended by 20 people, which means this is given a weighting of 2 activity units.
G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.	Activity units [4] in training sessions and editathons (total count, including people being trained)	575 (5% increase)	297 in this quarter	433 in this quarter	137 in this quarter	A total of 18 editing and training events were held in Q3. The decrease in volume is related to the workload being focused on Wikimania, and August being traditionally a quiet month for events. With these factors in mind, the number of activity units is still positive. A significant proportion of the events are related to the Gender Gap project we have been running since September 2014.
	Leading activity units [5] in training sessions and editathons (ie trainers only)	95 (6% increase)	104 in year to date	136 in year to date	156 in year to date	These figures exclude staff activities, but these details are given in brackets as well. A total of 18 editing and training events were held in Q3. Eight of the available trained trainers have supported at least one event in Q3 (thirteen including staff), six of which have supported at least two events. In total, nine leading activity units have been delivered by trained trainers (thirteen including staff).
	Annual survey capability score [6] (self-identified)	To be decided	Not collected	Not collected	Not collected	The survey is currently being drafted, and the intention is to circulate in Q4.
G2b.1 We have effective and high quality governance and resource management processes, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.	Progress on targets in the Hudson and Chapman governance reviews	All targets that we agree with have been completed and independently reviewed.	See narrative	See narrative	See narrative	All the recommendations from the Hudson review have been implemented. Fourteen out of the fifteen recommendations of the subsequent Chapman review have been implemented, with the final one a work in progress. In Q3 a third external review was carried out to assess the charity's progress, with the findings due to be presented to the board at the December meeting.
	Progress towards PQASSO 2	Complete all internal preparations for PQASSO 2 ready for external accreditation	See narrative	See narrative	See narrative	We organised a scoping meeting, where we started to look at assessment of the charity. This has led to initial identified work areas needing improvement - they will be picked up in the future. Two half-day sessions were planned for Q4 for a more detailed analysis. Delays in mentor training owing to CES, organisation developing PQASSO system, being taken over by National Council for Voluntary Organisations. ([3]). This will influence the overall timelines of the project.
	Level of external recognition	Narrative + eval score [16]	Eval: 1.8 / 3	Eval: 1.8 / 3	Eval: 1.8 / 3	A scoping meeting has led to identified work areas to ensure full evidence base. Two half-day sessions planned for Q4. Delays in advanced mentor training owing to CES, organisation developing PQASSO system, being taken over by National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
G2b.2 We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.	Transparency score [9] as measured by annual survey	n/a	Not collected	Not collected	Not collected	The survey is currently being drafted, and the intention is to circulate in Q4.
	Transparency compliance [10] as determined by Govcom against published transparency commitments	Narrative	Eval: 2/5 this quarter	Eval: 4/5 this quarter	Eval: 3/5 this quarter	Admin problems this quarter have severely delayed publication of several sets of minutes, including those of the AGM and the September and October board meetings. This has resulted in those meetings not being as transparent as we intended in a timely manner.
G2b.3 We have high quality systems to measure our impact as an organisation.	Progress towards full implementation of automated and manual tracking/measuring systems [8]	Narrative + eval score [16]	Eval: 55-60% achieved	Eval: 60-65% achieved	Eval: 65-70% achieved	The main source of automated data is CiviCRM. Staff are regularly using the database to set up events so that people can register there rather than on a wiki page. The database is now set up to allow people to register themselves as volunteers in the same way people register for events, and this process will be tested in Q4. Processes for recording interactions with partner organisations have been drafted and are being implemented, though recording partnership interaction is still currently being done substantially after the interaction takes place.
G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream.	Number of separate donors	6000 (9% increase)	5266 in this quarter	5110 in this quarter	5022 in this quarter	For this number to increase in Q4 the charity will undertake activities to solicit increases in both types of gifts - it will also increase at year end as CAF donor numbers not currently included in our database will be included
	Funds received from sources other than WMF fundraiser or FDC	£295000 (7% increase)	£63,846 this quarter	£58,991 this quarter	£102,318.49 in this quarter	Q3 donations were substantially increased by accounting for an in-kind gift to the chapter associated with the Institute of Directors annual conference
	Proportion of funds from sources other than WMF fundraiser or FDC	47%	56% in this quarter	33% in this quarter	54% in this quarter	This is higher than projected because of the large value of an in-kind gift
	Proportion of funds from direct debits	45%	28% in this quarter	94% in this quarter	28% in this quarter	Much like Q1 this is skewed because of the large income received from another funding source (in kind) this quarter
G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.	Total number of scans of QRpedia codes [11]	14000 monthly	17503/month this quarter	15112/month this quarter	20908/month this quarter	The statistics are complete for Q2. A GLAM booklet has been produced and the use of QRcodes is given as an example of how museums might interact with Wikipedia and make content available in a variety of languages.
	Projects addressed at new readers [16] being enabled to access Wikimedia websites	3 activities	1 in year to date	1 in year to date	1 in year to date	In Q3 work began on planning the Science Museum Late, a high-profile event at the Science Museum. One of the sessions will involve recording Wikipedia articles, making them accessible to people with reading difficulties or visual impairments.
G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge.	Awareness score [12] in annual national survey of public opinion	n/a	Not collected	Not collected	Not collected	The Board discussed the potential value of the survey of public attitudes set out by our strategic goals (but not yet implemented) in October 2014. The expense and utility of such a poll and the need to ensure it can be repeated annually to present good trend data has been questioned. The Board agreed that this must be done properly and with proper professional input, even if that means a further delay in getting these goals fully set up. We may need to do it next year in order to allow adequate planning time.
G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge.	Responses to EU and UK government policy consultations.	Narrative	See narrative	See narrative	See narrative	We've published a position paper on copyright with the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group European Union (FKAGEU). We've met with the UK IPO head of copyright to learn about the new orphan works rules. We've signed the Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development. We hosted an advocacy group meeting here the day after Wikimania, attended by about 12 people. We also helped the WEASEL on wheels advocacy roadshow at Wikimania. The relevant papers are linked from our Advocacy page here.
	Involvement in EU and UK advocacy activities; Involvement in advocating legislative change within GLAM, Education, and other organisations	Narrative + eval score [16]	Eval: 4/5	Eval: 5/5	5/5	The EU advocacy involvement continues to be strong, this quarter via responses to the consultation papers (see above). We are putting a voice in the open knowledge debate, and so in the long run aiming to change the policy for better access to information. In the UK, we are arranging meetings with Alex Boyd of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee of the EU (which has some responsibility for copyright and intellectual property) and Claude Moraes MEP for Q4. Claude Moraes is head of a committee on civil liberty in the European Parliament, and we will be able to use these links in the future advocacy work. The work of Wikimedians in Residence to influence the policies of their host organisations was successful this quarter. At Cancer Research UK, work on embedding of the release of media on open licenses is progressing very well, with a new model release form for non-paid models adopted. This incorporates a tick box to opt-in to allow release of images of them on open licenses. A decision as to whether to place CRUK’s online cancer information text copy under a Creative Commons BY-SA license is due to be made at a meeting on 18th November. Embedding new working practices to continue after the grant period (late 2014/early 2015) is developing, especially with statistics department and around releasing media – and possibly web copy - on open licenses. With this in place, we may be able to ensure sustainability of the project after the residency ends. Ally Crockford from National Library of Scotland (WIR) met with new NLS Chief Executive and National Librarian John Scally to discuss Wikimedian in Residence projects and open access at the Library. These internal conversations regarding the releasing of digital content onto open licenses may result in a more open policy at the institution - we are able to be a part of the conversation at the time of the new Chief Executive thanks to having a WIR at the organisation. In a project area that show how policy work can affect content, Pat Hadley at York Museums Trust encouraged YMT to be embracing a specifically open image policy. The institution will subsequently be releasing c.40,000 images under PD or CC-BY-SA licenses.
G4.1 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of open knowledge.	Number and availability of the project tools we host or support	Narrative	See narrative	See narrative	See narrative	Wikimedia UK hosts QRpedia and the Virtual Learning Environment. A scoping exercise was carried out to assess the role of technology within the charity on strategic and operational levels. Currently, the VLE has not been fully launched. The report notes: "The VLE project in particular has been a difficult process; communication has been undereffective due to lack of technical management." QRpedia continues to be maintained by the charity, and is in the same condition it was in Q1. The report is worth reading for additional information on the tools the charity supports.
G4.2 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to allow WMUK - and related organisations - to support our own programmes and to enable us to effectively record impact measures.	Uses [15] of the internal or supporting tools we host or support	Narrative	See narrative	See narrative	See narrative	As in Q1 and Q2, the main tools are CiviCRM, piwik, and the Virtual Learning Environment. We use CiviCRM as often as possible when organising events to make reporting easier. There has been limited technical development on these tools in the quarter, so that state of the tools remains much the same; the VLE is however not yet fully launched. Delays in installing the SmartDebit module have hindered fundraising efforts.
G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities	Funding to support other chapters and Wikimedia groups	£10000	£10,149 in year to date	£10,443 in year to date	£12,043 in year to date	The additional spending in Q3 was primarily to support the governance conference for trustees arranging to coincide with Wikimania, with some costs used to support for formation of the Irish Wikimedia group and help them in their activities. The spending in this budget exceeds our plan. We originally planned one governance workshop (delivered in March 2014), however, it became apparent that Wikimania gave us the opportunity to increase our impact in this area - particularly since the first workshop was received very positively. The cost of the second governance workshop was less than that held in February as we did not need to subsidise travel costs as people were already travelling to London for Wikimania.
	Activities held for or jointly with other chapters and Wikimedia groups	7 (including G5.2 and G5.3 events)	4 in year to date	6 in year to date	15 in year to date	The core focus in this regard for Q3 was Wikimania. The community village was an exhibition area open to the public containing 37 stalls run by chapters and other open knowledge organisations. This area was visited by more than 10,000 members of the public. The international gathering of people from Wikimedia gave the opportunity for Wikimedia UK to run a board training workshop and a Train the Trainers session. On top of this, a plethora of meetups were hosted during Wikimania and the fringe. Wikimedia UK directly supported the WikiArabia meetup, the African Wikimedians meetups, the Celtic Languages meetup and Smaller Languages meetup, and the German language meetup. In all, this allowed the charity to far exceed its initial target in this area through the unrivalled opportunity of Wikimania. Late in October we also supported a Gàidhlig meetup.
	Total shared activity units [13] in shared activities [14] with other chapters and Wikimedia groups	150 (including G5.2 and G5.3 events)	103 in year to date	125 in year to date	374 to date	Wikimania London offered us an unmissable opportunity to create opportunities to collaborate with other chapters, and learn together. The meet ups and training events we organised brought an impressive number of people together. Additionally there were over 25 community village stalls, on average hosted by 2 people over the three main days of the conference.
	Number of UK based Wikimedia events other than WMUK events	Report only	15 this quarter	17 in this quarter	14 in this quarter	These events consist of meetups (11 across 8 cities), two editathons, and OpenSym. Of the meetups, those at London and Oxford are held monthly. Of the rest, one took place in Scotland.
G5.2 An increased diversity of Wikimedia contributors	Activities specifically directed to supporting the diversity of other chapters and Wikimedia groups	1	1 in year to date	1 in year to date	4 in year to date	Some meetups organised by Wikimedia UK during Wikimania were set up to support movement's diversity (WikiArabia meetup, the African Wikimedians meetups, the Celtic Languages meetup and Smaller Languages meetup) and help the community focus on the particular diversity issues it values. For AdaCamp Berlin 2014, Wikimedia UK organised a Friday evening networking event on the 10th October, where the attendees of the weekend camp could find out about each other's projects and start working together. An international Train the Trainers session was in Q3 around Wikimania. This is mostly focused on raising the skills of the international community, but in the longer run can also support the diversity of the movement. The intention is that by helping other chapters train new editors and engage in outreach, we can reach more new female editors. Women are well represented in our editing and training events.
G5.3 Wikimedia communities are skilled and capable	Activities specifically directed to help train or to share knowledge with other chapters and Wikimedia groups	1	1 in year to date	1 in year to date	3 in year to date	Wikimania gave the charity an excellent opportunity to facilitate the exchange of knowledge between chapters. This allowed us to exceed our metric in this area. As a result in Q3 Wikimedia UK hosted an international Training the Trainers workshop, and a governance workshop for board members across the movement based on the model of the event held in February this year. International edition of the Train the Trainers was well recieived by our international guests, to the extent that Wikimedia Netherlands considered running their own version of the course. However having discussed this with Wikimedia UK and our training providers, they decided to suggest that they would like to collaborate with us on a future course, as they feel they have a number of editors with good English language skills who could more readily gain accreditation by attending an English language course in the UK. This sharing of a successful programme is much welcomed by us. We have also added to the community's learning by sharing our GLAM partnership booklet, and the Wikimedian in Residence program review booklet - both received with interest.
G5.4 Open knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.	Number of shared activities [14] hosted with groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK	5	0 in year to date	5 in year to date	7 in year to date	The community village at Wikimania, beyond chapter representation, had stalls for the Open Coalition, Open Education Working Group/Open Knowledge/LinkedUp, Creative Commons, Europeana, ShouldWe, Internet Archive, YouMagazine, Wikifactory and ORCID. Our Open Coalition Co-ordinator joined Open Knowledge in organising a stream at MozFest, held in October. It focused on community building and a blog post with further details can be found here. This was the first time Mozilla have included this theme in their festival, and it was a great recognition of the Coalition’s work to be invited. The track allowed us to bring community managers and organizers from across the open space together to work on a variety of sessions, including 2 ongoing initiative - the Community Building Handbook, built with staffers from Mozilla and OKF (and which now has a home on the web) and a community source-code wall built with collaborators from Sprout Fund Pittsburgh. As well as running 15 sessions over two days, we worked with researchers from the MIT Media Lab to develop a survey for all participants, in order to surface qualitative and quantitative responses. 70 participants completed the survey, of whom 60 indicated a desire to continue working on projects and initiatives they learnt about at the festival via mailing lists and working groups. Writing of the handbook continues, and the current handbook can be seen here. Q3 also saw planning for an event in January 2015 (Q4); led by the Open Coalition it would partner with Wikimedia UK, JISC, DEMOS and the London Knowledge Lab and consist of workshops and discussions around open policy in the UK - high level partners.
	Total shared activity units [13] in shared activities [14] hosted with groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK	40	0 in year to date	96 in year to date	164 in year to date	Around 140 people attended the track on community building at MozFest as participants, which gives the advocacy event a weighting of 14 activity units. Further, we had 9 open organisations represented on community village stalls during Wikimania. On average looked after by 2 people over three days of the conference, this gives 54 activity units.

Lessons learned

Lessons from this quarter

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?

Our major accomplishment was to continue to deliver our programme in association with, and alongside Wikimania London. This was a big challenge for an organisation of our size but good pre-planning meant we were prepared. We are now experiencing the legacy of Wikimania in our programme work with an extended pool of volunteers and associated activities. A Final report will be available in December but the interim report demonstrates the success and impact.

Our programme activities continued to address the movement goals and our own strategic goals. Our prgramme is demonstrating a majority of 'greens', fewer 'yellows' and no 'reds. There are some areas, 'grey' where we are completely reconsidering how appropriate the targets are. Wikimania was obviously at the core of movement goals by bringing together the widest community gathering in history to learn and debate the issues we face. The legacy of Wikimania is already being demonstrated through access online to our recordings of all the workshops.

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

There were no major setbacks in the quarter.

There are some areas, however, that did not go fully to plan:

A scoping exercise was carried out to assess the role of technology within the charity on strategic and operational levels. Currently, the VLE has not been fully launched. The report notes: "The VLE project in particular has been a difficult process; communication has been undereffective due to lack of technical management.
Delays in installing the SmartDebit module have hindered fundraising efforts namely by not yet allowing us to offer donors the chance to increase their gift to the chapter should they wish. In addition this has hindered the change the change to offer members the choice to pay their fees annually.
At the October board meeting, the trustees discussed the potential value of the survey of public attitudes set out by our strategic goals (but not yet implemented). The expense and utility of such a poll and the need to ensure it can be repeated annually to present good trend data has been questioned. The Board agreed that this must be done properly and with proper professional input, even if that means a further delay in getting these goals fully set up. We may need to do it next year in order to allow adequate planning time.

What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?

A key to our success this quarter was employing a dedicated team to do the bulk of the organisational work for Wikimania. This allowed the core staff to continue with main programme work whilst building coordinating it with Wikimania. This was enabled by having a shared plan of specifics regarding the detail and targets for Wikimania that staff shared and stuck to. Emergency planning meant that we were prepared for any challenges we might face.
We would also point to the support of our volunteer community and our colleagues in the Foundation who offered solutions not questions when problems arose.

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

Our recording database, CiviCRM , has remained stubbornly unwilling to operate at a level where we can rely on it for some core functions. One in particular is working on our donor database to automatically communicate with them and collect GiftAid. Another is the automatic renewal of memberships. This is making data collection more difficult, wasting staff time and not allowing access by volunteers for recording their activities. At core we have a gap in our central IT management, an issue addressed in our 2015-16 FDC application.
CES, the organisation that run a charity performance evaluation system PQASSO, was being merged with NCVO in our Q3-4. This meant that the training and support for PQASSO was put on hold, at a time where we were planning to start implementing the internal assessment at Wikimedia UK. We were informed that the scheme will be reinstated in 2015 - until then we will working on internal groundwork in the meantime. This does not affect programs directly, however, may put some delay on our PQASSO work in 2015.

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

In view of the emerging metrics we will need to re-evaluate our targets for 2015-16. We have generally been more successful than we had expected even after factoring in Wikimania’s inevitable bump.
We have put more resources into sorting out our CiviCRM technical issues and travel optimistically.
Our pause on appointing Wikimedians in Residence pending the results of the review (Q2) has led to three major appointments in a short period of time. This should be avoided in future as it involves a logjam of bureaucracy and the supporting community. This is a longer term but worth sharing.

Additional information

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).

Blog posts

Extended content

Wikimania 2014 draws to a close (11 August)
The GLAM-Wiki Revolution (15 August)
Building the Open Access Button (19 August)
Free information, the internet and medicine (21 August)
Upcoming Training for Trainers session in Edinburgh (22 August)
“The institutions that are loved survive”: Pat Hadley and the York Museums Trust (25 August)
Does Wikimania save lives? (27 August)
Castles in the digital age (29 August)
Welcoming our Programme Intern (1 September)
Your pictures on one of the busiest websites in the world? (2 September)
Remember a Charity in Your Will Week (8 September)
“A significant step towards a sustainable partnership”: Ally Crockford and the National Library of Scotland (9 September)
Back in the Wikimedia UK Office (10 September)
New images released are quickly put to use (11 September)
Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry (12 September)
Padmini Ray Murray steps down from Wikimedia UK Board (16 September)
Scholarly collaboration, with coffee (17 September)
Emmanuel Engelhart, Inventor of Kiwix: the Offline Wikipedia Browser (19 September)
Spotlight on the residency – Natural History Museum and Science Museum WIR 2013-14 (22 September)
“We’re in the same business”: Andrew Gray and the British Library (24 September)
Wikimedia and Metrics: A Poster for the 1:AM Altmetrics (26 September)
Researching the Science Museum Lates (29 September)
Edit-on dudes: #ClassicsWomen are into Wikipedia (1 October)
Thoughts after three years (2 October)
“There’s a lot of benefit both ways”: John Byrne and the Royal Society (8 October)
Gill Hamilton joins Wikimedia UK Board (17 October)
Spotlight on the residency – York Museums Trust WIR 2013-14 (21 October)
Ada Lovelace Day – a women in science editathon (22 October)
Guest post: MozFest 2014 – Spotlight on “Community Building” (23 October)
Using Wikipedia to open up science (24 October)
What does Fraser Hobday tell us about notability on Wikipedia? (29 October)
Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU publishes copyright reform paper (30 October)
“It’s a great way to engage a wider audience”: John Cummings and the Natural History Museum and Science Museum (30 October)

List of press coverage from August to October 2014

Wikimania

Extended content

Ground Report: The Wikipedia Convention and Amanda Knox
Times Higher Education Wikimania: student medics get credit for webside manner
The Daily ProthomAlo Progress Bengali Wikipedia (Bengali)
Guardian Histropedia – tool to visualise history unveiled at Wikimania
Guardian Wikipedia isn't perfect, but as a model it's as good as it gets
Le Monde Wikipédia en quête de nouveaux contributeurs
Heise Online: Wikimania: Die Wikipedia als soziale Maschine
RIA Novosti Wikimania, motor de ideas y proyectos del libre acceso al conocimiento
YouGov British people trust Wikipedia more than the news
Tech Times Monkey selfie makes Wikimedia go bananas
Guardian Wikipedia can be read on mobile for free in developing world
BBC The World of Wiki
Breitbart Wikimedia launches viral attack on Europe's 'right to be forgotten'
The New Yorker Wikipedia Defends the Monkey Selfie
Public Library of Science Wikimania: We need to choose the main stream over our small pool
ElEconomista.es Wikipedia, contra el derecho al olvido: "Desaparecen enlaces sin explicación"
El Huffington Post 'Selfie' del macaco: ¿de quién son los derechos de la foto?
Guardian Go ahead: waste a day on Wikipedia. It's good for the future of humanity
Guardian Jimmy Wales is wrong: we do have a personal right to be forgotten
BBC Wikipedia 'completely failed' to fix gender imbalance
Red Orbit Wikipedia Founder Vows To Fight The Censorship Of “Right To Be Forgotten” Regulations
L'Huffington Post Wikipedia contro il diritto all'oblio: "Vallanzasca è fuori. Internet sta diventando un luogo crivellato di buchi di memoria"
Hamburger Abendblatt David Slater vs. Wikipedia: Wer macht sich hier zum Affen?
Guardian The Guardian view on Wikipedia
RT 'History is a human right': UK govt. Wikipedia edits obscure high profile killings
Forbes From Monkey Selfies To The Right To Be Forgotten, Wikimedia Talks Transparency
Public Library of Science A license to please
Telegraph Information Commissioner defends 'right to be forgotten'
PCMag Who Really Owns a Monkey's Selfie?
Huffington Post Wikipedia Is In A Pretty Weird Battle Over A Monkey Selfie
BuzzFeed No, Wikipedia Doesn’t Think A Monkey Owns The Copyright On This Selfie
Le Figaro Le selfie d'un singe au cœur d'une bataille de droit d'auteur
Wired If a Monkey Can Own a Selfie, What Other Rights Should It Have?
Channel 4 Twitter bot will monitor government Wikipedia changes
SC Magazine Wikipedia contests EU ruling on 'right to be forgotten'
BBC Photographer 'lost £10,000' in Wikipedia monkey 'selfie' row
The New Zealand Herald Right to be forgotten is web 'censorship' - Wikipedia
Digital Spy Wikipedia holds vote to determine who owns monkey selfie
Mirror Wikipedia to vote on monkey selfie to decide whether it should take the picture down
Le Monde Des articles de Wikipedia censurés par Google au nom du droit à l'oubli?
Guardian Wikipedia's monkey selfie ruling is a travesty for the world's monkey artists
Guardian Whose truth is Wikipedia guarding?
Guardian Monkey owns selfie, claims Wikimedia
My Science Work Wikipedia, Sharing Democratically
Times Higher Education 'Right to be forgotten' comes under attack
Guardian Wikipedia UK chief: 'UK produces 20% of all articles'
Repubblica Diritto oblio, la protesta di Wikipedia: "È profondamente immorale"
The Times of India Monkey owns copyright for selfie, Wikipedia tells photographer
BBC British photographer in Wikipedia monkey selfie row
Gulf News Photographer goes bananas over monkey selfie
BBC Wikipedia: The book...
BT Wikipedia attacks web censorship
Sky News Wiki Backs Monkey In Selfie Copyright Row
Irish Examiner Wikipedia page for Gerry 'The Monk' Hutch still in Google search
Huffington Post Wikipedia Edits From Government Computers Sought To Downplay Killings Like Jean Charles de Menezes
GMA News The monkey did it! Wikipedia upholds monkey's copyright to own selfie
First Post Selfie by a monkey: Why Wikipedia won't delete this one picture
iReporters TV How An Ape Selfie Caused Trouble Between Photographer And Wikipedia
El País Wikipedia considera el derecho al olvido una forma de censura
E&T Wikipedia fights back against ‘right to be forgotten’
Guardian Wikipedia edits made by government sought to minimise high-profile killings
Wired Wikipedia publishes takedown and de-linking requests
The Drum Wikipedia accuses photographer of Macaque-handed copyright claim over monkey selfie
The Irish Times Google removes Wikipedia link to former criminal ‘the Monk’
Herald Scotland Wikipedia condemns ruling on the right to be forgotten
Breaking News.ie Wikipedia page for Gerry 'The Monk' Hutch still in Google search
Fudzilla Wikipedia told to “forget” historical information
The Australian Wikipedia’s best ever monkey selfie sparks primate copyright row
Independent.ie Hutch’s bid to wipe out past from cyberspace
Delhi Daily News Copyright row erupts over monkey 'selfie'
Terra.com.br 'Selfie' de macaco gera briga entre fotógrafo e Wikipédia
The Washington Post If a monkey takes a selfie in the forest, who owns the copyright? No one, says Wikimedia.
Irish Mirror Convicted criminal Gerry ‘The Monk’ Hutch’s Wikipedia page has request to be removed from online search results
Al Jazeera America Wikipedia defies Europe's 'right to be forgotten' rule
Telegraph Wikipedia founder: EU's Right to be Forgotten is 'deeply immoral'
Al Jazeera Balkans Wikipedia otkrila 'zaboravljene' linkove
La Tercera "Selfie" de un mono provoca polémica en Wikipedia por derechos de autor
El Periódico Wikipedia se niega a borrar el 'selfie' de un mono
Salon Wikipedia at war! “Monkey selfie” sets off bizarre copyright dispute
ITV Monkey 'selfie' picture sparks Wikipedia copyright row
International Business Times Google Removes More Than 50 Links to Wikipedia Content
Evening Standard Help! I’m a Wiki-geek: Nimrod Kamer on his addiction to Wikipedia
BoingBoing Human photographer goes ape over monkey photo decision
The Wire The Best of Wikipedia's Rejected Takedown Requests
Gizmodo Wikipedia Reveals Which Pages the "Right to be Forgotten" Law Killed
International Business Times 'Communist' Wikipedia Faces Lawsuit Over Monkey Selfie Copyright Dispute
Digital Spy Wikipedia refuses to remove 'monkey-owned' photograph
Venture Beat Wikimedia transparency report reveals hundreds of takedown requests, 57 links removed by Google
Business ETC Photographer loses battle with Wikipedia over this amazing monkey selfie
PC Pro Wikipedia highlights five articles "forgotten" by Google
Time Wikimedia Foundation Releases Its First-Ever Transparency Report
The Verge Wikimedia denies photographer's claim to a monkey's selfie
Daily Mail Wikipedia attack on 'censorship'
Metro Wikipedia, photographer (and presumably monkey) in copyright row over black macaque selfie picture
Telegraph Wikipedia founder: History is a human right
NY Mag This Monkey Sort of Owns the Rights to Its Selfie, Says Wikimedia
Independent Google removes links to notorious criminals' Wikipedia pages
Phys Wikipedia says EU court ruling is Web 'censorship'
Reuters Wikipedia fights back against Europe's "right to be forgotten"
Daily Mail Wikipedia rejects photographer's claim of copyright over famous monkey selfie - on the grounds that the ape took it!
ITProPortal Monkey selfies and Aboriginals: Wikipedia founder brands Google censorship "immoral"
Telegraph Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
Telegraph Government computers used to alter Wikipedia entries on high profile killings
Huffington Post Monkey Selfie Picture Is Fair Game Says Wikipedia
Channel 4 Government Wiki edits downplay high profile killings
La Vanguardia Esta semana: Wikimania
BBC Wikipedia 'not perfect but improving' says founder
Guardian Wikipedia swears to fight 'censorship' of 'right to be forgotten' ruling
Guardian Wikipedia boss Lila Tretikov: ‘Glasnost taught me much about freedom of information’
9To5Google Wikipedia stands up against ‘right to be forgotten,’ uploads Google removal notices
Huffington Post Wikipedia Won't Delete Photo As Monkey 'Owns' It
Huffington Post Wikipedia Publishes Full List Of 'Right To Forget' Requests
Press Association Wikipedia attack on 'censorship'
Washington Post Google has scrubbed 50 links to Wikipedia, thanks to the ‘right to be forgotten’ law
Ars Technica “Memory holes” blanket Wikipedia as links disappear in search results
Daily Dot Wikimedia Foundation officially condemns 'right to be forgotten'
Independent Wikipedia warns that EU legislation will create 'Orwellian memory holes' in the internet
Press Association Wikipedia Attack on 'Censorship'
Digital Spy Wikipedia refuses to remove 'monkey-owned' photograph
Fast Company Wikipedia Publishes First-Ever Transparency Report—And There's A Funny Story About A Monkey
Mirror Wikipedia refuses photographer's request to remove animal selfie because MONKEY took the picture
PC Pro Wikipedia highlights five articles "forgotten" by Google
Express Wikipedia guru blasts European court after slamming ‘forget me’ laws
Tech Crunch Attacks Europe’s Right To Be Forgotten Ruling As Threat To Its Mission
TheNextWeb releases first transparency report: Over 300 content edit and takedown requests rejected
TheNextWeb Wikimedia slams ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling, creates page for Wikipedia link removal notices
IB Times Google Removes More Than 50 Links to Wikipedia Content
Tech City News Wikipedia refuses over 300 censorship requests, insists ‘history is a human right’
BBC Wikipedia reveals Google 'forgotten' search links
NYTimes Bits blog Wikipedia Details Government Data Requests
Telegraph Wikipedia link removed from Google under 'Right to be Forgotten'
Time Wikimedia Foundation Releases Its First-Ever Transparency Report
Time Out London Wikimania! Head to Wikipedia’s first ever London festival
BBC Wiki wars: Do Wikipedia's internal tiffs deter newcomers?
The Next Web Wikimedia’s annual Wikimania conference is coming to London in 2014
Guardian Armenians asked to write Wikipedia entries to promote culture (This project has a slot on the wikimania meetups list.)

Wikipedia and Wikimedia related (key stories only)

Extended content

Wikipedia emerges as trusted internet source for Ebola information http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/business/media/wikipedia-is-emerging-as-trusted-internet-source-for-information-on-ebola-.html]
WilliamFry.ie Monkey business over copyright dispute
ibtimes.co.uk Nude Celebrity Hacking Scandal: Jennifer Lawrence's Nude Pics Surface on Wikipedia Page
Cosmopolitan.co.uk Jennifer Lawrence's Wikipedia page trolled with nude photos

(Note - this story appeared many, many times and since it is not a Wikimedia UK story there is little value repeating all instances here)

Liverpool Echo 'I'm not Bungle': Mersey politician's denial after Wikipedia prank
Daily Mail I'm NOT Bungle, insists UKIP deputy leader after internet pranksters edit his Wikipedia page to claim he starred in 70s children's TV show Rainbow
The Poke [UKIP Chief Forced To Deny He Played Bungle in Rainbow http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/10/19/ukip-chief-forced-to-deny-he-played-bungle-in-rainbow/]

(This story appeared in several other outlets)

UK Progressive You Can Look It Up: The Wikipedia Story
LSE blog Wikipedia’s open content production platform creates significant spillover benefits that encourage users to contribute further.
Telegraph Polish town to build statue honouring Wikipedia
Independent Wikipedia monument to be built in Poland

(Note: this story received significant coverage, all in a similar vein. As it's not a WMUK story and we aren't quoted, there's little sense recording it here)

Wikimedia UK directly quoted

Extended content

Compliance

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

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

Notes

↑ This includes files on Commons and those uploaded to the Welsh Wicipedia with WMUK support. Further details can be found in the Q1 report.
↑ https://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/glamorous.php?doit=1&category=Images+from+Wiki+Loves+Monuments+2014+in+the+United+Kingdom&use_globalusage=1&ns0=1&projects[wikipedia]=1&projects[wikimedia]=1&projects[wikisource]=1&projects[wikibooks]=1&projects[wikiquote]=1&projects[wiktionary]=1&projects[wikinews]=1&projects[wikivoyage]=1&projects[wikispecies]=1&projects[mediawiki]=1&projects[wikidata]=1&projects[wikiversity]=1
↑ ie: excluding events aimed at promoting gender diversity

Signature

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

Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

[1] This includes files on Commons and those uploaded to the Welsh Wicipedia with WMUK support. Further details can be found in the Q1 report.

[2] ttps://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/glamorous.php?doit=1&category=Images+from+Wiki+Loves+Monuments+2014+in+the+United+Kingdom&use_globalusage=1&ns0=1&projects[wikipedia]=1&projects[wikimedia]=1&projects[wikisource]=1&projects[wikibooks]=1&projects[wikiquote]=1&projects[wiktionary]=1&projects[wikinews]=1&projects[wikivoyage]=1&projects[wikispecies]=1&projects[mediawiki]=1&projects[wikidata]=1&projects[wikiversity]=1

[3] : excluding events aimed at promoting gender diversity

[1]

[2]

[3]