Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/General Support Fund/Wikimedia DC:Sustaining and Growing Chapter Programs and Partnerships in 2023-24/Final Report
|
|
Part 1: Understanding your work
editPer the recent update on the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy process, Wikimedia Affiliates that are General Support Fund grantees will fulfill their affiliate reporting requirements through their final or yearly grantee report.
If you are a Wikimedia Affiliate, you will use this form for your affiliate reporting and to address the affiliate health criteria. You do not need to submit a separate report to AffCom. Follow the guidance in the green boxes to report on how you met the corresponding affiliate health criteria.
If you are not a Wikimedia Affiliate, aligning your responses with the affiliate criteria is optional and not required.
1. Please share to what extent your programs, approaches, and strategies contributed to addressing the challenges you shared in your proposal. If they did not contribute as you believed they would, please share what obstacles you faced and what, if anything, you learned from them? (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 1.) to address Affiliate Health Criterion 1.1 (Goal delivery). Describe how you actively delivered on mission goals, e.g. content creation.
Organizational and administrative excellence: As shared in our proposal, the challenges we faced were mostly related to organizational sustainability issues that came about due to limited administrative capacity (small staff and an overworked board despite being one of only two regional affiliate chapters in the US). We have since put measures into place to formalize book-keeping and record-keeping including the hiring of tax professionals.
Sustainability: We’ve been able to diversify funding sources through non-WMF grant awards and are pleased to share that we are in good financial health.
Strategic plan: We have not yet renewed our strategic plan, though it remains a priority in our current grant cycle.
GLAM and Organizational Partnerships: We continue to provide quality programming and support for our institutional partners. Over the course of the funding period, we maintained connections with existing partners and cultivated new ones (i.e. DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities). Highlights for the funding period included a series of events with the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum (three events, so far, and a fourth event is coming soon) and a six-partner Anthropology-themed mega event, As expected, most events during the funding period took place virtually to accommodate our partners.
Community Partners for Advocacy: We have deepened our relationship with DC-based Wikimedia Foundation advocacy staff through open lines of communications and regularly scheduled meetings. WMDC staff and board attended meetings and conferences pertaining to the open knowledge movement in support of WMF goals and activities.
2. Is there a plan to build on the key successes you had? If yes, please describe the plan and if no, please share the limitations to do so. For instance, did the activities lead to any new priorities, ideas for activities, or goals for the future? (required)
As a long-standing Wikimedia affiliate focused on partner cultivation and community engagement, we’ve worked with a number of institutional partners. Most partners we worked with during the funding period were existing partners, which is something we consider a sign of our own effectiveness.
With DC-area institutional partners, especially government agencies or associations, there can be frequent priority shifts. For example, Wiki work may be important to particular departmental staff but can easily change with new management or administrations. We are familiar with this problem and have successfully re-cultivated former partners this year and view that as a measure of success. We will continue to do this by maintaining relationships with key staff members even when events or initiatives are not on the immediate horizon.
We have recently re-established connections with former partners including the National Archives and Records Administration and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and look forward to sharing more after the next funding period.
3. Please provide a link to reports that detail the activities that took place in the last year. This can include an annual report, Meta pages, and websites. If there are no links available, briefly describe the implemented activities and programs below or upload any files. (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 3.) to address Affiliate Health Criteria 2.1 (Affiliate health & resilience), 4.1 (Internal engagement), 4.2 (Community connection), and 4.3 (Partnerships and collaboration):
- Describe your activities engaging new users, new members for your decision-making body(ies), and developing leaders and organizers (2.1).
- Describe your activities creating or hosting spaces to encourage greater collaboration and engagement among your members (4.1).
- Describe how you engage with the contributing community that you serve and/or support (4.2).
- Describe your partnerships with other affiliates or with non-Wikimedia entities (4.3).
Annual report, FY24. [1]
The irregular length of grant period made it longer than the fiscal year (July 2023-December 2024). For that reason, we have also included a section in the report for FY23 and FY25 events that took place during the 18-month period.
2.1: Most of our engagement activities during the grant period are events/initiatives. In FY24 alone we welcomed 220 editors and worked with 10 partners (14 partners included the grant period outside of the fiscal year). About 70% of event attendees were new to editing.
Many in WMDC’s leadership roles are long-time, well-known Wikmedians. We recently welcomed new board members, one of whom is an active Wikimedian and another who became involved in the movement after working on Wikimedia projects on behalf of a GLAM partner.
4.1: Due to the size and reach of some of our partners, we are able to engage participants with varied interests, but often little editing experience. With our events, we utilize training methods that are accessible to new members/participants. We also engage contributors of all experience levels. The diversity of experience levels amongst attendees encourages collaboration during events and sometimes afterwards..
A select number of our events/initiatives simultaneously engage two or more partners which encourages wiki collaboration amongst those organizations as well. (See annual report for the long-standing Tennessee State University/University of South Florida relationship and December 2024’s Anthropology event). The TSU/USF unit has become active within the movement and have presented their work at recent conferences.
4.2: Methods of engagement depend on the partner. As an organization, we are quite adaptable. At the start of the planning process, we assess the needs of partners and community members to determine goals and objectives. For example, some museums know what they want to contribute and we guide them through the process of doing so. Other partners know that they want to engage with the projects, but don’t know where to start.
4.3: During the grant period, we worked with 14 institutional partners on 21 editing events/initiatives. Partners included US government-affiliated museums, local GLAMS, universities, associations, and a for-profit company’s affinity group that was seeking volunteer hours.
4. Are you interested in sharing what you achieved or learned this year with the wider community through different peer learning programs (e.g. Let's Connect program, Diff)? (optional)
5. Did you collect feedback from your community or target groups on how the activities implemented impacted them? If yes, please attach/provide information on the results (e.g. community surveys, stories, impact booklets/reports, interviews with partner institutions, etc). Did you collect other impact-specific data? (required)
For affiliates, the response to Question 5. also partially addresses Affiliate Health Criteria 4.1 (Internal Engagement), 4.2 (Community Connection), or 4.3 (Partnerships & collaboration), where applicable.
Some of our event partners survey attendees after WMDC-administered edit-a-thons. With their permission, we’ve provided questions and recent responses from post-event surveys administered by our partners at Tennessee State University and University of South Florida. This includes the average survey responses from four recent events. The majority of attendees were university students.
How much do you agree with the statement, "I believe that I am capable of editing (creating content) for Wikipedia."?
Strongly agree: 60%-70%; Agree: 15%-30%; Neither agree or disagree: 5%-10%; Disagree: 0%-5%
How much do you agree with the statement, "I believe learning (or continuing) to edit Wikipedia is valuable to me."?
Strongly agree: 30%-50%; Agree: 50%-70%; Neither agree or disagree: 5%-10%; Disagree: 0%-5%
Q8 How much do you agree with the statement, "I plan on editing/contributing to Wikipedia in the future."? Strongly agree: 30%-50%; Agree: 50%-70%; Neither agree or disagree: 5%-10%; Disagree: 0%-5%
6. During the fund period, did your efforts do any of the following? (required):
For affiliates, the response to Question 6. also partially addresses Affiliate Health Criterion 2.2 (Diversity balance).
- 6.1 Bring in participants from the following groups: women, people with disabilities, indigenous groups , young people
- 6.2 Develop content about the following underrepresented topics or groups of people: women, people with disabilities, indigenous groups
- 6.3 Support the retention of: Editors, Organizers, Partnerships
7. What, if any, effective tactics or approaches can you share that worked well when dealing with the programs under points 6.1-6.3 that you selected? (optional)
Many existing GLAMs and other partners have also identified knowledge gaps in these areas. Connecting with those already doing this work is a effective way to generate interest and content within the projects.
8. If you developed partnerships, which of the following factors most helped you to build partnerships? Please pick a MAXIMUM of the three most relevant factors (optional):
Permanent staff outreach, Partners proactive interest
Part 2: Metrics
edit| Metrics name | Target | Result | Comments and tools used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of all participants | 100 | 300 | WMDC presented at WCNA to all attendees across three separate sessions. |
| Number of all editors | 200 | 250 | |
| Number of new editors | N/A | ||
| Number of retained editors | N/A | ||
| Number of all organizers | 50 | 50 | Average number of representatives from institutional partners for each event: 2-5. New partners include representatives from the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities, Aurora Hills Library, and American Meteorological Society. |
| Number of new organizers | N/A | 6 |
| Wikimedia project | Target - Number of created pages | Target - Number of improved pages | Result - Number of created pages | Result - Number of improved pages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia | 75 | 220 | ||
| Wikimedia Commons | 51 | |||
| Wikidata | 14 | 21 | ||
| Wiktionary | ||||
| Wikisource | ||||
| Wikimedia Incubator | ||||
| Translatewiki | ||||
| MediaWiki | ||||
| Wikiquote | ||||
| Wikivoyage | ||||
| Wikibooks | ||||
| Wikiversity | ||||
| Wikinews | ||||
| Wikispecies | ||||
| Wikifunctions or Abstract Wikipedia |
11. Did you set other quantitative and qualitative targets for your project (other metrics)? (required): Yes
11.1. Other Metrics.
In your application, you outlined some other open metrics that you would like to measure. Please fill out the achieved results for each of the open metrics you defined.
| Other Metrics name | Metrics Description | Target | Result | Tools and comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brief on removing barriers to engagement for individuals | Based on qualitative feedback and interviews with program and event participants, WMDC will write a summary brief that lists and analyzes the barriers that prevent new and experienced editors from engaging more deeply with Wikimedia projects. The goal of the brief will be to summarize recommendations and best practices to empower participants in future engagement. | See comments | Wikimedia DC gathered feedback from event attendees and institutional partners on the barriers to participation and potential reasons for persistent content gaps. Based on conversations with constituents, we developed and administered surveys to recent partners. | |
| Brief on engaging with institutional partners | Based on qualitative feedback and interviews with current and prospective institutional partners, WMDC will write a summary brief that lists and analyzes the issues, barriers, policies and practices that institutional partners must face when choosing to engage with Wikimedia projects. The goal of the brief will be to summarize recommendations and best practices and open up greater opportunity and possibilities for institutional partners. | Wikimedia DC gathered feedback from event attendees and institutional partners on the barriers to participation and potential reasons for persistent content gaps. Based on conversations with constituents, we developed and administered surveys to recent partners. | ||
| Brief on addressing content gaps | Based on qualitative feedback and interviews with current and prospective individual contributors and institutional partners, WMDC will write a summary brief that lists and analyzes the issues and concerns about content gaps on Wikimedia projects, and point to examples and case studies that suggest ways of overcoming or addressing these gaps. The goal of the brief will be to summarize recommendations and best practices to inform future programs and activities for WMDC. | Wikimedia DC gathered feedback from event attendees and institutional partners on the barriers to participation and potential reasons for persistent content gaps. Based on conversations with constituents, we developed and administered surveys to recent partners.
Per our respondents, as well as our own personal observations, it is still quite common to encounter people who do not know that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Most of our event attendees have never edited before due to a lack of previous knowledge about Wikipedia’s accessibility, policies and procedures. As a community, we need to prioritize messaging related to this, especially among potential partners whose staff, interns and constituents would make for engaged, knowledgeable contributors. Content gaps are perpetuated by a lack of secondary sources which can easily be seen when attempting to write about subjects like pre-20th century women. At every opportunity, Wikimedia DC encourages our partners, who are also authoritative voices and publishers of reliable sources, to generate materials that can be cited by editors. Talking openly about this lack of secondary sources should always be a part of the conversation when discussing topics like the gender gap. It’s great to have lists of women who should have articles, but if there are no sources to help create these articles, those names will remain in red. | ||
| Brief on WMDC Chapter resilience and community support | More internally focused than the prior metrics, this brief will analyze the challenges and barriers the Chapter has faced in being administratively resilient and serving as a vibrant community resource for local and regional Wikimedians. The brief will examine the investments and practices put into place during the grant period, with a goal of summarizing recommendations for strengthening the Chapter and for strengthening relationships among local and regional Wikimedians, user groups, and other community stakeholders. | Observational data collection | ||
Part 3: Skill Development / Capacity Building
edit12. Reflecting on your programmatic (external) and organizational (internal) work, did your grant support you to undergo any skill development that made a difference to your success? If yes, what skill was developed, and how did it lead to success? (e.g. received coaching on public speaking, attended training on nonviolent communication, hosted professional development conversations on leadership, learned and used a new tool for project management, etc.)? Can you share any materials? (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 12.) to address Affiliate Health Criteria 2.2 (Diversity balance) and 3.1 (Diverse, Skilled, and Accountable Leadership):
- Describe actions taken to prioritize gender balance in affiliate leadership, as well as any areas of diversity relevant to your affiliate's context (2.2).
- Describe the management, financial, or other leadership skills of your affiliate leaders. If you have a succession plan, please include it here (3.1).
- Describe any training or skill development (as outlined in the question above) (3.1).
- Incorporate into the annual report a disclosure of conflict of interests (if any) from the leadership (3.1).
Skill growth, financial management: We now employ accounting firm Your Part Time Controller on a contract to track our finances. We've had problems caused by succession issues, with a departing officer and no expert successor. We've increased our internal communications to address this. Our treasurer is active and we have delegated more to our partnerships manager. Having managed to turn our financial situation around, we have used what we've learned to develop better systems and practices.
Gender balance: Our staff (one employee) and board is balanced, gender-wise.
Formalizing our recordkeeping procedures will enable better transitions and sharing of institutional knowledge as needed.
13. What is one capacity/skill area that you would like to focus on for the next year? And how do you plan to achieve this capacity? (required)
External communication practices and member recruitment:
In 2025, we plan to utilize our mass email platform to reach members and event attendees more effectively and communicate organizational activities and updates.
14. If you have additional information or reflections that don’t fit into the above sections, please write them here. Use the space below to upload any additional documents that would be useful to understand your report.
For affiliates, also use this section (Question 14.) to address Affiliate Health Criteria 2.3 (Good governance & communication) and 3.3 (Universal Code of Conduct compliance).
- Describe and link to any public-facing information on affiliate leadership, membership, elections, and/or decision-making processes (2.3).
- Describe any activities incorporating, promoting awareness about, or enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct in your affiliate's activities (3.3).
Wikimedia DC holds chapter elections at the end of each year. Three board seats are up for elections each time, and members vote on a budget outline. Before this grant period, ballots were sent and returned by postal mail. During the grant period, we held two elections. In December 2023, we held our first online election, adopting practices from Wikimedia NY. This saved time and money compared to mailing ballots, and we received a similar number of votes. In December 2024, we held another election, proposing small changes to the bylaws. Both elections went smoothly. They are documented on our chapter wiki here: https://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Meetings_(2023%E2%80%932024)
Wikimedia DC's Safe Space Policy demonstrates a commitment to UCoC. The policy addresses harassment and other forms of discrimination and is actively reviewed and shared during internal and external events. Full policy can be viewed here: [2]
Part 4: Financial reporting
editFor affiliates, also use this section (Part 4: Financial reporting) to address Affiliate Health Criterion 3.2 (Financial & Legal Compliance).
| Description | Planned / received budget for this category (USD) | Amount spent (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel costs | 121332 | |
| Operational costs | 13301 | |
| Programmatic costs | 500 | |
| Total General Support Fund | 146450 | 135134.28 |
| Other revenue | 115626 | 0 |
| Remaining funds from General Support Fund | 11315 |
15. Please state the total amount spent from this fund in your local currency. (required)
135134.28 USD
16. Please provide an overview of the amount spent from this fund in the following budget categories in your local currency. (required)
- Operational costs: 13301 USD
- Programmatic costs: 121332 USD
- Staff and contractor costs: 500 USD
17. Did you have any other revenue sources (e.g. other funding, membership contributions, donations)? (required): Yes
- 17.1. Provide the total amount received from other revenue sources in your local currency. (required): 115626 USD
- 17.2. Provide the total amount spent from other revenue sources in your local currency. (required): 0 USD
18. Provide a financial report document which will provide the details of funds received and spent in the currency of your fund. (required)
- Upload Documents, Templates, and Files.
- Report funds received and spent, if template not used.
18.2. If you have not already done so in your financial spending report, provide information on changes in the budget in relation to your original proposal. (optional)
N/A
19. Do you have any unspent funds from this funding?: Yes
- 19.1. Please list the amount of unspent funds in your local currency. (required)
- 11315
- 19.2. Explain why you did not use the amount. (required)
- We are in the process of negotiating a strategic planning process with a consultant. We are weighing travel costs for board members to come together and create a strategic plan, but have not decided whether to do it. This process has taken longer than anticipated. We request that WMF permit us to use the remaining funds for that originally intended purpose.
- 19.3. What are you planning to do with the underspent funds?
- A. Propose to use the underspent funds within this Fund period with PO approval
- 19.4. Please provide details of hope to spend these funds.
- We intend to use the funds to hire a strategic planning consulting firm to help facilitate, draft, review, and finalize a strategic plan for the chapter.
20. Final confirmations (required)
- 20.1. Are you in compliance with the terms outlined in the fund agreement? You must be in compliance with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement. In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the Wikimedia Foundation mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.
- Yes
- 20.2. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement?
- Yes
- 20.3. 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 Funds as outlined in the grant agreement? In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the WMF mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.
- Yes
This is an automatically generated Meta-Wiki page. The page was copied from Fluxx, the web service of Wikimedia Foundation Funds where the user has submitted their report. Please do not make any changes to this page because all changes will be removed after the next update. Use the discussion page for your feedback. The page was created by CR-FluxxBot.