User:Tjane Hartenstein (WMDE)/prop2016A
Overview
[edit]1. In order to support community review, please provide a brief description of your organization's work in the upcoming funding period.
Summary
WMDE is applying for 2016 APG funds to assure WMDE’s software development activities for the movement.
This includes:
- Wikidata development: Basic operation, maintenance and the next logical internal and external building blocks of the Wikidata project, along with the development of the next crucial features and tools.
- MediaWiki groundwork: Continue and solidify the groundwork done jointly with the WMF engineering team to further develop the MediaWiki platform, especially as it relates to integration with Wikidata, and to internationally relevant technical requests.
- Community innovation: Continue the successful 2015 focus on community-centered software development, integrating community requests and innovative volunteer developer work into the engineering activities of our staff developers, to create innovative and useful features for the Wikimedia projects.
- Finally, with a view on creating a sustainable foundation for movement software development, we will foster the growth of the volunteer and staff open source software developer community in Germany and support international community networking and collaboration.
This Proposal
With the development of this APG proposal, WMDE has been enabled to venture into somewhat uncharted territory. Instead of our entire annual plan, only Software Development is the subject of our proposal. While the APG funding mechanism and format has been utilized, the resulting funding, if approved, could be considered a restricted grant.
WMDE is at a point in its development where it is not appropriate anymore to request direct movement funding for everything we do. WMDE operates supported by increasingly diversified funding sources. Many activities that take place in Germany or support the organization are now resourced with revenue generated through membership dues or through grants. This is a function of the size of our organization, the diversity of our activities and the monetary support of our members.
Within the logic of WMDE’s internal fund accounting, this year we plan to allocate FDC funding for crucial movement work, namely software development for the movement (e.g. Wikidata), seek restricted external grants for free knowledge work in the German context, and dedicate membership income to supporting groups of German volunteers and their work. While these allocations may shift, mix and match as conditions change, for the upcoming year, we request FDC funds to support Software Development only. Here, we emphasize that the substantial financial base requirements of cost-intensive projects such as Wikidata must be fully secured by international movement funds to assure movement ownership and community review. Growth initiatives may be supported by carefully selected external grants and donations.
We appreciate the opportunity to take the path of restricted funding after close consultation with and encouragement from WMF leadership and FDC staff. We realize that this creates a new situation with regards to the other activities of the organization. We would like to assure the FDC and the community that funds WMDE acquired from external donors will always support movement goals, and are designed to complement the funds from WMF, FDC and our German stakeholders. Given this, WMDE will continue to be fully accountable for all its activities to the movement and our communities. We will report to the FDC, just as to our membership and our Board, along the lines of the WMDE 2016 Annual Compass and Plan, and the targets and metrics outlined in these documents. The details can be found in the program sections of this proposal. The following two sections provide an introduction of WMDE’s overall work and its Software Development program.
WMDE’s 2016 Overall Work (Annual Compass)
Wikimedia Deutschland’s focal points for 2016 have been developed in a participatory, multi-stakeholder process led by our Board of Directors and Executive Director over the summer of 2015. These focal points on three levels of priority form the WMDE 2016 Annual Compass.
At the highest priority level (1), the focal points are:
1.1 Attract and retain new volunteers for Wikimedia projects
1.2 Software Development: Extend Wikidata, implement the community’s needs, and further develop MediaWiki
1.3 Strengthen political and legal work aimed at promoting free knowledge
These three are the 2016 top priorities that will occupy the entire organization, across departments, with maximum allocation of financial and human resources, and with jointly agreed metrics that will indicate whether or not our work has an impact. Not accidentally, these three are also the WMDE activity fields with the highest potential benefit for the Wikimedia movement, beyond Germany. Focal points at the second and third priority levels, while identified as important, pertain largely to strategies, programs and policy work important in the German context, or for the German-speaking communities, or internally for WMDE as an organization. Nevertheless, these activities (OER, community relations, WMDE strategy, work with institutions) all have potential to generate learnings for the movement. They are detailed below in the Non-APG Programs section.
In 2016, Wikimedia Deutschland will increase its contributions to the movement, through shared learning, constructive input into movement deliberations and decision making, and continued leadership for movement activities, such as the annual Wikimedia Conference, peer support and coordination around fundraising and capacity building, and of course, continuing to develop the structured data backbone of the movement, Wikidata.
WMDE 2016 Software Development for the Movement
Software development for the movement, is comprised of Wikidata and complementary activities that are related to MediaWiki and community building. Software development is one of three top level priorities on WMDEs 2016 Annual Compass. In terms of direct impact for the global movement software development is probably the most important of the three WMDE focal points. In the 2016 Annual Plan, focal point 1.2. is detailed as follows:
Focal Point
Software Development: Extend Wikidata, implement the community’s needs, and further develop MediaWiki.
Intended Impact
Create the technological conditions to improve the generation, collection and distribution of free knowledge.
Compass Goals
- Grow Reach of Wikidata into and beyond the Wikimedia projects
- “Article Placeholder” and “Automated List Generation” features have been implemented and are utilized by at least five Wikimedia projects.
- Usage of Wikidata in the Wikimedia projects increases significantly.
- Definition, process and contact persons for data partnerships have been established and published.
- Two data partnerships have been realized and documented.
- Assure sustainability of Wikidata through through continued improvement of data quality and through nurturing community health.
- Quality of items increases significantly.
- Number of Mentees increases to six.
- Assure adaptive capacity of software development to enable innovation as well as community responsiveness, and to ensure the viability of the Wikimedia projects.
- Community requests are responded to in a timely manner and appropriate manner. There are no complaints from the community around timely response to technical requests.
- Status of community requests is transparent and public.
- Six success stories are published.
In the APG-funded Program section below, Software Development will be presented in great detail, outlining goals and objectives as well as metrics - how we plan to measure success and make data-driven decisions along the way.
2. Name, fiscal year, and funding period.
- Legal name of organization: Wikimedia Deutschland
- Organization's fiscal year (mm/dd–mm/dd): 1/1-31/12
- 12-month funding period requested (mm/dd/yy–mm/dd/yy): 01/01/16 -31/12/16
- Currency requested: Euro
- Name of primary contact: Nikki Zeuner
3. Amount requested.
Given the importance of Wikidata, and of WMDE’s Berlin office as a movement hub for software development, since spring of 2015, WMDE and WMF have been working on the development of a plan for the future of Wikidata. Since the details of the plan are not finalized, and the subsequent budget for growing Wikidata has not been determined yet, the cost could not be incorporated into the 2015/16 WMF budget in a timely manner.
Consequently, in July 2015 WMDE executive staff was asked by WMF leadership to apply for 2016 funding with the FDC to assure the continuation of basic Wikidata operations until the growth strategy has been finalized. As a result, the amount requested here differs from the amount in the original letter of intent submitted July 1st.
WMDE is asking for €1.5 M in APG funds, which will assure the basic operation of Wikidata and related development activities for 2016. As the WMF/WMDE planning process for the collaborative, long-term growth strategy of Wikidata progresses, the mix of revenue sources for the project beyond 2016 will also be clarified.
Table 1: Amount requested
| Currency requested (EUR) | US$ | |
|---|---|---|
| Total annual expenses of organization projected in the upcoming year | 6,200,595 € | $6,955,765.47 |
| APG funding requested for the upcoming year's annual plan | 1,500,000 € | $1,682,685.00 |
| Amount of funding received from WMF for last year's annual plan | 840,000 € | $942,303.60 |
4. How does your organization know what community members / contributors to online projects need or want? Does your organization conduct needs assessments or consult the contributors and volunteers most involved with its work?
WMDE places emphasis on community participation throughout all programs, projects and strategy developments. This is reflected in the process with which the Annual Compass was developed: During the first phase, community members were asked to develop on-wiki questions and answers, based on the existing work of the organization. Some of the initial questions were prepared by the WMDE Board, but most questions and answers came in from community members. The contributions and the lively discussion that ensued (in German) can be seen here. During the second phase, board and staff met for a retreat to jointly develop the focal points. A significant portion of the retreat was dedicated to reviewing and discussing the questions and answers provided by the community, which then were incorporated into the priorities. During the third phase, community was asked to suggest activities for each of the focal points. Many excellent ideas are documented here. In summary, we received 200 contributions, including 16 concrete suggestions. In 2016, we hope to repeat and improve the process, with the target of doubling the amount of contributions and contributors (see the Program section below under focal point 2.1.).
Community participation is also emphasized as content in the Annual Compass, which lists improving the relationship between the organization and the communities as one of the priorities. Activities here will include jointly developing and testing promising practices in volunteer engagement, and making them available to all staff and volunteers.
Our community has recently been expanded through the development of a major new sub-community: Wikidata editors, users and developers. The program section below discusses in detail how WMDE involves these community members into the core processes of developing software.
Finally, we are considering to conduct major editor and community surveys in late 2015 or beginning of 2016. These surveys would be targeted at community members, existing editors, and potentially also readers of Wikipedia, and are aimed to inform our 2016 strategies for editor activation and editor retention (WMDE top priority for 2016). Based on former Wikimedia surveys like e.g. the surveys conducted by WMNL recently, they can cover topics as community health, satisfaction with WMDE support, promising editor retention factors and entry barriers for new volunteers.
5. Please provide a link to your organization's strategic plan and separate annual plans for the current and/or proposed funding period, if you have them. A strategic plan is required.
2016 Annual Plan (German, English version not yet published)
Financials: current funding period
[edit]Table 2: revenues and expenditures WMDE/WMFG 2015
| Financial Information | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXPENDITURES | |||||||||||||
| APG expenses | Q1 expenditures | Q2 expenditures | Q3 expenditures | Q4 expenditures | |||||||||
| cost unit | line item | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | Cumulative | Cumulative in USD | Percentage spent do date | Explanation of variances from plan |
| Software Development | |||||||||||||
| 101/102 | Program Coordination/Internal Meetings | 5,542 € | 35,893 € | 16,261 € | 49,944 € | 6,973 € | 35,106 € | 149,719 € | $167,135 | 77.23% | |||
| 104 | Vacation (project-employees) | - | 25,294 € | - | 10,866 € | - | 21,068 € | 57,228 € | $63,884 | 86.09% | |||
| 105 | Sick (project-employees) | - | 8,496 € | - | 5,596 € | - | 4,498 € | 18,590 € | $20,752 | 86.09% | |||
| 219-221 | Info Camp/Ent Con/Game Jam | 0 € | 6,312 € | 507 € | 11,387 € | 5,716 € | 8,811 € | 32,733 € | $36,541 | 66.33% | |||
| 222 | Communication Networks | 0 € | 1,641 € | 2,314 € | 3,437 € | 1,480 € | 2,886 € | 11,758 € | $13,126 | 92.94% | |||
| 223 | Communication Communities | 258 € | 4,152 € | 1,501 € | 5,657 € | 3,291 € | 1,294 € | 16,153 € | $18,032 | 91.97% | |||
| 224 | Technical Requests | 0 € | 14,717 € | 0 € | 24,922 € | 0 € | 31,365 € | 70,995 € | $79,253 | 86.09% | |||
| 225 | Internal Projects of WMDE | 0 € | 3,306 € | 0 € | 13,486 € | 0 € | 18,611 € | 35,402 € | $39,520 | 86.09% | |||
| 55100 | Wikidata | 4,101 € | 117,632 € | 18,135 € | 111,741 € | 6,492 € | 70,424 € | 328,525 € | $366,740 | 94.34% | |||
| Lump Sum Project Department | 144,221 € | $160,997 | |||||||||||
| Total | 9,901 € | 217,443 € | 38,718 € | 237,037 € | 23,952 € | 194,053 € | 0 € | 0 € | 865,325 € | $965,980 | |||
| Non APG expenses | Q1 expenditures | Q2 expenditures | Q3 expenditures | Q4 expenditures | |||||||||
| cost unit | line item | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | Cumulative | Cumulative in USD | Percentage spent do date | Explanation of variances from plan |
| 101/102 | Program Coordination/Internal Meetings | 4,819 € | 32,553 € | 3,197 € | 36,396 € | 96 € | 16,852 € | 93,913 € | $104,837 | 98.50% | |||
| 104 | Vacation | - | 35,337 € | - | 24,600 € | - | 13,737 € | 73,674 € | $82,244 | 102.54% | |||
| 105 | Sick | - | 14,428 € | - | 12,156 € | - | 2,449 € | 29,033 € | $32,411 | 102.54% | |||
| 132 | Wikimedia Conference | 1,317 € | 10,024 € | 72,877 € | 18,736 € | - | 5,300 € | 108,253 € | $120,845 | 101.86% | |||
| 201 | ABC des Freien Wissens (Event Series) | 2,055 € | 3,393 € | 3,693 € | 4,221 € | 2,206 € | 1,339 € | 16,907 € | $18,874 | 93.59% | |||
| 202 | Beratungsmodule | 841 € | 3,305 € | 1,328 € | 5,596 € | 161 € | 3,200 € | 14,430 € | $16,109 | 44.45% | |||
| 203 | Open Education Alliance | 763 € | 5,094 € | 214 € | 0 € | 0 € | 511 € | 6,582 € | $7,348 | 54.25% | |||
| 204 | Coding da Vinci | 20,000 € | 6,332 € | 1,790 € | 6,343 € | 254 € | 3,782 € | 38,501 € | $42,980 | 126.72% | |||
| 205 | Tools for Volunteers | 0 € | 222 € | 0 € | 0 € | 0 € | 0 € | 222 € | $247 | 102.54% | |||
| 206 | Glam on Tour | 4,772 € | 2,707 € | 811 € | 1,466 € | 324 € | 496 € | 10,576 € | $11,807 | 49.84% | |||
| 207 | Development of Materials | 19 € | 3,556 € | 8,333 € | 1,997 € | 4,284 € | 2,069 € | 20,258 € | $22,615 | 73.85% | |||
| 208 | Open Science Project | 300 € | 8,469 € | 630 € | 6,929 € | 0 € | 5,450 € | 21,777 € | $24,310 | 58.86% | |||
| 209 | Monsters of Law | 91 € | 707 € | 125 € | 1,650 € | 0 € | 0 € | 2,573 € | $2,872 | 86.77% | |||
| 210 | OER Project | 221 € | 15,829 € | 455 € | 0 € | 2,083 € | 0 € | 18,588 € | $20,751 | 99.03% | |||
| 211 | WikiCon | 0 € | 1,845 € | 1,120 € | 1,018 € | 296 € | 522 € | 4,801 € | $5,359 | 145.44% | |||
| 213 | Volunteer Support | 37,393 € | 18,205 € | 30,826 € | 20,789 € | 26,262 € | 11,375 € | 144,850 € | $161,699 | 125.10% | |||
| 214 | Development | 90 € | 1,684 € | 11,946 € | 1,990 € | 245 € | 0 € | 15,954 € | $17,810 | 94.32% | |||
| 215 | Community Events | 0 € | 0 € | 73 € | 90 € | 5,137 € | 0 € | 5,300 € | $5,916 | 11.34% | |||
| 216 | Large Community Projects | 8,091 € | 70 € | 2,320 € | 69 € | 7,394 € | 0 € | 17,944 € | $20,032 | 10.76% | |||
| 217 | Local Community Spaces Active | 8,813 € | 225 € | 8,141 € | 0 € | 5,246 € | 0 € | 22,425 € | $25,034 | 55.76% | |||
| 218 | Local Community Spaces Development | 730 € | 0 € | 1,831 € | 283 € | 229 € | 0 € | 3,073 € | $3,430 | 1113.46% | |||
| 226 | Free Knowledge Advocacy Group | 7,312 € | 0 € | 0 € | 0 € | 0 € | 0 € | 7,312 € | $8,163 | ||||
| 227 | Mapping OER | 0 € | 0 € | 8,858 € | 37,746 € | 41,005 € | 29,296 € | 116,905 € | $130,503 | 101.44% | |||
| Total | 97,627 € | 163,984 € | 158,568 € | 182,074 € | 95,222 € | 96,377 € | 0 € | 0 € | 793,852 € | $886,193 | |||
| Administrative and Program Support Cost | Q1 expenditures | Q2 expenditures | Q3 expenditures | Q4 expenditures | |||||||||
| cost unit | line item | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | nonpersonnel-costs | personnel-costs | Cumulative | Cumulative in USD | Percentage spent do date | Explanation of variances from plan |
| Administration | |||||||||||||
| Board, ED, Operations, HR, IT | 159,170 € | 126,174 € | 204,027 € | 152,039 € | 132,725 € | 83,897 € | 858,032 € | $957,839 | 88.58% | ||||
| Expenses 2014, paid in 2015 | 32,634 € | - | - | - | - | - | 32,634 € | $36,430 | |||||
| Program Support | |||||||||||||
| Communication | 24,098 € | 43,444 € | 38,182 € | 39,411 € | 14,365 € | 36,184 € | 195,683 € | $218,445 | 75.70% | ||||
| Partnerships und Development | 2,900 € | 42,051 € | 2,298 € | 56,664 € | 726 € | 32,446 € | 137,085 € | $153,031 | 79.11% | ||||
| Event Management | - | 13,599 € | 5,065 € | 12,110 € | 2,028 € | 16,885 € | 49,687 € | $55,467 | 89.89% | ||||
| Total | 218,802 € | 225,268 € | 249,572 € | 260,224 € | 149,844 € | 169,412 € | 1,273,122 € | $1,421,213 | |||||
| REVENUES | |||||||||||||
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Cumulative | Cumulative in USD | Percentage spent do date | Explanation of variances from plan | ||||||
| Anticipated | |||||||||||||
| Donations | 2,150,000 € | 2,002,590 € | 124,499 € | - | 2,127,089 € | $2,374,513 | 98.93% | ||||||
| APG Grant | 840,000 € | 840,000 € | - | - | 840,000 € | $937,709 | 100.00% | ||||||
| Membership fees | 1,100,000 € | 598,776 € | 294,124 € | 122,596 € | 106,305 € | 1,121,801 € | $1,252,289 | 101.98% | |||||
| Contracts | 500,000 € | - | 106,473 € | 76,503 € | 182,976 € | $204,260 | 36.60% | ||||||
| Carry-over | 30,000 € | 30,000 € | - | - | 30,000 € | $33,490 | 100.00% | ||||||
| Other Revenues | 100,000 € | 42,328 € | 5,836 € | 11,537 € | 59,701 € | $66,645 | 59.70% | ||||||
| Fundraising lump sum | 150,000 € | 75,000 € | - | 75,000 € | 150,000 € | $167,448 | 100.00% | ||||||
| Wikimedia Conference | 100,000 € | - | 108,882 € | - | 108,882 € | $121,547 | 108.88% | ||||||
| Total | 4,970,000 € | 3,588,694 € | 639,814 € | 285,636 € | 106,305 € | 4,620,449 € | $5,157,902 | ||||||
| Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft | |||||||||||||
| REVENUES | |||||||||||||
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Cumulative | Cumulative in USD | Percentage spent do date | Explanation of variances from plan | ||||||
| Anticipated | |||||||||||||
| Donations within the Fundraising Agreement (carry-over 2014) | 6,602,173 € | 6,602,173 € | - | - | 6,602,173 € | $7,370,142 | 100.00% | ||||||
| Donations for WMDE (carry-over 2014) | 1,718,145 € | 1,718,145 € | - | - | 1,718,145 € | $1,918,001 | 100.00% | ||||||
| Donations within the Fundraising Agreement (first term 2015) | 1,340,832 € | 726,829 € | 336,608 € | - | 1,063,437 € | $1,187,137 | 79.31% | ||||||
| Donations for WMDE (first term 2015) | 434,852 € | 284,445 € | 124,499 € | - | 408,944 € | $456,513 | 94.04% | ||||||
| Donations within the Fundraising Agreement (second term 2015) | 7,629,463 € | - | - | 113,827 € | 113,827 € | $127,067 | 1.49% | ||||||
| Donations for WMDE (second term 2015) | 1,907,366 € | - | - | 28,421 € | 28,421 € | $31,727 | 1.49% | ||||||
| Interests | 20,000 € | 6,684 € | 1,164 € | - | 7,848 € | $8,761 | 39.24% | ||||||
| Total | 19,652,831 € | 9,338,276 € | 462,271 € | 142,248 € | 0€ | 9,942,795 € | $11,099,347 | ||||||
| EXPENDITURES | |||||||||||||
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Cumulative | Cumulative in USD | Percentage spent do date | Explanation of variances from plan | ||||||
| Anticipated | |||||||||||||
| Transfer of Donations to WMDE on January 1st | 1,718,145 € | 1,718,145 € | - | - | 1,718,145 € | $1,918,001 | 100.00% | ||||||
| Transfer of Donations to WMDE on September 1st | 434,852 € | 284,445 € | - | 124,499 € | 408,944 € | $456,513 | 94.04% | ||||||
| Transfer of Donations to WMF on January 1st | 4,862,173 € | 4,862,173 € | - | - | 4,862,173 € | $5,427,744 | 100.00% | ||||||
| Transfer of Donations to WMF on September 1st | 1,340,832 € | 726,829 € | 336,608 € | - | 1,063,437 € | $1,187,137 | 79.31% | ||||||
| Transfer of FDC funds to WMDE | 840,000 € | 840,000 € | - | - | 840,000 € | $937,709 | 100.00% | ||||||
| personnel-costs | 306,000 € | 46,969 € | 62,158 € | 29,715 € | 138,842 € | $154,992 | 45.37% | ||||||
| nonpersonnel-costs | 444,000 € | 59,248 € | 165,358 € | 13,735 € | 238,341 € | $266,065 | 53.68% | ||||||
| Lump Sum transfer to WMDE | 150,000 € | 75,000 € | - | 75,000 € | 150,000 € | $167,448 | 100.00% | ||||||
| Transfer of donations for WMDE 2016 | 1,927,366 € | - | - | 28,421 € | 28,421 € | $31,727 | 1.47% | ||||||
| Transfer of donations for WMF 2016 | 7,629,463 € | - | - | 113,827 € | 113,827 € | $127,067 | 1.49% | ||||||
| Total | 19,652,831 € | 8,612,809 € | 564,124 € | 385,197 € | 0€ | 9,562,130 € | $10,674,403 | ||||||
Programs: upcoming year's annual plan
[edit]APG-funded program: Software Development for the Wikimedia movement
[edit]
1. Global metrics
[edit]WMDE appreciates the thought and work that went into developing shared evaluation structures and capacities for the movement. In the past two years, Global Metrics have been introduced and tested as a means to evaluate the impact of APG program activities on Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, and on the strategic goals related to content and participation. We share the view that a vital base of contributors and a constant improvement in content is crucial for our mission and the viability of the Wikimedia projects. In response to the fact that Global Metrics are not easily transferrable to technical projects such as Wikidata and the associated software development processes, conversations around measuring technology projects such as Wikidata have started recently.
As a result, WMDE has been working to expand the shared metrics approach to our software development program and its impact. This was recently reflected in our progress report. Aligned with the data that was shown there, for the purposes of this proposal, we show a set of general Wikidata metrics which focus (1) on editors, (2) Wikidata content (quantity & quality) and (3) the usage of Wikidata’s data in its sister projects. Many of Wikidata’s central key performance measures are already monitored by WMDE via tools and report cards (pls. see table below), while others, e.g. usage metrics for Wikidata uses by external entities, will have to be developed in 2016 and beyond.
| General Wikidata Metrics/KPIs | |
|---|---|
| Editors | |
| Metric | Baseline 06/2015 |
| editors (1+/ 30 days) | 15,074 |
| active editors (5+/ 30 days) | 6,005 |
| very active editors (100+/ 30 days) | 915 |
| new active editors (10th edit threshold, 01-05/2015) | 733 / month (average, 01-06/2015) |
| Content | |
| Metric | Baseline 06/2015 |
| # of Wikidata pages (item pages, discussion pages, property pages etc.) | 18,284,555 |
| # of Wikidata items | 17,880,164 |
| # of statements (total) | 65,993,797 |
| # of Wikidata items with referenced statements | 10,017,235 |
| # of edits (total) | 227,708,671 |
| # of new edits per quarter | ~ 1.8M in Q1 / ~ 2.1M in Q2 |
| Usage | |
| Metric | Baseline |
| # of data uses from Wikidata in WM projects | ~ 153M (total, by 08/2015) |
The metrics in the table above are overall project KPIs, and are not directly related to specific activities. They reflect the overall growth of the project and the size of the community. They are not associated with specific targets. Nevertheless, based on the observed changes in 2015, we expect an overall growth of more than 10% in 2016 for most of these metrics. WMDE constantly monitors the KPIs and shares them with the public and the community via a dashboard, reviewing and analyzing the performance on a quarterly basis. WMDE’s Software Development Team and communities then adjust and align Wikidata-related activities based on the analysis. This is accomplished using the principles of agile planning.
2. Program metrics
[edit]In addition to the KPIs above, each goal in the section below is measured with a set of metrics that fall under three types: Milestones, indicators and targets.
Developing and improving software tools and features is not comparable to holding an edit-a-thon or a photo competition. Often the direct impact of an activity cannot be measured using standard means and tools, and a correlation between the activity and a growth in users or content is difficult to prove. Annual targets are in some cases not appropriate, or can only be developed as an activity moves out of the experimental phase and begins to show an impact, which may or may not back up the initial theory of change. This is consistent with the processes that both WMF and WMDE utilize for software development.
Similar to the WMF Engineering Department, WMDE’s planning and monitoring of software development for the Wikimedia movement is done using the well-known principles and processes of agile development. For the organisation-wide planning process, WMDE starts with annual goals (as described in the WMDE Annual Plan and in detail in this proposal). The Software Development Department, however, works with much shorter planning, monitoring and iteration cycles than other programs that are based on annual plans. In agile development, the Scrum flow turns planning and implementation into ONE process, with constant iteration (sprints), incrementation and improvisation of the WHAT, while using highly structured work processes organizing the HOW. Starting from the annual goals, the development teams break the work down into concrete action items, milestones, deliverables and metrics for the next quarter. Supported by the Scrum master and the product manager, the teams conduct quarterly reviews, and then work on the adjustment and next steps of planning and prioritization, based on data and learnings gathered from the previous quarter. Then the teams move on to the next sprint. This highly structured process also allows us to quickly integrate user/community feedback on each iteration. While always keeping the annual goals in mind, it often becomes necessary to react to circumstances, changing requirements, opportunities presented by the movement, or changes in the software environment, which then leads to a re-prioritization and modification of targets, metrics and deliverables. The environmental variables and changing requirements that impact the work can be external (such as the Google data donation), or internal (such as sudden resource limitations at WMF engineering), or community-triggered (such as specific user feedback). In 2016, just as the WMF engineering team, WMDE will share quarterly reviews and metrics, including the analysis and resulting changes, with the FDC and the public.
With these processes and principles of agile development in mind, and in order to report to the FDC and our other stakeholders, we have developed the three categories of metrics mentioned above: Milestones, targets and indicators. Milestones (often represented as qualitative targets in the APG context) are necessary process steps that are a pre-condition of moving the needle on participation, content and usage. This could be the first iteration of a feature or tool, or the establishment of capacity, or the development of a process. Indicators are metrics that are assumed to be of importance when measuring the output or outcome of an activity or a tool. We do not know target values yet, however, because the quantitative impact is still unknown, based on theory, and subject to a large number of variables, such as community acceptance and other external factors. Additional indicators may be added as we go through agile development cycles. Targets are indicators that already have a value assigned to them, and that we will be striving to reach or exceed. Some indicators may be moved up into the target category, as we find out more about the impact of our activities after a few iterative cycles, and are better able to predict the scale of outcomes.
3. Program description
[edit]Program story
[edit]The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland jointly launched Wikidata in October of 2012. The functionality of Wikidata.org has since been expanded from initially only managing the connections between Wikipedia articles in different languages (called interlanguage links) to supporting structured “statements” describing the items in Wikidata, to new data types like geographic coordinates.
In addition to the software that powers Wikidata.org, the team in Germany has also developed basic integration support for Wikimedia projects interfacing with Wikidata. Information from Wikidata associated with a given Wikipedia article, for example, can be accessed from within templates and Lua scripts. Relevant content from Wikimedia sister projects is shown in the sidebar via Wikidata.
Since its launch, the Wikidata community has grown continuously, numbering over 6.000 human active editors (5+ edits) as of August 2015. In addition, there are 184 bot accounts, the 50 most active of which have contributed a total of 193.2M edits. Human-operated editing and contribution tools, primarily the ones created by Magnus Manske in Wikimedia Labs, have been used for more than 25 million edits.
The development of Wikidata could not have come at a more crucial point in the history of the Internet. Since Google’s and Microsoft’s early efforts, knowledge graphs and machine learning have become integral to all next-generation user experiences developed by the major commercial players. The development of an open community around data and algorithms provides a true alternative to these proprietary approaches. It is without a doubt a necessary, if not sufficient, precondition for a future where the augmentation of the human intellect is not tied to any single corporation, but it itself an open, collaborative effort in the spirit of Wikipedia.
However, much work remains to be done for Wikidata to reach its full potential. In order to strategically develop the project, it is essential for Wikimedia Deutschland and the Wikimedia Foundation to continuously look beyond the engineering aspect and consider community, content, operative, and environmental aspects as well. For this long-term, strategic and collaborative approach, WMF and WMDE are currently engaged in a planning process. This work is ongoing, and we anticipate, based on conversations between leadership, that the financing of the next few years of Wikidata will be established through this planning process in time for the WMF 2015/16 fiscal year. Until then, to keep the project going, WMF has asked that the FDC continue to provide the APG as bridge funding. The following goals describe how WMDE views the development of the product for the year 2016, however, the long-term sustainability perspective applies to all proposed goals and objectives.
Goals, objectives and targets
[edit]Goal 1a: Grow reach of Wikidata into the Wikimedia projects
[edit]Story
Wikidata’s first and foremost function is to provide a structured data backbone for the Wikimedia projects. Despite all the interest from entities external to the movement, in 2016 WMDE Software Development will continue to put a strong focus on making Wikidata even more meaningful, useful and utilized by Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and other sister projects. Our strategy here lies in continued development of the project’s usability and in offering useful features. These features are aimed at making contributions to the Wikimedia projects easier and the process of editing an amazing and rewarding experience.
In 2015, the team started redesigning Wikidata's user interface to make it more appealing to a wider audience beyond the core Wikidata admin group. In 2016, we will continue to evolve the user interface based on results of usability testing, user feedback and trends in our larger ecosystem.
Another area of focus is Wikimedia Commons, which, through support by Wikidata, has the potential to be more useful and usable for more people. Commons needs structured data as a foundation in order to continue to grow, and to be useful and usable to the communities. In 2015, the Wikidata development team and the WMF Multimedia team started working on improving Wikimedia Commons' infrastructure by providing it with structured data support. In 2016, we will continue to allocate resources to working on issues related to Commons, such as making it possible to store metadata about files on Commons. Here, the work of WMDE developers relies heavily on the capacities of the WMF Multimedia Team, which have been limited in 2015, leading to delays.
Given these caveats, the plan is to make a demo-system available to the Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata communities for testing and feedback. Details are subject to the collaborative work of both teams.The end result will be a good technical foundation to store metadata related to multimedia files in a structured and machine-readable way. This will allow many future innovations such as multilingual search and display of file information, easier, license-compliant re-use of our content and a richer multimedia experience on Wikipedia.
In addition, the Wikidata product team will work on specific tools and features that increase the usefulness of Wikidata for Wikimedia sister projects and the number of volunteers contributing to them. These features are (1) the article placeholder which was chosen because of its immediate significant impact on boosting content in small Wikipedias, and (2) an automated list generator, which has been on the agenda since the early days of the project, but could not be addressed until the query service feature had been completed.
Smaller Wikipedias that still have a low number of articles struggle to provide their readers with the information they are searching for because the project lacks sufficient numbers of volunteers to create articles. The article placeholder can help those projects. When searching for a concept that is not covered by an article on the Wikipedia, the reader will be shown a quick overview which displays facts from the connected Wikidata page. This overview will be identified as not generated by a human. It is anticipated that it encourages the readers to write a Wikipedia article or to translate an existing Wikipedia article. The article placeholder extension will therefore suggest making use of the content translation tool. Outcomes we hope to trigger with this tool start with a significant number of projects choosing to use the extension, and, as a result, the facilitation of adding additional articles in the smaller Wikipedias. In the long run, we hope that this will attract new editors, increase page views in the smaller Wikipedias, and decrease the number of missing articles and stubs in all projects. Ultimately, readers and users will have access to more data-based, reliable knowledge.
The automated list generator addresses the fact that currently, a large number of lists on Wikipedia are generated and maintained by hand. Editors can be supported by automated list creation based on data from Wikidata in reducing their workload and keeping lists up-to-date across all our projects.
By developing these features, combined with our participatory software development approach (see Goal 3), we aim to significantly increase the instances of data uses from Wikidata by Wikimedia projects (see KPI under Program Metrics above). This includes basic information provided by Wikidata if an article does not exist in a certain Wikipedia, new articles created based on basic data from Wikidata, Wikipedia lists based on and updated by Wikidata, as well as templates and info boxes using data from Wikidata. Ultimately, these uses will facilitate the work of volunteer editors, improve and increase content, and contribute to the viability of the projects.
Objective 1: By end of 2016, encourage and support new article creation in minimum five (smaller) Wikipedias through providing an article placeholder extension (AP) based on Wikidata.
Milestones  |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Refinement and further roll-out of the article placeholder extension until end of Q3 |
Targets  |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| At least five Wikimedia projects actively use article placeholder extension by end of 2016 | Dependent on community decision |
Important Indicators / Metrics  |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Number of articles created or translated after article placeholder was displayed (in WM projects using article placeholder extension) | We will closely observe whether the article placeholder leads to creation or translation of a significant number of articles. (ability to track this metric can potentially be disabled by the local communities --> potentially leading to underestimating total amount). |
| Increase of page views in (smaller) Wikipedias (if AP is used) | We will closely observe whether AP use has a positive impact on page views in the respective Wikipedias. |
| Decrease in stubs in bigger Wikipedias (if AP is used) | We will closely observe, which impact AP use has on the number of stubs in a Wikipedia. |
| Increase in # of new editors in (smaller) Wikipedias (if AP is used) | We will closely observe, if AP use has a positive effect on editor activation (e.g. by comparing # of new editors in several smaller Wikipedias with or w/o AP use, or by observing a significant increase of active editors in several smaller Wikipedias after they have enabled AP). |
Objective 2: By end of 2016, facilitate easy editing in minimum five Wikipedias through providing an automated list generation feature based on Wikidata.
| Milestones |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Provision of an automated list generation feature until Q4/2016 at the latest |
| Targets |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Automated list generation feature is used in at least five Wikimedia projects | Dependent on community decision |
| Important Indicators / Metrics |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Number of Wikidata generated lists in Wikimedia projects | Metric has to be technically developed in 2016. Once established, it will become a part of the "Wikidata usage" KPIs and will be continuously monitored |
Goal 1b: Grow the reach of Wikidata beyond the Wikimedia projects
[edit]Story
Data from external sources will become increasingly important as Wikidata grows. Data donations enrich not just Wikidata, but are then also available to generate more content in Wikimedia sister projects. From the external perspective, WMDE has the opportunity to grow Wikidata’s reach, relevance and usability for partners and institutions beyond the Wikimedia projects. Wikidata has already proven to be of central importance to volunteers and organizations working with Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums (GLAMs). Community-led efforts such as the “Sum of all Paintings” project are actively working to create schemas useful for GLAMs and to import relevant data. Europeana, a consortium of European GLAMs, has been especially engaged with the Wikidata community. In a post on the Europeana blog, Wikidata was identified as being of central importance to the GLAM sector.
Beyond GLAMs, the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland have both received interest from a large number of organizations and governments involved in the open data community. And many times, data imports proceed without either organizations’ active involvement, because Wikidata is an open community.
Given the strong interest from external entities and the clear benefits to our products and our projects, it is important that we build the capacity to accommodate partnerships and the resulting data donations. However, the what and the how is crucial, as our recent experience shows.
In late 2014, Google discontinued its Freebase database in favor of Wikidata. This meant that Wikidata received a large data donation without being able to plan for the integration, processing and quality control of the data. The data itself and the accompanying publicity was a blessing. The shutdown of Freebase certainly was a victory for Wikidata and the open data community. However, migrating the Freebase data into Wikidata and coping with the resulting work continues to be a major challenge for our volunteer editors and our team. Other activities had to be delayed in order to plan and resource the migration, assure the overall quality of data in Wikidata, and maintain user trust.
From this experience we learned that for the future, we will need extra capacity to nimbly respond to data ‘donations’, as well as a solid process that allows us to develop and implement data partnerships based on set criteria. Data criteria will most likely include: Reliability, trustworthiness, up-to-dateness, ability to reference, relevance, likeliness to be used (in Wikimedia projects), and the existence of champions and long-term curators. Specific criteria for partnerships will be developed in more detail with the community, but the most important ones are ability and willingness to work with the Wikidata community in planning and throughout the data migration processes.
In addition to a process with transparent criteria, staff capacity at the Berlin office will be allocated to handle data partnerships. A designated point person will be responsible for processing requests, handling negotiations, planning data contributions and implementing data donation projects in close coordination with the community and collaboration with WMFs engineering and advancement teams. Depending on the nature of a data partnership, development may be as simple as working with the community to create a bot, or it may require the creation of new curation tools, new data types, new visualizations, new user interfaces, or new infrastructure.
While working on our capacity to handle data partnerships, we will improve the technical conditions for receiving data and making it usable: Unit conversion provides an increase in possible uses of Wikidata’s data for its users within Wikimedia projects and outside. For example, the height of a mountain and other measurements can be entered in Wikidata using the unit given in the original source of the data point. However, to be able to meaningfully query all this data and generate a list of the ten highest mountains, these data points need to be converted to a base unit. We will make this possible and provide access to converted data via Wikidata Query Service.
Improving the user interface (see also Goal 1) will remove barriers to participation that currently exist for new contributors, including those who bring and curate new data sets into Wikidata. The current user interface is complicated, highly technical, and thus only accessible to a limited group of skilled and persistent volunteer editors. New editors often fail to engage because the user interface is hard to master and unattractive to look at. Through improving the user interface further, we will open the project to a larger group of potential editors with lower entry skills and valuable data donations.
With a transparent process, improved technical conditions, and a Berlin-based responsible point persons in place by the end of 2016, we are confident that we can accommodate valuable data donations in a more controlled manner, and add to our learning on how to grow Wikidata while maintaining quality, trust and meaningful long-term partnerships. Our 2016 metrics here are not focused on the number of data partnerships, but rather on quality and a well implemented migration and integration process.
Objective 1: Publish a transparent process and dedicated key contact persons for establishing data partnerships between Wikidata and external partners.
| Milestones |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Process and key contacts for data partnerships published by end of Q1 |
Objective 2: Establish at least two new data partnerships of high quality/ relevance between external partners and Wikidata and document them for the movement.
| Milestones |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Publish two success stories about successful data partnerships in 2016 |
| Targets |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| At least two new data partnerships of high quality/relevance are established in 2016 | high quality, relevance (see indicator below) is more important than the number of partnerships. |
| Important Indicators/Metrics* |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Quality/relevance of a data partnership (qualitative analysis) | Quality of a data partnership is defined by ongoing involvement of partner with Wikidata, absence of negative side effects for Wikidata's data quality, and a meaningful cooperation with the Wikidata community. Relevance can e.g. be determined by the general importance of the data (or work) contributed by a potential data partner. |
| *Additional software analytics to monitor data accesses of external entities to Wikidata will become important ‘use metrics’ in the future, but they require substantial development efforts of both WMDE and WMF development teams. Projected timeline: starting development Q3/2016 at the earliest. | |
Goal 2a: Build sustainable trust in Wikidata through continued improvement of data quality
[edit]Story
Data quality in Wikidata is measured by the following criteria: Data is useful, complete and referenced. Data quality is important to maintain the trust of users inside and outside of the Wikimedia projects. In 2016, we will take a more strategic approach to data quality monitoring and improvement.
In 2015, our main metric to measure quality has been the number and percentage of statements that had external, non-wiki references. We made great strides in moving this indicator up. The recent increase is the result of targeted groundwork activities carried out in 2015 and beyond. We will continue to increase and monitor the percentage of referenced statements. Nevertheless, by end of 2016 this metric will probably reach its ceiling and other quality markers will become more and more important instead. So we are planning ahead:
In order to make monitoring and addressing data quality a public process and allow users and editors to participate and take ownership, we will implement the Wikidata dashboard in 2016. Indicators reflected there may include a variety of metrics regarding references (referenced statements by type, referenced statements to Wikipedia by type, referenced statements to other sources by type, references by type), regarding statements (statement ranks, statements per item) and item metrics (labels per item, descriptions per item, wikilinks per item). The dashboard may be similar to the prototype displayed in the picture on the right.
.PNG)
Every day, the development team and the volunteer editors conduct a large variety of activities aimed at increasing data quality, and the dashboard will show how effective they are. Wikidata communities and staff will use it to recognize problems and respond accordingly, informed by the use of additional monitoring tools. As successfully practiced in other Wikimedia projects, we would like to move Wikidata to a point where contributors (staff and volunteers) are enabled to make data-based decisions to address quality issues with the dashboard. The anticipated outcome is for the dashboard to show that the level of data quality is high and continuously improving, and as a result remove some users’ negative perceptions around data quality. Trust in quality is increased with Wikimedia sister projects. The mid-term outcomes are measured by instances of Wikidata uses in WM projects (see also Goal 1).
One of the quality markers monitored by the dashboard will be the average rate for number of statements per item. Complex items (for example, Q183, Germany) require a large amount of statements to be described well. While this is not true for all items, the average rate does indicate quality, because it points at how rich the data for the average item is at any given time. In 2016, we will focus on increasing this rate through adding data types. Data types are determining which kinds of data can be entered and stored in Wikidata. We will improve the user experience around the input of the existing data types and add new data types. This could for example be a new data type for identifying concepts by their URI, formulas, multilingual text or geoshapes. Which ones will be focused on will be determined throughout the year, based on requests from the community and on necessities for developing additional features.
Objective 1: Establish a dashboard of different markers/ metrics for data quality in Wikidata and make it broadly accessible for the WM editing communities.
| Milestones |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| A basic version of a data quality dashboard is available by end of Q2, further refinement until end of Q4 | The online real-time dashboard will combine different metrics for data quality in Wikidata and other KPIs regarding Wikidata’s content and editor base. |
| Promoting the dashboard with the editing communities |
Objective 2: In 2016, further increase the proportion of Wikidata statements with a non-Wikimedia reference in order to ensure high data quality.
| Important Indicators/Metrics* |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| % of Wikidata statements with a non-Wikimedia reference as of a given month | Wikidata KPI, no target. Baseline 09/2015: 19%
Statements with a non-wiki reference are an important data quality marker by now. Their current and future increase is based on various groundwork measures carried out in 2015 and after. Nevertheless, by end of 2016 we expect this metric to reach a ceiling. Instead, other quality markers will become increasingly important. |
Objective 3: Implement new/ improved data types in Wikidata to increase the number of options to create statements in Wikidata (leads to a broader variety of potential statements).
| Milestones |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| In Q1/Q2, implement new data types/ improve existing ones | Data types not yet specified/ prioritized |
| Targets |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| The 'statements per item’ rate rises above four statements per item (average) until Q2/2016 | Baseline: 3.8 statements per item (average, 09/2015) |
Goal 2b: Assure sustainability of Berlin-based software development hub through building relationships with established and emerging FOSS developers and activists
[edit]Story
Free and Open Source software is the technical foundation for the Wikimedia movement to organize and distribute free knowledge. Open-source software is created by the dedicated developers, coders and FOSS activists who advance and develop the code. With the sustainability of Berlin-based software development infrastructure for the movement in mind, WMDE has begun a number of activities in 2015 aimed at supporting and engaging the FOSS developer community, and at involving emerging developers in the projects as staff and volunteers. Building this community of developers is essential for the viability of Wikidata and other engineering projects - so we view this as mid- and long-term capacity building work.
In 2016, WMDE will continue the successful work to support this community, increase awareness about Wikidata, provide opportunities for shared learning and community building, and identify and support young coders as part of a recruitment pipeline. The Sourcecode.Berlin website serves to share all information and documentation of activities. The Sourcecode.Berlin podcast, created in English, has begun to establish WMDE as a thought leader in the German open-source movement and to create new networks for advancing and supporting open source as an issue and a community. Sourcecode.Berlin will be continued with two podcasts per month through the first half of 2016 and will then be evaluated for its reception and acceptance in the communities.
The mentoring program, on the other hand, is directly aimed at young developers. These are students and interns who are working on school-based research projects, or those with a relation to Wikidata or open source development for free knowledge. The desired outcome of the mentoring program is to recruit talented young developers and to introduce them to our work, to the principles of open source development and the free knowledge movement, and to create a recruitment pipeline for the Berlin hub of the movement. In 2016, software development staff will work intensively with six mentees, support them in their projects, and assure that they maintain close ties with our staff and volunteers.
In addition, we are budgeting for a few volunteer developers to be able to participate at movement events so they can collaborate with the global developer community on improving MediaWiki. This includes Wikimania and the annual hackathon. This will serve to create face to face connections between German and international volunteers, introduce young developers to the international community, and create strong bonds with the movement.
Objective 1: Engage new junior developers to contribute to Wikimedia projects.
| Milestones |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| One ’mentee case’ is published per quarter which shows our mentees’ ongoing involvement with Wikimedia projects |
| Targets |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Until end of 2016, six new mentees participate in our mentoring program | |
| Mentees work on bachelor or master thesis about Wikidata or similar WM-related topic | Qualitative indicator of involvement with Wikimedia projects |
| High level of satisfaction of mentees with WMDE mentoring program: all key aspects of the mentoring program are rated as 'good' or better in the feedback survey | Mentees complete a feedback survey when finishing their menteeship. |
| Important Indicators/Metrics* |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Mentees who continue to be involved with developing for the Wikimedia movement after finishing their menteeship | Qualitative and quantitative long-term indicator: number of mentees which stay involved and qualitative character of their contributions |
Objective 2: Engage new individuals from the FOSS scene (e.g. developers, multipliers, volunteers) with Wikimedia and the Wikimedia projects.
| Milestones |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Publish 12 Sourcecode Berlin podcast episodes until mid of 2016 | |
| Stage FOSS outreach events / WMDE participation at important FOSS events | Not fully timed/ specified yet, not fully planned: several events, some small, one large |
| Targets |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Increase Sourcecode Berlin podcast ‘listeners per month’ by 10 % until mid of 2016 | Baseline: average 1300 listeners per month (01-09/2015) |
| Important Indicators/Metrics* |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Number of participants from the FOSS scene at WMDE FOSS outreach events |
Goal 3: Grow innovation capacity for the movement through community-centered software development
[edit]Story
The 2015 WMDE APG Progress Report describes in detail how our approach to community-centered software development was developed. We have invested a significant amount of resources during this initial phase. This has built trust, which is the foundation for collaboratively making changes. The process and its first outcomes continue to be extremely well received by the users and editors. We will know that we have been successful if there is a productive, friendly, respectful and transparent collaboration among users and WMDE staff, aligned with the movements’ friendly space expectations.
We are led by the theory of change that this approach to community-centered development leads to high quality, innovative products that fulfill real volunteers’ needs and results in happy and motivated community members. Motivated community members equipped with the right tools and features can create more free content and boost healthy growth of the Wikimedia projects, also in terms of new volunteers. Working with agile methodologies while developing responses to requests allows us to react flexibly to changing priorities and community feedback after each development iteration. Within the approach, the community acts as its own corrective expert team, and is enabled to produce collective intelligence.
2016 will be the year to fully implement the approach and learn from the results. This means: First, providing continued opportunities, on- and offline, for suggesting improvements and submitting requests, followed by transparent, prioritization done jointly by community and team, and decision-making about requests. Second, producing a significant amount of adjustments, features and tools that improve the MediaWiki software through development, community testing and feedback by our Community Needs product team (TCB - German: Team Community-Bedarfe) and volunteer editors. This, just as the development of Wikidata, will be done using the principles and practices of agile development with quarterly goal setting, based on the requests and subsequent prioritization, sprints and reviews. Metrics are not based on annual targets, which are impossible to predict in this environment, but rather on team performance.
A newer aspect of community-centered software development is the international dimension. As many technical wishes coming from the German community are also internationally relevant, the Berlin team will identify synergy potentials with the WMF Community Tech Team. We will establish common scalable processes at the development level (e.g. starting with reviews), as well as regular exchange and working mode at the product level (e.g. a shared backlog) and at the community communication level. In addition, German volunteer developers who work on technical request projects will be supported by WMDE to attend international hackathons, where they can directly work with their peers on projects of global significance and scope. This will foster collaboration and networking among tech contributors.
We will continue to monitor the number of releases and their use rates and impact, as well as, at the end of the year, satisfaction of our communities with the process and the outcomes. All these learnings will be shared with the movement. Towards the end of the year, we would also like to arrive at a better understanding of how we can measure impact at the level of the Wikimedia projects.
Objective 1: Provide a variety of opportunities for meaningful community participation in software development and assure that they are utilized.
| Targets |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Minimum 20 participants at user specific workshops (offline) |
| Important Indicators/Metrics* |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| # of interactions with communities on development platforms, discussion pages, mailing lists | Baseline until 09/2015: > 200 contributions of software development community communications staff on de.Wiki, sister projects, phabricator
Continuously monitored, no targets as the frequency of interactions strongly depends on scope and character of the technical requests and of the respective user groups involved |
| # of page views of online resources | Baseline: ~ 3800 page views in Q1/Q2 2015 |
Objective 2: Throughout 2016, implement features and tools based on technical wishes submitted by the German-speaking WM project communities and monitor their use.
| Milestones |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Roll-out of software release versions for technical wishes as planned in the quarterly planning cycles | Agile software development is highly flexible and adaptive: The number of necessary iterations of a product, for example, strongly depends on the complexity and needed effort of a technical request, community and WMF feedback, unexpected side-effects and other external factors. The Scrum team plans milestones for each quarter and each tool development process. Regular updates and reviews will be provided for the FDC.
We will constantly review team performance, i.e. the accuracy of development plans (pls. see first metric in the indicator table below). |
| Status of community requests, development milestones and progress information are publicly accessible on-wiki | Started in 2015, will be continuously improved through 2016 |
| Targets |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| At least 75% positive evaluations of communication & development process around ‘technical wishes’ by the respective communities involved (via feedback survey, end of 2016) | |
| Minimum one feedback-loop with communities per software release version |
| Important Indicators/Metrics* |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Percentage of products / release versions which are completed as estimated in the quarterly planning cycles (e.g. based on forecast of the # of sprints, story points, iterations, products per quarter) | Important progress marker to indicate the quality of Scrum planning on a quarterly basis. If this metric decreases, team will analyze and provide information about the respective causes (e.g. changing environmental conditions, necessary bug fixes, handling of unexpected side-effects). If there are no ‘good’ explanations for the changes or delays, this indicates a need to review our internal development processes. |
| Usages and/ or impact of implemented products on the Wikimedia projects | Qualitative and quantitative analysis of usage and impact for each tool/ feature/ product. Potential scale of usage strongly depends on the scope and respective target group. |
| # of complaints around WMDE response time to technical requests from the communities |
Objective 3: Support German and international community and staff collaboration on addressing internationally and locally relevant technical requests.
| Milestones |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Documentation and follow-up of the output of two hackathons/ tech community events (Wikimedia Hackathon, Wikimania) e.g. requests jointly worked on by WMDE and international tech community | The character of each output and its follow-up depend on the respective features/ topics worked on. Follow-up can e.g. be tracked via Phabricator. |
| Important Indicators/Metrics* |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Number of participants at WMDE sessions at hackathons/ tech community events (WM Hackathon, Wikimania) | Qualitative and quantitative analysis of participation |
Objective 4: Throughout 2016, contribute to the shared learning on community-centered software development in the movement.
| Targets |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| Six software development success (or failure) stories published until end of 2016 |
| Important Indicators/Metrics* |
Notes/explanations |
|---|---|
| # of announcements on WM project pages and international movement platforms | |
| # of talks and workshops at movement events (e.g. Wikimania, Hackathon) |
Non-APG funded programs as per WMDE 2016 compass priorities
[edit]This section provides information on the remaining components of the WMDE Annual Plan. It is organized along the lines of the 2016 Annual Compass – as described above, the product of a participatory process that involved all WMDE stakeholders: board, staff, membership and communities.
The document is organized along 10 jointly developed focal points on three priority levels (rather than programs). It serves as a strategic guide for the coming year, and allows WMDE to flexibly develop and implement activities that will directly contribute to the compass goals and objectives under each focal point. The sets of activities may change throughout the year due to circumstances, developments in the environment, opportunities or community requests, and will be updated as a real-time tool. No matter the changes, all activities will be part of the larger 2016 Annual Compass framework.
Priority Level One: Focal points that will predominantly determine the work of WMDE as a whole in 2016. 1.1 Attract and retain new volunteers for Wikimedia projects 1.2 Software Development: extend Wikidata, implement the community’s needs, and further develop MediaWiki (discussed above) 1.3 Strengthen political and legal work aimed at promoting free knowledge Priority Level Two: Focal points that determine the activities of specific departments of the organization. 2.1 Improve relationship between WMDE and volunteers 2.2 Recruit educational, scientific, and cultural institutions for flagship projects 2.3 Improve the conditions for free knowledge through OER practice and policy 2.4 Define and consolidate WMDE’s position within the international movement Priority Level Three: Focal points that determine the activities of specific departments of the organization, the implementation of which is dependent on feasibility in terms of resources. 3.1 Regionalization of volunteer structures: continue and analyze 3.2 Involvement of volunteers 3.3 Clarification of WMDE identity and strategy |
The following section will describe the focal points, compass goals and objectives for each of the three priority levels. The objectives for each compass goal may be qualitatively or quantitatively measured, and are those that will be reported to the board and the German communities according to the Compass/Annual Plan.
1.1. Attract and retain new volunteers for the Wikimedia movement
[edit]A. Story
In the past year alone, the number of active editors in the German Wikipedia has declined by six percent and the number of new editors per month has fallen by 20 percent (as of August 2015) compared to August 2014. This is consistent with the last several years in which the German Wikipedia, as well as the other larger and older Wikipedias, have seen a constant decline in these numbers. In light of this development, WMDE puts a strong focus on strategies to significantly increase the number of volunteers contributing to the German Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in 2016. New editors are essential for the movement to assure openness and diversity, and to sustain the long-term viability and quality of Wikimedia projects. Past activities had limited success in terms of the recruitment of new editors. We will analyze why past approaches in Germany and elsewhere have not had an impact and were not efficient. We will look for innovative ways of getting new volunteers to contribute to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, and identify strategies for volunteer retention. We need to be accessible, welcoming, vibrant, and allow for a multiplicity of voices if we are to motivate as many as possible of the thousands of daily Wikipedia readers to actively participate and get involved.
B. Intended Impact
Secure the viability of the Wikimedia projects, increase content used in the projects and improve the quality of content.
C. Compass Goals
Goal 1
Increase the number of Volunteers active in the Wikimedia projects: Motivate a significant number of the thousands of daily Wikipedia users to become active contributors to the projects.
Objectives
- By the end of 2016, # of additional new German Wikipedia user accounts: 20.000 (on top of the Baseline 2015)
- By the end of 2016, # of additional users that have made the 10th edit: 1.000 (on top of the Baseline 2015)
- By the 4th Quarter 2016, # of additional users who make 5+ edits/month: 150 (on top of the Baseline 2015)
Goal 2
Create the conditions for volunteers to contribute towards a larger body of knowledge (in terms of depth and breadth) of consistent quality and diversity in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
Objective
- By the end of Q2, compile a report representing the current status of knowledge on content and authors of the German Wikipedia.
1.2. Software Development
[edit]Discussed above as the proposed APG-funded program.
1.3. Strengthen political and legal work aimed at promoting free knowledge
[edit]A. Story
The political and legal framework is of central importance when securing and promoting free knowledge. The five Public Policy areas that the WMF has recently published will provide guidance for defining our own positions. Another central issue for the movement debate is copyright reform at the EU level. Freedom of panorama and the copyright protection of state-owned works at EU level will be among the topics WMDE will continue to focus on in 2016, but other issues may arise - and will require swift action. We also need to keep an eye on national policy developments affecting free knowledge, in order to be able to actively push for improvements and to be able to quickly react to developments that could threaten our work. Refocusing resources on policy will help WMDE play a decisive role on the political stage in Brussels and at the national level. For this purpose we will build the necessary expertise and human resources, building upon previous experience as well as current expertise from within and outside the movement. WMDE’s policy capacity will be a combination of the volunteer response team (which will continue to act as a multiplier and connection to the communities and readers), a full-time staff policy advisor with a legal background, the FKAGEU and its representative in Brussels, our communications team, and finally, external legal expertise that may be engaged on a case by case basis. WMDE will also further expand the collaboration with volunteers who are already active or are interested in becoming advocates in any of the hot policy arenas.
B. Intended Impact
Sustain and improve the legal and political environment for Free and Open Knowledge.
C. Compass Goals
Goal 1
To establish WMDE as a competent and relevant contact point with mass media on policy issues relevant to free knowledge (specific national and EU issues will be identified, prioritized, and responded to as they arise).
Objectives
- Within four months of hiring the policy advisor, identify relevant policy issues, and develop as well as document WMDE positions on each issue.
- Increase the number of Wikipedia/Wikimedia related articles in the German press that directly mention WMDE (through quotes, mentioning WMDE staff/board, or covering policy positions; clearly resulting from WMDE communication efforts) to 150 in the first half and 190 in the second half of 2016 (100-150% increase, Baseline 1st half of 2015: 74).
- By the end of 2016, three op-eds and six interviews involving WMDE staff or board have been published/aired.
Goal 2
To work directly with political decision makers and actively shape policy.
Objectives
- Within two months of hiring the policy advisor, all requests for assistance from the volunteer response (OTRS) team have been responded to within four working days. Each request is analyzed for its significance, and if needed, follow-up in terms of legal action and/or public awareness is initiated.
- By the end of the year, four political statements, position papers or public input into consultations have been published.
2.1 Improve relationships between WMDE and volunteers
[edit]A. Story
WMDE will continue to improve the structures and practices for monetary and non-monetary support extended to groups of volunteers. We achieve this by working closely with leaders in the German community on the practices for volunteer support, and then implement and test them until the next iteration. WMDE’s basic philosophy is to support ideas that promise to have an impact in terms of increasing content, attracting new volunteers and creating learnings for the movement. We support and foster networking and cooperation among volunteers, and between volunteers and institutional partners. Successful volunteer-led projects serve as flagships to attract new volunteers and additional partners. By practicing transparent, respectful and participatory communication and cooperation between staff and volunteers, we strengthen and expand relationships of trust and enable collaborative projects with impact on global metrics of content and participation.
B. Intended Impact
Through appreciative, productive and constructive relationships among contributing stakeholders, we create the basis for successful cooperation towards shared movement goals.
C. Compass Goal
Active volunteers have easy access to support, and are thus enabled to engage in the further development of WMDE and free knowledge activities.
Objectives
- 100% of complete project proposals receive a final response within three weeks after submission.
- At least 1000 active volunteers are involved with or directly benefit from projects supported by WMDE Volunteer Support.
- Increase by 100% in the number of contributors and contributions to consultations regarding the planning of activities and development of WMDE strategy (baseline from the annual planning process for 2016: 16 Ideas, 30 contributors, 200 contributions).
2.2 Recruit educational, scientific, and cultural institutions for flagship projects
[edit]A. Story
This focal point details the continuation of our work with educational, scientific and cultural institutions. In the coming year, WMDE will focus on selected “flagship projects” with educational, scientific, and cultural institutions that call attention to WMDE’s political and legal work to promote free knowledge, or that kindle an interest in similar collaborative work with other institutions. These projects also serve as outreach to highly qualified authors and to motivate them to participate in Wikimedia projects.
A high number of contributions gathered during the participative phase of preparing the WMDE 2016 Annual Compass (which is 100% aligned with this APG Proposal) suggested the wide range of ways in which committed Wikimedians can enrich this area of our work. Based on these ideas from the community, and the opportunities presented by potential partners, we will expand strategies and structures to improve the support and integration of volunteers into the work with educational, scientific, and cultural institutions.
One flagship project, the details of which are being negotiated in Q4 2015, is a Wikimedia Fellow Program, which will engage young scientists in research projects that are conducted following the principles of open science. The idea is to establish the participants as champions for open science, modeling and introducing practices and behaviors that open up research and thus get their peers interested and involved.
B. Intended Impact
Improve the generation, collection and distribution of free knowledge in the realm of institutions in education, science and culture.
C. Compass Goal
Establish free knowledge as an issue in education and science through the initiation of a Wikimedia Fellow Program.
Objectives
- 15 Fellows initiate research projects as part of the program.
- Three highlights or success stories from the program are published.
2.3 Improve the conditions for free knowledge through OER practice and policy
[edit]A. Story
Promoting Open Educational Resources (OER) continues to be one of WMDE’s main strategies to introduce and implement free knowledge practices and policies into new arenas, in this case education. WMDE has been contributing to the national debate around free learning and teaching materials for several years now, and has successfully positioned itself as an expert leader with regard to OER. In 2015/16, WMDE is leading the Mapping OER project, a federally funded initiative involving a variety of stakeholders in developing an OER Practice Framework. This framework will include detailed recommendations on how to utilize OER to improve learning, teaching, and access to knowledge. In order to turn the recommendations of the framework document into activities, and to sustainably coordinate training, cooperation, conferences, consulting and advocacy efforts, an OER hub is planned for late 2016. In addition to pushing OER at this practical level, WMDE will continue its policy work with the help of the Open Education Alliance (Bündnis Freie Bildung, BFB).
B. Intended Impact
Improve the conditions for free knowledge in education through further promoting and establishing Open Educational Resources.
C. Compass Goals
Goal 1
Within 2016, build the capacity and secure the funding to implement the results of the OER Practice Framework.
Objectives
- OER Practice Framework has been finalized and published
- A proposal for funding the OER hub has been approved
Goal 2
WMDE contributes to and intensifies the policy debate regarding OER.
Objective
- Two statements (in response to consultations, etc) and two WMDE/BFB policy position papers have been published by the end of the year (in addition to the objectives under 1.3.).
2.4. Define and consolidate WMDE’s position within the international movement
[edit]A. Story
WMDE is a part of an international movement and a partner of the Wikimedia Foundation. WMDE will work systematically and cross-departmentally to ensure that our organisation and our communities benefit from the knowledge of other movement entities, that movement partners may learn from our experience, and that we are in a position to have a greater impact by collaborating with international partners. We have already taken on responsibility for important movement challenges and supports – taking the lead in development of Wikidata, for example, or by hosting and further developing the Wikimedia Conference – and we plan to deepen our work in these and other areas.
B. Intended Impact
To increase WMDE’s impact on the movement: As a learning and sharing organization we benefit from and contribute to the power of the international movement, reflected in both our daily and our strategic work.
C. Compass Goals
Goal 1
Share as many possible learnings, successes and failures with the movement, WMF and other WM organizations.
Objective
- At least 20 learning patterns, learning materials, policies and procedures, statements, reports, documentations, resources etc. have been translated and shared.
Goal 2
WMDE is viewed as a respected and competent player within the movement, and actively participates in relevant decision-making processes.
Objectives
- Our funding-related interactions with movement entities (PEG/APG proposals, reports, shared learnings) are aligned with movement priorities, demonstrate high quality, are well received, appreciated and result in the requested funding awards.
- WMDE measurably participates in and influences three movement processes and decisions.
3.1 Regionalization of volunteer structures: continue and analyze
[edit]A. Story
During the past two years, WMDE has increasingly supported local groups as they built hubs that strengthen and build the basis for local work on Wikimedia projects. The preliminary results are very promising - increase in activities, faster tracks from idea to implementation, and the forging of local partnerships. The WMDE Volunteer Support Department will continue to support these developments, with a strong emphasis on analyzing the structures, activities and outcomes of local hubs. The analysis will evaluate the local hubs in terms of their impact for movement and WMDE goals, and will be conducted in close collaboration with the local volunteers. At the end of the year we would like to answer the question: Do regionalization and local empowerment have enough impact to be scaled up significantly?
B. Intended Impact
Reach a deep understanding of how local hubs and groups work and achieve impact that will enable us to further develop impact-oriented regionalization.
C. Compass Goals
Goal 1
Working closely with local communities to analyze local hubs/activities based on an jointly developed evaluation plan.
Objectives
- Three local hubs have been evaluated.
- A report with recommendations on scaling regionalization has been published on Meta and has been accessed by at least 100 groups and individuals.
Goal 2
Continue the support for the existing eight local hubs, as well as test and share additional ways to directly support local groups.
Objectives
- Eight local groups have implemented 200 local activities with WMDE support.
- Learnings from regional work have been processed and shared with volunteers in local groups.
- At least five additional groups apply shared learnings in their own local contexts.
3.2 Involvement of volunteers
[edit]A. Story
For many years, WMDE has been working closely with volunteers in a variety of areas: programs, activities, support structures, and most recent, annual planning. The quality of the community contributions to the participatory development of the WMDE Annual Compass are evidence of how crucial community involvement is to enable WMDE to have systemic impact. WMDE plans to continue, and to systematically expand upon collaborative and participatory practices. Community engagement methods and principles will be applied in a variety of settings, including the planning of activities, and the setting of organizational strategy. WMDE will document and share practices and tools, and analyze how community engagement affects the organization’s ability to reach its goals.
B. Intended Impact
Increase impact through engaging volunteers, their expertise, as well as their competencies and thematic or local networks.
C. Compass Goals
These will be developed by Q4/15.
3.3 Clarification of WMDE identity and strategy
[edit]A. Story
During the participatory development of the WMDE 2016 Annual Compass, participants voiced renewed interest in discussing the identity of the now 10-year old organization. How are purpose and mission as set in the by-laws are interpreted and weighed today? What is WMDE’s position in today’s environment? What are strategies that derive from identity, mission and environment? The development of an Annual Compass and Plan did not allow for sufficient time and depth of this conversation. A structured, participatory process that engages all our stakeholders is needed, and will begin in 2016.
B. Intended Impact
Establish long-term stability: Increase WMDE’s Impact and build capacity for strategic planning.
C. Compass Goal
Plan the process to develop a multi-year organizational strategy, and assure a common understanding among all stakeholders (board, executive, staff, membership) about process and community participation.
Objective
- Concept, tools and timeline for creating a multi-year strategy that is data-based, participatory, adaptive, real-time, applicable and relevant.
Staff and contractors: upcoming year's annual plan
[edit]1. Please describe your organization's staffing plan or strategy here, or provide a link to your organization's staffing plan or organigram
2. List of staff by department or function
You can use this table (or substitute your own list) to show us the number of FTEs (fulltime equivalents) for each department or function, where one person working at 100% time would be counted as 1.0. We need this information about the total number of staff (FTEs) you will have hired by the end of the current funding period, and staff you will have hired by the end of the proposed funding period.
Table 4: FTEs
| FTEs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department or Function | Current funding period1 | Upcoming funding period1 | Change | Explanation |
| Software Development | 19.75 | 24.25 | 4.50 | 1 FTE PM Wikidata, 2 FTE Engineering Managers (APG); transfer and expansion of 1.5 FTEs due to SD taking over FTEs providing fundraising support (non-APG) |
| Volunteer Support | 5.50 | 6.40 | 0.90 | Increase of about 1 FTE for project management |
| Education, Science and Culture | 9.50 | 10.05 | 0.55 | Slight increase, this department is largely funded through grants and contracts |
| Communication | 4.625 | 4.625 | 0.0 | |
| Event Management | 3.00 | 3.00 | 0.0 | Incl. 1 FTE support for the Wikimedia-Conference and the OER-Conference (non-APG) |
| Partnerships and Development (ZEN) | 3.45 | 3.60 | 0.15 | |
| Office of the Executive Director, incl. Politics/Law and International | 4.875 | 6.55 | 1.675 | Incl. 0.8 FTE Wikimedia-Conference; 1 FTE Policy Advisor (both non-APG) |
| Board of Directors | 0.925 | 0.925 | 0.0 | |
| Office and HR | 3.51 | 5.14 | 1.63 | Increase of 1 FTE Specialist position and 0.6 FTE Assistant position |
| Finance | 2.060 | 1.745 | -0.32 | Internal changes enable slight reduction |
| IT | 2.125 | 2.125 | 0.0 | |
| Total (should equal the sum of the rows) | 59.32 | 68.41 | 9.09 | FTE changes at WMDE including non-APG funded positions |
| WMFG (Fundraising) | 6.35 | 5.10 | -1.25 | WMFG is the German Wikimedia fundraising organization, a corporation separate from WMDE |
| Total WMDE + WMFG | 65.67 | 73.51 | 7.84 | Overall changes in the entire organization including non-APG funded positions and WMFG |
| Total FTEs funded by non-APG funds | 3.50 | 9.30 | 5.80 | |
| Total WMDE + WMFG (without FTEs not funded by APG) | 62.17 | 64.21 | 2.04 | Overall changes in the entire organization excluding non-APG funded positions |
Table 4 notes:
1 These are Annual Plan figures and include work study students (Annual Plan 2015 vs. 2016).
3. How much does your organization project to spend on staff during the current funding period, or in the twelve month period before your proposed grant will start (e.g. 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016), in currency requested and US dollars?
| 2015 | EUR | US dollars |
|---|---|---|
| Expenses | 3,072,744 € | $3,446,973.49 |
Table note: The number reflects the current projection of personnel costs for 2015 and accounts for staff increases that have occurred during this year (+6% compared to Annual Plan 2015).
4. How much does your organization expect to spend on staff during the proposed funding period (e.g. 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016), in currency requested and US dollars?
| 2016 (Planned) | EUR | US dollars |
|---|---|---|
| Expenses | 3,803,678 € | $4,266,927.94 |
Table note: This number reflects the plan for 2016 including the cost of new positions created in late 2015 for the entire 12 month period of 2016. This includes developer positions in Software Development and non-APG funded staff in Education, Science & Culture working on the OER project. In addition 2016 will see the hiring of a Policy Advisor to the Executive Director to implement the focal point 1.3 from our Annual Compass (Strengthen political and legal work aimed at promoting free knowledge).
Financials: upcoming year's annual plan
[edit]Detailed budget: upcoming year's annual plan
Please link to your organization's detailed budget showing planned revenues and expenses for the upcoming funding period (e.g. 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016). This may be a document included on this Wiki (Meta) or a publicly available spreadsheet.
WMDE Budget (German, English version not yet published)
Revenues: upcoming year's annual plan
1. Does your organization plan to draw on its operating reserves during the upcoming funding period to support its expenses? If so, please provide the amount you intend to draw from your reserves here. This should not be included as revenue in the table below.
No
2. Please use this table to list your organization's anticipated revenues (income, or the amount your organization is bringing in) by revenue source (where the revenue is coming from) in the upcoming funding period (e.g. 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016). Use the status column to show if this funding is already guaranteed, if you are in the process of requesting funding, or if you are planning to request funding at a later time. Please feel free to include in-kind donations and resources in this table, as applicable, but use the status column to show that they are in-kind resources.
Table 5
| Anticipated Revenues for the Upcoming Funding Period | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue source | EUR | US dollars | Status | Use of funds | |
| Donations | 2,489,528 € | $2,792,727.62 | Estimate based on previous years | Distribution based on the last fundraising period (WMDE: 21,73% of total funds raised) | |
| APG Grant (Software Development / Wikidata) | 1,500,000 € | $1,682,685.00 | Application | FDC proposal for funding Software Development/ Wikidata | |
| Membership dues | 1,260,000 € | $1,413,455.40 | Estimate based on previous years | Revenue expectations based on current number of members | |
| Carry-over from 2015 | 0 € | $0 | |||
| Fundraising reimbursement WMFG | 217,274 € | $243,735.80 | Guaranteed | WMFG reimburses WMDE for costs incurred by the annual fundraising campaign | |
| Federal Contract | 65,000 € | $72,916.35 | Guaranteed | Remainder of 2015 contract for the Open Educational Resources Conference, will be spent in Q1 | |
| Other Revenues | 15,000 € | $16,826.85 | Estimate based on previous years | Small, externally funded projects that have either been planned or already been applied for in 2015 | |
| PEG Funding | 152,193 € | $170,728.59 | Application | For Wikimedia Conference | |
| Grant funds from private donor | 501,600 € | $562,689.86 | Pending | Wikidata additional support | |
| Total revenues (should equal the sum of the rows) | 6,200,595 € | $6,955,765.47 | |||
Operating reserves: upcoming year's annual plan
Please note that there is a policy that places restrictions on how much FDC funding your organization can use to build its operating reserves. If you would like to use FDC funding to for your organization's reserves, you must note that here. You will not be able to decide to allocate FDC funding from this grant to your reserves at a later date.
1. How much does your organization plan to have in operating reserves by the end of the current funding period?
In 2015 WMDE plans to set aside 120,000 € in operating reserves.
2. How much does your organization plan to have in operating reserves by the end of the upcoming funding period?
In 2016 WMDE plans to set aside 114,940 € in operating reserves.
3. If your organization plans to use FDC funding to increase your reserves in the upcoming funding period, how much FDC funding will your organization use to build reserves?
n/a
Expenses: upcoming year's annual plan
[edit]1. Expenses by program (excludes staff and operations).
Program expenses are the costs associated specifically with your organization's programs. These costs do not include operating expenses or staff salaries, which will be described in separate tables. For example, program expenses may be the costs of an event, the costs of outreach materials specific to a program, budgets for microgrants and reimbursements, or technical costs associated with specific programs. The programs listed in this table should correspond to the programs you have listed in the programs section of this proposal form.
Table 6a: Total WMDE Expenses by Focal Point
| Total WMDE Expenses by Focal Point | ||
|---|---|---|
| Program (Focal Point) | EUR | US dollars |
| 1.1 Attract and retain new volunteers for Wikimedia projects | 452,767 € | $507,909.49 |
| 1.2 Software Development: Extend Wikidata, implement the community’s needs, and further develop MediaWiki | 1,470,496 € | $1,649,587.71 |
| 1.3 Strengthen political and legal work aimed at promoting Free Knowledge | 396,967 € | $445,313.61 |
| Total Priority Level 1 | 2,320,230 € | $2,602,810.81 |
| 2.1 Improve relationship between WMDE and volunteers | 420,000 € | $471,151.80 |
| 2.2 Recruit educational, scientific, and cultural institutions for flagship projects | 113,000 € | $126,762.27 |
| 2.3 Improve the conditions for Free Knowledge through OER practice and policy | 180,000 € | $201,922.20 |
| 2.4 Define and consolidate WMDE’s position within the international movement | 330,378 € | $370,614.74 |
| Total Priority Level 2 | 1,043,378 € | $1,170,451.01 |
| 3.1 Regionalization of volunteer structures: Continue and analyze | 75,000 € | $84,134.25 |
| 3.2 Involvement of volunteers | 62,000 € | $69,550.98 |
| 3.3 Clarification of WMDE identity and strategy | 114,336 € | $128,260.98 |
| Total Priority Level 3 | 251,336 € | $281,946.21 |
| Total Priority Levels 1-3 | 3,614,944 € | $4,055,208.03 |
| Other Program and Program Support Cost (Development, Communication, + activities not related to focal points) | 722,485 € | $810,476.45 |
| Administration (Board, ED, Operations, HR, IT) | 1,748,226 € | $1,961,142.44 |
| Operating Reserves | 114,940 € | $128,938.54 |
| Total Annual Expenses | 6,200,595 € | $6,955,765.47 |
Table 6a notes:
Non-APG funds supporting programs amount to approx. €0.7M - see Table 5 above.
Due to data protection, personnel costs are not listed separately from other cost here, and aggregated personnel cost will be provided to the FDC separately.
Table 6b: Software development expenses for the movement (APG funds plus matching WMDE funds)
| Software Development Expenses for the Movement | ||
|---|---|---|
| Program Cost by Activity | EUR | US dollars |
| Article placeholder | 62,534 € | $70,150.02 |
| Automated list generation | 126,674 € | $142,101.63 |
| Structured data support for wikimedia sister projects | 382,334 € | $428,898.46 |
| Unit conversion | 90,507 € | $101,529.85 |
| Partnerships for Wikidata and foster collaboration in Open Data | 74,596 € | $83,681.05 |
| Continued Mentoring Program Volunteers | 69,370 € | $77,818.57 |
| New datatypes and improvements to existing ones | 83,298 € | $93,442.86 |
| Continue to evolve the user interface | 89,633 € | $100,549.40 |
| Agile development of community requests from the technical wishlist | 272,676 € | $305,885.21 |
| Cooperation with the Community Tech Team (WMF) | 83,403 € | $93,560.65 |
| Hacking on international technical requests | 57,540 € | $64,547.80 |
| International development events | 55,919 € | $62,729.38 |
| Collaboratively organized user-specific workshops FOSS communities | 22,012 € | $24,692.84 |
| Subtotal activities | 1,470,496 € | $1,649,587.71 |
| Floating capacity 1 | 119,778 € | $134,365.76 |
| Subtotal | 1,590,274 € | $1,783,953.47 |
| Administrative Overhead 2 | 448,370 € | $502,976.54 |
| Total program expenses (should equal the sum of the rows) | 2,038,644 € | $2,286,930.01 |
| Matching funds WMDE including grants | -538,644 € | -$604,245.01 |
| APG grant | 1,500,000 € | $1,682,685.00 |
Table 6b notes:
1 Management, coordination and developer capacity that is flexibly allocated to activities as needed throughout the year.
2 Proportion of WMDE administrative overhead allocated to software development for the movement.
2. Total expenses. Please use this table to summarize your organization's total expenses overall
These are divided into three expense categories: (1) APG and WMDE expenses for software development from Table 6b (including personnel cost, other cost and 22% administrative overhead), (2) remaining program expenses (non-software development) from Table 6a (includes program and program support cost), and (3) remaining administration expenses (non-software development) from Table 6a.
Table 7: Total WMDE Expenses
| Total WMDE Expenses | ||
|---|---|---|
| Expense type | EUR | US dollars |
| Software Development for the Movement (total from table 6b) | 2,038,644 € | $2,286,930 |
| Remaining Program Expenses (table 6a) | 2,747,155 € | $3,081,731 |
| Remaining Administration Expenses (table 6a) | 1,299,856 € | $1,458,165 |
| Amount to be added to operating reserves | 114,940 € | $128,939 |
| Total expenses (should equal the sum of the rows) | 6,200,595 € | $6,955,765 |
Verification
[edit]Please enter "yes" or "no" for the verification below.
- The term “political or legislative activities” includes any activities relating to political campaigns or candidates (including the contribution of funds and the publication of position statements relating to political campaigns or candidates); voter registration activities; meetings with or submissions and petitions to government executives, ministers, officers or agencies on political or policy issues; and any other activities seeking government intervention or policy implementation (like “lobbying”), whether directed toward the government or the community or public at large. Grants for such activities (when permitted under U.S. law and IRS regulations) should be sought from the Wikimedia Foundation Project and Event Grants Program.
I verify that this proposal requests no funds from the Wikimedia Foundation for political or legislative activities Yes
Once this proposal is complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes.
Please do not make any changes to this proposal form after the proposal submission deadline for this round. If a change that is essential to an understanding of your organization's proposal is needed, please request the change on the discussion page of this form so it may be reviewed by FDC staff. Once submitted, complete and valid proposal forms submitted on time by eligible organizations will be considered unless an organization withdraws its application in writing or fails to remain eligible for the duration of the FDC process.