Grants:PEG/UG BG/CEE Spring/Report

Report accepted
This report for a Project and Event grant approved in FY Pending has been reviewed and accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • You may still comment on this report on its discussion page, or visit the discussion page to read the discussion about this report.
  • You are welcome to Email grants at wikimedia dot org at any time if you have questions or concerns about this report.

The logo of CEE Spring

This report was created by the international team, with help from their wiki-friends. We thank you all for that!

Project statusEdit

Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
Is your project completed?

Activities and lessons learnedEdit


Activity Time spent When
Creation of first plan.

Definition of aims and timeframe.

Rough definition of methods to achieve the aims, as well as needs.

n/a December 2015
Kick-Off-Meeting One evening at Wikipedia 15 birthday in Kyiv, Ukraine 15 January 2016
Building an international team n/a 18 January 2016 – 23 January 2016
Inviting local participants 12 January 2016 – 31 March 2016
Discussion of the rules 18 January 2016 – 17 February 2016
Definition of the rules on international level 18 January 2016 – 18 February 2016
Consultation of local teams with the international team about the local rules 18 February 2016 – 18 March 2016
Creation of the grant proposal 80 hours 18 January 2016 – 18 February 2016
Definition of the final aims and timeframe.

Final definition of methods to achieve the aims, as well as needs

18 January – 17 February 2016
Definition of duties of the local organisers 23 January 2016 – 30 January 2016
Implementation of software tools to support the project ongoing
Creation of a blog, Facebook and Twitter accounts 17 February 2016 – 24 February
Creation of the article lists per country 21 February 2016 – 31 March 2016
Article Contest 21 March 2016 – 31 May 2016
Outreach – creation of posters and leaflets and presentation of the project at national and international conferences April 2016 – September 2016
Determination of the local results June 2016
Local prize ceremonies July – September 2016
Evaluation of the results July 2016
Grant report 80 hours 1 September 2016 – 29 September 2016


The beginnings

The article writing contest was held in the spirit of friendship. The unquantifiable aim of the project has always been the peaceful and friendly collaboration among  communities, some of which have been at war.

Just as last year, the contest began at a party for the 15th birthday of Wikipedia held at the historic Bochka restaurant in Kyiv. Wikimedia Ukraine offered assistance to Wikimedians of Bulgaria User Group for the project by putting one of their staff, Vira Motorko to work 10 hours per week for the project.

Wikimedia Ukraine also offered advice by pointing out that Wikimedia Polska would be the best possible fiscal sponsor; because they are the other large chapter in the region; have experience in organising contests with other affiliates in projects as Wiki Loves Earth; and do not have problems, connected to their bank system, e.g. in Ukraine half of all money transferred from abroad must be changed in the volatile local currency immediately.

International team

Some of the local organisers with some of the members of the international team at the Wikimedia Conference 2016

In the week following the launch, Wikimedia Polska also assigned one of their staff, Natalia Szafran-Kozakowska, to work 10 hours per week for the project.The official international team was completed with the inclusion of Bekhruzbek Ochilov. These officially named organisers were joined by the technicians – Александр Сигачёв, Voll, Jura1 and Base. These people, the unsung heroes of CEE Spring, excelled at helping pro-actively - Jura1 and Voll created the MediaWiki module for the article lists per country, Александр Сигачёв restarted the bot, which counted the results of last year (Botik). The exceptional Base not only created a bot for counting all the results which were needed for gathering data needed for  the grant report, but also offered even more data and advice, which enabled the organisers to steer the project based on data instead of assumptions. This way we were able to see if we were making good progress towards our goals during the project and create initiatives to strengthen those areas which needed support.

Communication in the international team, aims, risks

A barnstar for everyone, who helped this project to success

The communication of the international team was primarily held in a half-serious Facebook group chat. Although this is not the best communication platform for objective reasons like bad support for search and no possibility for formatting, we found that by using a platform on which: everybody was contactable all the time; easily accessible on mobile; and with a good notification system, we were able to create a friendly and collaborative working environment, an atmosphere of happy and fun joint work. This helped us with approaching challenges in a spirit of kindness and support. Liam Wyatt, the project leader of Europeana 280 and Base also both later joined this chat. This ought to have been done much earlier - both of them brought new ideas and valuable additions to the project There was not a single moment of spoken communication besides at the moments when some of the organisers met in person at conferences.

Decisions, plans, lessons learned and financial matters were of course documented  in serious, searchable Google Documents.

Although the international organisers were reachable for the project and working on it virtually day and night, a separate, dedicated meeting was held in order to define the aims of the project. It was held in written form and a documented through  a Google Document, which was used as a draft for eventual publication on Meta. The international team decided that the project ought to include as many existing editors as possible in order to create the most possible content about Central and Eastern Europe and thus close the ‘content gap’ about the region. It was also decided that the number of articles about each participating country should be as equal as possible.

We set the aim that each very active editor participates in the contest (400 in total) and set the very high aim that 50% of all participants are female. Our secondary goals were that we expected that at least 5% of the participants were new editors and the number of articles about women created and significantly edited during the contest is higher than the number of articles about men. In general we met our goals.

Risk analysis was provided in the grant proposal. One of the predicted risks happened – a key person burned out. We did not take the preventive measure we had defined – splitting responsibility to many people. The corrective measure – recruiting new people for the project did not work, too.

Participants and Rules; Communication with the local organisers

The call for participants was made on the mailing list of the Wikimedians of Central and Eastern Europe on 19 January 2016 and the Facebook page of the regional cooperation a week later. Some communities were not invited, because they were not subscribed to what the international organisers perceived the official communication channels. NickK from Ukraine initiated communication with such communities by writing to their village pumps – yet another example for a Wikimedian who did the right thing and supported the project an unbureaucratic way. His efforts led to a few communities joining shortly before or even in the ten days after the beginning of the contest.

We allowed communities to join late or even too late, because we wanted to allow everybody to participate and by doing this to foster a better relationship between the communities. At least one community was unhappy about Republika Srpska’s participation in the contest, although from the project point of view Republika Srpska was entitled to participate because it has an official Wikimedia User Group.

The definition of participants was not clear. In the end chapters, user groups and unaffiliated communities participated. Therefore there were two contests on Serbian (Republic of Serbia and Republika Srpska) and Albanian (Albania and Kosovo) Wikipedia, but only one contest on Romanian Wikipedia (for Moldova and Romania, both not having an affiliate) and one on Greek Wikipedia (which has two user groups). There were three contests in Russia (on Russian, Bashkirian and Sakha Wikipedia, because of the three affiliates operating in the country). We will to do better next year and define the participants more strictly and precisely. A discussion was held on Meta.

The rules on international level were kept intentionally simple – each participating community had to choose at least 100 important articles about it, create local rules supporting the international aims and use books and reference materials as prizes. Wikimedia Polska bought the prizes or reimbursed the winners, since they were the only chapter in the region which could manage the process, because they have experience from other international contests.


A poster about the contest, shown at the Wikimedia Conference

The international organisers used social media and a dedicated blog to promote the contest. A Facebook page, a Twitter account, and a VKontakte account were created. The blog domain ( was bought and hosted by Wikimedia Polska, while the blog design was created for free by the company of a member of Wikimedians of Bulgaria, Justine Toms. The blog was specially designed to be multilingual in order to allow local organisers write posts in their own languages and publish them without needing their own blog.

The Facebook page was by far the most used promotion channel with 99 posts, the page was liked by 370 people, had a reach of up to 961 on a single post, which is comparable to the statistics of the Wiki Loves Earth, which has existed for longer time. 36% of people watching the profile were female and 63% male (31% to 69% for Wiki Loves Earth).

There were 20 blog posts in 8 languages.

The aim of the Facebook page was to show interesting articles to its readers, to allow people to publicly show their created article by using page mentions and as a way to show appreciation to the participants and share up to date information about the contest. The aim of the blog was to motivate a small number of readers to participate more actively in the contest. Its content consisted of news, statistics, biographies of exceptional people of encyclopedic notability and information about interesting articles. The blog was used by the local organisers more than the Facebook page.

The international organisers also prepared a few example press releases in order to give an easy possibility to local organisers with little or no experience in press work to approach their local national media. These were used by a few thankful communities.


All non-APG-funded communities were offered up to 400 euro for buying prizes for the participants. How many participants would receive them and what would the prizes be given for was to be decided by the local organizers and put in the local rules. All the prizes had to be books or other knowledge sources (such as access to online journals or databases). The idea was to give the participants prizes which they could later use as sources for editing Wikipedia. This way we wanted to encourage people to keep editing after the end of the contest and to give the kind of prizes which would inspire content creation. This idea has been already tried in Wikimedia Polska thematic week contest with good results.


The number of articles per week was highest at the beginning and at the end of the contest.

The thematic week of women in science and education (the third from the right) led to the second highest percentage of biographical articles about women during the contest

Most participants (29.6%) were aged between 21 and 30 years. The next largest groups were those aged between 31 and 40 (24.3%) and between 10 and 20 (17.7%).

See also “Project metrics”.

Lessons learnedEdit

Here we show a list of what worked well and what did not. At the same time we are learning on a separate page with the lessons learned and we have data from the post-project survey, which we will use for next year's edition. A lessons learned session was also held at the Wikimedia CEE Meeting in August (Etherpad).

What worked well?
  • Content
    • A lot of good content was generated, the content gap about the region and the content gender gap were partially closed. Both gaps were reduced in quantitative and in qualitative sense by creating new articles and significantly improving existing articles.
    • A thematic week about women in science and education with small special prizes from the press office of WIkimedia Poland led to increase in the number of articles about these topics.
  • Communication
    • A core international team was always available for information about the organisation of the contest
    • Mass messages are a very good way of communicating, because people see the changes on their watchlists – at the contest pages and at other users’ pages and proved useful
  • Strategic
    • Leaders emerged – on national and international level. Last year’s winners in a few countries (e.g. Belarus, Turkey) organised this year’s contest. Nikola Kalchev also led a Wikimedia project for the first time.
  • Political
    • Cooperations with local national institutes (e.g. Polish institute in Bulgaria and Czechia) emerged.
    • Kosovo and Serbia worked together on the article lists for Kosovo, which the first consider an independent state and the second consider part of their state.
  • Prizes
    • The local prize categories about new users motivated new users to participate.
    • Although some user groups could not afford to buy the prizes from their own money before getting reimbursed, the flexibility of chapters like Wikimedia Serbia and Wikimedia Poland allowed them to take part at the prize awarding process in a simple manner.
    • Some local organisers found local sponsors and reduced the amount of money they took from the international grant. Others reduced the amount from the possible 400 Euro to the one needed by their communities.
  • Technical
    • Volunteers like User:Base and User:Voll joined and created software for evaluating the contributions.
    • They also created much better tools than asked for.
    • The usage of a Wikidata module for the creation of artilcle lists made them easy to be created
    • The usage of the same template on all wikis made it easier easy to gather statistics
  • Organisational
    • Grant making process – one large international grant saved a lot of work to local organisers
    • Cross-project support with Europeana 280 and WLE – the two contests did not compete with each other, but rather supported each other. Both Europeana 280 and WLE gave new material for articles
    • Having article lists about each participating communities was very useful
    • The help provided specially for young local coordinators was well done and needed.
What didn't work?
  • Overall
    • The choice of participating communities was confusing – countries, user groups, languages, a region of Russia which is not in Europe (Sakha)
    • No good guidelines for organising a local contest were set up.
    • A possible cooperation with the Wikimedia Library was not set up, although it was planned.
    • Some participants considered the contest too long (although at the same time it’s longitude allowed us to organize weeks dedicated to all participating communities which supported creating content related to all of them, not only the big and popular ones)
    • Translation of articles was seen as an unfair advantage on some wikis, e.g. Slovak Wikipedia, especially if the contributions from translations received the same amount of points as other contributions.
  • Technical
    • The technical supporteres started being seen as a part of the international organisers too late and no appreciation was shown for a long time.
    • The tool for counting 300 words used by Wikimedia Asia Month was not provided.
    • Not all communities used the CEE Spring template, which was used for computing the results
  • Communication
    • It took time before a well working communication with the local teams was set up. A mailing list did not work, private communication did not work, mass messages almost worked.
    • Some communities were notified too late about the contest, because they were not subscribed to the CEE mailing list and were not members of the CEE Facebook group, as the organisers expected
    • The Croatian organisers did not see the information about the prize awarding process on their local contest page and therefore did not participate at the international prize funds.
    • The blog was created too late,
      • because the first non-Wikimedia-volunteers who offered their help simply went away, and
      • Because the international organisers did not have access to the server where the blog was installed
    • The first blog post on the central Wikimedia blog came too late, because of a misunderstanding about the amount of time needed for the WMF team to publish it. This happened before the Wikimedia Foundation Social Media Hub was established
    • The Twitter and VKontakte accounts were not used as much as they could have been.
  • International prize awarding
    • Some communities felt the prize awarding process “suffocating bureaucracy”
    • Some of the communities had poor experience with any paper work which lead to them having problem with sending all the papers
    • Not all communities were able to communicate in English and had to find a translator which made the process longer
  • The quality of some of the lists was poor
    • Some were too long
    • Some had articles in them, which did not exist in English or any other widely spoken language
  • Political
    • There was a conflict about the participation of Republika Srpska, who was considered non-eligible by members of the Bosnian Wikipedia
What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?
  • Promotion
    • We would prepare posters and other materials earlier. We would analyse the possible positive effects of a motivational video.
    • We would encourage cross-project cooperation with the projects Ethnography of the Carpathians, Wiki Loves Earth and Wiki Loves Monuments.
    • We would be even more active on social media and create an atmosphere of an event.
    • We would put more effort into getting press coverage
    • We would look into using a central citenotice in order to popularise the contest on wikis where it was not as popular as it could have been, e.g. German Wikipedia. Possibly with a different sitenotice for newbies.
  • Rules
    • We would define participants better and get feedback from the communities in the process
    • We would analyse the effects of having thematic weeks about scientists, sportists, educators, etc.
    • We would discuss and maybe implement the idea of thematic weeks about topics different from countries, e.g. Central European Economical Issues, Political Issues, etc., but it is also possible that thematic weeks about countries are the right thing to do.
    • We would cut the article lists to at most 100 articles instead of at least 100 articles per country.
    • Participants
      • Finland and perhaps Sweden would like to join the project with writing about CEE, but not being written about. Next year we will invite more countries to join the project without being written about.
    • Prizes
      • We would think of adding to the books some prizes with less material and more symbolic value - trophies, medals or some personalized wiki-souvenir. This way we would strengthen not money-related motivation (like: challenging yourself, developing as a Wikimedian) and participants identification and satisfaction of Wikipedia activity In general we would think about diversifying the prizes.
      • We would make a poll among the communities, asking what prizes they would prefer.
      • We would analyse the possibility of having international prizes.
  • Overall
    • We would encourage joint work with local national institutes like the Polish and Czech, in order to get sponsorship from them.
    • We would create guidelines for adding articles to the lists and for organising a local contest in general.
    • We would encourage the organisation of edit-a-thons for women and set up guidelines for that, including virtual meetings as those made by the project Women in Red.
    • We would encourage at least larger communities to have more than one local organiser which would divide the work and protect the contest in case one of the organizers leaves (which happened in Poland).
    • We would encourage participants to improve the articles in their lists on English Wikipedia before the start of the contest.
  • Communication
    • We would create a mailing list with the local organisers and make sure that everyone of them is signed on it. And use them to send regular reports for the local organizers from the core international team which would keep the local organizers engaged and informed all through the contest

Learning patternsEdit

Outcomes and impactEdit


Provide the original project goal here.
There are many ways to create content, close different content gaps and the gender gap, and this contest is only one of them, but there are only a few possibilities to foster a large scale cooperation among communities with 23 different languages in 29 different countries. The strategic goal of this project was none less than doing this. We succeeded.
Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 short paragraphs.
Our strategic goal to involve a large part of the Central and Eastern European community in this contest was achieved. 5% of the active editors (with more than 5 edits per month) in the region participated (435 participants divided by 9501 active editors in the communities) and CEE Spring was a topic at the Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania, the CEE Meeting and many local meetups and conferences. This project is one of the strongest links of the Central and Eastern European community and is the largest joint project in the region with all communities participating, arguably the largest article writing contest and regional project in the wikiverse and one of the largest projects for Wikipedians worldwide.

Progress towards targets and goalsEdit

Project metrics

These goals were set based on expectations based on quantitative data analysis from the international organising team and were used as measure of success.


  • at least one excellent article created or significantly edited during the contest per country (except wikis without excellent articles) on average (21 in total)
    • According to BaseBot – 8 featured articles, at least 9 of the wikis don’t have featured articles
  • at least two good articles created or significantly edited during the contest per community on average (38 in total)
    • According to BaseBot – 20 good articles, at least 9 of the wikis don’t have featured articles
  • at least one article with 300 words on average per active editor (>5 edits per month) per participating country (7125 in total, not counting Austria, because of the unknown number of Austrians contributing on German Wikipedia) on average
    • According to BaseBot and manual counting – over 9651
  • rather equal distribution of newly created and significantly edited articles about every country in every language according to:
    • A / B > 0,5 for 75% of participating languages, where
      • A = minimal number of created and significantly edited articles about a country
      • B = maximal number of created and significantly edited articles about a country
    • This was not achieved. Only in a few languages there were articles written about each country
  • Total number of participants: 400
    • 435, not counting Croatia, Kazakhstan and Slovakia, for which there is no data
  • Total number of female participants: 200 (50%)
    • In 47 of the 222 responses (21%) in the post contest survey it was stated that their gender is female.


These goals have been set based on qualitative estimations by the international organising team.

  • 5% of the participants in all countries are new users
    • 11,6% of the participants were new users
  • higher number of newly created and significantly edited articles about women than about men
    • 34% of all articles about people were about women.


  • Closing the content gender gap (correlates with the quantitative goal about articles about women)
    • Yes, because although the number of articles about women was not equal to the number of articles about men, the percentage was higher than the average for the language versions of Wikipedia (compare with And much higher in those communities which had a special prize for creating women biographies
  • Further development of the regional partnership Wikimedia Central and Eastern Europe

Further data is available at BaseBot and Botik.

According to a report by the magic button of global metrics with the list of users from BaseBot, 224.876.073 bytes were added during the contest, 5 of the editors were new, 158.128 pages were edited and the number of rolling active editors was 293.

The project goals were partly achieved. The quantitative goals concerning the number of participants and articles were overachieved. More than twice more new users than expected (11,6% vs. 6%) participated.

Our quantitative goals were partly achieved. Only 8 featured and 20 good articles were created, although 30 and 60 were expected. Partly this failure can be explained by the fact that on some wikis there is no process of choosing featured and good articles. The goal to have a rather equal distribution of articles about the countries was not reached. According to our data, only on Latvian, Romanian, Russian, and Ukrainian Wikipedia there was at least one article written about every other participant.

We failed successfully on our goal to create more articles about women than about men. Although the ratio of articles about women compared to those about men is 34 to 66, this result is twice better than the average on the participating wikis. We are proud of this failure.

It is impossible to count the number of female participants. Only 6,7% of all participants have set their gender to female in their preferences. We conducted a survey with the help of Edward Galvez from the Wikimedia Foundation among the participants, according to which 28% of them are female. The survey was translated in 12 languages and there were 222 responses. In 47 of them the gender stated was female (21%). 2 were answered with other. This survey had a technical flaw, though (see below).

Generally we would stick to the same measures of success next time.

We would urge all participating communities to use the template for counting the results, because that is the only feasible way to gather them. We gathered only part of the possible and needed statistics from the few communities who decided not to use the template.

The survey had a technical flaw. Sadly, there is no means to reduce the participants at it to the participants at the contest. All the participants received messages, inviting them to participate at the survey on their talk pages on the wikis on which they participated, which made it possible for everyone to see the link, click it and answer the questions. This makes it very susceptible to falsification and the data unusable. Until this is resolved no serious analysis on the gender gap on the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is possible.

Global MetricsEdit

We are trying to understand the overall outcomes of the work being funded across our grantees. In addition to the measures of success for your specific program (in above section), please use the table below to let us know how your project contributed to the Global Metrics. We know that not all projects will have results for each type of metric, so feel free to put "0" where necessary.

  1. Next to each required metric, list the actual outcome achieved through this project.
  2. Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome. For example, if you were funded for an edit-a-thon which resulted in 0 new images, your explanation might be "This project focused solely on participation and articles written/improved, the goal was not to collect images."

For more information and a sample, see Global Metrics.

Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved over 435
2. # of new editors at least 45
3. # of individuals involved not applicable see the number of active editors
4a. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages not applicable Images and media were not the aim of this article writing contest
4b. # of new images/media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Optional) not applicable Images and media were not the aim of this article writing contest
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects over 9659 9111 counted by bot and further counted manually (but not all)
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 79.853.966
Learning question
Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?
It did. The comparable statistics from Botik between 2015 and 2016 show that the number of articles created during CEE Spring was more than doubled this year. As we stated in our project goal, we involved a large part of the Central and Eastern European community, the project was a topic at various conferences, it is a strong link of the Central and Eastern European community and is the largest joint project in the region with all communities participating, arguably the largest article writing contest and regional project in the wikiverse and one of the largest projects for Wikipedians worldwide. A related quote from September 2016 from Samat from Wikimedia Hungary, who wrote on the CEE mailing list, concerning a thematic month of Hungary, is: “I would like to mention, that I created this table using the tool PetScan I learnt from Gikü's presentation on the CEE Meeting and the Module:WikimediaCEETable created by User:Voll, User:Halibutt, User:Braveheart and User:Jura1 for the CEE Spring contest. Creating the table without the CEE-cooperation wouldn't have been possible for me.”


What impact did this project have on WMF's mission and the strategic priorities?

Option A: How did you increase participation in one or more Wikimedia projects?

We created a friendly atmosphere of competition and the feeling of an event, which led to 21% of all participants being female, 14% of all participants being newbies, and 5% of the active editors (with over 5 edits per month) taking part.

Option B: How did you improve quality on one or more Wikimedia projects?

The content gap about the region of Central and Eastern Europe and the content gender gap were demonstrably reduced during the contest and although there is still much to be done, we are moving in the right direction.

Option C: How did you increase the reach (readership) of one or more Wikimedia projects?

The CEE Spring contest by creating content about Central and Eastern Europe (including countries/regions that are small and not very well known) provided knowledge that are not always very well covered in other sources.

Also because of using social media and encouraging local coordinators to reach out to the media (using sample press releases) we got people outside Wikipedia informed about the contest and through it about Wikipedia itself.

Some communities presented special awards for newbies which motivated new people to start editing Wikipedia.

Reporting and documentation of expendituresEdit

This section describes the grant's use of funds


Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to grants at wikimedia dot org, according to the guidelines here? Answer "Yes" or "No".


Please list all project expenses in a table here, with descriptions and dates. Review the instructions here.

The goods used as prizes for CEE Spring were purchased using 2 methods, depending on the choice of local organizers:

  • The local organizers bought the goods by themselves and were reimbursed by bank transfer after providing to the WMF office protocol and bills
  • The local organizers were creating baskets with goods to purchase in the on-line shops by their selection and then the goods were purchased using WMPL debit card.
Wikipedia/Country Method of payment Overal cost EUR Overal cost PLN Comment
Albanian/Albania purchase by WMPL 37.00 159.03 39.19 USD + banking costs
Albanian/Kosovo reimbursement via WMPL 123.39 530.3 101.15 euro + banking costs
Armenian paid for themselves 0
Azerbaijani reimbursement via WMPL 274.73 1180.71 413,5 AZN (Azerbaijani manats)
Bashkir/RF/Bashkortostan reimbursement via Nikola 451.78 1941.62 24500 RUB + 13% tax 3660,92 = 28160,92 RUB = 434,56 EUR + cost of transfer from Nikola to Bashkortostan + cost of transfer from WMPL to Nikola
Belarusian & Belarusian clasic reimbursement via WMPL 321.34 1381.04 6 750 860 BYN (Belarusian rubles)
Bosnian not needed Did not wish prizes
Bulgarian reimbursement via WMPL 466.20 2003.59 845.38 BGN + banking costs
Croatian did not get in touch
Czech paid for themselves 0
Esperanto purchase by WMPL 419.45 1802.66 440.34 USD - 2 payments for JSOTR access for 220.17 USD each
Estonian paid for themselves 0
Georgian purchase by WMPL 405.61 1743.17 951.45 GEL + banking costs
German/Austria paid for themselves 0
Greek reimbursement via WMPL 367.25 1578.35 353,18 Euro + banking costs
Hungarian paid for themselves 0
Kazakh did not get in touch
Latvian reimbursement via WMPL 233.32 1002.72 220,74 EUR + banking costs
Lithuanian did not get in touch
Macedonian purchase by WMPL 252.87 1086.74 14736,00 MKD + banking costs
Polish paid for themselves 0
Romanian purchase by WMPL 218.23 937.87 926.78 RON + banking costs
Russian not transferred 0 Did not provide an online shop, which issues invoices
Sakha/RF purchase by WMPL 339.11 1457.4 22000 RUB + banking costs
Serbian paid for themselves 0
Serbian / Republic of Srpska reimbursement of Wikimedia Serbia 320.66 1378.1 35,696 RSD + banking costs
Slovak paid for themselves 0
Turkish reimbursement via WMPL of shipment costs only 45.29 194.66 104,88 TL + banking costs
Ukrainian paid for themselves 0
Sum 18377.96
Received from WMF 41429.83
Left 23051.87
exchange rate PLN/EUR 4.297700207

Costs shown in Overal cost PLN - column are the amounts WMPL was charged overall in PLN (Polish zloty). This includes exchange rates spreads, exchange commisions, money transfers costs, costs of using WMPL debit card, taxes etc, both by on-line local shops and banks. It is immposible to seperate operational costs and costs of bought goods, as both on-line shops and banks sometimes charged it separately and sometimes included in the final amount to pay.
Costs shown in "Overal cost EUR - are calculated using the exchange rate WMPL bank used during the original transfer from WMF.

Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
9.640 EUR / 10.980 USD
Total amount requested from WMF (from your approved grant submission, this total will be the same as the total project budget if PEG is your only funding source)
9.640 EUR / 10.980 USD
Total amount spent on this project
18.377,96 PLN / 4.276,23 EUR / 4.746,62 USD
Total amount of Project and Event grant funds spent on this project
18.377,96 PLN / 4.276,23 EUR / 4.746,62 USD
Are there additional sources that funded any part of this project? List them here.
170 EUR / 190 USD from Wikimedia Polska for office employees.

Remaining fundsEdit

Remaining funds from this grant have been returned to WMF in the amount of 5,086.02 EUR (23,051.87 PLN).
Are there any grant funds remaining?
Answer YES or NO.
Please list the total amount (specify currency) remaining here. (This is the amount you did not use, or the amount you still have after completing your grant.)
23.051,87 PLN
If funds are remaining they must be returned to WMF, reallocated to mission-aligned activities, or applied to another approved grant.
Please state here if you intend to return unused funds to WMF, submit a request for reallocation, or submit a new grant request, and then follow the instructions on your approved grant submission.
Return unused funds to WMF