Grants:APG/Proposals/2016-2017 round 1/Wikimedia Argentina/Progress report form
Purpose of the report
[edit]This form is for organizations receiving Annual Plan Grants to report on their progress after completing the first 6 months of their grants. The time period covered in this form will be the first 6 months of each grant (e.g. 1 January - 30 June 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]Introduction
[edit]Before entering into analysis of the programs we must highlight some important changes that have undergone regarding the annual grant.
- The education program has focused its work in the classroom through two projects: Editing Clubs and Wikipedia at the University. In the annual grant we believed that we were going to promote a specific project for the provinces "Wikipedia in your province" that we are not finally implementing. This is because the results of such a massive activity - see Impact report here - were not good during 2015-2016, especially in comparison to the time invested. It is for this reason that we must update the number of total participants and active editors. We expected to reach 200 teachers + 500 students through this project that would have meant 1980 participants and 1550 new editors in the Education Program. As we are not doing it we have updated the numbers for the Education Program as 1280 participants and 850 new editors.
- The "number of quality articles" metric work very well on specific projects, such as offline activities or projects within the classroom. Instead it is more difficult to apply in massive activities. We are learning from it in order to see how we can improve or where we can apply this indicator for next year. In this sense and mainly in GLAM we have analyzed the quality differentiating articles created - on es wiki and other wikipedias - and improved articles that generally refer to more massive activities. In this sense we have not counted the very small changes. It is a metric that takes time to be implemented so we must review its definition towards a more oriented metric on diverse content, at least within the GLAM program. We will review this at the annual grant 2018.
New Global metrics Overview
Program | Participants | Newly registered | Content pages | Number of quality articles | % of institutional growth | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Education Program | 845 | 366 | 479 | 238 (41%) | 11 new partners | Several Education projects haven't started yet |
GLAM Program | 556 | 128 | 7384 pages on Wikipedia,
3373 metadata added 208 books - 37336 pages uploaded to Commons |
4495 on Wikipedia. | 7 new partners | We have analyzed all the articles created and improved in GLAM as much as possible. The number is the most estimated possible.
The pages on Commons are mainly books and can't be analyzed by this metric properly. |
Community Support Program | 395 | 67 | Not yet available | Not yet available | 4 new partners
16 activities defined by our community interests |
It refers to new projects supported and planned for the 2nd half of 2017. However we have supported:
|
Total | 1796 | 561 | 7545 articles created/improved
3373 on Wikidata 208 books (37336 pages on commons) |
4732 quality articles | 22 new partners
16 activities defined by our community |
Other relevant metrics can be found here. |
Education Program
[edit]-
Activity with professor
-
Huergo school
-
Edition club in La Rioja
Summary
We also incorporated a new objective associated with the current context of the Wikimedia movement:
Wikipedia as a learning tool in onsite and remote learning[edit]Short Summary:
|
The importance of the Argentinean educational context |
Success: Wikipedia in schools and universities
[edit]Bearing theses challenges in mind, during 2017 we promoted two proposals for the classroom: the Editing Clubs (pilot) and Wikipedia in the University.
Both projects have very specific objectives:
- Having students & academic researchers as quality content editors
- Legitimizing the Education program in high-schools, universities and at the national level
How did we plan the projects?
We launched an open call for high-schools and universities around the country. 14 institutions were interested: 10 of them were universities and 4 high-schools.
In this first semester, Wikipedia in the University was implemented in 5 national universities: the University of Salta, the University of Rio Negro, the University of Buenos Aires, the San Bartolome Superior Institute (Rosario) and the Superior School of Social Services (Chivilcoy). We chose educators who taught their classes during the first part of the year, on subjects that were not very present in Wikipedia and who accepted to incorporate Wikipedia as an assignment. For this reason, we have worked with classes on paleontology, nutrition, medicine, economy with gender perspective and local heritage.
For high schools, we chose to work with schools from La Rioja and Buenos Aires province, less affected by the educational context.
How were these projects organized?
Wikipedia in the University
|
Editing Clubs
|
What results did we get?
At a qualitative level, we would like to emphasize:
- Quality content: the content added to Wikipedia was considered to be, mostly, of quality. No content added by the Clubs has been erased or modified and we have added content on specific subjects that were not present on Wikipedia.
- We promoted cultural change: after the activities, we interviewed the educators who confirmed that the perception that they had of Wikipedia changed.
- We have incorporated new partners: ministries, high schools and universities at the national level, with which we plan to continue working in the second semester of the year.
At quantitative level:
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
100 students University | 28 | 95 | Above target | n/a |
100 articles created/improved | 61 | 86 | 100 | n/a |
70% quality articles (university) | n/a | 61% | On target | n/a |
450 students High-School | n/a | 135 | 450 | 2 more Editing Clubs planned + UNESCO online contest |
150 created/improved | 41 | 39 | 150 | UNESCO online contest 2nd half of the year. |
% of quality articles (high-school) | n/a | 56% | Not yet available | n/a |
At least 7 institutions involved | 1 | 7 | 10 | We expect to work with 3 new universities. |
Number of trainings | n/a | 17 | Around 30 | According to recent results. |
Number of educators involved | 559 | 310 | Not yet available | Only Editing Clubs and Wikipedia in the University's projects |
% of educators' satisfaction | n/a | 100% | n/a | n/a |
Number of volunteers involved | 1 | 12 | Around 20 | Mainly educators + WMAR's volunteers leading education activities. |
Number of staff hours | n/a | 120 | Around 240 | According to recent results. |
Editors retention | n/a | Not yet available | n/a | n/a |
What changes did these projects generate in our Education program?
Challenge? |
Side effect: Editing Clubs to re-write local history |
Success: Remote learning
[edit]
WMAR’s online course had its fifth edition during the first half of 2017. Even though the course is well defined, we had to make changes. At the beginning of the year, the ES Wikipedia community expressed discontent regarding the results - in terms of editions- from other universities courses, who were not respecting Wikipedia’s criteria and format. In order to continue staying in good terms with the ES Wikipedia community, the 5th edition of the course focused on quality rather than quantity, and every contribution was revised by tutors and volunteers. For this purpose, the WMAR Education program adapted the course in the following way:
This translated into slower work by participants, tutors and volunteers, but, in turn, it also prevented conflicts and discontent within the community. Even though there were less educators involved, because of the educators’ strike in our country, we managed to keep 61 active educators. 45% of the teachers involved answered to the final survey where 100% showed compliance by the content and what was learned in the course. |
Side effect: From participants to active editors |
Main results
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
600 participants | 361 | 134 | Aprox 300 | Less participants due to local context. |
450 articles improved | 680 | 260 | On target | n/a |
45 projects designed by teachers | 85 | 35 | On target | n/a |
Participant dropout | 41% | 45% | n/a | Around 40%-50% is considered normal dropout |
Volunteers involved | n/a | 2 | At least 2 | n/a |
Tutorials designed | n/a | 5 | n/a | n/a |
% of satisfaction | n/a | n/a | 100% | 100% of the participants was satisfied with the training and learning. |
Editors retention | n/a | n/a | Not yet available | n/a |
Gating factors: Build a community of educators
[edit]While we continue developing different strategies to consolidate our educational projects in schools and universities, we have realized that part of the success at sustaining and replicating is related to building and strengthening a new community of educators.
Which have been our challenges, so far?
- Identifying educators who can be leaders of WMAR’s proposals in their institutions.
- Training educators properly.
- Generating proper support and follow-up.
What do we need to scale the program?
- Teachers who are interested in using Wikipedia and are properly trained.
- Working with our community of editors on the importance of mentoring and supporting newbies.
- Strengthening the work between WMAR and the education partners to promote and scale our projects within the institutions.
What are we doing to solve this situation?
- We have participated in strategic educational spaces (also media) to identify leading educators
- We launched an open call for our educational projects in order to identify motivated educators who can become leaders.
- We have developed trainings and tutorials according to the educators' needs
- And for the first time, we are certifying the educators (15) who led projects during this first semester to make our educational projects grow and strengthen the relationship with our partners.
Main results
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
8 strategic educational events | n/a | 4 | On target | More information here |
4 new partners | n/a | 2 | On target | Fundación Ceibal and University of Rosario |
Educators' certified | n/a | 15 | Around 30 | New goal |
Tutorials (according to teachers's needs) | 9 | 11 | n/a | n/a |
Media appearance | 26 | 12 | On target | n/a |
% of topics coverage | Wikilesa and Wikipedia in the Classroom | Wikipuentes MOOC and Edition Club | n/a | n/a |
Onsite - Online education main learnings
[edit]- Designing specific strategies for each project, allows us to legitimize WMAR's projects at all levels of education.
- Providing constant training - virtual and on site - makes educators feel confortable to use Wikipedia as a learning tool.
- Having teachers leading projects within their institution has meant good results in terms of content and strenghtening the relation with our partners.
- Redefining the quality criteria in our virtual course has demanded more supervision, but allows us to maintain good results and ensures that we have a good relationship with the community
- In education, to participate in strategic spaces is much more effective to approach new teachers than having presence in the media.
What's next
[edit]- Continuing consolidating our projects in at least three new universities and research spaces
- Training and certifying educators to take our educational proposals to a national scale - July 2017.
- Launching the 6th edition of Wikipuentes MOOC during the second semester.
- Carrying out our annual project with UNESCO in high schools of the entire country.
- Carrying out two more Editing Clubs in the provinces of Tierra del Fuego and Entre Rios.
- Strengthening our bond with new counterparts who started participating in the WMAR projects, especially with the provincial Ministries of Education.
Changes from our APG proposal
- Wikilesa: The greatest challenge of WMAR was to position Wikipedia into the classrooms. Wikilesa is a project that we know it works and we are now working to promote it regionally. We'll make Wikilesas in the second half of the year.
- Project with inland provinces: we had designed a project "Wikipedia in your province" that has not aroused interest. Instead we adapted the Editing Clubs to work with high schools in the inland provinces of Argentina.
- Community building: It was not a target on our APG proposal but since last year's evaluation - see the Impact report- it is critical if we want to scale our Education Program.
Education & Wikimedia movement
[edit]Success: Education in the movement’s strategy and Iberocoop
[edit]The fact that the movement is designing its future strategy can be an opportunity to position Education inside the movement. For this purpose, WMAR has promoted two work spaces at a local and a global level.
Education track in Wikimedia Conference 2017 On March 30 Wikimedia Israel, Wikimedia Argentina and WMF’s Education Program promoted an education track during the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. The education track was framed in the WMF’s learnings days, prior to the central days of the conference. The Education track was focused on the following objectives:
For this purpose, we designed a conference with work spaces where we could learn about different education projects and where the strategic debate was very present. The most important results were:
|
Education within Iberocoop’s strategy During Iberoconf 2017 we carried out an Education track to discuss the possibilities of working as a network on this subject, which was a pending issue for Iberocoop. The Education track was designed with the following objectives:
What did work?
Results
|
Gating factors: The post-conferences
[edit]In every Education conference we ended up with the same challenges:
- How to scale education activities.
- How to measure impact
- What resources do we need
Even though we face the same problems, it is still difficult to set up a proper post-conference follow up on specific results due, in part, to the following reasons:
- Many different contexts: Context is key in Education. In education, projects need to be locally established and they require local follow-up. Also, the same projects might deliver different results. To involve all the contexts in an Education conference is hard and it ends up as an expository space of educational projects without a clear strategy to scale global projects locally.
- Difficulties to set up common definitions: The debate regarding "impact" is always present. Even so, in many cases we remain aligned to the definition of impact associated with the quantitative aspects. While debate is on the agenda, we have not yet been able to determine a common definition of "impact" that is consistent with the reality of education programs.
- Difficulties to set up a common agenda: We need to go one step further from just being conferences about "what happens around the movement in Education". From planning to evaluation, we must work to define common objectives along with flexible common indicators that can be implemented and re-interpreted in the best way within each local context.
Education meetings learnings
[edit]- Learning from educational projects allows us to identify interesting projects and even design how to adapt them in each context.
- We need to define new education indicators to design a common strategy.
- Organizing meetings that go beyond being an expository and debate place are needed to define scalable and common projects.
- International education meetings can be a meeting place, but they should also focus on designing common strategies on education within the movement.
What's next
[edit]- We will continue to work and strengthen our relationship with Wikimedia Israel. We will continue to have regular meetings to share resources, projects and learnings.
- We will continue to work with the WMF's Education department. In particular we are working to organize part of the Edu track in Wikimania, as a continuation of the work done in Berlin.
- We will continue to work with the Iberocoop on Education. Particularly we are already working with Wikimedia Chile to scale Wikipuentes and we hope to do it with Wikimedia Mexico before the end of the year.
- We will continue to generate resources in the next 6 months: tutorials, publications, videos etc that can be used in Education around the movement.
GLAM Program
[edit]Our new partners are:
Partner | Activities, so far | Next steps |
---|---|---|
Maten al Mensajero Publishing House | 1 training course on Wikidata | Data and editing marathon designed to upload items to Wikidata. |
Hecho en Buenos Aires | 1 training on Wikipedia | Digitizing of the 200 magazines |
Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Puerto Rico | 2 trainings
1 Edit-a-thon |
Help them organize another edit-a-thon.
Consolidating a community of female editors. |
Red de Periodistas con Perspectiva de género | 2 trainings about Wikipedia.
1 Edit-a-thon |
Editing workshops to reduce gender gap in Wikipedia.
Consolidating a community of female editors. |
National Institute of Technology for Agriculture and Livestock (INTA) | 2 training sessions and
1 edit-a-thon on the subject (July) |
Cooperating with the researchers’ work.
Consolidating a new thematic community. |
Laboratorio de Innovación de la Dirección General del Libro | 1 training on Campaign #1lib1ref | Generating a community and a network with libraries. |
Parque de la Memoria | Cession of 65 images of works of art | Edit-a-thon. Cession of data bases. Training their educational team. |
Our work with these institutions is organized in two phases:
We, also, must underline that these institutions have active communities with which we are currently working with two objectives:
Getting new large institutions involved During 2017, we have released 185 books by the 4 main cultural partners and used 92% of this heritage on Wikidata. Using the material uploaded is undoubtedly one of the quality indicators that we promote. However, we have worked with the same large cultural institutions since 2015 and our work is touching its ceiling. Our historic partners are independent regarding digitizing and currently our work is based on supporting the post-processing of the information and dissemination of their heritage. Our 2-year work with these institutions has allowed us to have clear success cases that have set a precedent at a local level, which led to the incorporation of two new large cultural partners for the 2017 program.
|
Side effect: Building a new community of librarians |
Main results WIR
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
6 cultural partners (2 new) | 4 | 6 | On target | More information here |
3 training courses | 6 | 2 | On target | More information here |
200 books released | 273 | 208 | Above target | n/a |
1000 images | 1383 | n/a | On target | Activity on the second half of the year |
Pages uploaded on Commons | 35,000 | 37336 | Above target | n/a |
% of uploaded of quality | n/a | 100% | On target | n/a |
800 articles created | 2052 | 318 | On target | Wikisource project has started on July |
% of articles created of quality | 407 | 72% (230) | On target | 230 articles created in Wikidata (+6 items) |
Articles improved on Wikidata | n/a | 3200 | New target | Massive upload of data. 4 volunteers involved |
Number of volunteers involved | 4 | 4 | At least 4 | n/a |
% of satisfaction | n/a | Not yet available | Not yet available | End of the year |
Gating: Improve outreach
[edit]Working with new and diverse counterparts shouldn’t be strange, specially considering our local context. In Latin America, and particularly in Argentina, culture is often constructed outside traditional circles. Even though incorporating new partners means getting new communities involved, we are also facing new challenges to reach new audiences and partners. This is mainly because:
- Approval within the WMAR community: we need to generate a cultural change inside the community of Wikimedia Argentina and show that the program is versatile and that we need larger cultural representation for the program to grow.
- Geographical diversity: we continue having difficulties reaching new audiences, especially outside of Buenos Aires. Around 90% of our partners are from Buenos Aires City which translates into difficulties to reach strategic cultural institutions beyond the province of Buenos Aires. We are currently working with some volunteers to start promoting the GLAM program in inland provinces.
- Scope in the media: we are having more difficulties positioning the GLAM project - a part of offline activities- in the media this year. We are working to change our communication strategy, so that it is not only effective when we carry out activities but also a tool to generate awareness and promote the work we have already done, along with our partners, to improve access to free knowledge.
Main results:
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Attending to 6 cultural events | 7 | 4 | On target | 75% in Buenos Aires (we attended to Wikicite) |
Media coverage | 17 | 12 | On target | n/a |
% of topics coverage | edit-a-thons events | edit-a-thons and gender | Not yet available | n/a |
Partnerships' learnings
[edit]- Working with middle-size organizations is easier, more organic and allow us new thematic communities. They are also open to new activities which adds diversity to the program
- Although it slows quantitative results, carrying out trainings in cultural institutions are required to drive long-term GLAM's projects.
- We need to define new roles for historical partners far from "liberating content/creating content" that generate new added value.
- Continue adapting international projects to our local context - #1lib1ref, transfers of databases etc. continues to be a good strategy to promote new activities within cultural institutions.
What's next
[edit]- We are going to try to strengthen our work with the new partners that we incorporated in 2017. To this purpose, we are going to continue working on the planned activities as well as working with the partners that we incorporated in 2016, like Open House Buenos Aires.
- We are going to continue training cultural institutions on issues related free culture and digitalizing. Also, we are opening a digitalization point in our WMAR offices, so that we can liberate private or personal collections and incorporate them to Wikimedia Commons.
- We have started to work with another #OpenGlam group in the country. In the following months we expect to strengthen our relationship to guarantee better access to cultural heritage.
- We will promote #1lib1ref within the University of Buenos Aires and continue strengthening our relationships with the network of libraries.
- We are going to participate in talks on free culture and data opening. The second semester of the year is when GLAM organizes more talks, offline activities related to the program. We will participate in talks on free culture and data opening at the Mariano Moreno National Library, the conference of libraries at the University of Buenos Aires and the Americas’ Regional Conference on open government.
Changes from our APG proposal
- Underrepresented groups : It is still difficult to work with minority groups. We have contacted different NGOs during the first half of the year but have not yet been able to specify anything.
- Open offline activities (edit-a-thon, per example): To date, activities have been closed and training-related for over 100 cultural professionals. These activities were necessary to get communities involved and strengthen the concept of free culture in these institutions.For this reason, activities such as edit-a-thons have seen much smaller numbers and the work cannot be evaluated merely with indicators like “# of created articles”.
Improving content
[edit]In the beginning of 2017, we carried out a survey to understand which were the interests and opinions of our community. 72% of editors think it is necessary to continue creating articles, while 63% think it is necessary to improve the quality of existing articles. Also, 54% of editors spend their time in Wikipedia revising and improving content.
To this purpose, during the first half of 2017, we promoted activities according to the following criteria:
- Activities to incorporate new and more diverse knowledge.
- Activities to improve existing knowledge.
- Activities to export knowledge and diversify other Wikipedias.
Success: Adding diverse and quality content to Wikimedia projects
[edit]Wikimedia Argentina has promoted activities to add diverse and quality content within Wikimedia by carrying out specific online and offline activities:
Creating content regarding gender on Wikipedia The Iberocoop's editing contest The Woman You Have Never Met, aims at improving and creating content regarding women and gender in Wikipedia. These initial objectives, have been improved since 2015:
Also we reached the following conclusions:
With these challenges in mind, this year we focused the evaluation in analyzing whether new articles had been written with a gender perspective. This can seem difficult but it helps us gain an accurate vision about how new content is created. On the other side, and with the aim of incorporating more female editors and diversifying content, for the first time the contest was designed as a global campaign. We got 8 communities of the movement involved and the contest was led by WikiDonne, Women in Red and fostered by women from Macedonia, Israel, Poland, Australia, Morocco and the Netherlands. This translated into the creation of 749 articles. The contest is not only onwiki but we also offer activities, such as edit-a-thons, framed by the campaign. Such activities took place in Chile, Italy, Australia, Morocco, Mexico and Argentina. In Argentina we promoted 5 editing workshops and 3 edit-a-thons, along with La red de Periodistas argentina con visión de género, Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Puerto Rico and Mujeres en Arquitectura. |
Debates to define gender perspective in Wikipedia |
Adding diverse content to other Wikipedias One of Iberocoop’s greatest challenges is to position Ibero-American culture beyond our borders. Beyond our language borders, many Wikipedias still can’t access the history and culture of our region. For this purpose, we carried out our project Translating Ibero-America one more time. Even though the objectives were the same as in 2016, results were quite different:
We cannot clearly explain why results were so different, particularly regarding the number of editors involved. It may have been due to the month in which other contests were organized or maybe interest on this activity has decreased in the international community. Despite the results, we would like to emphasize that for the first time we included articles about the culture of Central America and Paraguay, which were 26% of the total of created articles, countries without a community of editors. Getting these countries involved implied facing the challenge of including their culture properly, as they are countries that we do not know well. This, which was initially a limitation, has become an opportunity for the region: |
Designing the first regional survey |
Main results
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
3000 articles created/improved on gender/culture | 1659 | 2227 | On target | TWYHNM: 1876 - TIA:351 |
100 editors involved (Iberocoop contests) | 102 | 85 | On target | n/a |
20 women editors involved (Iberocoop contests) | n/a | 15 | On target | n/a |
% of articles of quality | n/a | 1329 | On target | Just ES Wikipedia |
15 editors from other Wikipedias | n/a | 42 | Above target | TWYHNM: 27 - TIA:15 |
Number editors involved in offline activities (gender) | 113 | 58 | Not yet available | n/a |
Number articles improved in offline activities (gender) | 121 | 40 | Not yet available | Editing workshops and edit-a-thons planned |
Number of new women editors (online-offline) | n/a | 65 | Not yet available | Not yet available |
Improving the quality of the Wikimedia projects We continue working with Iberocoop and the editors of the Spanish Wikipedia. Thanks to the survey and the editors’ interest on quality, we organized 2 editing challenges together with Wikimedia Chile, Wikimedia Mexico and Wikimedia Spain. Apart from the numerical results (+4000 improved articles), 67 editors were actively involved, of which 20% were women and 41% were new participants. This confirms that if we pay attention to the online community’s demands and interests, we have great potential to keep on constructing a community of editors that’s committed to our initiatives, especially those related to Wikipedia. |
Side effect: positioning volunteer work during editing challenges |
Main results
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
5 online activities | 3 | 2 | On target | At least 2 challenges planned |
5000 articles created/improved | 4376 | 4833 | On target | See results here and here |
2000 ítems on Wikidata | n/a | 300 | On target | Wikidata challenge planned on September. Small improvements |
% articles of quality | n/a | At least 3616 | On target | The first editing contest (1) was focused on improving articles by using images + categories. 1933 were improved but 1250 were very small changes. In this case we considered quality the use of images and the categories added.
The second contest (2) was focused on improving the quality of Wikipedia and was review by very active editors. This metric is difficult to apply in cases of massive activities. |
Involve 200 editors | 41 | 67 | Under target | Our editor's community has around 70 active editors (see community survey results) |
50 new editors involved | 2 | 27 | Under target | 27 new participants. Already editors. |
Gating factors: Involve new editors & new ideas
[edit]The GLAM program continues to face two major challenges when we talk about creating content. These are:
- Involve new editors: Our activities continue to attract active editors but these are rarely new editors engaged on any of WMAR's activities. Building a new editors' community is still a major challenge for WMAR and the Wikimedia movement. To try to fix this problem we are working as follows:
- Approach thematic communities: as has been said, we are focusing our work on training institutions and their communities. Involving existing communities into the Wikimedia ecosystem can be a great strategy to get new editors and content producers/donors into our GLAM program.
- Make it easer to get involved : along with the Community Support program, we are organizing workshops, editing activities and informal encounters between new editors and our historical community, with the aim of involving them in a more comprehensive manner.
- Little room for innovation: content is important because it favors the access to more and better knowledge and also because it means the improvement of the Wikimedia projects. But focusing the strategy on content also limits other growth and leaves little room for innovation. To work on this issue and continue proposing more innovative activities, we need to keep on strengthening the work of Iberocoop; the more we are, the more ideas we will have on the table and the more editors will work on the construction of those ideas. Even though the work of Iberocoop has improved during the first semester of 2017, it is important to continue working together with the countries of the region so efforts are better coordinated.
Content learnings
[edit]- Organizing activities according to our community's interests leads to a greater participation. Gender and quality improvement are key topics.
- Massive online challenges aren't a good strategy to involve new editors as part of the community.
- Evaluating through quality indicators works for smaller activities as edit-a-thons but gets difficult on massive activities.
- Working with editors from communities outside Iberocoop adds cultural diversity within Wikipedia.
What's next
[edit]- We will design projects to work outside of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. During the second half of the year we will focus our work in Wikisource where we will continue positioning the books digitized and we will continue advancing with our work in Wikidata.
- Along with Iberocoop we will promote new gender projects as well as continue creating diverse content. We are planning to work together with WikiArabia and WikiIndaba to position Latin American culture within those Wikipedias.
- Working closely with the Community Support program to design new strategies to involve participants as active editors.
Community Support Program
[edit]-
Photography safari
-
Community meeting
-
Our comunity
Summary
During the first six months of 2017, the Cummunity Support program has focused on getting to know our community, engaging it and expanding it. In this sense, our work reinforces the objectives set for the program during 2017:
- Expand our community with new members and volunteers.
- Consolidate our online and offline communities.
- Strengthen the link between our community and Wikimedia Argentina.
- Generate a wider and more diverse regional community
One of the greatest changes has been the incorporation of a person in charge of the program as part of the WMAR staff, with the aim of improving communication with our community, making it more fluid and being able to respond the demands and ideas in time and manner.
Working with WMAR’s community
[edit]During 2016 we detected this great challenge:
- WMAR is aware neither of how its work is appreciated, nor of the community’s specific demands.
To strengthen the link between our community and WMAR, during the first semester of 2017, we carried out 2 large surveys:
Success: Getting to know the WMAR community
[edit]With the objective of getting to know our community, how they perceive our work, their interests and demands, from March to May 2017, we carried out two surveys that engaged 93 members of the WMAR community -members and editors-.
WMAR's members survey
We must underline that only 20% (22) of our members answered the survey, which confirms that we have a small community of active members.
The survey has been essential to identify strong and weak points of the work we do as an organization. The most remarkable results were:
- 86% of our members think it is very easy to contact and approach Wikimedia Argentina
- 96% believes Wikimedia Argentina tries hard to establish communication with the community
- 82% thinks Wikimedia Argentina makes a real contribution to free knowledge.
Also, we have challenges to deal with, and they can be summarized as follows:
- Improving spaces to listen to WMAR's community
- Generating more technical support to Wikimedia editors
WMAR's community of editors survey
71 editors of the WMAR community answered the survey. This is a survey that we carry out every year, with the aim to know the interests and preferences of the editors and being able to articulate attractive activities for them during the year. As it happens since 2016, the community is very interested in creating and most of all improving content in Wikipedia (92% of our editors work on this project). Also, and unlike previous years, we introduced new indicators to get better quality results.
They were the following:
1. Analysis of local context |
2. The community on Wikipedia |
3. Women in Wikipedia |
These indicators translate into new challenges that we have already begun to tackle:
- Lack of time: we have designed proposals accordingly and we have extended the time for participating.
- Developing practices of positive discrimination to get new female editors involved in Wikipedia.
Lastly, something that is remarkable is the improvement of the community of editors on the existence of WMAR. Comparing 2015, when only 27% knew that WMAR existed, today 64.8% knows and recognizes projects promoted by the organization.
Challenge?
Our challenge is to continue attending the needs of both communities in an efficient manner, in order to expand our offline community. Maintaining a good relationship with our online community is essential to make our projects grow
Main results
You can find the results of our surveys here
Gating: Getting every voice involved
[edit]WMAR’s community is also formed by all the counterparts who work with us. Most of our projects are led by a person who is a referent point in education or culture and who helps gets the work done and disseminate Wikimedia’s values.
We need to make these voices more present in the design of our strategy. For this purpose, we need to expand the roles that currently define belonging to the community, which goes far beyond being editors and/or volunteers.
In the case of WMAR, we need to include new voices in the design of our work:
- New partners who promote awareness and position the work of WMAR
- Volunteers who work as a bonding bridge with organizations.
- Alliances with journalists and the media.
- Network of experts who work as advisers on specific subjects (Gender- Human Rights)
In order to include these voices, during August we will foster encounters with these leaders in the frame of the process of planning WMAR’s new strategy.
Knowing WMAR's community learnings
[edit]- Knowing our community - members and editors - is fundamental to carry out proposals according to the interests and needs of our community
What's next
[edit]- We will continue to generate proposals according to the interests and needs of our community.
- We will continue to try to identify new and potential members to involve them as part of the WMAR community.
- We will actively integrate the community in the definition of the strategy of Wikimedia Argentina for 2018. Meetings are alraedy planned for August.
Working for the WMAR’s community
[edit]WMAR’s challenge is about:
- Listening and providing the existing community with the necessary support .
- Generating new spaces for participation, to make the community grow.
During 2017, we have worked on these challenges in the following way
Success: Support to WMAR’s community
[edit]During the first semester of the year, we have continued working together with WMAR’s community, especially regarding support to their proposals and initiatives, which is one of their main demands. So far, 16 activities - encounters, projects, online challenges, have been defined through our community's interests.
Support to projects
|
Support projects' strategy
|
Main results
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 open call for projects | 1 | 1 | 2 | See here |
Support 3 new projects | 6 | 10 | On target | Projects selected will be carried out the 2nd half of the year |
100 images/documents | n/a | Not yet available | On target | Will be carried out the 2nd half of the year |
200 improved articles. | n/a | 70 | On target | Will be carried out the 2nd half of the year |
Mobility Grants
So far, we gave out 11 local mobility grants and supported the participation of one member of our community in Wikicite 2017 and Wikimania 2017 with travel grants and lodging. These activities, that we intend to continue promoting during 2017, aim at improving and fostering the participation of our community in the WMAR activities, appreciating the work of volunteers and help them to keep on training and strengthening their bond with the movement.
Main results
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
10 micro-grants | 7 | 11 | Not yet available | n/a |
1 grant to attend Wikicite 2017 | n/a | 1 | n/a | n/a |
1 grant to attend Wikimania 2017 | 1 | 1 | n/a | n/a |
supported 5 Wikimania grants by members of our community. | n/a | 3 | n/a | Those who apply |
Encounter spaces
We have continued promoting encounter spaces. During the first semester of 2017, we have organized 10 encounters with the community. Unlike what we did in 2016, we have promoted new encounter spaces, according to the needs and interests of our community. They have been the following:
- Engage former and new community: we have organized 3 encounters to strengthen bonds and get new members to meet each other.
- Build new community: 3 encounters led by the new community of photographers.
- Mentor’s community: 1 encounter to begin to organize the community of mentors
- Projects’ support: 5 encounters to advise on projects
Main results
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
6 offline meeting spaces | 2 | 3 | 6 | Refers to engage former and new community |
100 community members | n/a | 102 | Above target | n/a |
20 of them new | n/a | 20 | On target | n/a |
Engaging 10 new volunteers | n/a | 10 | On target | See story below |
Newcomers becoming active members | n/a | 3 | Not yet available | Participants becoming new members |
% feeling welcome in our activities. | n/a | Not yet available | Not yet available | End of the year |
Success: Expanding WMAR’s community
[edit]Mentoring between active and new volunteers:
We want new members to feel included and find specific spaces to participate. For this we consider fundamental to begin to build new thematic communities. To do this we work crosscuting with the GLAM and Education programs. We created support and work groups and we have launched a pilot mentoring program with the following objectives:
- Motivating and empowering the community: helping our volunteers not only lead spaces but groups, so they can pass all their expertise on to new members
- Incorporating new members and promoting their long-term participation.
So far, we have two new emerging communities more GLAM's focused, and we are starting working to build an education community.
A new community of photographers
|
Community of women
|
Main results
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
New participants community of photographers | n/a | 7 | Not yet available | n/a |
Images on Commons supported by WMAR | 1 | 1002 | Not yet available | n/a |
Building community with at least 15 new women as editors involved | n/a | 8 | At least 15 | n/a |
At least 100 articles edited | n/a | Not yet available | 100 | We are starting to work as a group |
Engaging “newbies” in community encounters
One of the most simple and yet most effective strategy to engage new members is to make them feel included and comfortable during informal encounters.
This year we are opening this meetings to members, people who participate in our activities and, also, representatives of our partners -as happened in the community meeting during Iberoconf 2017-. In order to avoid isolated conversation groups, we engaged four active WMAR volunteers and two staff members to make sure “newbies” felt included. Also, after having the feedback from one new member, we are starting to handed out an information and welcoming leaflet about WMAR and how to get involved.
During 2017, we have promoted 3 big encounters that have involved 102 members (offline and online volunteers). 22 of them new. To date, 10 remain active volunteers of WMAR.
Gating: Improve skills & leadership
[edit]Our surveys have confirmed that WMAR’s community is also interested in:
- Skill building: improving their skills on specific subjects.
- Leadership: leading spaces within WMAR’s programs
These interests are not disregarded, but slowed down.
We have worked hard to incorporate new members and to support the community’s projects, with the aim of carrying them out during the second semester of the year. During this phase we will launch specific workshops about editing Wikipedia, digitalization, communication, project managing, among others. We think that framing training workshops basing on the projects that they lead makes much more sense.
Regarding leadership, WMAR has always made its proposals open to the participation of the community. It is true that, compared to 2016, results are currently smaller. This is mostly due to the programs’ dynamics during these first months of the year. The GLAM program, where people participate the most, has most of its activities planned for the second semester. We expect the activities scheduled for the second semester to motivate volunteers in their role as ambassadors.
Working with WMAR's community learnings
[edit]- Identifying "newbies" allowed us to create mentoring spaces where former editors are actively involved in accompanying new ones.
- The develop an open call for projects allowed new and old editors to come forward with ideas to work together with WMAR.
- Organizing thematic communities strengthened the participation of old and new editors.
- The thematic communities generated a space to carry out new proposals in which the group as a whole actively participates.
What's next
[edit]- We will accompany and promote the proposals designed by the community, at least 5 of them.
- We will launch a new call for projects. We will expand the call to new thematic communities, also out of WMAR, in order to attract new users.
- We will organize workshops and trainings for our community designed based on their needs.
- We will continue to accompany the thematic communities, along with the Education Program and the GLAM program to improve their results and impact.
International cooperation
[edit]-
WikiWomenCamp 2017
-
Iberoconf video
-
Iberoconf photo group
Strenghtening communities within the movement
[edit]Iberoconf 2017
On June 10–12, Iberoconf 2017 was held in Buenos Aires. The event was a space of encounter, meeting and sharing for local Iberocoop affiliates.
We decided to organize the event for the following reasons:
- Iberocoop had grown a lot in the last three years. We had driven, together, dozens of programs, during which we created over 7,000 articles.
- We grew a lot in number of chapters and user groups but in many cases the organizations are not professionalized enough.
In this sense, our challenge was not understanding if we could work together, but rather be a mentoring network for our communities and local groups. Bearing this in mind, we designed - along with all the participants' input- a conference with two main tracks, to achieve the following goals:
- Defining the future of Iberocoop and its position within the strategy process
- Improving the organizational skills to professionalize the network's work at a local and regional level.
Comparing to Iberoconf 2014, we designed the conference as a space for learning and strategic planning, to better leverage the network’s impact within the movement; as a place to represent local organizations and their communities; and as a space to centralize demand.
In this sense we carried out our goals the following way:
1 Involve participants actively: Through virtual and in-person meetings, and instant message channels like Telegram and surveys, we agreed on the state of the network until 2017 and we defined the goals and outcomes for Iberoconf 2017.
|
2. Professionalize the network: we promoted hands-on workshops, where working in groups could guarantee a similar learning outcome. 45% of the sessions were workshops.
|
3.Iberocoop's future as a network and within the movement: we organized a structured conference with flexible slots in its debate spaces. We granted facilitation of these spaces to an external contractor, to guarantee fair participation for all. As a result, we managed to achieve concrete outcomes, especially in relation to Iberocoop’s stance in the movement strategy for 2030, and also setting concrete demands in an open letter addressed to the Wikimedia Foundation (known as the Buenos Aires Letter)
|
4.Involve our local community: first of all, Iberoconf was an event to improve the sense of belonging of our community and make them feel part of the movement Wikimedia. During our community meeting we strengthened relationships with members, volunteers and partners. |
We are currently writing the report, as well as starting to analyze the first results. We are also going to have a follow-up meeting in Wikimania. The impact of Iberoconf will be measured more closely in the coming months and we hope to be able to analyze it deeper in the Impact report
Other results are
Target | Last year (if applicable) | Progress (at end of Q2) | End of year (projected or actual) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants | n/a | 53 | n/a | n/a |
Iberocoop participants | n/a | 27 | n/a | All the organizations involved. The person from Perú, missed his plane. |
Number of participants leading sessions | n/a | 11 | n/a | Mainly presenting results. |
Number of volunteers | n/a | 2 | n/a | n/a |
WMAR's community participants | n/a | 33 | n/a | Communities meeting |
WikiWomen Camp
From July 6th to 8th, WikiWomen Camp was held in Mexico. The event was organized by Wikimedia Mexico, Wikimedia Argentina and Wikimujeres. During 2016 we carried out various projects together, such as mentoring other communities at a regional level, creating content and sharing learnings. We understood that our scope was greater if we worked together, as well as our position within the movement and in Wikipedia.
Bearing in mind the idea that "together we are stronger", we decided to organize WikiWomen Camp II, the first since 2012, with the support of WMF.
The objectives were very specific:
The conference involved 54 people. Of these, 29 were WMF scholarships' grantees because of being women leaders or potential leaders in their communities. We also tried to keep parity in the representation. Also +10 people from the WMF were involved as well as 6 active volunteers from Wikimedia Mexico. |
At the organizational level, Wikimedia Argentina played a fundamental role:
1. Before the conference - along with WMF
|
2. During the conference
|
3. After the conference
|
We are currently writing the report, as well as starting to analyze the first results. We are also going to have a meeting in Wikimania. The impact of WikiWomen Camp will be measured more closely in the coming months and we hope to be able to analyze it deeper in the Impact report.
Revenues received during this six-month period
[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 FDC grant ARS $3.441.000 $2.088.053 - - - $2.088.053 USD232.500 USD122.826 n/a Membership fees ARS $8.800 $1.445 $1.641 - - $3.086 USD600 USD182 n/a Fixed-term bank deposit income ARS - $21.914 $51.507 - - $73.420 - USD4.319 n/a Cash donation ARS - - $55.000 - - $55.000 - USD3.235 n/a In-kind donations ARS $239.198 $2.000 $32.000 - - $34.000 USD16.162 USD2.000 We will detail our In Kind donations in the Impact Report
* Provide estimates in US Dollars
- During the first half of 2017 we have applied 4 international funds. We are waiting for the answers.
Spending during this six-month period
[edit]Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.
Table 3 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ 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 Staff Expenses ARS $ 1.880.170 $ 525.814 $ 521.987 - - $ 1.047.802 $ 127.039 USD 65.405 56% n/a General Administration ARS $ 534.256 $ 133.285 $ 105.842 - - $ 239.128 $ 36.098 USD 14.926 45% n/a Education program ARS $ 284.100 $ 23.714 $ 135.985 - - $ 159.699 $ 19.196 USD 9.968 56% n/a GLAM program ARS $ 359.151 $ 30.336 $ 118.383 - - $ 148.720 $ 24.267 USD 9.283 41% n/a Community Support program ARS $ 511.200 $ 108.403 $ 294.006 - - $ 402.410 $ 34.541 USD 25.119 79% This item also includes plane tickets and accomodattion expenditures for Wikiconference and Wikimania. TOTAL ARS 3.568.877 821.554 1.176.205 - - 1.997.759 241.140 124.704 56% 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.
- YES
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]- Once complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes.
- Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Resources
[edit]Resources to plan for measurement
[edit]- 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
[edit]- 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.
- Annual plan grant reports
- Annual plan grant progress report forms 2016-2017 Round 1
- Annual plan grants or proposals by Wikimedia Argentina for 2016-2017 Round 1
- Annual plan grants program progress report form versions
- Annual plan grant progress report forms by Wikimedia Argentina
- Annual plan grant progress report forms for 2016-2017 Round 1