Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/Wikimedia UK/Proposal form
Basic information Edit
Overview of grant request Edit
In order to support community review, in no more than one paragraph, please provide a brief description of your entity's forthcoming annual plan, with focus areas and key objectives. Please also include the total amount requested in US$.
- In 2014-15 will consolidate our steady achievements of the last two years. We were described as ‘a strong mature organization with a track record of successful programming’ in the FDC report 2012-13 and we believe we have justified that description.
We will continue to grow our community by encouraging, involving and engaging our volunteers. Through this, and staff driven initiatives, we will increase participation in the UK in Wikimedia projects. We are also committed to increasing the quantity and quality of all openly licensed content. As a chapter we have committed ourselves to the use of technology to improve our accessibility and success. Overall we are committed to further develop our governance, resources and our role in the Wikimedia movement, develop the best possible measurements of our impact and share all we do with the wider Wikimedia community in line with the WMF Board’s recommendations to the FDC.
Contact information Edit
|Organization information||Legal name of organization||Wikimedia UK|
|organization's fiscal year (mm/dd–mm/dd)||02/01-01/31|
|12 month timeframe* of funds currently requested (mm/dd/yy–mm/dd/yy)||02/01/14-01/31/15|
|Contact information (primary)||Primary contact name||Jon Davies|
|Primary contact position in organization||Chief Executive|
|Primary contact username||User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|
|Primary contact email@example.com|
|Contact information (secondary)||Secondary contact name||Richard Symonds|
|Secondary contact position in organization||Office and Development Manager|
|Secondary contact username||Richard Symonds (WMUK)|
|Secondary contact firstname.lastname@example.org|
*Timeframe should ideally be for a 12 month period that begins after the FDC decision.
Amount requested Edit
Currency requested: GBP
- Currency requested is defined as the currency in which you wish to receive funds (e.g., EUR, GBP, INR). Note that the FDC makes grants in local currency when possible.
Exchange rate used (currency requested to $US): £1=£1 ($1.6)
- Please use Oanda.com on March 1 2014 to determine the exchange rate. Please use five decimal points.
|Total annual expenses of organization||712,217||£712217 ($1139547.2)|
|Amount proposed to the FDC for the coming year's annual plan||442,217||£442217 ($707547.2)|
|Amount to be raised from non-FDC sources||270,000||£270000 ($432000)|
|If applicable, amount of FDC funds allocated to organization last year||331,768||£331768 ($530828.8)|
- Based on the funding amount you are requesting, what is your entity's proposed rate of growth in budget since last year? Please explain your entity's rationale if your proposed budget will increase this year:
- We are reducing our budget for 2014-15. WMUK has decided, in view of an assessment of our 2013-14 programme to reduce its planned budget for 2014-15 by 8.5%. In 2013-14 we chose to adopt an ambitious budget in order to give all our programme streams the greatest chance to flourish in what would be our first year of full operation. The FDC understandably expressed reservations about our capacity to spend and awarded us less than we had requested. On reviewing our plan, we accepted the FDC's view that our proposed staff resources were not sufficiently aligned with our objectives, and amended our final budget accordingly. Given the need to increase staff to make the most of the outreach opportunities we have, we aimed for an intermediate spending figure between our bid and the figure awarded by the FDC. We were able to set this budget because of unexpectedly low spending in Q3 and Q4 2012 meaning we had cash to carry forward. Consequently we have been able to learn more about our spending patterns and have considered this in our planning for next year which we believe is completely realistic. Specifically we are designing our 2014-15 programme with fresh eyes and with broader programme areas to allow more flexibility within our programmes. We have projected spending based on our current, fully staffed, capacity.
- This has led to our planned reduction in overall spend. For 2014-15 we will, however, be asking the FDC for an increase. This will allow us to carry out a broad programme building on our success to support which we also need to start to replenish our reserves from the estimated 8% underspend we will have from our 2013-14 budget, (at this time we are uncertain exactly how much underspend there will be but this is a fair estimate). Our current reserves brought forward from 2012-13 are £298k - less than 6 months running costs. Good practice suggests that we need to rebuild our reserves to at least £380,000 which equates to 12 months of 2013-14 planned administrative spending. This is reflected in our Annual Report as agreed with our auditors. We would aim to reach this in the near future.
Note the FDC Framework funding guidelines on the rate of growth of year-over-year FDC allocations. These guidelines relate not to an entity's overall budget, but rather to movement resources (that is, what the entity received through FDC allocations or grants or what the entity retained via payment processing in the prior funding cycle).
Background, history, and mission Edit
This section provides the FDC an overview of your entity's background and history. Please respond to each question below with 1-2 sentences to a maximum of a paragraph.
- When was your entity established?
- Wikimedia UK was established in November 2008, and became a registered Charity under UK law in November 2011.
- What is the mission of your entity, and how does it support the strategic priorities of the Wikimedia movement (infrastructure, participation, quality, reach, and innovation)? We note that Wikimedia movement priorities will be interpreted and addressed differently in each context.
- The programme of WMUK is designed to fully support the five strategic priorities of the Foundation. Our five year plan is based on these high-level goals in our statement of mission, vision and values that will inform the next five years of our work. They have been designed to make use of Wikimedia UK's position to provide support to the five strategic priorities of the Foundation. Our plan supports the mission of the Foundation by encouraging new editors from a broad range of backgrounds at different levels, with special targeting of under-represented groups such as women and speakers of indigenous languages of Britain. We offer training and support to our community and outside agencies to improve the quality and content of the projects. Through our participation within the broader worldwide movement we support other chapters and communities by sharing good practice and the lessons we have learned. We aim to offer support to emerging chapters especially those in economically poor countries and those who wish to access cultural and historic material in UK museums and archives. We share the desire to encourage innovation through our main programme and supporting WMF initiatives.
- What is your current leadership structure (e.g., executive staff structure, board/governance structure)? Please explain how budgets are managed and programs are executed between board and staff.
- WMUK has a board that is now being expanded to comprise up to eleven elected and co-opted trustees, who together have ultimate responsibility for the charity. Seven of the trustees are directly elected on two-year terms, and the rest are co-opted to fill skill gaps.
- Day-to-day management is delegated to a Chief Executive who manages the staff of nine FTE and the resources of the charity. Through a scheme of delegation he is responsible for the management and control of the budget. He reports on a quarterly basis to the board. This is an area of significant improvement.
- If applicable, how many members does your entity have, and how do you define membership (e.g., attendance at events, paying dues)?
- The chapter currently has 224 members in Q3 of the 2013/14 financial year. Membership is defined by the charitable company’s articles of association - on paying membership dues and being approved by the board of trustees a member can participate in board elections and is eligible to receive grants from the chapter.
- What is the role of volunteers in your entity (e.g., help develop entity plans, participate in programs, edit Wikipedia)? Approximately how many volunteers does your entity serve?
- Volunteers are integral to the charity on both organisational and programmatic levels. As a membership organisation, our members are engaged in our governance from shaping our annual and five year plan, voting at General Meetings on resolutions concerning the charity, electing trustees, interviewing candidates for Wikipedian in Residence posts and serving on the Board. Volunteers also sit on our special-interest committees, namely Education, Technology, GLAM and Conference Committees to discuss and advise on specific areas of our work. More generally, our volunteers come up with ideas for, organise, lead or assist in WMUK events and projects. These include the organisation of events such as Wikipedia Takes a City events, Wiki loves Monuments, and our Annual Conference, delivering training for newcomers to Wikimedia projects, running of editathons, and other projects that increase content for Wikimedia projects in a specific area. We currently have just over 100 active volunteers, over 30 of whom have been accredited as trainers by our Train the Trainers programme. There are also volunteers who are active in specific projects such as over 500 contributors to Wiki Loves Monuments.
- Volunteering is trackable through our CiviCRM contact database, which records members, donors and volunteers.
- In our community we have:
- 100 active volunteers, an increase from 80 last year
- 224 chapter members
- 10,000 active contributors to Wikimedia projects (estimate from WMF data)
- 70,000 supporters of Wikimedia UK (based on donor contact data base).
- How do you know what the members of the community/communities you serve (including chapter members and broader online volunteers) need and want? How does this influence your strategic planning and decision-making?
- The chapter actively engages with our community in all its work - both in reviews of existing programmes, and also when planning for the future. Our open day and workshop event in March 2013 involved over 30 members of the community coming together helping to begin a draft of a new five year plan, discussion on what the participants' vision for our charity is, ways to develop our volunteer base and the future of our GLAM and Education programmes. Similar discussion has also taken place during our annual conference and AGM where we have delivered a schedule with talks over many areas of the charity’s activities. We also conduct regular reviews of our existing programmes and projects, such as the Training the Trainers programme and review of merchandise where we sent out surveys to members of our community to solicit their feedback and suggestions for changes or improvements. More informally, we engage our community in discussion in person at meetups and events, online and via emails. Members of the community are always welcomed and encouraged to contact the chapter with their views, ideas, and proposals. Conversations on varieties of topics also occurs on the WikimediaUK-l mailing list and discussions on our wiki, especially at the Water cooler.
- We have also been deeply involved in supporting the Welsh language community of Wicipedia Cymraeg, and responded positively to their suggestions by employing a Welsh-speaking Manager in Wales - who is also a long-standing WMCY editor.
- More broadly we have established a range of expert working groups to discuss activities and make suggestions. The Technology and Education committees have functioned well and the GLAM group is a work in progress having successfully set the framework for our Wikimedians In Residence programme.
- Our recently agreed volunteer activity programme (see Volunteer Strategy) reinforces the role of Volunteers in our programme and will be followed up with a survey of attitudes and working relationships next year.
- Volunteers are at the heart of what we do. We are acutely conscious of their role at all levels of our movement and our projects. Accordingly, it is crucial that they feel ownership of the charity. Our volunteers take an active lead in shaping our policy, identifying what should be the chapter's priorities, highlighting areas of potential improvement and recommending ways in which to achieve our objectives - then, frequently, actually delivering activities to meet those objectives. Our open planning days have proved popular and productive.
Reflection on past activities and innovations Edit
This section provides the FDC with information about your entity's past programs, activities and strategies. Please answer the questions below with your reflections on the past fiscal year. Responses to each question should be one or two paragraphs.
- How does your entity define and measure "success"?
- Success has many aspects, including operational, financial, organisational and in terms of the effect we have on our community, emotional. Our diverse and developing programme of activities has offered challenges in finding consistent ways of measuring success but we have made significant progress in 2013-14. In some, such as Train the Trainers, we have carried out a detailed assessment of its impact to demonstrate its value for money and quality. We are working hard to create metrics that offer consistency across our programmes and can demonstrate impact both locally, in terms of those participating, and more broadly, in terms of the wider movement. Our quarterly monitoring programme has been a big step forward. In 2014-15 we will be ensuring consistent monitoring of our programmes matched to our targets. This will include a detailed review of our Wikimedians in Residence programme. Many pieces of work initiated in 2013-14 will begin to bear substantial fruit over the coming year, such as our developing work with GLAMs, higher education and organisations working in the open space.
- Please see our monthly reports up to July 2013 for full details (subsequent months are still being drafted).
- Some aspects of our work can be measured more simply; our financial management systems, for instance, have been approved by our external auditors and we have made steady progress towards a 'Rolls-Royce' standard of financial reporting. We have now moved away from a basic reporting of staff costs, and instead spread staff costs across various projects to ensure that the true cost of a project is reported on, including the cost in staff time and office/governance overheads. The board have also recently approved the hire of a part-time management accountant: this is a key post in any charity, and will ensure that we can assess the cost (and, by extension, success) of future projects accurately. In addition, filling this post will enhance our ability to perform financial scenario-planning in support of the development of our longer-term strategy, and for such needs as a three-year rolling Business Plan that integrates the volunteer input we are committed to and which leads to much earlier drafting of our Annual Budget. In terms of governance we have learnt from the Hudson Review and have implemented or are implementing their suggestions including several fundamental changes to the way we choose our board.
- The Chapter has established initial KPIs to manage overall performance. These will be refined and developed for 2014-15. We are working hard to monitor events and activities gaining active feedback from attendees and establishing planning tools in 2013-4 for measuring the progress and success of activities. We have been watching closely the development of the Foundation's plan for a tracking tool and would seek to make this a key measuring tool.
- In 2012, with support from charity governance specialists and the experience of our Chief Executive, WMUK achieved PQASSO level one, the standard governance tool of UK charities. Since then we have improved on several aspects of PQASSO’s monitoring and are approaching level 2 (there are three levels, level 3 applies to the largest organisations.)
- PQASSO covers all aspects of the following:
- Leadership and management
- User-centred service
- Managing people
- Learning and development
- Managing money
- Managing resources
- Communications and promotion
- Working with others
- Monitoring and evaluation
- Please give at least three examples of successful programs or activities that your entity has completed, and explain why they were successful. If available, provide links to information.
- Train The Trainers
- As a part of Wikimedia UK's remit to support Wikimedia projects, in 2012 we developed a Train the Trainers programme where volunteer Wikimedians are taught to deliver effective training. We have so far delivered sessions in June 2012, October 2012 and February 2013.
- To ensure that the programme was effective, even before starting the activity we put the delivery of the programme to tender. An accreditation process and an agreement for trainees were also put in place meaning that participants are expected to meet a good standard to receive certification.
- To ensure high quality we have conducted a review of the programme after three sessions, which positively assessed the programme and resulted in recommendations that will be worked on in 2014-15.
- By September 2013, 32 Wikimedia UK volunteers and staff had taken part in the programme and now have the skills and confidence to deliver Wikimedia-based training on our behalf. The programme, and the trainers, continue to play an important role in extending our reach and increasing participation in our projects. It's helped to build our capacity to deliver events and led to some excellent training opportunities for volunteers.
- Success measures
- Training events by Midas sufficiently attended with high quality of participants - checked by monitoring signups (all the sessions have been full or oversubscribed)
- Feedback systems indicate satisfaction from those being trained during Train the Trainer session - monitored by feedback forms
- Increased gender diversity of the trainers - we now have four female trainers thanks to direct invitations
- Increased geographical spread - this is improving thanks to focusing the location of the training sessions. E.g. we have run one event particularly for trainers in and around Manchester area, and have one planned for Wales.
- Trainers regularly informed of the event opportunities and building their skills - there is an active email communication
- Participants receive structured and informal follow-up support - 100% delivered
- Participants become active trainers supporting several Wikimedia UK events per year
- Events delivered professionally by the participants - measured by the feedback forms after the events
- Delivered on budget
- See WMUK:2013 Activity Plan/Train the Trainers for more information
- Wikimedians in Residence
- In the past year we have seen more and more galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAMs) working with Wikimedia UK. Within the sector, the chapter is nurturing the drive to share collections and information to increase the sum of human knowledge. The UK Wikimedian in Residence programme is a powerful expression of this drive. In 2013-14 we were building on the strong foundations laid by the year-long British Library residency, and run many partnerships with prestigious cultural institutions. We have placed Wikimedians in residence at Natural History Museum & Science Museum, Tyne and Wear Archives & Museums, and the National Library of Scotland (our first ever major partnership with a Scottish Institution, where we would like to increase our presence). The scope for outreach, exploring the collections and using GLAMs' knowledge is very significant.
- In 2013-14 we have approached funding and management of these projects in a formal way, with a bidding process of interested institutions and an assessment of their potential. The institutions sign a formal Agreement with WMUK to codify the rules and expectations of each project, and the Residents supply regular reports to monitor progress (for example). These posts build strong bridges with institutions and also act as a focus for community involvement and development. The agreement was created after taking legal advice and consulting extensively with the worldwide community, and we have made an example public so that the rest of the movement are able to use it as a base for their own agreements.
- Success measures
- Good quality WIRs are selected - ensured by running a competitive and open application process and choosing the institutions based on potentia
- Issues avoided thanks to having the contracts in place
- WIRs are being inducted
- A clear programme of activities is established and delivered in consultation with the host institutions. The reach of WMUK activities is increased significantly thanks to the added capacity from WIRs
- Clear targets as part of the contract. This is developing as we learn more and will be a key element of the review
- WiRs bridge their host community, the Wikimedia UK community and the general population. Done via induction, sharing case studies, events etc
- Residents report regularly about their activities monthly or bimonthly. Issues reported are being picked up and supported
- Delivered on budget
- Every agreement has agreed outcomes outlined so both parties know what the success would look like.
- See WMUK:2013_Activity_Plan/GLAM_Wikimedians in Residence for more information
- Women in Science
- Addressing the gender gap is an important part of Wikimedia UK's Extended Reach programme. Women must see their world reflected in the pages of Wikipedia; it must not be biased by any one group’s worldview and we are still a project dominated by men.
- We ran our first Ada Lovelace Day (celebrating Women in Science on Wikipedia) in October 2012. The main focus of the event was an editing session focused on creating articles about women in science. We also hosted a panel discussion, with participation from the Royal Society Diversity team, to give context to the issues of women’s participation in science. To say the initiative was popular is something of an understatement – the tickets were sold out within a few hours of announcing the event. During the editathon participants created or significantly expanded 20 articles. This added to 14 articles that were created even before the event started, thanks to the highly successful promotion of the editathon. There were over 20 editors present, most of whom were new to Wikipedia. The online participants, of which there were about 25 from the UK and abroad, added even further to the pool of created articles. The impressive media coverage highlighted both the importance of engaging women and the coverage of "female-oriented" topics on Wikipedia.
- This successful initiative has led to a programme of Women in Science events in 2013-14 organised by WMUK and Medical Research Council, and additional grassroots Ada Lovelace editathons - for example in partnership with the Girl Geeks. We are working with high profile partners with access to good quality resources - so motivated individuals attend the events to learn to edit and contribute by creating articles.
- Success measures
- Events well attended. Good quality content created during the editathons - articles about Women in Science
- The programme succeeds in reaching people in target categories - the participants’ diversity was monitored, and indeed Women in Science events are attracting female audiences
- Participants continue their volunteering with Wikimedia UK and are still active 6 months after the events.
- Participants receive follow-up support as required
- Useful high quality content created in Wikipedia in subject areas where we are currently weak due to institutional bias
- See WMUK:2013 Activity Plan/Extended Reach programme for more information
- EduWiki Conferences
- Wikimedia UK is delivering a real, lasting, positive impact in the realm of education. The highest profile educational project we worked on in 2012 was our EduWiki conference which took place at the University of Leicester in September. The event brought together Wikimedians, academics and technologists to look at Wikipedia, Wikiversity and related projects, not in terms of educational resources, but educational practice, including collaboration, open review, and global participation. It was a chance to talk about innovative work in classrooms, institutions and online communities, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK’s work in this area.
- Delegates explored the ways in which open educational projects can support innovative education. We discussed the Wikipedia Education Programme, learned from universities where the Programme is already embedded, explored the educational opportunities and drew lessons from the experience so far. The event has received good press, including an article in the prestigious Times Higher Education supplement. WMUK is building momentum towards what we can achieve, and in 2013 the Education Organiser is delivering another edition of EduWiki, this time in Cardiff, Wales.
- Success measures
- Full attendance as per plan - 80 - 120 delegates, coming from Higher Education, Secondary/High Schools, Adult and Lifelong learning
- Attendees value conference and provide good feedback - 2012 results can be seen here
- Conference content is stimulating and appropriate - judged by the feedback forms
- There is follow-up that offers development throughout the University and Scholarly Societies community and builds links with Wikimedia UK
- In the 2013 event, provide bilingual (Welsh/English) instantaneous translation so that Welsh speakers can deliver in their chosen language
- Deliver on budget - 2012 event achieved with some underspend
- Following on from the success of the 2010 GLAM Conference, first of its kind, Wikimedia UK hosted another major international event in April 2013. To deliver, we cooperated with high profile partners - The British Library, Europeana, Wikimedia Sweden and THATCamp.
- Our GLAM work has developed and matured considerably since the last conference and has been picked up internationally. This conference enabled the sharing of good practice and the development of new ideas. In general, its aim was to bring Wikimedians and GLAMs together to share their experiences, and to inspire any representatives of cultural institutions interested in a partnership with Wikimedia UK. With this in mind, the event workgroup (consisting of many volunteers and supported by staff) created three strands to the event (schedule here):
- - Sharing case studies of successful GLAM-Wikimedia partnerships. The day included two highly evaluated keynotes, by Michael Edson and Lizzy Jongma.
- - Discussing practical and technical side, looking at ways to work together and running workshops to share best practice.
- - Unconference on the last day was organised by THATCamp, exploring the humanities and technology. We have seen some exciting creations and thoughts around free-licensing, open access and the interface between humanities and technology.
- With over 150 people attending, Wikimedia UK has facilitated an impressive ideas exchange. The feedback from the conference was positive, with attendees saying they were happy with the overall quality of GLAM-Wiki and the range of topics covered. It has succeeded in inspiring people - for example “Starting a project” workshop was highlighted as providing a valuable insight into the processes of beginning to work with Wikimedia.
- Subsequent partnerships fostered by this include our free stall at open knowledge and our Cornish programme.
- Success measures
- Sufficient attendance as per plan - achieved
- Attendees value conference and provide good feedback - achieved
- Conference content is stimulating and appropriate - achieved as per conference schedule and attendee feedback
- Follow-up that offers development throughout the GLAM community and builds links with Wikimedia UK
- Delivered on budget - achieved with underspend.
- "Wiki Takes" events
- WMUK’s volunteers have delivered a series of Wiki Takes events bringing in new volunteers and material of excellent quality. This is one example in Coventry.
- Success measures
- Number of participants
- Length of event
- Number of images uploaded
- Number of participants still active three months later (to be assessed)
- In future we intend to target Wiki Takes events at areas where we have gaps in our coverage despite Wiki Loves Monuments. This will increase the proportion of photographs that it delivers that are of notable subjects not already covered on Commons, however we also need to remember to be volunteer-led, and that may mean running a Wiki Takes event in a volunteer's home town before they run such events in strange towns where we lack photos.
- What are the plans/strategies that did not work for your entity in the past? What did your entity learn from those experiences? What changes were made after learning from these experiences?
- Governance challenges
- The growth of the chapter created governance challenges that led to the Hudson Review. The FDC raised this as a priority for WMUK in 2012 and we have addressed and expended significant management energy to deal with these issues. As a result we have changed the way our board is constructed and carefully defined the split of responsibilities between the board and the executive. We are in the middle of an external governance review to track progress that will report in October 2013. See the next section, What we have learned, for more detail.
- Capacity for programmes
- Our programme for the last two years has developed from an initial set of good ideas to a more realistic view of what we have the capacity to deliver. In 2014-15 we know we have the staff and volunteer capacity to deliver a programme that we have revised to offer more flexibility through better planning and improved metrics. We now have in place planning systems and developing metrics that will drive the programme and ensure the best outcomes possible.
- We have learned to challenge assumptions about our programme and analyse what works and why. The programme will, however, still be vulnerable to partnerships that fail through no fault of ours. This can happen through cuts in their funding or fundamental re-organisations. The Museums and Galleries Scotland’s Wikimedian in Residence was a case in point. We believe our broader budget categories will remove this problem by allowing more agility in our spending.
- What else has your entity learned or innovated upon that could benefit the broader Wikimedia movement?
- There are three specific areas where I believe our Chapter’s experiences can offer shared benefits. Firstly, as described above, we believe that our Train the Trainers programme will be a powerful model of editor engagement and capacity building (we hope to be able to offer a course specifically for those attending Wikimania 2014).
- Secondly we have demonstrated excellent organisational ability in taking the chapter from being run by ‘hands-on’ volunteer-trustees to having a staff of 9 FTE working to a CE with delegated management powers in under two years. We have established operational systems for the CE to manage staff and finances and created a raft of benchmark procedures and policies. We have been happy to share these with other chapters. For instance our staff job descriptions have been used by chapters employing their first staff and our contract for Train the Trainers drew a great deal of interest and is the only such example in the movement. With statutory annual reporting obligations for auditable UK charities in mind, we have also created a costing system that demonstrates how staff time is spread and costed against our individual programmes and will enable us to assess their benefits against the full cost of running them.
- Thirdly, we faced significant challenges in the governance of our organisation in the summer and autumn of 2012. We believe we have learned a great deal from the Hudson Review and that in the last year our Board has made significant progress not just in improving our governance policies structures, but in providing consistent strategic direction to the organisation and in enabling our volunteers and staff to get on with achieving impact.
- The Wikimedia UK Board participated wholeheartedly in the resulting Hudson Review and has embraced the approach of the review and the bulk of the specific recommendations that resulted. We have already implemented the most crucial recommendations regarding Board structure and conflict-of-interest policies. At time of writing an independent consultant is reviewing our progress against the report’s recommendations. The Board is committed to the continuous improvement of the organisation’s governance, and includes members with significant professional experience who are helping us develop in this area.
Please link to the following to provide supplemental information to the FDC:
- How does your entity share its work with your community and with the wider Wikimedia movement? For instance, publishing case studies on Meta, blog posts, newsletters, speeches at conferences, etc.
- The chapter uses a broad variety of different communication channels to share its work with the community. The home page of our website features a blog which is updated regularly (between two and four times a week) with news of the charity’s activities and forthcoming events. Shorter snippets of information are regularly highlighted on social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook. Notifications are also regularly sent to the WikimediaUK-l mailing list as well as on our wiki’s water cooler. For a more summarised narrative, we send out a monthly report to the Wikimedia UK mailing list. A quarterly newsletter is sent to our donors, and there is a monthly newsletter for members of the charity, the contents of both are also made publicly available on our website. Each is tailored to accommodate a different audience, and serves to communicate the charity’s activities and how people can get involved. We also use the wider movement’s channels to share information others would find useful - This Month in GLAM, for instance. Thanks to the work of our Communications Organiser, the high profile stories are being shared externally as well (eg: Times Higher Education, and The Huffington Post).
- Wikimedia UK also sends representatives to conferences both within the Wikimedia movement (eg: the Wikimedia Conference 2013 in Milan and Wikimania in Hong Kong, where we have provided workshops for members of other chapters, and hosted stands) and outside the movement (eg: OER13 in Nottingham - also here). On top of this, we have also organised international events such as GLAM-Wiki and EduWiki with the intention of raising the profile of the charity’s work in the GLAM and education communities. These events have provided a platform to share our findings and successes, with the intention of inspiring the wider Wikimedia movement. For instance, looking at the feedback from GLAM-Wiki Conference, “Starting a project” workshop was highlighted as providing a valuable insight into the processes of beginning to work with Wikimedia.
- We strongly believe that Wikipedia Zero can have an outstanding influence in education making the work of our community of benefit to learners in economically poor countries.
Wikimedia UK is committed to not only promoting but also reviewing its activities, and involving the community as we do so. Our key open day and workshop event in March 2013 brought over 30 volunteers who were enabled to meet and discuss the future of our charity - outcomes can be seen here. A review of our various works are made available in monthly and annual reports, on our website, publicised through a number of different WMF mailing lists and Meta. In particular, we have shared the high-profile reviews of Train the Trainers (also here for detail) and the Hudson Review.
- Link to most recently completed fiscal year annual plan
- Link to most recently completed fiscal year annual report and financial report
- Link to most recently completed fiscal year grant report (if your entity has received funds from the FDC)
- Our first year of FDC funding is not complete yet. As such, the most up to date report we have is our Q2 Progress report at FDC portal/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/WMUK/Progress report form/Q2
- Link to your entity's strategic plan if you have one
- Link to your organogram or organizational chart if one exists
- Link to your entity's current fiscal year plan and budget
Key programs/initiatives and objectives of the upcoming year's annual plan Edit
The following table is a navigational aid to show how each programme area relates to the strategic goals of both the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK.
|Community||Promoting free knowledge||Membership and public support||External relations||Finance||Governance management and administration||Staff|
|Wikimedia UK strategic area||Involving volunteers||X||X||X|
|Increasing open licensed content||X||X||X|
|Using resources and governance||X||X||X||X|
|Foundation strategic priorities||Stabilize infrastructure||X||X||X||X|
These tables are intended to provide an overview of your entity's upcoming year annual plan and its alignment with the movement's strategic priorities; please provide short phrases or 1-3 bullet points for each program below. You can also link to any other documents that you think might be helpful as context.
Please ensure that your proposed programs are SMART; that is, specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely.
If you feel you have a program that fulfills a strategic goal that is not immediately identified with a movement strategic priority ('readership' rather than 'editorship', for instance), please add that in the table and offer us your rationale.
Finally, please also note which programs are the entity's priorities.
Programme 1 Edit
Programme 2 Edit
Promoting free knowledge
Programme 3 Edit
Membership and public support
Programme 4 Edit
Programme 5 Edit
Programme 6 Edit
Governance management and administration
Programme 7 Edit
Additional context for the upcoming year's annual plan / SWOT Edit
Please provide 1-2 paragraphs for each response below. SWOT stands for your organizational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
- What organizational strengths enable your entity's plan (e.g., leadership, education program expertise, experience with outreach, governance structure, community participation, fundraising)?
- Governance review
- From a weakness this has become a strength of the chapter allowing us to support other chapters in challenges that growing chapters will face. We are confident that we now have a governance structure that while offering clear high-level leadership enables staff and volunteers to implement our programme.
- Strong staff team
- WMUK has a strong staff team combining experienced Wikimedians with others bringing outside expertise. They have demonstrated their ability to support the community and deliver our programmes. The danger is that they become overstretched through being over ambitious and responding to every opportunity that arises.
- Proven records of programme delivery and innovation
- We have demonstrated innovation and competence in areas such as Wikimedians in residence and Train the Trainers. There are many opportunities to develop our work but we need to be careful to concentrate on our core programme. Wikimania 2014 will be both an opportunity and a threat should it overwhelm our planned programme activities.
- Reputation for delivery
- WMUK has developed a growing reputation for delivering its programmes in a timely manner. We need to work much harder on defining our success criteria and measuring them. There are many opportunities in the UK to build partnerships but we need to concentrate on what we can deliver or risk burn-out or poor delivery.
- Strong leadership from CEO and Board
- WMUK has been able to demonstrate clear and consistent leadership offering stability during challenging times. There is an opportunity to build on this stability through a board of trustees that will include a broader range of people and skills than hitherto and through a staff team that has demonstrated a high level of professionalism. But this depends on a small number of individuals and their continued commitment, which is a risk that we will be addressing under ‘succession-planning’, as part of our ongoing review of major risks.
- We are currently determining our over arching KPI’s for 2014-15. These are in draft but include:
- Encourage, involve and engage volunteers
- Membership to increase by 50% to 300
- Active volunteers to grow by 50% from 100 to 150
- Encourage, involve and engage volunteers
- Increase participation from the UK on Wikimedia projects
- Increase the number of opportunities (events, content donation projects) for institutions and individuals to be involved by 20%
- At least 20% of active volunteers and participants to be women
- At least 40% of event participants to be women
- Increase participation from the UK on Wikimedia projects
- Improve, enable and increase openly-licensed content
- Engage in 10 initiatives aimed at enabling open content with GLAM, Education, and Government
- Host an event to bring together organisations working in the areas of open access and open knowledge.
- Improve, enable and increase openly-licensed content
- Using Technology
- Number of community projects that are discussed at Technical committee and taken forward - Increase by 100% in 2014/15
- Websites and tools hosted by Wikimedia UK will experience a minimum uptime of 99.5%
- Using Technology
- Resources and Governance
- Programmes to spend within 10% of budget
- Total budget underspend to be less than 5%
- SMART targets to be defined for all programmes and events and reported on quarterly to board and FDC
- All events to be monitored with all data aggregated through CIVI CRM or similar
- Trustee attendance at Board meetings to continue to be 100% but given increase board size 90% will be acceptable.
- Staff absenteeism to remain at or below 1%
- Follow up review to the Hudson Review successfully conducted and records satisfactory improvements and changes to our governance.
- Resources and Governance
- What external opportunities enable your entity's plan (e.g., socio-political context, community participation, fundraising)?
- Growing community
- There has been a steady growth in active volunteers. We can also point to an increase in local wiki-meets as an indicator of this. We anticipate that, with the growing number of activities, Wiki Loves Monuments being a prime example, and the excitement of Wikimania 2014, our community will grow dramatically during 2014-15.
- As a local chapter we have the ability to be sensitive to our local cultural context ensuring that our approaches and programmes fit in with our community and readers. This enables a much closer fit between our expenditure and expected outcomes.
- Better links with outside institutions
- There has been a sea change in our relationships with key external organisations. We are building a coalition with fellow open rights organisations, have developed a broad programme of GLAM partnerships, have established a partnership with the Welsh Government on the Living Paths project, and have a Wikimedian embedded in JISC the government agency that deals with University Information Technology. Again as an entity based within the UK we are seen as culturally sensitive and locally relevant.
- We will be supporting Wikimania 14. This will inevitably bring domestic and international attention to WMUK which, if handled correctly, can help cement our reputation and develop our profile.
- Meaningful paradigm shift in education and GLAM sectors, also in government thinking, towards being “open to open”
- Gift Aid
- As a UK registered charity we are able to reclaim some of the tax that our donors have paid in the UK. This adds significantly to our financial strength, and having a “gift aid” column on our fundraising adds to our public credibility as in the UK it is a widely recognised symbol of being a registered charity.
- What are key risks or threats that would prevent you from achieving your plan (e.g., leadership turnover, governance challenges, lawsuits, fundraising, community participation, socio-political context)?
- Governance challenges
- We need to ensure that our governance remains consistent and professional. We already have the necessary Board expertise for this and are doing this with the support of progress-checks by external consultants and feel that we have moved forward on the issues that once held us back.
- Staff turnover
- This is not currently an issue but we are single-point sensitive in most of our areas and need to ensure expertise is shared to avoid significant programme delays if a member of staff leaves or is absent for any significant period of time. Hence our policy of re-building reserves to accommodate any such absence.
- Community atrophy
- The active community settled in 2013-14 and began to grow again. We need to ensure that in all we do we engage with our volunteers and grow new generations of activists.
- How will you minimize these risks and threats?
- We have a comprehensive risk assessment strategy reported quarterly to the board and are further improving the review process for major risks. This can be shared on request but is a confidential documents.
- We have a comprehensive raft of policies and procedures to protect the charity including where appropriate taking external legal and management advice.
- We have extensive management systems to monitor progress. These consist of individual staff three month and annual plans, an internal quarterly financial management reporting system and a combined project-control reporting system that is shared with the FDC.
- We are building on our raft of metrics to ensure a local and global approach that demonstrates programme efficacy.
Financials: year-to-date progress Edit
This section provides the FDC information about how your entity is progressing against the current fiscal year's planned budget (revenues and costs).
Please provide the relevant information below. "Year-to-date" refers to the period between the start of your entity's current fiscal year and the date of submission of the proposal. Actual year-to-date financials should be provided as close to the proposal submission date as possible.
Identify the year-to-date for which you are reporting, month/year to month/year:
- Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 of 2013/14 - that is, 01 February 2013 to 31 July 2013.
Current fiscal year planned budget Year-to-date actuals Projected final amount In currency requested In $US In currency requested In $US In currency requested In $US Revenues (from all sources) 632000 £632000 ($1011200) 353182 £353182 ($565091.2) 650568 £650568 ($1040908.8) Spending 768363 £768363 ($1229380.8) 335512 £335512 ($536819.2) 701074 £701074 ($1121718.4)
Table 3 details, if necessary:
- Please take note of the increasing spend as the year progresses.
- Based on the variance percentages above, please describe how your entity is progressing against revenue and spending targets. If your projected final amount shows your entity to be significantly under or over target on either revenue or spending, please provide a detailed explanation.
- Our revenue is slightly up, in part because our Direct Debit attrition rate has been lower than expected, due to the good relationship with are developing with our donors. This is being built on by a quarterly donor newsletter, called "Recent Changes", which highlights successes that the chapter has had in the past quarter, interviews volunteers, and highlights local activities.
- Our spending is still lower than budgeted for, but each quarter the underspend has been reduced. In Q1-2, underspend was approximately 14%; by year end we expect it to half to 8%. We have enough projects planned to ensure that this is a sensible plan. The Board regularly question the Chief Executive on his plans for spending to budget: you can read the most recent questioning in our minutes at https://wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_14Sep13#QFMR. These reasons are in part because some major institutions are not yet ready to work with us, and in part because events are significantly cheaper to run than we first expected. We do not view these as failures: instead, we are moving the delayed projects to next year, and re-planning the spend of this year's funds to other projects, in particular a Wikipedian in Residence at a major Welsh institution who will be working primarily in the Welsh language. This has the potential to positively impact the development of the Welsh Wikipedia and we hope we can report on the effects of it publicly in the future.
Financials: upcoming year's annual plan Edit
Please note that the FDC staff is currently exploring alternatives to wikitables for financial information. This issue will be addressed by the time the proposal creation tool is launched on September 1, 2013. Provide your financial overview for the upcoming year in the format below.
Please link to your detailed budget in a publicly available spreadsheet file (translation into English highly recommended) in addition to completing the tables below. Detailed budget link:
Financial sustainability Edit
- What other donors support your work beyond those in the Wikimedia movement? If your entity does receive funding from other donors, please list a contact person.
Note that the FDC staff may contact these donors.
- We have no major donors that the Foundation would find it useful to contact.
- What are your entity's plans for achieving long-term financial sustainability?
- We intend to become self-sustaining within the next five years through finding enough domestic donors willing to commit to us through Direct Debit donations. This was a process that was working through being able to receive donations as direct fundraisers. We aim to become direct fundraisers again in 2014, thereby being able to continue this process. By building on our potential regular donor base and being able to take advantage of the extra 25% that will be added on from our Government’s Gift Aid programmes.
Please list anticipated revenues, by source (e.g., FDC, Wikimedia grants programs, grants from institutional donors, public funding, membership fees, local donations, event fees)
Revenue source Anticipated (in currency requested) Anticipated (In $US) Regular Donations & Single Gifts 240000 £240000 ($384000) Membership Income 2000 £2000 ($3200) Gift Aid 28000 £28000 ($44800) WMF Grant 442217 £442217 ($707547.2)
Table 4 notes, if necessary:
- This table does not include several thousand pounds worth of unanticipated income from conferences, interest, and better than expected Gift Aid returns.
Current entity staff and long-term contractors Edit
Role/functions might include program administration, finance, fundraising. Please include both part-time and full-time staff and long-term contractors.
Role / Function Number of staff Percentage of staff time* Governance & Finance 3 100+100+100 Fundraising 1 100 Charitable Projects 6 100+100+100+100+50+50
*Please include estimates of the percentage allocation of staff members. For example, for full-time staff, you would put 100% in this column. For half time staff, you would put 50% in this column.
Table 5 notes, if necessary:
- Staff time allocation table
- As an example, we are unsure how best to best describe four staff as a percentage: it could be 75% ((100+100+50+50)/4), or it could be 300%. Both of these figures are ambiguous, so we have added a breakdown of time, per staff member, instead. Further staff breakdowns can be requested confidentially if necessary.
Proposed new staff and and long-term contractors for upcoming year's annual plan Edit
Role / functions might include program administration, finance, fundraising. Please include both part-time and full-time staff and long-term contractors.
Department (e.g. Programs, Communications) Number of current staff Percentage of current staff time* Number of upcoming staff Percentage of upcoming staff time* Rationale for hiring new staff
*Please include estimates of the percentage allocation of staff members and long-term contractors. For example, for full-time staff, you would put 100% in this column. For half-time staff, you would put 50% in this column.
Table 6 notes, if necessary:
Summary of staff and long-term contractor expenses Edit
In currency requested In $US Percent increase Current staff expenses 266207 £266207 ($425931.2) Proposed increase for current staff expenses 54505 £54505 ($87208) 17% Proposed increase for new staff expenses 0 0 0% Total staff expenses 320712 £320712 ($513139.2) 17%
Please estimate the percentage of overall staff time spent on programmatic work, as opposed to administration:
- We allocate staff costs across charitable work/governance work/fundraising, in line with best practice in the United Kingdom. This best practice is described in the Charities Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP): Accounting and Reporting by Charities, available at http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/media/95505/sorp05textcolour.pdf. Of the £101,283 spent on staff in Q1 & Q2:
- £67,877 was spent on Charitable Projects
- £25,707 was spent on Governance
- £7,699 was spent on Fundraising
Table 7 notes, if necessary:
- Some of our staff have joined part-way through this year. This means that, although staff costs appear to have risen by 17%, there are no new staff. In addition, there will only be minor salary adjustments of no more than £3,000 in total, and a cost-of-living salary increase for all staff of 3%. The majority of the cost increase is simply because of staff moving from six- or nine-months worth of salary, to twelve months.
- We have calculated SORP-based performance ratios, which are seen by the Charity Commission as the three key indicators of a charity's efficiency (although they will obviously vary by charity):
- Our governance costs were 31% of the size of our charitable project costs
- Our fundraising costs were 22% of the funds that we raised (excluding gift aid)
- Our Charitable Projects accounted for 69% of our total expenditure.
Expenses by program / initiative Edit
Expenses are costs associated with any programs, initiatives, or projects your entity manages (e.g., event costs, materials, transportation). Please exclude any staff costs that are included above. “Programs / initiatives” might include education programs, outreach programs, microgranting initiatives, etc. Please include any administration costs (e.g., office space rental, utilities) affiliated with each program along with any overall administration costs that are not affiliated with any particular program (e.g., Administration should be considered a "Program" under the first column.)
Program / initiative In currency requested In $US Community 113500 £113500 ($181600) Promoting Free Knowledge 99000 £99000 ($158400) Membership and public support 28405 £28405 ($45448) External Relations 22000 £22000 ($35200) Finances 15000 £15000 ($24000) Governance, Management and Administration 103600 £103600 ($165760) Staff 10000 £10000 ($16000) Total program expenses (should equal the sum of the rows) 391505 £391505 ($626408)
Table 8 notes, if necessary:
Summary of total revenues and expenses Edit
In currency requested In $US Total cash balance as of proposal submission 266533 £266533 ($426452.8) Total revenues 733217 £733217 ($1173147.2) Total spending 733217 £733217 ($1173147.2) Net (revenues less expenses) 0 £0 ($0) Operating reserves,* if applicable
Table 9 notes, if necessary:
- Total cash balance is the figure Cash in Hand & at Bank, taken from our Balance Sheet as of 30 July 2013.
Verification that this proposal requests no funds from the Wikimedia Foundation for political or legislative activities Edit
Enter "yes" or "no" for the verification below.
- The term “political or legislative activities” includes any activities relating to political campaigns or candidates (including the contribution of funds and the publication of position statements relating to political campaigns or candidates); voter registration activities; meetings with or submissions and petitions to government executives, ministers, officers or agencies on political or policy issues; and any other activities seeking government intervention or policy implementation (like “lobbying”), whether directed toward the government or the community or public at large. Grants for such activities (when permitted under U.S. law and IRS regulations) should be sought from the Wikimedia Grants Program.
I verify that this proposal requests no funds from the Wikimedia Foundation for political or legislative activities Yes
Once complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes. No changes can be made to the documents after the deadlines for completion passes, and documents will automatically be considered 'submitted' after the deadline closes.
- "The FDC is confident that the chapter will respond effectively and positively to this, but would like to suggest focusing on this process first, and continuing the organic development without a simultaneous major budget growth, since it could jeopardize the organizational change effort" — FDC report on WMUK bid 2012-13