Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2017-2018 round 1/Wikimedia UK/Proposal form

Latest comment: 6 years ago by LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) in topic Questions

Hello, Lucy and the WMUK team: thank you for submitting your Round 1 proposal! We'll be reviewing it in the coming days and weeks. All the best, Morgan Jue (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Morgan! I've just noticed though that in copying over the short summary for community review, the bullet points have been lost and it no longer reads coherently. I don't seem to be able to edit this so is there anyway that you can?! Many thanks, Lucy LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've been spending a good couple hours trying to figure out the formatting in the applications' summaries--which may be fixed and un-editable to an extent--but I'll consult with Delphine (WMF) about how to fix this--it's a head-scratcher, but I'm not a true wiki text maven! Cheers, Morgan Jue (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
And I've now figured it out. Let me know if this version looks good, Lucy! For future reference, edit this template. Best, Morgan Jue (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much Morgan, and sorry it took you a while! LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Questions/Remarks from WMF

  • Hello Lucy and Richard Nevell (WMUK) Table 8 is wrong. The total does not equal the sum of the rows. Actually, I have found what's wrong. If I am refering to your budget, staff costs amount to: 407,893 GBP, Programs to 212,250 GBP and Operations to 131,650 GBP. Please confirm this and change this in the proposal using strike through to show that you've amended this. Thanks! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Delphine, it looks like this is a typo - the figure should be 393,193 rather than the 339,193 that has been entered. The staff costs on the google budget add up to this figure (i.e. 339,193) so I'm not sure where your total of 407,893 came from but anyway, apologies for this and I will make sure it's corrected in the proposal tomorrow! Thanks for spotting this and giving us the opportunity to correct it. Best wishes, Lucy LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

This was a transcription error on my part – I hit 3 twice instead of 9 (the figure should be 399,193). I have corrected the table. The figure of £399,193 is given correctly in the section Staff and contractors: upcoming year's annual plan in section 4 (below table 4). Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank for this Richard - and Delphine, apologies for the numerical errors in my own response, sent far too close to my bedtime and at the end of a week's holiday! Hopefully this is all clear now. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. My number included everything that has to do with staff training and such, which I had substracted from operations. We're all good! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply



Ciao WMUK! ping: Lucy / Richard Nevell (WMUK). I'm really interested in how your organisation's chosen metrics are about the volunteers rather than their content - this is a unique approach. Equally it strikes me how the new Wikimedia Strategic direction seems to be echoed in your Program 1 description. Anyway, I've got a couple of questions about the plan:

  • Is it fair to extrapolate from your three "Quantitative indicators with baseline metrics" tables that your targets for the current year were in most cases under-estimates of what is now projected to be the result - in some cases to a very large degree? Is this because the assumptions were incorrect in making those targets last year, or because you exceeded expectations through internal or external factors? Has your methodology changed for making these targets or are you taking the projections for this year, and made those the new targets for next year? Wittylama (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are a number of factors that influence how accurately we are able to set targets for our quantitative indicators including grant metrics, as follows:

  1. The way that our planning and reporting cycle works - which is in part dictated by the funding proposal and reporting deadlines for our Annual Plan Grant - means that targets for the current financial year 2017/18 were agreed in September 2016, prior to the end of 2016/17. 2016 was a transitional year for us in terms of the implementation of our new strategy, and with a new team in place, so we were relatively cautious in setting targets for the following year; however we stabilised more quickly than expected and indeed, overachieved against many targets due to positive internal factors.
  2. In September 2015 we created a new assistant role within the Programmes team with a strong focus on monitoring, evaluation and reporting. This member of staff has played a key role in helping to continually improve our data collection from staff, volunteers and Wikimedians in Residence, and so our results are now more reliable than in previous years.
  3. There are also individual reasons for why we outperformed our targets for certain metrics, which in many cases were connected to breakthroughs that we wouldn't have been able to anticipate. For example, after many months of the launch of our partnership with Edinburgh University, they started adopting classroom assignments - which in turn increased the number of volunteer hours recorded for our education and learning programme - however at the point of setting the targets we didn’t think that was going to happen.
  4. The very significant growth in Articles added and Articles added/improved is to a huge extent due to an unexpected growth in Wikidata and the chapter having worked through several large datasets. This was an unexpected development as a) we didn't know that Wikidata would start accepting such content, and b) we hadn’t anticipated that we could create partnership activity around such datasets. This is not dissimilar to the fact that we can't be sure if a partnership with a GLAM will result in a mass image donation in any given year, and when it does it can appear to ‘skew’ the numbers.
  5. In setting targets for 2018/19 we have considered a number of factors including our projected year end results for 2017/18 as well as specific programme plans.

  • The success of the various Residency projects you list in this program is unquestionable, and it's a pleasure to see they are continuing. Could you elaborate on how much the work of any given WiR is under the direction of WM-UK, or the Institution, or at the wide discretion of the Resident themselves? I ask because, while it is clear how the activities listed fit within your three overarching program areas, it is unclear to what degree those activities can be claimed as the the action/responsibility/under-the-control-of WMUK. Obviously it will vary on a residency by residency, event by event basis - so there's no 'single answer' :-) But, for example, the statement "Wikimedia UK will build relationships with the wider academic and research community" is supported by highlighting various activities proposed for the University of Oxford and run by Dr Martin Poulter (their WiR). To what degree does this grant request impact upon those actions? Wittylama (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia UK has a close working relationship with our residents and host institutions. The partnership is formalised through a Wikimedian in Residence Agreement drafted with the involvement of both organisations. This includes establishing the obligations and responsibilities of both parties and agreeing joint working mechanisms. We have regular progress meetings with residents and institutional contacts to assess progress, and input into the programme of delivery. Residents are given latitude to assess what activities and projects they take on, but the fact that these activities closely map to our own strategic goals is evidence of our input into the residency, ability to shape it, and overall value to these projects. Indeed, we wouldn’t work in partnership on a Wikimedian in Residence programme unless there was clear strategic alignment and agreement on the purpose of the project.

In addition to the role we play in terms of individual residencies, Wikimedia UK adds considerable value to the work being delivered in the networking and knowledge transfer that we facilitate between residents, and in programme evaluation and learning. The recent case study of the National Library of Wales residency concluded: Wikimedia UK has been supportive of the residency in a number of ways. Their ability to connect the resident with other WIRs and established members of the Wikimedia community has perhaps been most valuable, along with the knowledge and expertise of the team itself. By gaining access to this network of Wikimedians and WIRs (e.g. through regular meetups run by WMUK) the resident learned invaluable skills and has been inspired to pursue new ideas and opportunities. Wikimedia UK were also very effective at identifying overlaps in WIR projects and connecting the relevant individuals.

In the particular instance of the Bodleain residency it may be worth noting that this was fully funded by Wikimedia UK in the first year. The second year of the project has been funded by the University of Oxford’s Innovation Fund and is still very much a partnership in terms of delivery. Whilst we are not explicitly applying for funding towards the staff costs of this residency in 2018 (although we may look at direct financial support again as the post is currently only funded until February), we do consider the activities of Wikimedians in Residence to be an extension of our own programme, where there is a full partnership agreement in place that indicates shared responsibility for outputs and outcomes. In addition, a substantial proportion of our budget is staff costs, and our staff team spend a considerable amount of time providing support to residents and partner organisations.

  • On a related note, you mention "a peer learning network for UK-based Wikimedians in Residence" founded in 2016 - can you elaborate on what this is? (it's certainly something I wish I'd had, so I'm glad to read that it exists). Wittylama (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia UK conducts research and exit interviews at the end of every residency, and over the past few years these have highlighted the need for knowledge transfer and networking amongst residents. We are now putting a lot more effort into planning and delivering (or supporting the delivery of) comprehensive inductions for newly appointed residents, as well as ongoing efforts to exchange knowledge - including the monthly reports that all residents write for Wikimedia UK. These are published online but the programmes team also shares specific sections and highlights of activities with other staff, residents and the wider volunteer community as relevant.

As part of this broader work to ensure an effective peer learning network amongst our Wikimedians in Residence, in November 2016 we held the first knowledge exchange event - called a Wikimedian in Residence submit - at Wellcome Library. This was attended by most of our residents and facilitated by our project co-ordinator Stuart Prior alongside former WIR and volunteer John Cummings. In July 2017 we delivered another of these summits in Scotland to coincide with the Celtic Knot conference. This focused on the experiences of our new and more established residents from five institutions, with additional expertise present from the Wikidata team.

These in person meetings are important as they are a relatively unique opportunity to identify, discuss and find shared solutions to common problems, and to ensure that residents don’t feel isolated and alone in these challenges. As well as being a forum to share specific experiences, discussions tend to bring up key issues facing people working with GLAMs where Wikimedia projects are incompatible or need development. For example, a key issue currently is the difficulty of monitoring the quality of data added to Wikidata for donors, which is becoming a stumbling block for institutional cooperation. This highlighted a potential disconnect between staff and volunteers working directly with GLAMs advocating for content donations, and the Wikimedia developer community and their ability to create technical solutions, especially in the area of Wikidata. The outcome of this discussion means WikidataCon in Berlin had submissions focusing on this particular problem.

A write up of each summit is available online here:

  • In the Education program section you refer to "the Wikipedia in the Classroom tool”. What is this, and is it related to the education dashboard (either that of the WMF or the WikiEd Foundation), or an separate education/teaching software - such as developed by WM-Argentina, and also WM-France? Wittylama (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia in the Classroom tool refers to what it sometimes referred to as the Programs & Events Dashboard. It is developed and maintained by the Wiki Education Foundation. Wikimedia UK has been providing feedback to the WEF about this tool, in particular drawing on the experience of the Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh.

  • Working with migrant communities is something which WMNL is also proposing in their Annual plan - are you coordinating with them to share best practices? (I've asked them the same thing in reverse) Wittylama (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia UK is currently working with four other chapters (including WMNL) to develop a funding application for a joint project with migrant communities. Through this process we are exchanging information about our existing activities and future plans, and definitely foresee continuing this process of learning and exchange regardless of whether the application is successful. We have also recently spoken to the people delivering the Wikipedia for Refugees project in Trento.

LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Return to "APG/Proposals/2017-2018 round 1/Wikimedia UK/Proposal form" page.