Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016 round1/Wikimedia Österreich/Staff proposal assessment

Clarification concering numbers used in the FDC staff assessment

WMAT acknowledges that the targets for 2015 were too low in many regards and we took this into account when creating this year's proposal. However, we want to point out that from our perspective the examples given in this assessment are a bit problematic for the following reasons:

• In our last proposal we did not have to plan yet with global metrics across programs, hence many of the targets (especially those around participation and editors) were only set for certain programs (mainly Program 1) and in this context only for certain aspects. The best example are the mentioned targets for active editors: Our 2015 proposal clearly states that we want to engage 30 acitve editors in specific projects (photo contests) and 10 active editors that were not active in our projects before. Hence, these are targets for subgroups of the overall metric of active editors. However, we did not (because we did not have to) set a goal for the overall number of active editors neither in this program nor in the other programs. Nevertheless, we had to report the overall number of active editors for all programs in the progress report (this number is now also used in the assessment to compare targets with achievements), so of course the number is way beyond what can be found in the proposal, but not mainly because our targets were to low, but because the logic of reporting changed (global metrics became mandatory) in the middle of a grant period. This should be taken into account when comparing these numbers.
• Because it was the first time that we had to report on global metrics and the rules and expectations concerning how they should be measured were still not entirely clear, there were misunderstandings across APG organizations on what to count into them and what not. WMAT only learned after the the progress report was submitted, that social media interactions of specific projects (a press campaign in our case) should not be counted into the individuals involved. Our number in the progress report was high, as we inlcuded social media interactions. For the next year however, we will adjust our measuring to the desired standard procedure concerning how to count individuals involved, i.e. we only include social media in terms of subscribers of our channels but not the interactions for major press campaigns or the like (as we did for the progress report this year), which we expect to result in lower numbers. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Claudia, thanks for the clarifying comments. I appreciate your reflections on the challenges with global metrics. We are continuing to learn from these metrics. Thanks for responding. Cheers, KLove (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Katy, my main point was no to much the global metrics but that the two numbers (our 2015 targets and the reported global metrics) are not really comparable in the examples given in the assessment :-) Cheers, --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again CDG (WMAT staff), I did understand what you meant with regard to using the 2015 targets against the reported global metrics in the one progress report. I see didn't clearly articulate that! The rollout of global metrics could have been done better, yes. In the APG proposal round for 2014, I shared with applicants that organizations would be asked to report on global metrics in the coming year, though you were not indeed requested to include them in the proposal. Therefore this year, we are looking at the first official targets for global metrics on this proposal form, and looking at that alongside what was reported in 2014 and midway in 2015.

On your specific point about active editors and participants, I now understand your point: WMAT only set this target for one component of one program as opposed to across the board, and therefore it was not the organizational target but rather one project's target. And for participants reached to date, in the progress report this number included social media (which you note you won't be doing going forward). Therefore those data should not be compared. I will remove those references on the assessment. [Done!] Thanks for clarifying.

Remarks concerning travel budget

The assessment states concerns concerning the amount of money spend on travel. We understand that this is an area of concern as the outcome for the movement is not always entirely clear. We share this view and over the last years there is a growing awareness in our community, that spendings money on travels comes with a responsibility and has to be justified accordingly. This year's WikiCON is a good example on how motivated our volunteers are to make the most out of their attendance and the clear focus on the transfer of knowledge and learnings, which contributes to our leadership role in this regard in the movement, which was praised in the assessment. We also introduced a systematic approach to ensure these investments also bring the most for the broader community in Austria, by demanding systematic on- and offline documentation and reporting of travels. The same goes for travels with a focus on content generation, which are always carefully assessed regarding their expected quantity and quality of outcomes (a good example are this year's Wiki Takes projects which were meticulously planned and executed by the participating community members in order to systematically cover the last few blank spots on Austria's WLM map). --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this additional context too, Claudia. Much appreciated. KLove (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)