Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/Wikimedia UK/Progress report form/Q1

Report received complete and on time

Thank you for submitting this progress report complete and on time! As noted on the discussion page of the proposal, this report was due 15 May and was received on that date. We look forward to offering more detailed comments and questions soon. Best regards, Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team) talk 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Request to make revisions

Hello, Wikimedia UK would like to make some changes to the report to improve it's accuracy with permission of the FDC.

1. Now that our Audit and Risk Committee have had chance to review our accounts, we would like to make some changes to the financial information to more accurately reflect our spending this quarter.
2. Correct the grammar of "We have ran nine editing and training events aimed at improving the coverage of women on Wikipedia" to "We ran nine editing and training events aimed at improving the coverage of women on Wikipedia".
3. Update the metrics for

3. Number of files having quality image status on Commons (looking at the total number of such images, target is an increase of 50 by the end of the year)

4. Number of files having valued image status on Commons (looking at the total number of such images, target is an increase of 70 by the end of the year)

The target numbers should be the other way round, and it would be simpler and more accurate to remove "looking at the total number of such images" and the numbers represent an increase in the year. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to make these corrections to your report. Thanks for notifying us! Cheers, Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team) talk 16:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, we've made the changes. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation in top level figures by Wikimedia UK

Dear FDC members,

I have to alert you to the fact that the figure of 6.5% in this Q1 report in Programme 1 of "Overall 6.5% (below our target of 13% average for the whole year...)" is actually 2.6%. Despite this being highlighted and explained to the Wikimedia UK board of trustees in detail here, my concerns have been "noted" but no action is being taken by the board to correct this figure.

The figure has been distorted by counting an upload of non-free files on the Welsh Wikipedia, per the detail in the Q1 report. These files cannot be used on other projects without a copyright review and in the UK (where the UK charity operates) the files cannot be reused by the public as there are no Fair Use provisions in UK copyright law. This is firmly against the stated Goal this figure is measuring as defined here where the aim of Goal 1 is "We will increase the quantity and quality of open knowledge on the Wikimedia projects and other freely licensed resources". Obviously non-free files are not freely licensed resources.

I am the unpaid volunteer uploader of the files in question. As I have explained to the UK board of trustees, these non-free files were not supported by Wikimedia UK. They are my independent uploads outside of any Wikimedia UK project as a favour within the Welsh Wicipedia. To have them tactically counted in a way that inflates and distorts this report to the FDC which justifies the way that Foundation funds are being spent is, disappointing. As the volunteer for the UK chapter who is responsible for 80% of the 58,000+ free use media files supported by the Chapter so far this year, I feel misled with my effort in this case being retrospectively reported as work and achievements of Wikimedia UK, in ways that I never agreed to, nor was I consulted.

Thank you for your attention. I hope that Wikimedia UK corrects the Q1 report to better report against the proposal that the FDC originally supported. --Fæ (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

For reference, there has been discussion of this on the WMUK Wiki. The opinions Fæ expresses above are his own and do not represent the views of all parties. I would strongly encourage people to read the full discussion at wmuk:Engine room#Query regarding G1.2 quality of content. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 23:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, Thryduulf's link was already included in my comment above. For the purposes of transparency, it should be made clear that Thryduulf is one of the 17 employees of Wikimedia UK, as declared here. As this is a Chapter report, he can be presumed to be writing on behalf of the Chapter.

I am happy to agree with Thryduulf that though I am a past Chairman, I am not a representative of the UK Chapter, nor do I represent all parties; though I would be surprised if anyone would claim to represent all parties, or that any reader could be confused by my description of myself as an "unpaid volunteer" above. --Fæ (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

While I am presently employed by Wikimedia UK, none of my comments on this page have been made as anything other than a volunteer Wikimedian of nearly 10 years on my own time, using my own equipment. Further I was not employed by Wikimedia UK during any of the period covered by this report. I have not expressed any views about the matter at hand either here or on the linked page, I was merely wishing to explicitly highlight that contrary to the implication I saw in Fæ's choice of language, views contrary to his had been expressed in the discussion. People should read the views and facts presented and make up their own minds on the matter. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 21:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

With regard to your "explicitly refute Fæ's incorrect inferences" - an employee making public statements about an official funding related report of the UK charity they are paid by, are going to be read as statements from an employee and reflect on the charity and the Chief Executive who remains responsible for the public actions of his employees as far as they concern the charity. It's up to you, however I suggest you take a moment to check the situation with the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive before continuing to make public statements about the affairs of the charity, as there are policies and procedures relating to this published by the charity.

If you wish to continue to debate your freedom to write in public about the affairs of the charity and the extent to which that is possible without being responsible as an employee, it would be nice to create another thread. This is a tangent to my alert for the FDC. --Fæ (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thryduulf's role is not germane to this discussion. Fae, commenting on the person rather than the point they are making serves only to distract from your initial point. This discussion is here for the FDC to consider when assessing the Q1 report. Let's leave them to it. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. As anyone who actually cares to look at this thread can see, this was a case of an employee of the Chapter making it appear that I was claiming to be something that I never did, and making it appear that I failed to mention previous attempts to discuss this with the board of trustees, when I had linked to the same discussion. My original statement, made no claim about any individual. Yes, I think it would be great if employees of the Chapter concentrated on the issue, should they feel they need to speak on behalf of their Chief Executive here, rather than the person. I, like any other volunteer, should be free to raise an issue of misrepresentation without fear of having a series of character assassinations in response, no matter how well intentioned those involved may believe they are. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Request to make changes

Wikimedia UK would like to make an alteration to the report, namely removing the line "Overview of this quarter" from GROWTH under the section Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/WMUK/Progress report form/Q1#Overview of this quarter. It is considered that these files contribute to the quality of open knowledge but not the quantity. Both fall under program 1 but are treated differently.

Similarly, in Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/WMUK/Progress report form/Q1#Program 1 I would like to move the paragraph stating

2,891 book covers were uploaded to the Welsh Wicipedia. These are copyrighted files and included under fair use. These images do not reside on Commons because they are copyrighted, however are directly contributing to the Welsh Wicipedia. We feel this is a strong contribution from Wikimedia UK to the growth of the projects.

from under the subheading 1. The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase to 2. The quality of open knowledge continues to improve.

If it helps, here is a diff showing what is being proposed. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• A point of clarification, the 2,891 book covers were uploaded by me (in fact the total was slightly larger). They were not part of a Wikimedia UK supported project. If the Chief Executive wishes to claim in his reports that articles about books were created on the Welsh Wicipedia (presumably less than 2,891) and were supported by the chapter's funding, this would seem supportable. However, creating the impression that my upload of 2,891 fair use images was an outcome of one of the charity's projects, remains a misleading one and presents my work as an unpaid Wikimedia volunteer, in this case as an independent unaffiliated volunteer (as has been reiterated by the chapter elsewhere on this page), as being the successes of employees or contractors.

I ask that the FDC reject this change, and requests an accurate full correction. --Fæ (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The change suggested by WMUK to the Q1 report sounds reasonable, and it is OK to make the change to this report. Thanks for logging the request to make the change here, Richard. I understand, Fae, that you uploaded the book cover images, and I thank you for your work. I don't think that what Richard is proposing sounds unreasonable, because the proposed change indicates that the book covers are not counted under WMUK's file uploads in terms of quantity. Warm regards to both, KLove (WMF) (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I have made the change. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Strong objection

@Richard Nevell (WMUK), @KLove (WMF): I very strongly object to including the outcome of the work of a Wikimedia volunteer unaffiliated with Wikimedia UK in a progress report of Wikimedia UK. If the activity reported was not supported by Wikimedia UK — through financial or organizational assistance — then it should not be included in a report that is supposed to describe how FDC-allocated funds were spent by Wikimedia UK.

As a third-party observer, the mere inclusion of this volunteer activity in a Wikimedia UK report looks to me as if Wikimedia UK were claiming it to be their success. If the uploading of those 2,891 book covers was undertaken as a private activity of an unaffiliated volunteer, it does not have any place here, and I ask you to please revert the change. Thank you! odder (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Odder. The uploads supported the work of Robin Owain, our Wales Manager, who has been liaising with the Welsh Book Council in relation to the covers and their database of 12,000 Welsh books published since 1996. The activity was therefore supported by WMUK and we are in agreement with the FDC that it is relevant to our KPI's. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jon Davies (WMUK): Thanks. I don't know what KPIs are, but I understand that the work of the unaffiliated Wikimedia volunteer was not supported by Wikimedia UK, either financially or organizationally, but it was the volunteer who supported Wikimedia UK through their own private activity. If that indeed is the case, then I suggest that you remove this item from your report, which — as I wrote above — is supposed to describe how Wikimedia UK spent the money allocated to them by the FDC, for instance to support Wikimedia volunteers, and not how Wikimedia UK was supported by private activities of those volunteers. odder (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

KPI = Key Performance Indicators, a spot of management speak that determines what we are trying to achieve and how well we are doing. Sorry for not making that clear. Assuming Good Faith I think you don't really understand what happened here as it is complicated and are making assumptions that don't hold water. These uploads were part of a more general page creation that was most certainly part of the WMUK programme (and a rather brilliant addition to Wicipedia Cymraeg in my opinion. I would be happy to bore you with chapter and verse about the project and how it is measured if you want to contact WMUK directly. We did make a mistake in allocating the uploads to the 'quantity' KPI and changed this to the 'quality' KPI but have now corrected this with the help of FDC staff. The Q1 FDC report was the first in which we have used our new monitoring and evaluation framework and this seems to be the only mistake we made so far! Would you like to come in for a coffee if you are near London or are coming to Wikimania and we could explain the whole system to you? Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jon Davies (WMUK): Claiming that person you're in discussion with "doesn't understand what happened" is, of course, the easiest rhetorical trick in one's arsenal, but I'm not going to be discouraged by that. Instead, let me ask a few simple questions:

1. Was the uploading of the 2,891 book covers supported financially by Wikimedia UK?
2. Was the uploading of the 2,891 book covers supported organizationally by Wikimedia UK, that is through direct work by a Wikimedia UK employee or contractor?
3. Was the uploading of the 2,891 book covers a private activity of a Wikimedia volunteer unaffiliated with Wikimedia UK?

I'm not coming to Wikimania nor will I be visiting London in the near future, and I think it would be best — for transparency's and accountability's sake — if Wikimedia UK prepared some documentation, help page or an FAQ explaining the process (that way, you could easily direct other people to that in the future as well). Thank you for your time, odder (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The bookcovers were released, with an agreement to do this, by an employee of WMUK, Robin Owain so Q1 yes and Q2 yes. Q3. The Volunteer agreed to help Robin. The definition of a 'private activity' leads us to the point that all volunteer activities are surely 'private activities'?

Our remit as a chapter is to support the mission. We do that in a variety of ways which we measure. To bring this down to the real world: the edits I made to Wikipedia at the weekend do not count for WMUK targets as I did them as a volunteer off my own bat and they had nothing to do with any WMUK projects. Other volunteer uploads I have done, eg Wiki Loves Monuments have counted towards WMUK goals. This is an issue we have thought about extensively and try and get the balance right between what we inpsire and support and what is done completely independently. I think we get the balance right and if we didn't I am sure the FDC would be pointing it out to us.

Here is a link that might be helpful. I think you will be able to see how much thought we have given to this.

If you have any ideas please put them on the discussion page. I have to get back to meetings but the invitation to visit the office is genuine and stands. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Some corrections:

1. The bookcovers were not released by an employee of Wikimedia UK. The meaning of "release" has a specific legal sense of copyright, this is untrue. The alternative use of the word "release" to mean "upload" would also seem untrue as "an employee of WMUK" did not do the upload. This makes the answers to odder's questions 1, 2 and 3 untrue. It is a mystery to me as to why the WMUK Chief Executive (Jon) would want to answer these questions in a way that contradicts previous evidence, and indeed if this were true then the correction to this quarterly report agreed with the FDC would not have been requested by WMUK, nor would Jon now be saying "We did make a mistake".
2. There was no agreement between 'an employee of WMUK' and me. I have explained this earlier on this wiki page in no uncertain terms. If WMUK has evidence of an agreement with me, or even a pre-existing project plan, work schedule or pre-existing email confirming that I was doing these uploads with the support of WMUK, for WMUK, or as part of an agreement with the chapter, please publish it. I have no such record.
3. "The Volunteer" is a human, with a name, much as others have names here, like "Jon" or "Robin". Please do not turn me into an object. Jon, along these lines, it probably would be sensible to avoid painting others here as forces of darkness, while you represent the light "Trying to bring light to a dark, dark world",[1] polarizing discussion this way really does not help, and most people here do notice these types of pointy edit comments.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The work of uploading these files by Fae was done in a very professional manner, and I'm in debt to Fae for his guidance over the last few years with projects such as the NLW and Encyclopaedia Wales. I seldom spend my time in such blogs and discussions as these, which are secondary imho to inspiring others, releasing content, developing wiki and - getting the work done. But the following may clarify the situation:

1. I approached the Welsh Books Council in August 2013 and as a result an email was sent to me with a database of all their books together with an agreement that we could upload for use on the cy Wikipedia. I was at that time an employee of Wikimedia UK. I then sent the attachment to Fae, who responded.

2. Fae's email to me on 10/2/2014 states:

The ISBN appears to be the key thing. Just testing this batch upload, so it will probably run tonight. Do you want this in a particular project sub-category? (paragraph) I will probably name this as a WMUK sponsored Faebot task. On Commons there are WMUK categories showing media uploaded as part of chapter sponsored projects, if you provide a Welsh equivalent name, I'll include it on the files.

3. The work was done by Fae, and it was done well.

To me, that is all that matters. - Robin Owain (WMUK) (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robin, thanks for the clarification.

I used the word "probably" in the email as what was in, or out, of the work being defined as sponsored by WMUK was under discussion that week. "Probably" is not an agreement. The email thread was under "database of 3,500 images" started on 8th Feb through to 11 Feb 2014. My correspondence was with you as a volunteer, not a WMUK employee, as you were using your personal @cymruwales.com, quite distinct from a staff email address, in the same way as Jon above has distinguished edits he makes personally on Wikipedia at a weekend from his day job activities, such as writing here. In my reports to WMUK (which are publicly available at c:User:Faebot/WMUK_report) I was not prepared to retrospectively label uploads as supported by the WMUK kit unless it was properly agreed as part of the WMUK proposal, as later uploads have been. It is an easy distinction to make, and I have stuck to it. I would like WMUK to do the same, and go by my formal reports of progress (which have previously been accepted by the board of WMUK), rather than put me in a compromising position.

I appreciate being thanked for my guidance over the last few years. However, coincidentally, just a few days after raising my request/whistle-blowing alert for the FDC to correct the chapter report here, I have become the first ever past member of the UK registered charity who has not been allowed to pay for my membership, in response to emails from the charity asking me to renew my membership, for reasons that were not raised with me before. It is a shame that unless this decision gets reversed, I will no longer be able to apply for chapter grants, nor vote in chapter elections, nor stand again as a trustee. I guess this means that my guidance for employees such as yourself will no longer be of any value, or welcome, even if the outcomes of my volunteer work still are. --Fæ (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from FDC staff

Dear Wikimedia UK Colleagues:

Thank you for submitting this complete report on time. We appreciated your observations around your challenges and can see that you are working to improve its approaches based on what it is learning. We were also impressed with the amount of content WMUK is enabling through its work, and look forward to your progress.

• Thank you for the clear explanation of how you are understanding your involvement in different types of activities through activity units.
• We appreciate the detailed breakdown of content contributed through your activities, which also include quality ratings and usage rates. WMUK is building a nuanced understanding of how to track and understand these contributions in the context of its work.
• We are interested to learn that WMUK understands grants as an effective way to increase content contributions and look forward to how this approach develops.
• Thank you for sharing your observations about your use of CiviCRM and WikiMetrics to improve your reporting systems. We encourage you to create a learning pattern if you feel this could benefit the broader movement.
• Thank you for sharing initial learnings about some trends in the Wikipedian-in-residence work. We look forward to the more detailed analysis promised in Q2.
• We appreciate your observation around the your work in Ireland that “Choosing a culturally important event for the local community, and being sensitive in how we support them (the political considerations are complex), meant that we were well received and able to deliver a productive edit-a-thon.” We also appreciate your suggested improvements based on the experience in Ghana. We encourage you to share learning patterns around this work as it develops.

Thank you once again and best regards from FDC staff! Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team) talk 23:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated and I will make sure all staff see them. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)