Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016 round1/Amical Wikimedia/Impact report form

Purpose of the report


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


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.


Program 1
Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved 832 program details
2. # of new editors 176 program details
3. # of individuals involved 2,250 program details
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 662 program details
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 48,581 program details
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 3,308,610 program details

Program 2
Education and Knowledge
Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved 289 program details
2. # of new editors 2,143 program details
3. # of individuals involved 3,813 program details
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 1,073 program details
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 2,097 program details
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects n/a program details

Program 3
Core projects
Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved 496 program details
2. # of new editors 442 program details
3. # of individuals involved 1,648 program details
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 2,740 program details
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 3,342 program details
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects n/a program details

Telling your program stories - all programs


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.

Program 1: Community

Community program against its targets
Target Last year (if applicable) Progress (at end of Q2) Finished (end of year) Comments
Organising Viquitrobada 2016, Catalan Wikimedians AGM 2015 edition
Viquitrobada 2016 edition. It was not Amical's AGM but community's AGM.
4 formative seminars for Wikimedians Seminars done during Viquitrobada 2015
We organized internal workshops for wikimedians
Following each volunteer driven activity 2015 APG impact report
We've been following all volunteer proposals so far this year (e.g. Barcelona ComiCon, Temps de Flors...)
Community grants Wikimania 2016 & Temps de Flors Girona
We've funded 5 grants for Wikimania 2016, Temps de Flors Girona and all community led writing challenges.
Community care program evaluation
Successes Challenges Learnings (so far)
  • 500K: We wanted to reach 500k articles before cawiki 15th anniversary, so we organized a challenge since Jan-1. Lots of social media, daily stats, kudos to most actives, organised teams... and we did it! We almost doubled activity of the wiki. +info & here
  • Viquitrobada 2016: our annual meeting is the most important Catalan Wikimedians meeting. This year (again) we got the venue for free thanks to our collaboration with a GLAM partner. It took place in November in València, to promote that Catalan language territorial spread. info
  • Wikimania 2016: This year we funded travels to 5 community members, leaders of GLAM, research, local & gender projects.
  • Volunter led writing challenges have increased this year. They are easy to organise and scale. Examples: Barcelona Comic Con, Barcelona Film Week, Catalan poetry, Women editathons... hundreds of articles created.
  • Viquidones: We've put big efforts in trying to reduce gender gap in Catalan Language wikimedia projects. In collaboration with Wikimujeres, Wikimedia Spain and some local feminist orgs, we have run several activities, online challenges and workshops. It has been clearly one of the core topics of the year, creating more than 2,5K new women biographies.
  • Community care: We keep taking care of the community mood. The number of conflicts on Catalan Wikis is almost null. This is due to a 1:1 relationship and listening to community members needs.
  • Post-momentum: During the 1st trimester we had a momentum putting lots of effort in reaching the 500K on cawiki, and we did it. It was a challenge to keep the momentum after that special effort.
  • Microgrants: We didn't succeed in promoting Micro-grants program. Only 1 micro-grant proposal was presented on our community. It was approved. On the other hand, several writing challenges led by community members applied for "contests awards", funded by Amical.
  • Internal communication channels: New tools and platforms like Whatsapp or Telegram or social media platforms are increasingly becoming communication spaces for community members. Talk pages and IRC are losing frequency of use. We need to find a better way to make sure that everyone's in and everyone feels comfortable with different levels and spaces for internal communication, and also that important information is available for everyone interested. We need to make sure that lower voices have their space for communicating their ideas and worries.
  • Affiliates Collaboration: As said, we have improved the amount and quality of collaboration with other affiliates, specially Wikimedia Spain and Wikimujeres, but also the Basque Wikimedians, Wikimedia MX, FR & UK and other affiliates via online participating on their activities. It takes time to leverage assumptions and expectations but we are happy with the results so far.
  • Sharing model via the Education collab, GLAMWiki, OpenGLAM groups and attending to conferences we are learning to better share our model, but there is still a lot of way for improvement.

Program 2: Education & Knowledge

Education & Knowledge program against its targets
Target Last year (if applicable) Progress (at end of Q2) Finished (end of year) Comments
Number of Classrooms collaborating with Wikipedia 2015 impact report
59 Projects done course 2015-2016 and 41 ongoing so far for 2016-2017.
New Mindset on knowledge sector N/A
We have published papers on reference magazines. Contacted key members in both cultural and educational sector. It is a mid term investment but we are already seeing some results

Education program evaluation
Successes Challenges Learnings (so far)
  • Papers: One of our goals this year was to be recognised as a trustee discourse agent among both the institutional and the educational sector. We have increased our participation in other orgs conferences and events, and we are particularly happy with the number of scientific papers, publications or blog posts that we have collaborated with institutions like CCCB (Contemporary Culture Center in Barcelona), National Library of Andorra, Catalan language official Terminology centre, Vall Hebron Hospital, Pompeu Fabra University. Another success for us is that these papers not only talk about Wikipedia but also about Wikidata, WikiCommons or Catalan Wiktionary, giving voice to sister projects. Our main success in this area, was being the chair of a White paper on the collaboration between Public Libraries and Wikipedia, published by IFLA during 2016. You can read it here (PDF). We also were invited by Wikimedia Deutschland to present our Bibliowikis project to German librarians. It was a great honour for us.
  • Number of projects: With almost 100 educational projects done during 2016, more than 2,000 students and 2,000 articles improved, we can state that the strategy is being a success. 80% of our work is on Catalan Wikipedia, but we are also active on Spanish and English wikis. Some teachers are already planning the wiki projects without our help, like it happened with the librarians. This is a measure of success for us, although it makes more difficult to track their activity.
  • Multilingual: We have increased the number of students that are writing about Catalan culture in other language wikis, thanks to a partnership with Institut Ramon Llull, which has agreements with international universities where Catalan is taught (from US to Japan).
  • Partners Survey: As part of the evaluation process, we did a survey to our stakeholders. Answers came from GLAMs, educational sector and government agencies, which helped us to set the priorities on the way to the future. results are here
  • 100% of Catalan speaking universities: We still haven't reached all Catalan speaking Universities, sometimes due to a lack of a trusted entry contact point.
  • Scaling: We have scaled the number of educational projects, but yet we need to improve on how we deal with community, specially on end of term periods, where there is a rush of new users editing Wikipedia to finish their assignment. As we have a mid-size wiki, sometimes we have some edition bottlenecks. Mentoring gets harder in these situations.
  • Retention: Retention of student users is a big challenge, we haven't succeed in facing it.
  • Mid term relationship with teachers after a couple of semesters gets a lot better once they reach the end of their wiki learning curve.
  • Adapting courses to keep commitment for teachers and students. In some schools we need to rethink which topics should students work in or changing the assignment in order to maintain the engagement levels in both students and teachers.
  • Better explaining ourselves in educational sector. After these years we are starting to better leverage our projects among teaching professionals.
Number of Eduwiki Classrooms x year (source)
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17
3 1 3 4 7 13 38 46 59 41

Program 3: Core Projects

Community suggested & innovation program evaluation
Successes Challenges Learnings (so far)
  • Half a milion milestone: We did a huge campaign with community to reach this milestone before our 15th anniversary… and we did it! Very proud of it.
  • Wikiprojects and Online contests: The volunteer community sees us as a problem solver and a facilitator. Lots of Wikiprojects (see detailed list) are managed directly by volunteers. We facilitate small awards and spread the word on our social media channels.
  • Catalan Terminology Center: We have a long term partnership with the Catalan terminology centre. They are releasing dictionaries for Wiktionary and we have also submitted a joint paper to an International Terminology conference.
  • Bibliowikis: Our libraries project keeps expanding and we have reached 200 public libraries collaborating with Wikipedia. It has become a model for the whole movement. We have published papers with IFLA and the network has been copied in Asturias and Basque Country, led by Wikimedia Spain and Basque Wikimedians User:group.
  • Modernism in Wikidata: we keep developing a partnership with University of Barcelona where a former Wikipedian in Residence leads a Wikidata Wikiproject on Modernisme (Catalan Version of Art Nouveau: Gaudí, Sagrada Família…) the project is improving items and statements of Modernisme artworks, which are currently spread in online databases throughout the Internet (and even offline sources). This project is inspired by WikiProject Sum of all paintings, where we are collaborating with a couple of museum databases.
  • Wikipedian in Residence: We have a wikipedian in residence in València city, who collaborates with several local museum, in a partnership with Valencia County Government.
  • Modernism in Wikidata: The amount of work dealing with databases before uploading them to Wikidata was much bigger than expected.
  • The Wikipedia Library: Although fully translated, the project did not have a big welcome among Catalan wikimedians. They like it, but they don't use it as expected.
  • How to track Self-sustained partner projects: We use a mentorship technique with our partners. Now, some of them organise their own editathons, educational courses. It is hard for us to keep track on how many wiki articles they have edited, for example.
  • Diversity has been one of the big tracks of the year. Not only gender diversity, but also geographical and historical. We have tried hard to fill the bias gaps of our projects. Projects like Making Africa, Asian Month or Viquidones (in close collaboration with Wikimujeres) have help to create hundreds of articles of previously non-existing topics on cawiki projects.
  • Renewing key members: With volunteer led projects (writing challenges, editathons…) a new group of leaders is emerging in Amical Wikimedia. These are good news for our mid term sustainability as a group.
  • Adding a sister-projects layer: Adding Sister projects proposals to success writing contests has work as a way of doing outreach for this sister projects and for explaining ourselves better as a movement, further than a group of encyclopaedia writers.
  • Wikiloves X: Wiki loves contests where calling less attention both from media and from community members. In order to renew the interest on the contest, this year we did a "fill in the gaps" contest, both for pictures and wiki articles, where people where called to create missing Wikipedia articles and take missing pictures. You only got points when you filled one of the content gaps. It worked quite well!

How do our partners see us?


As part of a process of internal evaluation at the end of 2016 we conducted a survey by mail to people and organizations with whom we have carried out a project in recent years. The responses from various sectors such as museums, universities, libraries and government agencies, confirm some of the core ideas of Amical model and they suggest what should be the priorities for the future.

Altogether thirty people answered the survey, including technical people and managers. This is a representative sample of the type of partnerships we are trying to build. This article summarizes some of the most significant answers.

Helping both ways

When asked how can Wikipedia help your institution, most answers point out that Wikipedia contributes to its openness and helps them in their mission to make knowledge generated by its experts available to public: “gives visibility”, “open minded ways of seeing the world”, “dissemination work”, “facilitates social return”. Some also add their views as users: “increasingly useful source”, “essential for the students.” Several people have emphasized the value for the Catalan language.

Our partners are aware of what they can do to help Wikipedia: “spread its content”, “contribute with reliable content”, “help improve its image among the public”, “make small contributions”.

Mental picture improvement

In our strategic plan we have a branch devoted to readers. The number of visitors remains very low, especially for social and technical reasons. For example, most of the browsers of Catalan readers are configured by default in Spanish language.

We want to increase visitors but mostly we want to improve the perception of the project. Quality can help increasing readers (later editors). Seeing how it works, people can better use our content and they can help us to expand it. Therefore, we asked whether the perception of Wikipedia had changed after doing a project with us and we also asked them advice in this regard.

About the mental picture, some claim that they had a prior good concept but the majority found that the perception has improved a lot since we started a joint collaboration. Aspects that stand out are the quality of articles (“rigor of content and flexibility to incorporate improvements”, “I thought it was just an amateur project”, “now for me it is more credible”, “it was a sort of intruder in my job and now it is an ally”), the knowledge of the community (“it is no longer something distant”, “people are eager to work”, “formerly it was a hidden motive to understand how it could have grown so much only with volunteers”) and internal operations (“I am more aware of its evolution”, “my respect has gone from big to huge”, “some clichés disappear knowing their philosophy and operating”).

They think that main obstacles for readers are obsolete or not visual design and lead section of articles which should be affordable for everyone and summarize the essential information. They believe that there is still much work to do to make the site gains in prestige and to achieve it they point to the need to include more references (accessible by readers) and further improve linguistic review.

They value the Visual Editor and edit-a-thons as essential elements to remove technical barriers and to increase users who need an introduction to understand and subsequent guidance. Close monitoring helps them “feel part of a whole” and “have more motivation to participate”. As unresolved issues in terms of editing they point to the interaction with others and, above all, uploading images still seen as too complex processes.

Aspects to keep, aspects to change

Last block is referred to the procedural evaluation: how do you assess the cooperation with us, which aspects we should keep or change.

We must say that we are delighted by the enthusiasm and positive responses because everyone, without exception, say they would recommend us to other institutions (and many actually do). In fact, rather than changes in the model, demands are increasing participation (“more edit-a-thons”, “more network dialogue”, “further joint collaborations”).

Among qualities they include “passion”, “availability and speed of response”, “a groundbreaking approach in today’s world” and “effort”. Undoubtedly, we will work to keep us live up to those expectations!

In short, we can learn from the survey which aspects are most valued by readers and related institutions to continue to improve our daily work with organizations because, as one respondent stated, “the dissemination of knowledge is essential to improve society”.

Revenues received during this period


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
Membership fees + donation EUR 2.500,00 1.010,60 3.462,90 4.473,50 2.648,48 4.739,18
Partnerships EUR 3.000,00 2.330,00 0,00 2.330,00 3.178,17 2.468,38
Conferences and workshops EUR 2.000,00 766,00 3.530,00 4.296,00 2.118,78 4.551,14
APG EUR 68.000,00 39.667,00 28.333,00 68.000,00 72.038,52 72.038,52
Other EUR
TOTAL EUR 75.500,00 43.773.60 35.325,90 79.099,50 79.983,95 83.797,22

* Provide estimates in US Dollars

Change EUR/USD 1,05939 ECB, on March 1, 2017

Spending during this period


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
Program 1: Community EUR 7.500,00 5.102,64 4.506,27 9.608,91 7.945,43 10.179,58 128,12%
Program 2: Education & Knowledge EUR 35.500,00 13.589,86 19.402,94 32.992,80 37.608,35 34.952,24 92,94%
Program 3: Core projects EUR 32.500,00 12.451,48 15.303,54 27.755,02 34.430,18 29.403,39 85,40%
TOTALS EUR 75.500,00 31.143,98 39.212,75 70.356,73 79.983,95 74.535,22 93,19%

* Provide estimates in US Dollars

Change EUR/USD 1,05939 ECB, on March 1, 2017



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


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.

  • Yes

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


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



Resources to plan for measurement


Resources for storytelling