Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Staff summary/Progress report form/Q2

The purpose and content of this summary report to the FDC

All FDC 2012–2013 Round 1 entities successfully submitted their progress reports for Quarter 2 (Q2). While most reports were submitted by the 30 July deadline, four reports were submitted after the deadline or were incomplete. In those cases, we worked with entities to ensure reports were completed. We ask all entities to submit complete reports for Quarter 3 (Q3) on time (by 30 October), as the information contained in these reports may be critical for the upcoming round of FDC deliberations.

The purpose of these progress reports is to give the FDC and the community an idea of how each entity is progressing toward its programmatic and financial goals throughout the funding period. These reports are intended to track progress and document learning for each entity as well as the wider movement. They offer opportunities for entities to reflect and make changes in strategy and programs as needed. The reports also present FDC staff and the FDC with opportunities to learn more about each entity and its work.

Wikimédia France (WMFR) received funding in 2012-2013 Round 1, but was not asked to submit a progress report for Q2 because WMFR received bridge funding from the FDC for a six-month funding period that is now complete. They completed an impact report for this six-month funding period, but this report will not be considered in this staff summary: it will be reviewed separately.

This FDC staff summary has four sections:

Comments about the reporting process: We will provide some general comments related to the reporting process that apply to all or many of these progress reports. Entities are encouraged to read this section carefully to better understand the reporting process. Since these are still among the first progress reports submitted to the FDC, entities and FDC staff are still working to clarify some aspects of the reporting form and process. We hope to improve the process for future rounds. As always, we welcome your feedback on how to do this.
Themes from 2012–2013 Round 1 Q2: Our summary will also highlight some common program areas and trends visible across the entire portfolio and may present opportunities for learning among FDC entities.
Summary table of spending from 2012-2013 Round 1 Q2: We will provide a table summary of the spending patterns of each entity based on the information entities included in their reports.
Summaries of each entity’s progress report for 2012–2013 Round 1 Q2: Finally, we will provide a brief summary of each entity’s progress with a link to the discussion about each detailed report. For Q2, these summaries will not include details about spending patterns this quarter since those details are included in the financial table.

We acknowledge and appreciate the time and effort all entities devote to creating these reports for the FDC each quarter. We also appreciate that entities diligently took our comments from last quarter into account when creating these reports for Q2 and thank them for making these changes.

Comments about the reporting process

We thank all entities for the quality of these Q2 reports, which have improved. Entities implemented the suggestions of FDC staff by clarifying financial tables in these reports, including more and more detailed metrics in program updates and reporting in a way more aligned with their proposal forms.
Most reports were submitted on time and were complete and we appreciate the efforts of all entities in creating and publishing their reports. On the other hand, a few reports were not submitted until after the deadline, or were incomplete. We urge all entities to submit reports by the deadline. If there is a role we should play in ensuring timely submission, please do share it with us, as we are always seeking to improve the process.
These reports were more open and reflective and more transparently shared challenges and lessons learned. We appreciate learning more about the challenges of each entity and how entities are addressing their challenges.
Especially among larger entities, there is still room for growth in the area of reporting challenges and lessons learned and including more detailed information about activities that may not have gone according to plan.
We appreciate that some entities include images and videos in their reports. This makes the reports engaging and shows the FDC and FDC staff different aspects of the entity’s work.
Thank you to all who contributed their ideas and feedback about the reporting process through discussions and surveys.

Themes from 2012–2013 Round 1 Q2

Fundraising is a challenge for many entities, and we recognize the efforts of entities working to diversify their funding sources even in the face of challenges. In its 2012-2013 Round 2 recommendation, the FDC urges entities to diversify funding sources and seek resources outside of the movement to become more financially sustainable. It is difficult but important work.
Many entities still face challenges around low volunteer participation in their activities, including microgrants programs. Some entities, like WMAT and WMNL, are working on strategies to achieve an effective balance between staff and volunteers in leading, coordinating and implementing activities.
Entities are observing many lessons around successful GLAM partnerships, including lessons around the time it takes to establish a successful partnership, around patterns of activity and around gauging the capacities of institutional partners to follow through on activities.
Many entities are growing their staff and pursuing different organizational structures. We encourage entities to document their experiences as they try and learn from different approaches.
Entities can improve their ability to track program outcomes by following the contributions of participants over longer periods of time in order to understand changes in short-term and longer-term editing activity. Across many programs, entities are learning more about the target groups they want to reach. We encourage entities to develop metrics to track outcomes of all programs.
Most FDC entities now have at least one program focusing on raising awareness around or addressing the gender gap on Wikipedia. We are encouraged by the momentum building in this area.
Many entities are continuing to collaborate with one another across programs and are sharing their experiences with one another. At least a few entities share challenges around working with seniors and using printed materials successfully, so we encourage entities to learn from each others’ experiences in these areas. Entities may also benefit from sharing experiences around the challenge of low volunteer participation.

Summary of spending for 2012-2013 Round 1 Quarter 2

This table includes estimates in US dollars based on the exchange rates used by entities in their own reports. The percentages displayed in table are also calculated based on the estimates in US dollars, and so may differ slightly from percentages listed in each report. Details on spending in the actual currency of each grant may be found in each entity’s progress report, in Table 3.

Note that this table does not include Wikimédia France (WMFR) or Wikimedia Foundation (WMF).

Entity	Exchange rate	Budget type	Budget (~USD)	Q1 (~USD)	Q2 (~USD)	Cumulative (~USD)	Q1 (%)	Q2 (%)	Change: Q2-Q1	Cumulative (%)
WMAR	0.21322	Total (staff & non-staff)	$130,976.14	$17,386.59	$52,505.74	$69,758.01	13.27%	40.09%	+26.81%	53.26%
		Staff only	$55,757.03	$13,624.54	$18,342.73	$31,832.95	24.44%	32.90%	+8.46%	57.09%
		Non-staff only	$75,219.11	$3,762.05	$34,163.01	$37,925.06	5.00%	45.42%	+40.42%	50.42%
WMCH	1.00000	Total (staff & non-staff)	$643,710.00	$65,845.95	$82,409.97	$148,255.92	10.23%	12.80%	+2.57%	23.03%
		Staff only	$191,160.00	$26,098.65	$39,988.00	$66,086.65	13.65%	20.92%	+7.27%	34.57%
		Non-staff only	$452,550.00	$39,747.30	$42,421.97	$82,169.27	8.78%	9.37%	+0.59%	18.16%
WMDE	1.30000	Total (staff & non-staff)	$7,722,000.00	$1,051,073.52	$1,167,253.05	$2,218,327.87	13.61%	15.12%	+1.50%	28.73%
		Staff only	$3,562,000.00	$713,583.64	$669,463.46	$1,383,047.09	20.03%	18.79%	-1.24%	38.83%
		Non-staff only	$4,160,000.00	$337,489.88	$497,789.59	$835,280.77	8.11%	11.97%	+3.85%	20.08%
WMIL	0.27955	Total (staff & non-staff)	$144,370.80	$28,075.94	$29,114.79	$57,190.84	19.45%	20.17%	+0.72%	39.61%
		Staff only	$52,331.76	$10,031.65	$7,120.70	$17,152.35	19.17%	13.61%	-5.56%	32.78%
		Non-staff only	$92,039.04	$18,044.29	$21,994.09	$40,038.49	19.61%	23.90%	+4.29%	43.50%
WMNL	1.30736	Total (staff & non-staff)	$472,414.54	$61,406.70	$116,230.84	$177,637.54	13.00%	24.60%	+11.61%	37.60%
		Staff only	$188,259.84	$37,008.75	$48,363.17	$85,371.92	19.66%	25.69%	+6.03%	45.35%
		Non-staff only	$284,154.70	$24,397.95	$67,867.67	$92,265.62	8.59%	23.88%	+15.30%	32.47%
WMSE	0.14535	Total (staff & non-staff)	$705,528.90	$122,178.59	$140,880.05	$263,097.89	17.32%	19.97%	+2.65%	37.29%
		Staff only	$454,945.50	$88,536.46	$103,757.81	$192,294.27	19.46%	22.81%	+3.35%	42.27%
		Non-staff only	$250,583.40	$33,642.13	$37,122.24	$70,803.62	13.43%	14.81%	+1.39%	28.26%
WMAT	1.30736	Total (staff & non-staff)	$279,761.97	$39,048.25	$99,394.46	$138,442.72	13.96%	35.53%	+21.57%	49.49%
		Staff only	$96,744.64	$12,345.86	$38,667.93	$51,013.79	12.76%	39.97%	+27.21%	52.73%
		Non-staff only	$183,017.33	$26,702.40	$60,726.53	$87,428.93	14.59%	33.18%	+18.59%	47.77%
WMHU	0.00441	Total (staff & non-staff)	$59,424.75	$7,783.65	$8,055.52	$15,839.17	13.10%	13.56%	+0.46%	26.65%
		Staff only	$22,050.00	$0.00	$4,279.72	$4,279.72	0.00%	19.41%	+19.41%	19.41%
		Non-staff only	$37,374.75	$7,783.65	$3,775.80	$11,559.45	20.83%	10.10%	+10.72%	30.93%
WMUK	1.50000	Total (staff & non-staff)	$1,100,419.50	$241,889.31	$244,840.02	$475,805.15	21.98%	22.25%	+0.27%	43.24%
		Staff only	$319,242.00	$89,913.02	$98,663.85	$188,576.87	28.16%	30.91%	+2.74%	59.07%
		Non-staff only	$781,177.50	$151,976.30	$146,176.17	$287,228.28	19.45%	18.71%	-0.74%	36.77%

Summaries of each entity’s progress report for 2012–2013 Round 1 Q2

These are high-level overviews of each entity’s progress this quarter. Detailed appreciation, suggestions for future reports and some requests for more information are shared on the discussion pages of each report. This summary document will give the FDC and the movement an overview of each entity’s progress. It includes observations on spending, highlighted program activities and high-level comments about each entity’s progress or report.

Wikimedia Argentina (WMAR)

For a more detailed discussion about WMAR’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

Congratulations to WMAR and the Spanish editing community on achieving the 1,000,000th article on Spanish Wikipedia! Other highlights of WMAR’s program activity include a legislative edit-a-thon that attracted 35 people (mostly new editors), educational activities that targeted both students and teachers and improved edit-a-thons that applied lessons from previous experiences.
WMAR continues its focus on diversity and continues to expand its reach outside of the Buenos Aires region. WMAR held two workshops on “editing the gender gap in Wikipedia” in partnership with the National University in Cordoba and is also attempting to reach seniors through some of its programs.
Like many entities, WMAR reports challenges following up with participants and notes they have yet to find an effective way to measure the impact of many of their events.

Wikimedia CH (WMCH)

For a more detailed discussion about WMCH’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

WMCH is doing innovative work with the Bellevue prison through ‘Kiwix in Jail’. We appreciate WMCH’s active role in promoting offline Wikipedia and distributing it to more readers; we recognize WMCH is a leader in this area.
WMCH is developing partnerships with scientific museums. They are partnering with the Swiss Herbarium and received a significant contribution from the Lotterie Romande.
WMCH reports challenges in collecting data like “participants reached through workshops,” and is working to address them. In one partnership with the Zentralbibliothek Zurich, they include some useful metrics around the number of photos uploaded, including how many times they were used and on how many pages they were used.

Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE)

For a more detailed discussion about WMDE’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

WMDE reports recent success in working with local actors to leverage improved community support mechanisms, including responding faster to inquiries from members. At the same time, they report challenges working with the community to start new programs or change existing programs.
WMDE continues to support technology projects that may be well-utilized by the broader movement as well as its local community. In addition, they are leading policy advocacy work in the EU and continue to host movement-wide events, such as the upcoming diversity workshop. WMDE is developing materials in both German and English that may be well-utilized by the broader movement, including educational materials, a brochure on creative commons licences and a GLAM brochure for institutions.
Despite the impressive scope and range of WMDE’s program activities and the high level of care and attention devoted to this report, more information could be provided about activities that are not going according to plan. We encourage WMDE to include deeper reflections around challenges in future reports.

Wikimedia Foundation (WMF)

For a more detailed discussion about WMF’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

WMF is launching the Visual Editor, an important step that may be critical to the growth of movement projects.
WMF has made progress with Wikipedia Zero by continuing to increase the number of partnerships and expand access.
We encourage WMF, like all other entities, to be open about challenges and failures as well as successes in these reports.

Wikimedia Israel (WMIL)

For a more detailed discussion about WMIL’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

Although WMIL currently does not have an Executive Director in place, the volunteer board is making good strides in implementing program activity.
WMIL successfully organized the first Hebrew Hackathon and a Wikipedia Academy focused on the gender gap.
WMIL is making efforts to include more quantitative measures of success in addition to qualitative measures.

Wikimedia Nederland (WMNL)

For a more detailed discussion about WMNL’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

WMNL hosted a Hackathon that brought together 148 developers and engineers from across the movement. In addition, WMNL and their partners organized several edit-a-thons and events for Wikimedians in the Netherlands.
WMNL is improving its ability to measure outcomes by tracking the number of articles created and sound files uploaded through WMNL activity. WMNL is committed to following up with participants after events (for example, after the event at National Museum of Ethnology).
WMNL is now sharing more information about its challenges and lessons learned, which we appreciate. For instance, they report challenges in recruiting volunteers to organize events, as their volunteers appear to prefer technical, behind the scenes work.

Wikimedia Sverige (WMSE)

For a more detailed discussion about WMSE’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

We congratulate WMSE and the Swedish editing community on achieving the 1,000,000th page on Wikipedia! WMSE included useful metrics in the ‘GROWTH’ section of the report that track new users, editors and media coverage supported by chapter resources, which demonstrate the outcomes of the chapter’s work.
We appreciate the effort WMSE makes to share lessons learned around its programs, including successful Wiki Loves Public Art, and encourage other entities to review these lessons. We also appreciate WMSE’s efforts to collaborate with other entities.
Despite past accomplishments and growing momentum around this program, WMSE is now winding down its successful education program. We would benefit from more insight into this important strategic decision.

Wikimedia Österreich (WMAT)

For a more detailed discussion about WMAT’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

WMAT has made good progress on its successful Landtagsprojekt, which has led to more than 580 portraits of politicians in lower Austria being uploaded to Commons. WMAT conducts many activities leading to the generation of content on its projects, and we hope WMAT will share more about how they plan to measure the quality of this content and how it is used.
WMAT is developing a Good Governance Kodex that outlines the duties and role of the Board, creates a conflict of interest policy and plans a governance report. WMAT is trying to engage with its community around the topic of governance, although this has been challenging so far.
WMAT recently hired an experienced Wikimedian to take on some of the chapter’s duties, which they hope will allow the Executive Director to focus on strategic planning.

Wikimédia Magyarország

For a more detailed discussion about WMHU’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

WMHU is making progress with its volunteer-led programs by hosting a spring cleanup contest that resulted in improving more than a thousand articles, a ‘Free Software Conference’ and trainings at a university. Unfortunately, this report does not provide sufficient detail about WMHU’s activities. We encourage WMHU to share more progress in future reports and to begin to reflect more on success and challenges.
We appreciate WMHU’s willingness to share what is not working, including challenges around low interest or participation in some activities, but we would like to know more about how WMHU is addressing these key challenges.
We also appreciate WMHU’s efforts to include some metrics on new and renovated articles as well as the number of participants in events and we hope these will be expanded in future reports.

WMUK

For a more detailed discussion about WMUK’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

WMUK is continuing to focus on improved governance.
WMUK sees a network of dedicated volunteers dispersed across the country as a strength and opportunity. They are leveraging these volunteers in different areas of the country in order to expand their reach within the UK.
Several projects appear not to be going as planned, but there is not enough information in this report to help us understand why. In future reports, we would like more information around activities that are not progressing as planned. We strongly encourage WMUK to be more reflective to offer more insights on how they are addressing challenges.