Grants:PEG/WM EE/CEE Meeting 2015/Report
- Report accepted
- To read the approved grant submission describing the plan for this project, please visit Grants:PEG/WM EE/CEE Meeting 2015.
- 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.
- Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
- Yes (with the exception of the reporting timeline)
- Is your project completed?
Activities and lessons learnedEdit
- Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2015 took place from the 10th to 13th of September 2015 in Voore, Estonia. This meeting was a platform for sharing and learning and thus improving local activities in the region, but as well for creating contacts and links and moving towards better collaborative efforts in the future. Also some activities on the meeting were related to capacity building of the participants.
- The CEE Meeting participants came from 26 different countries (including Estonia). Most of the Central and Eastern European communities were represented. There was a good mix of different organizational levels, namely 13 chapters and 11 user groups were represented. There were also representatives of 4 local communities, which do not have a local organization. Wikimedia Foundation and Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU representatives were also present.
- Chapters: Armenia, Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine
- User groups: Azerbaijan, Bashkortostan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Esperanto, Georgia, Greece, Latvia, Macedonia, Republika Srpska, Wikipedia School of Athens
- Other organisations: FKAGEU, Open Labs, WMF
- Local communities: Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Romania, Turkey
- The scholarship program for the conference was continued and 2 scholarships per country were provided. The event was also promoted in local village pumps in the region. Unfortunately there was no representative from Croatia, Cyprus, Moldova, Montenegro and Slovenia in Estonia, something that can be improved in future regional meetings.
- The programme of the conference was based on the needs questionnaire distributed and filled out prior to the conference. As the needs of the regional community are diverse, there were topics varying from education program to various on-wiki competitions, to tools for organizational matters, but there was also place for discussions about the future of CEE, the state of the movement and breaching the gender gap.
- The programme was prepared by a broad-based international programme committee with members from 8 different countries, organizations and communities. This supported the diversity of the programme, but also made it harder to make cuts in subjects proposed.
- Experienced community members were appointed as facilitators for the sessions and it was made sure that there was also room for discussions and reflections in between or after presentations. The programme was finally quite tense, but the amount of topics and issues covered was generally appreciated by the participants.
- The organizing team for the event consisted of employees and board members of Wikimedia Eesti, but also the help and support from the international CEE community. The effort of Nikola Kalchev from Wikimedians of Bulgaria was especially appreciated, because he provided Wikimedia Eesti with major support in organizing the travel for participants, as well as coming to Estonia a couple of days before the meeting to help Wikimedia Eesti with the preparations. He also composed the feedback survey and later analysed the results for a report.
- As the social part is important on such get-togethers, a pre-conference dinner was organized prior to the meeting and another one after the last day of the meeting. Also Wikimedia Eesti used the occasion to introduce the local culture with a sauna evening, but also provided a small cultural program where representatives of Wikimedia Eesti performed on local instruments. This created a good vibe and was highly appreciated by the participants.
- Also a Wikidojo was implemented on the CEE Meeting 2015 for the first time and it has since become a tradition not only on meetings taking place in the CEE region, but also elsewhere. It created a good atmosphere and supported playful learnings. Feedback from some of the session participants can be read here.
|Blog posts and reports|
|What worked well?|
Outcomes and impactEdit
- Provide the original project goal here.
- Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 short paragraphs.
Maintain and develop collaboration among Central and Eastern European wiki communities.
Increase the value of local learnings through regional sharing.
Provide support to regional communities lacking experience in off-wiki work.
Facilitate replication of local success stories in the region and support regional collaborative initiatives.
Inspire and motivate Wikimedians to increase their level of participation in local communities.
Progress towards targets and goalsEdit
|#||Measure (as proposed in the grant)||Results||Explanation||Compliance|
|1||At least 45 participants||60 came (List of participants)||Wikimedia CEE Meeting is an important regional conference and so most of the chapters and user groups were represented, as well as bigger chapters used their own funding to send more participants to the conference. Also participants from Finland and Sweden were invited.||Complied|
|2||At least 15 countries or languages represented||31 countries/languages/user groups represented (List of participants)||International organizing team of Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2015 made an effort to reach out to as many groups in the region as possible. Also participants from Finland and Sweden were invited.||Complied|
|3||At least 20 attendees participating actively as speakers or table hosts, sharing their experience||34 active speakers (Programme)||Program committee made an effort to get people from the region involved as much as possible and as a result program was extended and the activity levels were really high.||Complied|
|4||All of the presentations documented in writing (Etherpad) and at least 75% of the presentation slides made publicly available.||
||There were conference volunteers responsible for taking notes from all of the sessions and also other conference participants joined in. During the conference the number of actual slide presentations was not counted and so it is impossible to tell which percentage of them is available on Commons, however organizing team is not aware of any which is not there.||Complied|
|5||At least 85% of attendees find the conference useful in the post-conference survey.||
||A total of 95% of people who responded to the post-conference survey found it useful. This does not include 33% who decided not to answer to the feedback survey.||Complied|
|6||At least 75% of attendees confirm having new ideas and/or better vision for the projects they want to work on.||
||A total of 85% of people who responded to the post-conference survey state that it has created new ideas or have helped them to join an existing initiative.||Complied|
|7||At least 75% of attendees confirm having learned new information regarding project management, running chapter projects, or community building.||
||The question was not exclusive, but very probably 75% is reached.||Complied|
|#||Measure (as proposed in the grant)||Results||Explanation||Compliance|
|1||Information collected about the needs of most of the organisations and communities of the region.||Questions&Needs page was created||This is an essential part to organize a successful regional conference and has become a tradition in the CEE region.||Complied|
|2||Countries without established chapters improve their organisation and the activities of their communities.||?||One of the aims of CEE Meeting is to support smaller entities and communities in building their structure and organizing activities. The increasing number of user groups and community activity in the region can be interpreted as a proof of successful support, but at the moment its connection to CEE meetings cannot be proved.||n/a|
|3||Improved regional cooperation, with launch of new cross-border activities or significant improvement of existing ones (related to at least 3 projects).||CEE community interaction and common projects are working better than ever.
||In general Wikimedia CEE Meeting works as a catalyser in a community to improve collaboration, including on projects which have direct impact on Wikimedia content.||Complied|
|4||Designed working patterns for "standard" projects in the CEE region, such as WEP, GLAM, and article and photo contests.||-||There has not been a significant effort to work out patterns for standard projects in the region.||Not complied|
|5||Transfer of acquired knowledge, skills, know-how from meeting representatives to their local communities.||Different organisations used different ways of reporting – wiki meetups, blog posts, onwiki reports, board reports, etc.||As only numbered community or organization members can participate on CEE Meetings, the importance of reporting back to local communities has been acknowledged and there are different practices of doing so. Wikimedia Programme Toolkits were presented however.||Complied|
Full Feedback ReportEdit
Read more from full feedback report of Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2015
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.
- Next to each required metric, list the actual outcome achieved through this project.
- 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.
|1. # of active editors involved||-||Is not relevant in the context|
|2. # of new editors||-||Is not relevant in the context|
|3. # of individuals involved||63||This includes 60 conference participants and 2 local volunteers|
|4a. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages||110 (8,81%)||Media files have been used on outreach wiki, meta wiki, Polish and Ukrainian Wikipedia.|
|4b. # of new images/media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Optional)||488||Wikimedia CEE Meeting was well documented with photos, as well as presentations. Video materials are still to be edited.|
|5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects||-||Is not relevant in the context|
|6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects||-||Is not relevant in the context|
- Learning question
- Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?
- There has been no proper quantitative nor qualitative measurement about increasing motivation in particular, but generally the atmosphere of the event was good and also participants have stated afterwords that the meeting was motivating and has supported them in their work with local communities.
|Content and editing related outcomes|
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?
Option B: How did you improve quality on one or more Wikimedia projects?
Option C: How did you increase the reach (readership) of one or more Wikimedia projects?
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".
- Yes, on the 25th of October 2016
- Please list all project expenses in a table here, with descriptions and dates. Review the instructions here.
|Number||Category||Item description||Unit||Number of units||Actual cost per unit||Actual total||Budgeted total||Currency||Notes|
|1||Travel related costs||9,740.20||18,160.00||€|
|2.1||Hotel in Tartu||participant||53||43.74||2,318.00||2,856.00||€|
|2.2||Stay in Voore Puhkekeskus||participant||71||38.00||2,698.00||2,736.00||€|
|3.1||Main courses during the event||participant||72||79.25||3,442.00||2,340.00||€|
|4.1||Rent of venue||day||3||250.00||750.00||501.00||€|
|5.1||Program leaflet & nametags||participant||N/A||N/A||0.00||216.00||€|
- Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
- €33,990.90 = $37,213.20
- Total amount requested from the WMF (from your approved grant submission, this total will be the same as the total project budget if PEG is your only funding source)
- In total €23,516.90 = $25,746.30 requested directly from Wikimedia Foundation (the rest provided by bigger participating chapters)
- €4,700.00 = $5,145.56 already allocated through APG process.
- €18,816.90 = $20,600.74 requested from PEG process with CEE Meeting 2015 proposal.
- Total amount spent on this project
- Total amount of Project and Event grant funds spent on this project
- €18,816.90 = $20,600.74
- Are there additional sources that funded any part of this project? List them here.
- Wikimedia Eesti 2015 Annual Plan Grant, other regional chapters.
- 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.)
- 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.