Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/Wikimedia Deutschland e.V./Progress report form/Q1

< Grants:APG‎ | Proposals‎ | 2013-2014 round1‎ | Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.‎ | Progress report form



Purpose of the report edit

This form is for organizations receiving Annual Plan Grants to report on their results to date. For progress reports, the time period for this report will the first 6 months of each grant (e.g. 1 January - 30 June of the current year). For impact reports, the time period for this report will be the full 12 months of this grant, including the period already reported on in the progress report (e.g. 1 January - 31 December of the current year). This form includes four sections, addressing global metrics, program stories, financial information, and compliance. Please contact APG/FDC staff if you have questions about this form, or concerns submitting it by the deadline. After submitting the form, organizations will also meet with APG staff to discuss their progress.

Global metrics overview - all programs edit

We are trying to understand the overall outcomes of the work being funded across our grantees' programs. Please use the table below to let us know how your programs contributed to the Global Metrics. We understand not all Global Metrics will be relevant for all programs, so feel free to put "0" where necessary. For each program include the following table and

  1. Next to each required metric, list the outcome achieved for all of your programs included in your proposal.
  2. Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome.
  3. In addition to the Global Metrics as measures of success for your programs, there is another table format in which you may report on any OTHER relevant measures of your programs success

For more information and a sample, see Global Metrics.

Overall edit

Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved
2. # of new editors
3. # of individuals involved
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects


Telling your program stories - all programs edit

Please tell the story of each of your programs included in your proposal. This is your chance to tell your story by using any additional metrics (beyond global metrics) that are relevant to your context, beyond the global metrics above. You should be reporting against the targets you set at the beginning of the year throughout the year. We have provided a template here below for you to report against your targets, but you are welcome to include this information in another way. Also, if you decided not to do a program that was included in your proposal or added a program not in the proposal, please explain this change. More resources for storytelling are at the end of this form. Here are some ways to tell your story.

  • We encourage you to share your successes and failures and what you are learning. Please also share why are these successes, failures, or learnings are important in your context. Reference learning patterns or other documentation.
  • Make clear connections between your offline activities and online results, as applicable. For example, explain how your education program activities is leading to quality content on Wikipedia.
  • We encourage you to tell your story in different ways by using videos, sound files, images (photos and infographics, e.g.), compelling quotes, and by linking directly to work you produce. You may highlight outcomes, learning, or metrics this way.
  • We encourage you to continue using dashboards, progress bars, and scorecards that you have used to illustrate your progress in the past, and to report consistently over time.
  • You are welcome to use the table below to report on any metrics or measures relevant to your program. These may or may not include the global metrics you put in the overview section above. You can also share your progress in another way if you do not find a table like this useful.
Target Last year (if applicable) Progress (at end of Q2) End of year (projected or actual) Comments
Example Example Example Example Example

Revenues received during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report) edit

Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.

Table 2 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

  • Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.
Revenue source Currency Anticipated Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Anticipated ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Explanation of variances from plan
A B C D E F G H I J K

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Spending during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report) edit

Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.

Table 3 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

(The "budgeted" amount is the total planned for the year as submitted in your proposal form or your revised plan, and the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year. The "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative amount spent over the budgeted amount.)
Expense Currency Budgeted Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Budgeted ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Percentage spent to date Explanation of variances from plan
A B C D E F G H I J J2 K
TOTAL B C D E F G H I J J2 N/A

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Compliance edit

Is your organization compliant with the terms outlined in the grant agreement? edit

As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.

Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Grant funds as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

Signature edit

Once complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes.

Resources edit

Resources to plan for measurement edit

Resources for storytelling edit


Basic entity information edit

Table 1

Entity information Legal name of entity Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Entity's fiscal year (mm/dd–mm/dd) 01/01-12/31
12 month timeframe of funds awarded (mm/dd/yy-mm/dd/yy) 01/01/14-31/12/14
Contact information (primary) Primary contact name Pavel Richter
Primary contact position in entity Executive Director
Primary contact username User:Pavel Richter (WMDE)
Primary contact email pavel.richter@wikimedia.de
Contact information (secondary) Secondary contact name Kasia Odrozek
Secondary contact position in entity Consultant to the Executive Director
Secondary contact username User: Kasia Odrozek (WMDE)
Secondary contact email kasia.odrozek@wikimedia.de


Overview of this quarter edit

The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of this report. Please use no more than 1-2 paragraphs to address the questions outlined below. You will have an opportunity to address these questions in detail elsewhere in this report.

CHANGES: Please describe how you changed your plans and budget based on the FDC allocation approved by the Board in December 2012, and your rationale for these changes. You can then use the changed plans and budget as the basis on which to report back on the first quarter.

  • Due to cuts in the funds applied for through the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC), we were forced to make changes to our annual plan in all departments. However, rather than impose minor reductions to expenditure across the board, we made a conscious decision to eliminate entire projects and positions. These included the key topic Science in the Education and Knowledge Department, a planned funding program for institutions in the GLAM sector, but also those projects which focus on the entire Wikimedia movement (such as the Chapters Dialogue, translation of materials and the allocation of international Wikimania grants). We originally took on these projects with no official mandate, as we have a general and historical interest in a global, decentralized network of Wikimedia organizations, and consider sharing of experiences and debate regarding organizational structure to be indispensable for the global Wikiverse. In this regard, a clear position is urgently required on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation concerning the mandate for these global issues within the movement (guidance and support).
  • Where possible, we complemented the operative goals and indicators formulated in the annual plan with more impact-oriented equivalents from our change models. To improve clarity, the reporting on the three programs is subdivided according to important steps within the change models. There has been an essential further development within the Volunteer Support program. We are currently working on an additional change model, which focusses on the aspect of strengthening the Wikimedia Movement by helping people to help themselves.

HIGHLIGHTS: What were 1–2 important highlights of the past quarter? (These may include successes, challenges, lessons learned.)

  • Within the Software Development individual projects were combined into a single department, with visible results: development standards, processes and procedures were streamlined. This will provide a solid underpinning for further improvements in the development department. The huge growth of Wikidata and the resulting performance issues concerning frontend (browser) processing of Wikidata were addressed. A significant contribution was made in this regard by two new employees in the department, who enjoyed a highly successful induction period.
  • After moving into our new premises in November 2013, we were able to begin putting our plans for them into effect in the first quarter of 2014. Our highest expectations for the new open spaces were amply exceeded: in the first three months of the year alone, 29 events were held at WMDE, with a total of around 100 scheduled for the entire year, including events organized by ourselves (ABC of Free Knowledge, Monsters of Law), community events (Open Editing, Women Edit) and events by external partners (Open Data Day Hackathon, weekly OKFN meet-up). Furthermore, the number of requests for use of our open spaces is growing steadily. Given that we regard networking and enabling as fundamental components of our work in 2014, we are particularly pleased with the unambiguously positive reaction to our new open spaces.


WIKI-FOCUS: What Wikimedia projects was your entity focused on (e.g., Wiki Commons, French Wiktionary) this quarter?

  • German-language Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia projects involving the German and European legal areas

GROWTH: How did your entity grow over the past quarter vs. the previous quarter (e.g., Number of active editors reached/involved/added, number of articles created, number of events held, number of partipants reached through workshops)?

  • Members: 10,170 (1,750 active members and 8,420 sustaining members; as of March 31, 2014).

Financial summary edit

The FDC requires information about how your entity received and spent money over the past year. The FDC distributes general funds, so your entity is not required to use funds exactly as outlined in the proposal. While line-item expenses will not be examined, the FDC and movement wants to understand why the entity spent money in the way it did. If variance in budgeted vs. actual is greater than 20%, please provide explanation in more detail. This helps the FDC understand the rationale behind any significant changes. Note that any changes from the Grant proposal, among other things, must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Revenues for this quarter edit

Provide exchange rate used: 1EUR = $1,35

Table 2 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

  • Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.
Revenue source Currency Anticipated Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Anticipated ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Explanation of variances from plan
Transfers from the Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft (direct donations to WMDE) EUR 2,104,000 1,600,575 1,600,575 2,160,776.25 2,160,776.25
Funds from the FDC EUR 1,296,000 1,296,000 1,296,000 1,749,600 1,749,600
Carry forward from 2013 EUR 500,000 500,000 500,000 675,000 675,000
Membership dues EUR 490,000 386,662 386,662 521,993.7 521,993.7
Third-party funding EUR 390,000 0 0 0 0
Other (e.g. interest) EUR 90,000 48 48 64.8 64.8
TOTAL EUR 4,870,000 3,783,285 3,783,285 4,918,270.5

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Spending during this quarter edit

Table 3 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

(The "budgeted" amount is the total planned for the year as submitted in your proposal form or your revised plan, and the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year. The "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative amount spent over the budgeted amount.)
Expense Currency Budgeted Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Budgeted ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Percentage spent to date Explanation of variances from plan
Volunteer Support: More attractive funding mechanisms EUR 30,000 0 0 40,500 0 0.00%
Volunteer Support: Free content from volunteer projects EUR 110,000 28,588.01 28,588.01 148,500 38,593.81 25.99%
Community Empowerement: Stronger initiatives and social processes EUR 595,000 5,221.3 5,221.3 803,250 7,048.75 0.88%
Community Empowerent: Proccesses for improvement of structures EUR 7,000 0 0 9,450 0 0.00%
Institutional Partnerships : Declarations of intent to making free content available EUR 41,500 88.92 88.92 56,025 120.042 0.21%
Institutional Partnerships: Free content and best practises from institutional partnerships EUR 25,000 46.68 46.68 33,750 63.018 0.19%
Legal and Social Framework: Strengthening advocacy capacities EUR 38,000 5,536.92 5,536.92 51,300 7,474.84 14.57%
Legal and Social Framework: Being perceived as an advocate EUR 135,000 1,188.1 1,188.1 182,250 1,603.93 0.88%
Legal and Social Framework: Regulations and incentive systems EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 There are only personell costs planned for this item.
Wikidata EUR 19,000 3,175.14 3,175.14 25,650 4,286.43 16.71%
Cross-departamental projects EUR 42,500 10,320.48 10,320.48 57,375 13,932.64 24.28%
Community Project Budget rest disbursement from 2013 EUR 12,000 0 0 16,200 0 0.00%
Project Overhead Team Community Department EUR 15,000 5,386.52 5,386.52 20,250 7,271.80 35.91%
Project Overhead Politics & Society Department EUR 15,000 242.74 242.74 20,250 327.69 1.62%
Project Overhead Education & Knowledge Department EUR 15,000 394.07 394.07 20,250 531.99 2.63%
Project Overhead Software Development Department EUR 15,000 233.22 233.22 20,250 314.847 1.55%
Administration EUR 700,000 114,149.96 114,149.96 945,000 154,102.44 16.31%
Public relations EUR 220,000 3,452.07 3,452.07 297,000 4,660.29 1.57%
Fundraising WMFG EUR 240,000 47,908 47,908 324,000 64,675.8 19.96%
International affairs EUR 130,000 5,820.82 5,820.82 175,500 7,858.10 4.48%
Evaluation EUR 80,000 42.7 42.7 108,000 57.645 0.05%
Eventmanagement EUR 10,000 2,615.92 2,615.92 13,500 3,531.49 26.16%
Supervisory Board EUR 90,000 7,134.52 7,134.52 121,500 9,631.60 7.93%
Personnel costs WMDE EUR 2,525,000 589,503.76 589,503.76 3,408,750 795,830.07 23.35%
Personnel costs WMFG EUR 200,000 29,630 29,630 270,000 40,000.5 14.82%
TOTAL (including WMFG) EUR 5,310,000 860,679.85 860,679.85 6,903,000 1,118,883.80 16.21%

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Comments on the finance section:

  • Note: We report the figures available from the Accounting Department at the time the report is produced; we then correct the information retrospectively in the next quarter report should there be any discrepancies due to subsequent accounting. However, we state that we do not expect any major discrepancies, as only a booking period of approximately two weeks needs to be added, as well as any invoices that are submitted late.
  • Note: The typical expenditure pattern should be taken into account when evaluating the financial statements: As it is anticipated that most of the material costs will be incurred not at the beginning but later in the year so the level of costs in the first quarter should not be used as an indicator for the whole year. Based on our current planning and monthly forward planning we are well on target. In the end of Q2 we will be able to say whether we have to replan or shift the funds between departments.
  • Note: Some projects are intended to contribute to more than one change model. In this case the project costs are to be found within the change model where the focus of the project lies.
  • The project overhead items comprise project coordination costs of the whole department e.g. external meetings, legal consulting and other.
  • Cross departamental project costs comprise projects costs of the event series "ABC of the Free Knowledge", the Zedler Prize for Free Knowledge, presence at external conference re:publica and the re-use tool(see "miscellaneous" in the progress report).

Progress toward this year's goals/objectives edit

This section addresses the impact of the programs / initiatives* and objectives your entity has implemented over the past quarter and the progress your entity is making toward meeting this year's goals. We understand that some metrics may not be applicable in this quarterly report, so please add metrics here if they are applicable.

*In the past, the FDC has used the term 'initiative', but we are using the term 'program.'

Program 1: Volunteer Support edit

More attractive funding mechanisms
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Volunteers have found contact with Wikimedia Deutschland helpful.
Indicators
  • The number of support requests that have been approved: approx. 230
  • The number of volunteers whose requests for support has been approved: 106
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Continued development and promotion of the central funding portal in Wikipedia resulted in a constant rise in the monthly access figures, which more than doubled from 471 in Q4/2013 to 1029 in Q1/2014 as of March 27, 2014.
  • On average, 150 funding applications per quarter were approved in 2013. In the first quarter of 2014, 230 applications were approved.
Staff
  • Volunteers: 35 registered volunteers were involved in the survey page on the new funding guidelines. Fifteen also took part in the discussion about the survey, and six participated in workshops on the funding guidelines.
  • Paid staff: figures to be provided in Q2 due to standardization processes.
Activities conducted.
  • Please see the table below
What worked and what did not?
  • Although the revised funding guidelines are almost complete, unfortunately we did not succeed in publishing them by the end of Q1 as planned. A resolution on the new guidelines by the Supervisory Board is expected soon.
  • Unfortunately, we did not yet have sufficient capacity for the specific orientation of funding programs towards Wikipedia sister projects.

Any additional details:


Activities conducted
Keywords Measures Activities
Sister projects Updating, redesign and promotion of the funding pages in sister projects
  • No activities as yet
Resources Measures should be taken to increase volunteers’ freedom to plan and coordinate projects as independently as possible
  • The central funding opportunities information page was expanded into a comprehensive funding portal. From now on, the portal can also be used to access new developments concerning funding, necessary forms, and other information about WMDE’s funding programs.
Funding Joint drafting of funding guidelines with the community
  • The new funding guidelines were drafted in collaboration with the community, partly by means of a workshop, in a transparent process. They are intended as clear guidelines within which ideas can develop as freely and productively as possible.
Processes Optimization of internal funding processes
  • A comprehensive redesign of the technology pool device list, which catalogues the equipment available for loan from WMDE, has resulted in a much clearer overview of the technology available. Access figures for the site increased threefold in comparison to the previous quarter (Q4/2013: 200, Q1/2014: 633)
Free content from volunteer projects
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Volunteers have contributed to free knowledge as part of the Wikimedia movement.
Indicators
  • Type, quantity and quality of the free knowledge.
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?

6718 photos were taken and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with the support of WMDE.

Activities conducted.
  • Please see the table below
What worked and what did not?
  • We succeeded in giving project initiators a clear overview of the support available from WMDE in the early planning stages (e.g. with regard to financing, organization or consulting) and in selectively approaching people with ideas.
  • We were also able to present certain portions of the information offered in a more attractive and comprehensible manner and build on the information in specific areas.
  • Although the forms used lead to faster processing in typical cases, in some instances they can have a deterrent effect on people who are applying for funding for the first time. The form was of particular use to active applicants, especially those submitting multiple applications simultaneously, in providing a clear picture of the scope of their plans, thereby enabling a more realistic estimate of the amount of work involved.

Any additional details:


Activities conducted
Keywords Measures Activities
Funding Drafting of funding guidelines in collaboration with the community
  • In the first quarter, volunteers traveled to around 30 events (approx. 1-3 participants per event) to create direct content (mainly photos), with the support of WMDE.
  • Each of the monthly open editing sessions – where participants collaboratively contribute to articles – was attended by around 10 participants.
  • Approx. 10 meetings devoted to enhancing networking and coordination of volunteer work were held with WMDE’s support. These included AdminCon (35 participants), the support team meeting (12 participants) and meetings devoted to collaborative training such as the photo workshop (around 20 participants) or planning of year-round projects such as the festival summer launch (7 participants).
  • 18 literature scholarships for creation and improvement of articles were awarded. In addition, volunteers continue to have access to a range of electronic databases (8 databases, each with between 1 and 30 users). Access can be extended as required.
  • Two new formats were prepared in Q1, the effectiveness of which will be monitored over the course of the coming quarters: 1) Cooperation with a digitization service so as to be able to provide individual book chapters, journals or similar publications without time-consuming interlibrary loan procedures and 2) Provision of around 10 Photoshop licenses to enable volunteers to create high-quality content.
  • Increase in WMDE technical equipment loans, in particular by means of purchases of photographic equipment, in order to enable volunteers to create content at a professional level.
  • Preparation for year-round activities: Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves Earth, Festival Summer and gatherings and activities on a smaller scale in Q2.
Stronger initiatives and social processes
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.

A change model will be developed in 2014:

  • Initiatives and social processes from within the Wikimedia Movement are stronger.
Indicators

A change model will be developed in 2014:

  • Which topics/initiatives/discourses did WMDE support?
  • What needs did we identify in the topics/initiatives/discourses supported?
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?

Increased integrability of Wikimedia projects:

  • The joint pilot project Wikipedia cMOOCs (WMDE, WMAT and WMCH) reinforced cross-chapter cooperation on the issue of diversity.
  • Women Edit 2014 has adopted a different approach to the one pursued in 2013, with the aim of establishing a WikiWomen network able to initiate projects independently with a view to promoting diversity. This conceptual overhaul in favor of openness and networking was concluded in Q1.
  • In order to provide support for those intending to join Wikipedia, we created a contact point staffed by a permanent contact person, which has already handled a number of enquiries.

Improved local cooperation:

  • We supported a wide range of local community event initiatives by providing premises, assistance with press and PR, planning, catering, etc.
  • Our support for volunteer events led to an exchange of ideas regarding Wikipedia content topics, and increased interaction among local community structures.

Improved cooperation within the German-language Wikimedia movement:

  • The WikiConvention is the central community event for German-speaking countries, and contributes significantly to reinforcing the Wikimedia movement and developing new project ideas. The convention will be held once again in 2014.

International collaboration:

  • Chapters Dialogue: With the aid of qualitative interviews and analysis of Wikimedia’s current situation, we are expanding knowledge within the movement as a whole, as well as WMDE’s capacity to pursue decisions and processes at an international level.
  • Wikimedia Conference: Even in the planning stages of WMCON, we are working to encourage networking within the movement and establish and expand positive relationships with participants. Before the conference, the program team – which includes Nicole Ebber – formulated common goals and messages and conveyed them to the movement.
  • Wikimania: Preparations for our participation in Wikimania aim to influence the movement on the level of political and programmatic issues. For many projects, Wikimania is an important milestone in terms of annual targets. The primary purpose of our participation is networking, exchange of ideas and the creation or reinforcement of partnerships.

Improved support on the part of WMDE:

  • WMDE internal consulting provided by the Communities Team: Projects in the Politics and Society Department and the Education and Knowledge Department were announced to the community in collaboration with the Communities Team in order to provide opportunities tailored to volunteers’ requirements and raise awareness of their needs.
  • Community initiative to improve MediaWiki software and tools
  • The community expressed a need for improvements to MediaWiki software and tools for work on Wikimedia projects.
  • WMDE contributed to this community initiative by surveying, analyzing and prioritizing needs in collaboration with the community.

Software improvement:

  • Coordination of the migration from Toolserver to Tool Labs: WMDE is an interface for communication between the community (people who develop tools and/or use them in their work on Wikimedia projects) and the WMF (operator of the new infrastructure Tool Labs).

Improved legal certainty:

  • The German-language support team does a fine job of providing quick and uncomplicated assistance to large numbers of people who have questions about Wikipedia. However, legal issues in particular (image rights, privacy violations, licensing issues) are sometimes beyond the abilities of non-specialists, and might require professional expertise. WMDE seeks to fill this gap in two ways: firstly, we offer rapid assessment of tickets by our legal department, and secondly, we arrange for input from external experts at the regular support team meetings. In this way, regular training leads to higher quality assistance and consequently greater legal certainty for editors and subsequent users.
Staff
  • Volunteers: in total 85
  • Paid staff: figures to be provided in Q2 due to standardization processes.
Activities conducted.
  • Please see the table below
What worked and what did not?
  • Great collaboration with Raymond from the community; community voting and prioritization by means of the voting.
  • Specialized knowledge from two departments played a role in the project work: Communities Team (community building, addressing the community) and the Education & Knowledge department (expertise on cMOOCs, collaboration with cooperating partners, research and development). Furthermore, the cross-chapter work with WMAT and WMCH got off to a good start. There were interested but wait-and-see reactions to the start of the Wikipedia project page.
  • Designing Women Edit together with the volunteer presented a challenge. There were difficulties primarily in being more specific about the goals being set and in the question of what a topic-specific community-building process would look like.
  • Community members responded well to the space in Berlin and actively used it for various activities. However, because the space is within the WMDE offices and is maintained by WMDE, there is a lack of motivation for the community to take responsibility for caring for it.
  • Unfortunately, so far no location that would suit the community’s wishes and fit within an appropriate budget has been found.
  • With a new position that is to be filled in the Communities Team, in the future a fixed contact person will be responsible for communication with the community regarding technical updates.
  • Individually addressing community members that were already actively involved in community activities last year proved to be especially successful for finding new and suitable scholarship applicants. Help and tips on the submissions were happily accepted and utilized.
  • Discourse within the community was hesitant. This was due primarily to the fact that there was not yet a sample version of a meeting place that the volunteers could have tested and assessed.
  • The thing that went well was the fact that some volunteers took the initiative to get involved in the structuring of the open tasks in Bugzilla and discussed it there. The thing that didn’t work well was communication by the WMF when great delays occurred in the set-up of the infrastructure. Here, the relevant information (for example, areas of responsibility at WMF, delays in the migration of Labs to a different computing center) often seemed to arrive by chance. This not only makes communication with volunteers more difficult but also raises the question of whether WMF and WMDE are working together at eye level. Incorporating volunteer expertise into the set-up of the OpenStreetMap infrastructure in Labs was very slow, but improved in Q1/2014 compared with 2013.
  • In-person interviews worked well, but the Skype conversations were not as good. An open atmosphere for conversation and the empathy that is necessary for the project can be cultivated better through personal contact.
  • Collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation and professional communication and organization by our event team in the discussion and preparation phase worked well. Strict separation of responsibilities (Logistics: WMDE, program: international program team) should thus have been communicated even more clearly prior to the event. Thus expectations of the program team and of participants were not clear to all who were involved.
  • With 15 submissions and participation agreements, preparation has worked well so far.

Any additional details:

IRC-Office Hours Logs in Q1:

collection of open tasks of Toolserver-Migration:


Activities conducted
Keywords Measures Activities
cMOOC Improvement in capacity for integration of Wikimedia projects The kick-off meeting as well as one additional project meeting took place in Berlin in the first quarter. Permanent project members for the project time span are: WMDE (one person each from Education & Knowledge and Communities Team), WMAT (Community Manager) and WMCH (Community Liaison) as well as Ilona Buchem, cooperating partner (advisory expertise for implementation of cMOOCs). A WMDE executive board member also participated.

Together they created a project page on Wikipedia in order to provide information about this topic within the community. In addition, the German-speaking community was addressed by all three chapters.

Women Edit (setting up women’s networks within the Wikipedia community) Improvement in capacity for integration of Wikimedia projects In the first quarter, the annual plan and the conceptual direction of the project were created together with volunteer contributor Silvia Stieneker. The goal is to form a WikiWomen network that initiates projects itself in order to promote diversity. Moreover, the “Women edit” editing series in the Berlin offices was continued. Eight people took part in the event.
Newbies (facilitating the work of volunteers who support new volunteers) Improvement in capacity for integration of Wikimedia projects
  • An initial event was held in the offices; it was directed especially at less experienced authors and was attended by individuals with varying levels of knowledge.
Local efforts (making local spaces available for direct exchange and collaborative work) Improvement of local collaboration
  • Overall, a total of six larger events, planned and designed by community members, were held in Wikimedia Deutschland’s new premises. These included three edit-a-thons (open editing), two discussion events (Wikipedian salon) and a photography workshop. A total of about 90 guests (primarily community members) came to the events.
  • The very active local community in Cologne found a space to try out a local community base and submitted a request for support.
Local efforts in Berlin (to meet the Berlin community’s needs for community space in the offices) Improvement of local collaboration
  • In order to design a special community room, a planning meeting with about 10 participants was held in the space, and an online consultation with about 15 participants took place within Wikipedia.
Social processes (social processes within the Wikimedia projects receive support and assistance) Improvement of support by WMDE
  • Wikimedia strengthened and reinforced, in a targeted way, positive projects that promote collaboration. This included, for example, the publication of posts on the Wikimedia blog and Wikipedia Signpost that describe these projects to other interested parties and encourage them to learn about them. Community members were also encouraged to write their own publications and given support in doing so.
  • The writing competition, one of German-language Wikipedia’s main tools for the production of high-quality articles, was strengthened, in collaboration with Wikimedia Österreich, via the honoring of its anniversary with specially selected prizes that related to the writing competition’s history.
  • Working together with the International Affairs Unit and the Communities Team, preparation of Wikimedia:Woche, the weekly newsletter about the Wikimedia movement, to provide the community with the knowledge and information it needs in order to play an influential role and to network internationally.
Free knowledge support program Supporting free knowledge ideas and projects The first version of the free knowledge support program portal went online and was developed further in various ways including two working meetings.
WikiCon (Organizational support for the main community conference for German-speaking areas) Improvement of collaboration in the German-speaking Wikimedia movement This year, the WikiCon and WMDE organizational team again agreed that volunteers will be responsible for the event’s content and that WMDE will provide the general operational framework. A follow-up meeting was organized in order to optimize future collaboration among volunteers and WMDE during the joint organization of WikiCon. Special attention was paid to ensuring improved press coverage and to preparing a communications strategy in the community for the upcoming 2014 WikiCon. The volunteers involved in organizing it also helped us develop a draft data protection statement. That statement is currently undergoing legal review and is intended to be used as a standard template for volunteers in the future.
Chapters Dialogue (Chapters Dialogue is a 10-month research project in which representatives of the Wikimedia chapters, Amical, the Wikimedia Foundation, the Funds Dissemination Committee and the Affiliations Committee were interviewed about their roles, relationships, challenges, goals and perspectives.) International collaboration

The last 24 interviews in the Chapters Dialogue project took place in Q1 (in person or via Skype, approximately 90 minutes per person). We were invited, in three presentations (two times at the chapter management meetings in Berlin, with nine and 11 participants respectively (Chapter manager plus two WMF employees); board training workshop in London with 40 participants from chapter and WMF boards and staff, FDC, AffCom), to present a preview of the highlights. With the presentations we succeeded in ensuring that subsequent discussions on movement-relevant topics took the overall picture and complex relationships into account in each case without getting bogged down in details. Reactions to the presentation will also help us connect better with the public in later presentations and to manage the public’s expectations. In March, in preparation for the end of the project in Q2, we worked primarily on analyzing and synthesizing the interviews, on the presentation at the Wikimedia Conference and on planning the documentation (text, image, film). The highlights will be presented off- and online in Q2; they will show the status of the Wikimedia movement and can provide a foundation for decisions regarding structure, collaboration and the assignment of roles.

Wikimedia Conference WMCON (At the annual Wikimedia Conference from April 10-13, 2014 about 150 representatives of the Wikimedia organization and committees (Affiliates, WMF, FDC, AfffCom) will come to Berlin to discuss the structure, collaboration and the future of the Wikimedia universe. WMDE is hosting this event for the fifth time (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012).) International collaboration Together with the two moderators, the international program team (members are Nicole Ebber (WMDE) and Cornelius Kibelka (DE community) prepared the Wikimedia Conference’s focus areas, the topics and goals to be discussed and the program (30 sessions, about 50 speakers). Nicole Ebber was in charge of coordination and consultation between the moderators and program team as well as between the WMF Board of Trustees participants and the program team. The event team works together with the Wikimedia Foundation’s travel coordinators on logistics and arranges everything related to the event location and to taking care of the approximately 150 participants. This year, the Wikimedia Foundation is bearing most of the Wikimedia Conference’s materials costs.
Wikimania, WMDE (Wikimania is the largest international Wikimedia conference and takes place in London in August. WMDE’s executive board and council take advantage of participation in this conference to share experiences and to present their own programs, working methods and projects as well as to initiate and refresh partnerships and alliances.) International collaboration In order to prepare for WMDE’s Wikimania participation, Nicole Ebber prepared a ten-page document with all the information about the goals and forms of our presence there and held briefings with all department and unit managers. WMDE submitted a total of 15 proposed presentations and plans to be on site with its own booth again.
Wikimania, communities (Wikimania offers a unique opportunity for volunteers to experience the international Wikiverse, influence it and bring suggestions from the international Wikiverse back to the German-speaking communities. WMDE supports volunteers with scholarships as well as advice and support beforehand and on site. Improvement of collaboration in the German-speaking Wikimedia movement
  • The scholarships for Wikimania were publicized through various Wikipedia measures and on social networks. These included, for example, notifications about the scholarships in suitable Wikipedia projects, approaching individual community members who had given presentations on relevant topics elsewhere (for example, at Admincon), and addressing members of the public on the discussion pages of Wikipedians who already take part at international level.
  • There were 58 applicants all together; of these, most submitted high-quality applications. In order to prepare the potential scholarship recipients, a page within Wikipedia with basic information and a Signpost insert with current information and with tips & tricks about Wikimania were created in consultation with WMAT and WMCH. WMDE supports volunteers in submitting their own program entries for Wikimania. This occurs through notifications about submission in the Signpost insert, notifications about other community members who have already submitted applications, advising via email and, in individual cases, proofreading prior to submission. A total of 13 submissions came from the community.
Technical wish list (community’s wishes are jointly gathered, analyzed and prioritized) Improvement of support by WMDE
  • Raymond’s wish list as starting point (Wiki page on which the German community can express technical wishes)
  • Voting to prioritize the community’s submissions. Voting also occurred via the community
  • Analysis of the top 20 by the WMDE Developer Team and experts after voting
  • Estimation of expense and feasibility analysis were performed by the WMDE Developer Team and experts
  • Planning for implementation of next steps (will then continue in Q2 2014)
Toolserver migration (existing tools continue to be available to the community) Improvement of software WMDE continued to coordinate the progress of the migration and carried out communication between volunteers, WMDE and WMF in that regard. In Q1/2014 setting up Tool Labs was again a priority, as features that are necessary in order to replace the Toolserver are still lacking. There was a monthly IRC meeting in which the appropriate WMF officials and interested community members participated. Goal: more transparency for volunteers during discussions between WMF and WMDE. Initial clean-up work on the Toolserver was performed by the Admins.
Legal advising Improvement of legal certainty
  • A German supreme court ruling on applied arts has, since late last year, given rise to lively discussions on Wikipedia. There was debate as to whether, in light of the court’s ruling, all logos needed to be deleted from the online encyclopedia and Wikimedia Commons. And a legal opinion requested by the community from the law office Rechtsanwaltskanzlei JBB on Wikipedia. There was debate as to whether, in light of the court’s ruling, all logos needed to be deleted from the online encyclopedia and Wikimedia Commons. And a legal opinion requested by the community from the law office logo template with a note to interested subsequent users stating that in case of doubt an inquiry should always be directed to the respective holder of the legal rights.
  • At the OTRS workshop in Hamburg (February 21-23), a dozen supporters met to discuss technical processes of the OTRS system and recurring problems with responding to customer tickets. John Hendrik Weitzmann, attorney and project manager for legal matters at Creative Commons Germany, explained the significant updates to license suite 4.0, for which an official German translation is expected in the summer. Ansgar Koreng from JBB spoke about more recent legal decisions on the topics of personal rights and copyrights (here, freedom of panorama in particular). A direct result of the meeting was that legal opinions were filed in the closed OTRS Wiki.
Processes for improvement of structures
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.

A change model will be developed in 2014:

  • Initiatives/social processes have contributed to the improvement of structures in the Wikimedia movement
Indicators

A change model will be developed in 2014:

  • Our observations: What were this quarter’s most important topics/initiatives/social processes for improving the structures within the Wikimedia movement?
  • Our observations: To what extent did work on these topics/initiatives/social processes contribute to the improvement of structures in the Wikimedia movement?
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • With improved observation of social processes and especially internal discussions, we were able to significantly improve dialogue and thus constructive collaboration with the community as well and to respond more quickly to individual inquiries, criticisms and suggestions from volunteers.
Staff
  • Freiwillige:
  • Paid staff: figures to be provided in Q2 due to standardization processes.
Activities conducted.
  • Please see the table below
What worked and what did not?
  • Currently, newly created pages or those needing to be observed must still be manually entered into the observation portal. An automated solution is under consideration.

Any additional details:


Activities conducted
Keywords Measures Activities
WP monitoring Overview and summary of current community topics An open observation portal was set up in the Wikipedia namespace. It can be used to more easily find new changes, discussions and commentary on and about WMDE pages and offerings. In addition, current community discussions that are relevant to WMDE are listed there.

Program 2: Institutional Partnerships edit

Declarations of Intent to makeing free content available
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Institutions have committed themselves to making free content available.
  • Institutions have developed an understanding of how free knowledge works.
Indicators
  • Type, number and quality of requests
  • Type and number of declarations
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Declarations of intent from seven potential partners
  • As a result of the networking events (“Meet-ups”), the Deutsche Kinder- und Jugendstiftung (German Children and Youth Foundation), which carries out many projects in the field of school development and in the area of informal education and commitment, and has not hitherto engaged intensively with the subject of free knowledge, was made aware of the topic and encouraged to consider how it could integrate the subject of free knowledge into its own work in future (Outcome C).
  • Wikimedia Deutschland helped inspire Science in Dialogue (WiD), an institute commissioned by the ministry to coordinate the exhibition ship MS Wissenschaft (MS Science), to explore the subject of free licenses and apply them in the context of the CC BY-SA project.
Staff
  • Volunteers: 1 (MS Wissenschaft)
  • Paid staff: figures to be provided in Q2 due to standardization processes.
Activities conducted.
  • Please see the table below
What worked and what did not?

Zugang gestalten (Shaping Access):

  • Still no venue found
  • Many partners already found very early on, build on the success of past years

Hive: Directly addressing members of the network about the topic of free knowledge and free licenses helped to clarify uncertainties in many cases and to win much sympathy for the cause. However, a general introduction to these topics needs to be provided within a different framework, as the resources for this project are too limited. All that can be done is to refer to existing educational material on the topic of free knowledge.

MS Wissenschaft (MS Science): We successfully suggested to institutions taking a leading role in the 2014 Science Year on the topic of digital society that the topic cannot do without free licenses and that content released under free license facilitates sharing via social media and blogs, as legal certainty is guaranteed.

Any additional details:


Activities conducted
Keywords Measures Activities
Shaping Access presents the idea of free knowledge to GLAMs to encourage them to make knowledge freely available in future. FSymposium on the cultural and political dimensions of free access to digitized cultural heritage
  • Date has been set (early November)
  • Topic has been set: digitized cultural heritage progress review
  • Best practice projects bearing a relation to Wikimedia projects are being identified for the symposium.

So far two have been found.

  • Budget has been drawn up
  • Drafts for cooperation agreements
  • First drafts of the schedule
Hive HIVE has helped institutions to develop an understanding of how free knowledge works and of the idea of making knowledge freely available in future. The coordination committee of the HIVE Berlin learning network has been set up and has agreed that all learning material produced as part of the project will be made available as free content. The network was invited in mid-March to a Meet-up, in which 11 institutions and individuals took part. The event centered on enabling networking between participants and the presentation of ideas for 2014. In parallel to this, the website www.hiveberlin.org went online; it will serve as the main networking medium for participating institutions and individuals. The key text on the topic of Connected Learning was translated into German, adapted and edited.
MS Wissenschaft (MS Science) WMDE is contributing to the floating exhibition with an exhibit on the topic of digital society. The exhibition will be travelling through Germany and Austria from May to October. The volunteer Daniel Mietchen was able to convince the project’s organizer to release some of the content produced as part of the exhibition (brochure text, photos) under a CC BY-SA license. He also managed to persuade the organizer of the exhibition to use QRpedia codes.
Free content and best practices from institutional partnerships
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Institutions have contributed free knowledge to the Wikimedia movement.
Indicators
  • Type, quantity and quality of the free knowledge that has been contributed.
  • best practice success stories from joint projects are documented and made available within the Wikimedia movement
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Institutions have identified required changes, have an understanding of free knowledge, and want to share content. After GLAM on Tour, institutions contributed to free knowledge.
  • Some changes were made to licenses in cultural institutions, e.g. the Berlinische Galerie stopped using the NC clause for its content → Creation of new content for Wikimedia projects (causal chain A)

Examples of datasets: East Berlin Photographic Archive (for the first time without NC), Berlin street views from the 18th and 19th centuries, Jewish address books, scans of insect cases, historical sources from books, list of books banned by the National Socialists, the API of the Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek

  • First ever release of datasets under a free license → Creation of content for Wikimedia projects (causal chain GOAL)

Release of images together with metadata for Commons, of datasets for Wikidata (hard to predict), integration of the Wikipedia API (causal chain GOAL), ideally participants are inspired to get involved with Wikimedia projects on a long term basis.

Staff
  • Volunteers: 9 (GLAM on Tour)
  • Paid staff: figures to be provided in Q2 due to standardization processes.
Activities conducted.
  • Please see the table below
What worked and what did not?

Coding da Vinci:

  • Many institutions had to decline involvement, as their licenses were not compatible with CC.
    • Rights of use unresolved, release under CC is a lengthy and costly process.
    • In some cases, senior management needs to be convinced of the concept of free knowledge, NC is a big obstacle.
    • Insufficient resources for the project (personnel etc.)
    • Data not in a useable state
  • Second part of the event had to be cut down to one day because of lacking funds → could change again in Q2.
  • Three to four institutions have expressed great interest for 2015, but are not ready for 2014.
  • Reached a third of targeted participants relatively quickly.
    • All four partners were able to exploit their communication channels.
    • Low hurdles to participation, e.g. travel grants
    • Exclusive datasets (for the first time under free license)

GLAM on Tour:

  • Volunteers, institutions and WMDE had very time-consuming difficulties in reconciling their positions.
  • Project implementation for 2014 is already in place, capacities have been exploited to the full.

Census:

  • Federal Ministry of the Interior is not participating → no money.
    • Will perhaps be able to participate in Q3.
  • Approaching politicians was successful as they have a clear-cut task and they see a need for action.

Any additional details: Coding da Vinci:

GLAM on Tour:

Census:


Activities conducted
Keywords Measures Activities
Ideally, Coding da Vinci could even provide best practices. The two-part hackathon competition with GLAM content demonstrates the exciting and innovative potential of digital cultural assets to GLAM institutions and programmers alike.
  • Cooperation agreements with four partners: the Open Knowledge Foundation in Germany, WMDE, Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek, digiS – Servicestelle Digitalisierung Berlin
  • Important partners in the field of Open Data, digitization of cultural assets, we forged links with participating cultural institutions via Shaping Access (2013)
  • Budget prepared, acquisition of sponsors
  • Project planning, event planning for the next seven months
  • Project planning, event planning for the next seven months
  • 25 registrations from the programming community so far
  • 10 participating cultural institutions and acquisition of free license datasets
GLAM on Tour gets volunteers to produce content in collaboration with GLAMs. GLAM institutions work together with local Wikipedians, preferably in small and medium-sized towns, since the cultural sector in Germany is primarily organized at federal level. The aim of the project is for both parties to learn about and gain an appreciation of each other’s work, with a view to building trust and establishing a long-term relationship between the GLAM-sector and the Wikimedia movement that will result in more free content from the cultural sector.
  • Six events arranged:
  • Activist meeting in Bremen
  • GLAM on Tour Brilon, Bonn
  • GLAM on Tour Followup (Görlitz) Oder/Neiße
  • GLAM on Tour Followup Braunschweig
  • GLAM on Tour Dessau
  • Bremen:
  • Preparation, coordination, attracting participants, 30 participants
  • Oder/Neiße:
  • Organization through community
  • Support through acquisition of source material, provision of book scanner
  • About 20 participants (registration still open)
  • Bonn:
  • Cooperation agreement signed
  • Project page
  • Responsibility assigned to one community member
  • Date being set
  • Braunschweig:
  • Draft agreement has been drawn up.
  • Date has been set
  • It is a follow-up event to 2013
  • Best-Practice for GLAM on Tour
  • Brilon: date being set and partners found, two community members assigned responsibility
  • Dessau: planning phase, one community member has been assigned responsibility
Census releases content relevant to Wikidata. Wikimedia Deutschland is building on the work of OKFN’s Open Data Census. We are working for the release of key representative datasets and their integration into Wikimedia projects (wherever this is useful and desired by the community).
  • Six minor interpellations submitted to members of German state parliament, responses from three state governments (SH, Berlin (#2), tba)
  • Talks with the Rheinland-Pfalz state government
  • Invitation to the state secretary in the Interior Ministry of the state of Rheinland-Pfalz e.g. in Q2
  • Project communicated to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, to get them on board.

Program 3: Legal and Social Framework edit

Strengthening advocacy capacities
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • The Wikimedia movement has improved its specialist knowledge and method-based skills.
  • The Wikimedia movement is part of a network of allies.
Indicators
  • Specialist knowledge within the Wikimedia movement
    • the Wikimedia movement has formulated its key issues
    • our argument for why more state-owned works should be in the public domain has been finalized and recognized within the Wikimedia movement
    • our position on open educational resources (OER) has become clear and recognized within the Wikimedia movement
  • Method-based skills within the Wikimedia movement.
    • the Wikimedia movement has established reliable communication channels
    • the share of EU chapters with guidelines for writing EU statements
    • the share of EU chapters with defined contacts at the Wikimedia Foundation
    • the Wikimedia movement has established binding decision-making processes, regular discussions, and contacts in order to position it at the EU level
  • Network of allies
    • Scope of cooperation with the allies
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Copyright law consultations: Submitting answers to the copyright law consultations has enabled us to partially meet outcomes E and F (“the taking of swift joint action to communicate with the outside world” and “an increase in specialist and method-based skills”).
    • Specialist skills: The key issues have been formulated, thanks to the statement of intent, and accepted by the active chapters.
    • Method-based skills: Instead of binding decision-making processes, the boards appoint contact persons, and every chapter can decide for itself how it goes about establishing these positions. All contact persons and WMF contacts are on the advocacy advisors mailing list. Another channel consists of Wikimedia’s representative in Brussels, who frequently serves as an interface between chapters and the Foundation. The focus here is more on communication and consultation and less on rigid structures and hierarchies.
    • The Commission is moving copyright reform forward with the publishing of a White Paper. The Wikimedia network will continue to monitor and participate in the reform process; submitting answers to the consultations was only the beginning.
  • The event “Mass Digitization” on World Book Day: The event on the occasion of World Book Day primarily aims to achieve outcomes C and D (“being perceived as an advocate for free knowledge” and “being part of a network of allies”).
    • Network of allies: While making plans and preparations, the Wikimedia network established close ties with organizations that pursue at least some of the same goals. This includes, among others, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), the UNESCO Liaison Office in Brussels, the British Library, Europeana IPR, and the Flemish government.
    • Being perceived as an advocate: While making plans and preparations, Wikimedia established close and trusting relationships with DG CONNECT (Directorate General of the European Commission for Communication Networks, Content and Technologies) and DG MARKT (Directorate General of the European Commission for Internal Market and Services, Directorate D – Intellectual Property), especially with officials in the “Copyright,” “Creativity,” and “Fight against counterfeiting and piracy” units.
  • Study on general freedom and open licenses: Our achievements consisted mainly of developing networks and increasing the method-based and specialist skills within the Wikimedia movement.
    • Network of allies: Wikimedia joined forces with EDRi and the BEUC (The European Consumers’ Organisation) to develop study proposals for the IP Observatory (OHIM, DG MARKT). Both of these organizations have co-signed the study we proposed.
    • Specialist skills: The study’s results (expected in the last quarter of 2014 or the first quarter of 2015) are to provide indicators for measuring the economic benefits of the knowledge commons, which should also encompass state-owned works.
  • Monsters of Law:
    • around 170 people were invited via email; 45 people read the email
    • around 30 people took part in the event
    • Goal: Increase participants’ knowledge of copyright law in the science sector
    • We found a permanent contact person who is an outstanding lawyer in the area of copyright law and a recognized expert on copyright law at parliamentary expert hearings.
    • Improvement of the method-based and specialist skills within the Wikimedia movement
    • Page visits: 470 unique users
Staff
  • Volunteers:
    • Copyright law consultations (preparation and submission of answers): at least 40 volunteers within the international Wikimedia movement
    • Development of study proposals for the Observatory: 5 volunteers
    • Preparation of community events: 6 volunteers
    • Participation at events in Brussels: 2 volunteers
    • Preparation of the event “Mass Digitization”: 4 volunteers
  • Paid staff: figures to be provided in Q2 due to standardization processes.
Activities conducted.
  • Please see the table below
What worked and what did not?

Berlin-Brussels:

  • The idea of establishing fixed and binding structures and guidelines for our position in Brussels was rejected almost unanimously. The ways of working and thinking are simply too different, even among the European chapters. Chapters and their representatives have certain reservations about making binding decisions on a project that is still at an experimental stage. The concept emphasized instead flexible and fluid structures and lots of communication, which also proved successful in the initial test (copyright law consultations). The development of model answers for the consultations by the staff of the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU as well as the parallel formulation of answers on the Meta-Wiki worked excellently. We still need to analyze which of the two methods should be given preference in the future.
  • Organizing our own events in Brussels is a much more effective way of being recognized as an advocate than simply attending events. However, it is not always to our benefit to send only one or two representatives, as this does not do justice to the diversity and breadth of the Wikimedia movement and also fails to realize the full potential of such events. In the future, we should therefore make an effort to better reach and utilize the broad network of experts within our movement.

Monsters of Law:

  • Developing a high level of specialist skills and an atmosphere conducive to discussion
  • Inviting relevant professionals to the event worked very well
  • Our first own event in the new premises
  • Although desired, the event was not filmed or streamed live.

Any additional details: Monitoring reports (Archive):

Blog entries:

(WMDE Blog)

(WMCZ Blog)

Event “Mass Digitalization”:

(FARO. Flemish interface centre for cultural heritage)

(Flanders Heritage Library)

Press releases:

(WMAT & OKFN AT)

Monsters of Law website:


Activities conducted
Keywords Measures Activities
Brussels: Infra-structure Ensuring the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group is capable of action over the long term by finding contact persons at all European chapters and communities, establishing a main point of contact, building consensus on issues and developing a coordination model for responding to political events.
  • Preparation of community events (Big Fat Brussels Meeting vol.2, Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania): To keep the community as well informed as possible, we will present information about the Brussels projects at events on an ongoing basis. The first events will take place in April 2014. They are normally organized by community experts from at least 4 different Wikimedia organizations, which is why the preparations are beginning in the first quarter.
  • Monitoring: A part of the initiative consists of increasing the specialist skills within the Wikimedia movement, which should also be kept up to date on important political and legislative developments. To realize this aim, we will publish a monthly report from Brussels via the Advocacy Advisors mailing list.
Brussels: Get Visible Increasing our visibility in Brussels through the UNESCO World Book Day, brochures, catalogues of key pre-election questions and participation in politically important decision-making processes. Participation at events in Brussels: To achieve outcomes C and D, it is vital to take part in important events (conferences, discussions, stakeholder dialogues, plenary sittings). In the first quarter, we attended an average of 2.4 events a week. At each event it was possible to make at least one new and important contact, whom we also connected with in a follow-up communication.
Monsters of Law This series of events centers on increasing awareness about the conditions necessary for free knowledge, with a particular focus on copyright and liability issues in the context of open content.
  • Developing the concept for the series of events
    • 2nd topic has already been finalized: data protection vs. freedom of speech
    • Development of communication channels:
  • Website
    • Invitations, identify important contact persons
Being perceived as an advocate
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Decision-makers and influential institutions perceive the Wikimedia movement as an advocacy group for free knowledge.
Indicators
  • Enquiries about key issues from decision-makers and representatives of influential institutions
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?

OER action group: The Free Education Alliance (OER action group) was established in the first quarter. Besides WMDE, founding members include Creative Commons and the Open Knowledge Foundation. This laid a foundation stone for the network of allies. Areas of mutual agreement have been identified in order to advocate to decision-makers and institutions for free knowledge in the area of education.

OER Conference:

  • We collaborated with the Federal Agency for Civic Education (BpB), one of the largest educational institutions in Germany, on the drafting of a proposal to help finance the OER Conference 2014, thus succeeding in putting the topics of free knowledge and free educational content on the national agenda. This also elevates the topics to the political level, as the BpB is a federal authority subordinated to the executive branch.

MS Wissenschaft & Science Year 2014: As an official partner of Science Year 2014, we are recognized as a competent advocate for free knowledge by ministries and science institutes. This has resulted in several requests for cooperation in the course of the project communications, thus enabling us to make headway on the topic of free knowledge, including

  • a request from a ministry about cooperating on a series of events
  • a request from a science institute about cooperating on a BarCamp on critical science
  • a request from a scientific research institute about holding a joint podium discussion on the topic of open science
  • a request from a large Austrian science foundation about organizing an international (WMDE, WMAT & WMCH) event on the topic of open science
  • a request from a large international education and science NGO about becoming a member of the special advisory board

All requests ask us to provide our expertise in the areas of free knowledge, open data and open science.

Staff
  • Volunteers: 1
  • Paid staff: figures to be provided in Q2 due to standardization processes.
Activities conducted.
  • Please see the table below
What worked and what did not?

OER action group:

  • The founding members are playing an active role in the action group. We have agreed on a series of measures. The action group is therefore on schedule with its work.

Science Year:

  • The institutions that we have spoken with so far have responded extremely positively to our concerns and our expertise – but we still lack definite commitments to actively participating in facilitating changes.

Any additional details: Hour of free thinking:

Science Year/MS Wissenschaft:


Activities conducted
Keywords Measures Activities
OER action group Cooperation and networking project A mission statement was drafted in a collaborative way and a website (www.buendnis-freie-bildung.de) was created. A road map was prepared for the rest of 2014. Planning has already begun for the first partner event on April 25. We also started approaching other potential alliance partners.
OER Conference Widely establish free education and further develop skills A detailed project plan and budget for the OER Conference was prepared in a collaborative way. A 20-page document was drafted and submitted to apply for the financing of a model project at the national level, with the aim of integrating the topic of free knowledge in funding schemes and the policy-making arena.
Hour of free thinking Series of events Preparations have been made for the first event on April 3 titled “Europe goes OER.” Speakers will be Professor Fred Mulder (Open Universiteit in the Netherlands) and Jöran Muuß-Merholz. Some 60 people are expected to attend, including many representatives from leading organizations such as the Bertelsmann Foundation, the German Commission for UNESCO and the Digital Opportunities Foundation.
regulations and incentive systems
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • The general conditions for free knowledge have improved.
  • Decision-makers have created legislative acts, institutional rules and specialist recommendations that facilitate the creation, collection and dissemination of free content.
Indicators
  • Monitoring and analysis: Monitoring of the most important conditions in the areas of copyright, culture, education, economy and science that concern the creation, collection and dissemination of free content.
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Parliamentary elections took place in Germany in fall of 2013, resulting in the formation of a centrist coalition of Christian and Social Democrats. The government has given significantly greater priority to Internet policy issues, which has been accompanied by a greater need for inter-ministerial coordination. As of March 2014, the internal government debate on these issues has not yet ended, as was to be expected. The newly formed parliamentary committee Digital Agenda (#btADA) is a full committee for the first time, and the parties are still jockeying over who will have lead responsibility on this matter. The new government has announced a series of Internet policy goals that it plans to pursue for the duration of the electoral term, which will run until 2017, including a revision of liability rules for WLAN hotspot operators and hosting providers. It also promises to make copyright law friendlier to science (“science and education exception”); however, there will be very little maneuvering room until the InfoSoc Directive has been reformed.
  • At the end of 2013, an initiative to implement a general reform of copyright law was launched at the European level, which began with comprehensive consultations. The analysis of these will be completed in summer of 2014. The Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU will focus its activities this year on monitoring the subsequent White Paper and legislative dossier.
  • In a motion for a resolution on the digital economy, the German Bundestag called on the coalition government to pass an open data law, among other legislation.
  • The Berlin House of Representatives’ Committee on Digital Administration passed a motion on January 30, with the support of all parliamentary groups, which calls on the Berlin Senate to “implement the principle of open digital educational resources in school education” – here is the motion in PDF format). The House of Representatives upheld the motion on February 20.
Activities conducted.
  • Participation in the consultations on EU copyright law
  • Monsters of Law event on science and education exceptions in copyright law
  • The Federal Ministry of the Interior has begun the process of revising the data license Germany, which serves as the basis for the release of government documents. We are participating in the work on this license in order to ensure that approved state-owned works will be freely accessible for reuse in open content projects.
  • Section 63 (3) of the Federal Budget Code can be interpreted as prohibiting federal authorities from releasing documents under a free license. The appropriate budget notes can make the release of such documents possible. We pointed out to the parliamentary groups and ministries that budget notes were missing in the current draft of the 2014 Federal Budget Act.
What worked and what did not?
  • The Monsters of Law event went extremely well, but we are still having difficulties in making progress on getting the Federal Ministry to act proactively in the areas of open government partnership and open data release.

Any additional details:


Wikidata edit

Wikidata

Wikidata is a free database that can be read and edited by both humans and machines. What Wikimedia Commons is in regard to media, Wikidata achieves for other data: Wikidata centralizes the access and the administration of structured data such as interwiki-links, infoboxes and statistical information.

What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • A change model will be developed in 2014
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Our main concern in the first quarter of 2014 was to improve the user experience of Wikidata. The connection of the knowledge base to further Wikimedia projects was successfully completed or initiated. We also moved forward with the development of complex and simple search queries. It was possible to successfully integrate new employees into the software development team.
Staff
  • Volunteers:
  • Paid staff: figures to be provided in Q2 due to standardization processes.
Activities conducted.
  • Hiring of two new employees in the first quarter to provide frontend development support, thus enabling us to address the current performance problems as well as future challenges created by continued growth.
  • Tremendous improvement was made in the performance of the frontend, and editing in Wikidata outside of the API has improved significantly in terms of performance.
  • Refactoring and beginning the redesign of the user interface
  • The user, and thus the community, was clearly the main focus of development work (UI) in the first quarter.
  • Additional Wikimedia projects (Commons, Wikisource) were connected to Wikidata.
  • Development was completed on the foundations of the search query infrastructure.
What worked and what did not?
  • Induction of new employees / Development worked out very well due to the preparations of the last few months.
  • Great strides were made in refactoring and in redesigning the user interface.

Any additional details:


Miscellaneous edit

Additional internal and external events and Nachnutzungstool (Reuse tool)
Activities conducted.

WMDE awards the Zedler Prize for Free Knowledge in three categories – “Best Wikipedia Article,” “Best Community Project” and “Best External Project” – to volunteers who have made outstanding contributions.

  • WMDE reworked the internal Wikipedia pages for the Zedler Prize as well as updated them for 2014 (7,500 views since January 1 compared to 2,800 in the same period last year).
  • The community voted for the internal jury members at the suggestion of WMDE. Nine people from the community ran for the positions, and some 70 community members casted votes in the election.
  • At least 21 community members put together nominee lists for the different categories at the suggestion of WMDE.
  • WMDE also recruited external jurors. The jury members compiled short lists for each category.
  • WMDE published the short lists in various places on Wikipedia.

WMDE regularly organizes discussion events at which experts talk about issues related to networked society under the banner of “The ABCs of Free Knowledge.”

  • Planned a four-part event series for 2014.
  • Planned and executed the first event titled “A=Allmende” (C=Commons).
    • Secured the services of a visual artist and a sound artist.
    • 3 podium guests and 1 moderator participated.
    • 55 external guests attended the event.
    • Produced promotional materials and a website.
    • Live stream stats: 190 total views, with 81 of these occurring while the event was underway; as many 24 viewers watched the stream at the same time.
    • Website stats: 800 unique users (as of March 26, 2014).
    • 50 tweets were published with the #wmdesalon hashtag.

Links:

WMDE is a partner of this year’s Re:publica conference (taking place in Berlin from May 5–8, 2014), which investigates various topics concerning digital society and attracts both a national and international audience. The conference receives wide coverage in key German media outlets and in the blogosphere. We use the conference as a platform to increase the visibility of the association, to raise awareness about our concerns and to make contacts with other attendees who are receptive to our goals (e.g. member recruitment, cooperation possibilities). In addition to our booth presentation, WMDE is planning various activities for the Re:publica conference in order to make the most of this opportunity.

  • Development of goals and a concept for the cross-departmental presentation
  • Planning of specific activities for the Re:publica conference and coordination with the organizers:
    • Proposals will be submitted for the official program (sessions on state-owned works, GLAM Hackathon, Wikidata and OER).
    • The WMDE booth will feature a data filling station (interactive exhibit). This consists of a genuine gas pump (specially altered for the presentation) through which visitors can access large amounts of free data, thus illustrating the concept of free knowledge. Via a monitor they can select and “fill up” on freely licensed data packages, music files, images, e-books and information material on the topic of free knowledge; this is done by using various interfaces to download the content onto their own electronic devices. The data filling station is conceived as a permanent exhibit that can be used after the Re:publica. It will be on display at the WMDE office so that communities, visitors and guest can interact with it, and could potentially be lent out for events and to partners.
    • An OER Sprint that consists of participants creating free educational materials focused on digital society issues on the day before the conference. The materials will then be distributed at the WMDE booth. This measure will provide participants with hands-on experience in creating OER and aims to increase the specialist skills within the Wikimedia movement.
    • A “Berlin meets Brussels” networking event will be held during the conference for organizations advocating for digital rights at the EU level. This measure aims to help NGOs active in Germany to better divide up tasks, particularly in the areas of data protection and copyright law. Pursuing direct coordination is the only way we will be able to forge strong alliances in line with the causal chain (D).
  • Specific preparations:
    • Submitted proposals: Four sessions were proposed for the official program in the first quarter; one of these has already been approved. Link: http://re-publica.de/en/session/zensurheberrecht
    • Data filling station: In the first quarter, we selected and hired a service provider to customize the gas pump for our purposes. We also assembled a collection of freely licensed data sets and files and developed the user experience, after which we began programming the interface.
    • OER Sprint: In the first quarter, we selected and hired the moderators, prepared the announcements and the registration process, and disseminated the information via different channels. Link: http://blog.wikimedia.de/2014/03/24/oer-sprint-freie-bildungsmaterialien-republica/
    • Promotional materials: In the first quarter, we developed concepts for flyers to publicize the data filling station and to attract new members.

Nachnutzungstool (Reuse tool):

  • The first version of the tool was programmed.
  • The feedback phase has begun, and adaptations will be made to the tool in April based on the input received.
    • A closed feedback round with about 5 selected community members
  • Consultation with lawyers to clarify the legal fine points


Lessons learned edit

Lessons from this quarter edit

A key objective of the funding is to enable the movement as a whole to understand how to achieve shared goals better and faster. An important way of doing this is to identify lessons learned from entities who receive funds, and to share these lessons across the movement. The purpose of this section is to elicit some of these insights, which will be shared throughout the movement. Please answer the following questions in 1–2 paragraphs each.

What were your major accomplishments in the past quarter, and how did you help to achieve movement goals?

  • The closely coordinated actions of WMF and the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU in the copyright law consultations with the European Commission set a positive precedent, and give us great hope that future global issues in the field of Internet regulation can also be tackled and dealt with jointly. If the Wikimedia movement is to protect its own projects and champion principles of Internet freedom on behalf of others, we need joint successes from which to draw motivation.
  • The structural optimization of funding opportunities in the form of a funding portal has increased the visibility and thereby awareness of these opportunities. Within Wikipedia, a rise in monthly access figures was recorded: compared to the previous quarter, access figures more than doubled, from 471 in Q4/2013 to 1029 in Q1/2014 as of 27 March 2014. On average, 150 funding applications per quarter were approved in 2013. In the first quarter of 2014, 230 applications were approved.

What were your major setbacks in the past quarter (e.g., programs that were not successful)?

  • Negotiations for projects involving multiple institutional partners often turn out to be much more protracted than initially thought. Establishing a contingent of partners such as for the OER action group, or agreeing on the key topics for the Shaping Access conference, also always involves drawn-out discussions on resources and responsibilities. In addition, concrete measures for open licensing of data (e.g. for Coding Da Vinci) also involve time-consuming licensing consultations and in some cases a great deal of persuasion for commercial usage scenarios. Nonetheless, at the end of the day we feel such efforts are justified in order to increasingly motivate other institutions to follow in our footsteps of their own accord in the long term.

What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?

  • Enhanced ongoing cooperation with various stakeholder groups: communities, other chapters, external actors in the fields of education and culture, Wikimedia Foundation
  • Good risk management (e.g. Wikidata with new appointments to key positions) and enhanced exchange at the level of products and sister projects
  • Overall huge increase in networking with target and stakeholder groups from the communities, culture, research, education and politics
  • Impact of the new open spaces


What unanticipated challenges did you encounter and how did this affect what you were able to accomplish?

What changes might you make in executing your initiatives into the next quarter?


Additional information edit

Provide any other relevant information that may be helpful or relevant for the FDC (e.g., links to any media coverage, blog posts, more detailed reports, more detailed financial information).

Compliance edit

Is your organization compliant with the terms outlined in the grant agreement? edit

As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.

  • We described all the changes in the "Overview of this quarter/Changes" section.

Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

  • Yes

Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Grant funds as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

  • Yes

Signature edit

--Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Progress_report_form/Q1&oldid=15333571"