Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2016-2017 round 1/Amical Wikimedia/Impact report form

Impact report feedback

Hello Amical colleagues. First I ask you to forgive me for this very late feedback on this report. @Barcelona: @ÀlexHinojo: As usual here is my feedback on different levels:

Form of the report

Amical's reports are very short and to the point, and are well supplemented by the monthly reports on all activities. They have a good balance of reporting on activities, evaluating challenges and successes as well as points of learning, which is interesting for other organizers throughout the movement to read through.

Metrics/Targets/Results

Amical reports here on two levels. Global metrics, which we have really let go of a few years back, and Grants:Metrics, which are paired with targets outlined in the proposal. Results are as usual impressive, but it is not always clear whether Amical actually uses these metrics to adapt its programs and activities. I would be interested in learning more how you balance the use of grants metrics and your own metrics, present in this report.

As you know, we are not very happy with official metrics. We use repetition rate to measure how please is a partner with our initiatives (if they enjoyed the experience they are more likely to repeat it). We use rate of active users involved in Amical to ensure we don't go appart from projects, as might had happened in other chapters: we are a tool to improve them, not to overlap, and community is always in the centre. We monitor how many active members have to mantain the horizontal model--Barcelona (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Content

Program community

• Amical has a great approach to peer learning and mentorship, which works well in their context.
• Good to read that a new board has been established successfully.

Education and knowledge

• Increase in topics covered is interesting
• Trend towards interest in Wikidata exists across the movement, interesting that this is the case here too.

Core projects

• Bibloiowikis is still a wonder in the movement and an example for all to follow. It would be interesting to think about how to best "export" the expertise, maybe starting with communities that are equivalent in working with close-knit communities (Armenia?)
• PESCAR is also a great project, as said last year and a great way to tackle content gaps.
  • You mention in the report that the level of interest is stagnating. Have you looked at ways to either increase participation again, or at least keep the level of interest? Is this something that you'd be interested in doing or do you think the project has reached "maturity".

    it is a question we must address in near future, we don't think is just a question of maturity, because when we try to reach users, they usually increase their participation.--Barcelona (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• In the learning section you mention Once our presence is ensured, we are moving towards qualitative improvement, internal depth and external incidence (change mentalities). How do you measure qualitative improvement?

Having different activities (not only initial training workshop or editathons) and increasing discourse part--Barcelona (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Finances

The +2 or 3% above budget is, as commented by Amical, an acceptable variance, and has been covered by use of reserves and other revenues.

That's all, thank you for this report. Delphine (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)