Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimédia Magyarország/Impact report form

Purpose of the report

FDC funds are allocated to improve the alignment between the Wikimedia movement's strategy and spending; support greater impact and progress towards achieving shared goals; and enable all parts of the movement to learn how to achieve shared goals better and faster.

Funding should lead to increased access to and quality of content on Wikimedia project sites – the two ultimate goals of the Wikimedia movement strategic priorities, individually and as a whole. Funded activities must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Each entity that receives FDC funding will need to complete this report, which seeks to determine how the funding received by the entity is leading towards these goals. The information you provide will help us to:

• Identify lessons learned, in terms of both what the entity learned that could benefit the broader movement, and how the entity used movement-wide best practices to accomplish its stated objectives.
• Assess the performance of the entity over the course of the funded period against the stated objectives in the entity's annual plan.
• Ensure accountability over how the money was spent. The FDC distributes "general funds", for both ongoing and programmatic expenses; these funds can be spent as the entity best sees fit to accomplish its stated goals. Therefore, although line-item expenses are not expected to be exactly as outlined in the entity's proposal, the FDC wants to ensure that money was spent in a way that led to movement goals.

For more information, please review FDC portal/Reporting requirements or reference your entity's grant agreement.

Basic entity information

Note you can copy this from your recent progress report if the information is the same.

Table 1

Entity information	Legal name of entity	Wikimédia Magyarország Egyesület
	Entity's fiscal year (mm/dd–mm/dd)	01/01 - 12/31
	12 month timeframe of funds awarded (mm/dd/yy-mm/dd/yy)	01/01/2013 - 12/31/2013
Contact information (primary)	Primary contact name	Andrea Tóth
	Primary contact position in entity	Office manager
	Primary contact username	Voglia
	Primary contact email	toth.andreawikimedia.hu
Contact information (secondary)	Secondary contact name	Balázs Viczián
	Secondary contact position in entity	Executive vice-president
	Secondary contact username	Vince
	Secondary contact email	balazs.viczianwikimedia.hu

Overview of the past year

The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of this report. Please use no more than 2–3 paragraphs to address the questions outlined below. You will have an opportunity to address these questions in detail elsewhere in this report. Also, we encourage you to share photographs, videos, and sound files in this report to make it more interactive, and include links to reports, blog posts, plans, etc as these will add context for the readers.

• HIGHLIGHTS: What were 2–3 important highlights of the past year? (These may include successes, challenges, lessons learned. Please note which you are describing)
• SWOT: Reflecting on the context outlined for your entity in the FDC proposal, what were some of the contextual elements that either enabled or inhibited the plan? Feel free to include factors unanticipated in the proposal.
  • Strengths: Organizational strengths that enabled the plan
  • Weaknesses: Organizational weaknesses that inhibited the plan
  • Opportunities: External opportunities that enabled the plan
  • Threats: Risks or threats that inhibited the plan
• WIKI-FOCUS: What Wikimedia projects was your entity focused on (e.g., Wiki Commons, French Wiktionary) this year?
• GROWTH: How did your entity grow over the past year (e.g., Number of active editors reached/involved/added, number of articles created, number of events held, number of partipants reached through workshops)? And what were the long term affects of this growth (e.g. relationships with new editors, more returned editors, higher quality articles, etc)?

Response:

• HIGHLIGHTS

During 2013, Wikimédia Magyarország grew to an adult organization; hired its first full time employee, rented an office space, adopted its policies and performed a full review of its operations (from inception), perception about itself and made the necessary corrections that resulted in a few red flags throwed by WMF on WMHU. Altough it happened in 2014 but it completely belongs to this grant that WMF found everything in perfect shape during their field visit and the errors identified and mostly already dealt with.

A minor highlight was the hosting of the Program Evaluation and Metrics kickoff workshop in Budapest and organized by the WMF.

We also started two QR-projects paralel, the first time (both) in our history.

• SWOT
  • Strengths: The capacity expansion resulted in an expansion of activities. WM HU has excellent negotiating skills that greatly contributed to the underspending compared to the amount requested as many projects received external (mostly non-financial) support, greatly reducing or completely eliminating costs from our aspective
  • Weaknesses: Low number of active members and the low awareness of WMHU amongst the Hungarian Wikipedians. Self-measurement focusing on negative-only aspects that creates wrong self-awareness
  • Opportunities: as per above, a successful outreach campaign can boost our organization by every possible means. The redesign of our self-measurement and self-awareness can greately improve the general satisfaction and create a much more positive athmosphere
  • Threats: the slow, but continous changes in buerocracy aiming to crush the civil sphere and step-by-step push it under full governmental control and the general perception of "working for free = stupidity" by the general population.

• WIKI-FOCUS

internal development, breaking bad habits, capacity growing

• GROWTH:

Wikimedia Hungary sponsored a total of 30 events during 2013. This number reflects all projects completed in 2013 regardless of its type. Projects, if divided into multiple phases were counted as 1 single project (i.e all events related to a single project counts as 1 project). The growth in absolute numbers shows +36% compared to 2012.

Year	Total	Lectures	Meetups	Article writing contests	Picture contests	Other projects
2012	22	0	15	7	1 (photowalks)	0
2013	30	5	16	4	1 (WLM)	4 (evaluation workshop hosting, 2 QR-projects, "night of the civilians")

Note, varying definitions of "project" or "event" can vary the numbers greatly. In general the table above collects executed projects only. If there was a meetup (for example an awards ceremony) in relation to a project (for example an article writing contest) as the two events were related, they counted as 1 in the table above.

WM HU has only once cancelled a project, the WLM in 2012 (not listed above) as the government completely restructured this field making it impossible to reach an agreement with them on time. Our previous agreement did not allow us to reuse the data they shared with us in 2011. We could however renew our contract in 2013 under better than ever conditions.

In 2013 the owner of the project put on hold the József Bokros memorial award (also not listed above), as the agreement offered by the university we seeked to cooperate with was not acceptable for us and any further negotiations were cut short by them.

Note the "lectures" vary from single presentations to ongoing multi-year seminars. They were all counted as 1 project/each and only in the year when they were started, regardless if it is a continous (or repetitive per semester) or not. The same applies for all other continous projects.

Also notice, the numbers above are not weighted; a single meetup is equally counted as 1 as the far more complex WLM (which itself had multiple side projects and side effects, like the publication of the state owned monuments' database under a free licence)

The general assemblies (2/year) and board meetups (5 in 2012 and 6 in 2013) were excluded from the table. In 2013 all meetups were held in the chapter's office except the evaluation workshop.

Financial summary

The FDC requires information about how your entity received and spent money over the past year. The FDC distributes general funds, so your entity is not required to use funds exactly as outlined in the proposal. While line-item expenses will not be examined, the FDC and movement wants to understand why the entity spent money in the way it did. If variance in budgeted vs. actual is greater than 20%, please provide explanation in more detail. This helps the FDC understand the rationale behind any significant changes. Note that any changes from the Grant proposal, among other things, must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

If you'd prefer to share a budget created in Google or another tool and import it to wiki, you can do so in the tables below instead of using wiki tables. You can link to an external document, but we ask that you do include a table in this form. We are testing this approach in this form.

Revenues

Provide exchange rate used:

• 2013 average exchange rate of the USD calculated by the Hungarian National Bank (the central bank of Hungary)
  • 1 USD = 223.70 HUF

Table 2 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

• Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.

Revenue source	Currency	Anticipated	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Cumulative	Anticipated ($US)*	Cumulative ($US)*	Explanation of variances from plan
FDC Grant	HUF	14 845 000	0	8 659 583	0	1 516 501	10 176 084	66 361.19	45 489.87
Membership fees	HUF	100 000	2 000	8 000	4 000	2 000	16 000	572,19	71,52
Donations (non-WMF)	HUF	0	65 500	30 500	12 500	229 200	337 700	0	1 509.61
Tax offers ("1%")	HUF	2 000 000	0	0	0	624 622	624 622	8 557.98	2 672.75
Bank interests	HUF	0	48 024	~85 783	~87 789	87 350	~308 946	0	~1 381.07
Outstanding loan	HUF	0	0	0	0	24 000	24 000	102.88	102.88
TOTAL	HUF	16 945 000	115 524	~8 783 866	~100 293	2 483 673	~11 483 356	75 748,77	~51 227.7

* Provide estimates in US Dollars

2014 Revenues

Table 2 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

• Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.

Revenue source	Currency	Anticipated	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Cumulative	Anticipated ($US)*	Cumulative ($US)*	Explanation of variances from plan
Membership fees	HUF	100 000	14 000	66 167	13 000		93 167	438
Bank interests	HUF	300 000	104 808	92 191	71 236		268 236	1 313
WMF Grant(s) - any	HUF	5 000 000	0	0	0			21 889
Tax donations ("1%")	HUF	700 000	0	0	0			3 064
Other donations (financial only)	HUF	200 000	54 432	84 180	35 000		173 612		607
TOTAL	HUF	6 300 000	173 241	242 539	119 884		415 779	27 580

* Provide estimates in US Dollars

Spending

Table 3 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

(The "budgeted" amount is the total planned for the year as submitted in your proposal form or your revised plan, and the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year. The "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative amount spent over the budgeted amount.)

• Q1 spending was made from our reserves, not from this FDC Grant, except for the office rental fee. 1 765 177 on office rental, 317 278 on FTE wage and taxes. Office rental 14 097, community travel 10 500. Banking fees 6 623, phone 14 325, server 105 000. No meetup was supported financially. We had no posting fees. In total, 2 233 000 HUF was spent.

Expense	Currency	Budgeted	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Cumulative	Budgeted ($US)*	Cumulative ($US)*	Percentage spent to date	Explanation of variances from plan
office costs	HUF	1 000 000	0	100 565	133 832	98 591	332 988	4 470.27	1 488.54	33
office rental	HUF	2 500 000	1 765 177	14 097	9 398	14 097	1 802 592	11 175.68	8 058.07	72
community travel support	HUF	3 500 000	0*	508 801	209 776	166 484	885 061	15 645.95	3 956.46	25
banking fees	HUF	75 000	0*	25 143	15 943	25 457	~66 543	~335.27	~297.46	~88
wage+tax for the employee	HUF	5 000 000	0*	970 458	653 360	652 344	2 276 162	22 351.36	10 175.06	45
community meetups	HUF	750 000	0*	41 695	320 026	157 658	519 379	3 352.70	2 321.76	69
posting fees	HUF	100 000	0*	20 580	2 355	1 235	24 170	447.02	108.04	24
telephone, server, internet	HUF	550 000	0*	145 309	172 706	182 606	500 621	2 458.65	2 237.91	91
TOTAL	HUF	13 475 000	1 765 000	1 826 648	1 517 396	1 298 472	6 422 516	60 236.92	28 643.34	48

* Provide estimates in US Dollars

2014 spending

Table 3 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

(The "budgeted" amount is the total planned for the year as submitted in your proposal form or your revised plan, and the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year. The "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative amount spent over the budgeted amount.)

Expense	Currency	Budgeted	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Cumulative	Budgeted ($US)*	Cumulative ($US)*	Percentage spent to date	Explanation of variances from plan
programme support (any)	HUF	1 650 000	208 668	422 478	124 839		755 985	7 223
travel support	HUF	1 500 000	272 859	299 508	78 245		650 612	6 567
supporting like-minded orgs	HUF	100 000	0	0	0			438
FTE wage+tax	HUF	2 500 000	652 900	659 883	655 900		1 968 683	10 944
office rental	HUF	1 750 000	14 100	14 100	1 788 611		1 816 811	8 016
stationery & related	HUF	100 000	0	0	0	0		438
postal fees	HUF	50 000	6 920	3 000	18 048		27 968	219
banking fees	HUF	80 000	18 000	25 000	14 610		57 611	350
telephone	HUF	75 000	16 119	16 077	15 030		47 226	350
server	HUF	420 000	104 775	104 775	104 775		314 325	1 839
office IT (inc. internet)	HUF	100 000	26 395	30 325	32 341		89 061	438
accountant	HUF	180 000	45 000	105 000	45 000		195 000	438
other administrative (if any)	HUF	25 000	0	0	0			109
board support	HUF	50 000		27 155			27 155	219
supervisory board support	HUF	20 000	0	0	0			88
Other (general reserves)	HUF	400 000	0	0	0			1 751
TOTAL	HUF	9 000 000	1 349 536	1 707 301	2 877 399		5 934 236	39 399

* Provide estimates in US Dollars

Progress against past year's goals/objectives

The FDC needs to understand the impact of the initiatives your entity has implemented over the past year. Because the FDC distributes general funds, entities are not required to implement the exact initiatives proposed in the FDC proposal; the FDC expects each entity to spend money in the way it best sees fit to achieve its goals and those of the movement. However, please point out any significant changes from the original proposal, and the reasons for the changes. Note that any changes from the Grant proposal, among other things, must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Improving Wikipedia content quality

1 article writing contest, 1 cleanup contest, 2 QR-projects, 1 WLM

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.

• To improve the overall quality of huwiki
• Add new content
• Gain new editors

The stand for the QR-hunting minigame on 23 May in Vácrátót Botanical Garden

The opening ceremony of GLAM-ZOO Miskolc on 1 May

What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)

• slightly over 3000 "error templates" were solved in 1223 articles
• approximately 100 articles were created and about another 100 improved
• Wiki Loves Monuments agreement was renewed with a new goverment agency, resulting in 3161 new, high quality pictures (the best finishing 3rd in the international contest)

Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?

• Increase participation
• Improve quality
• Increase reach

What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?

1. 3rd annual spring cleanup contest
   1. This activity aimed flagged articles only, purely concentrating on improving their content by "cleaning them up"
   2. A total of 1223, or ~0.5% of all the articles were improved (some quite significantly), solving slightly over 3000 "error templates"
2. Cooperation with the Hungarian Central Statistical Office and its Library in a joint article writing contest about statistical sciences in four categories
   1. 37 articles were created and 9 improved in four categories (economic and environmental statistics, demographics, domestic and foreign censuses, social statistics) as part of the international year of statistics
3. QR-project in Miskolc ZOO
   1. during phase I (Sept-Dec 2013) 36 new articles were created and 80 got improved, mostly significantly and 16 other received minor edits
   2. Wikiproject-Miskolc coordinated the project
4. QR-project in Vácrátót Botanical Garden
   1. Wikiproject Plants coordinated the project
5. Article of the year 2013
   1. the fourth annual quest for the best articles created in 2012 resulted in ~90 nominations in 10 categories
6. Wiki Loves Monuments
   1. An agreement was reached with the goverment agency taking care of the monuments owned by the state to release their database under a free licence
   2. A group of editors reviewed the full database and fixed/added all the coordinates to all of the monuments (including subparts at those which had any) before the event
   3. We requested and were granted access to otherwise publicly not accessible monuments (all due to their poor condition) during the event
   4. All the pictures were manually reviewed to rule out copyviolations, duplicates and non-monuments and to fix misidentifications and ther errors after the event

If your entity did not achieve the desired objectives, why not? If it did, what enabled this? If the initiative was not in your plan, why did you pursue it?

• The article writing contest was too tight in topics, we should have pushed for broadening them
• Wiki Loves Monuments included the state owned monuments only; those owned privately or by local goverments were not participating

Any additional details: Pictures that made into the top20 in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013's international round:

Photos

• 
  Egyetemi Könyvtár /3rd
• 
  Keleti fények ..../7th
• 
  Szénrakodó-Esztergom /12th

Community support

office inauguration party

June meetup

Program Evaluation and Design Workshop, Budapest

WM HU stand at the annual Free Software Conference in Budapest

huwiki's 10th birthday party

The "Night of the Civililians" (the "civil society")

;What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.

• increase participation
• encourage innovation (through a healthy editing community)

What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)

• 1 FTE and about 40 different volunteers in total
• 15 meetups were conducted (excluding general assemblies)
• hosted the Program Evaluation Workshop in Budapest

Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?

• increace reach, increase participation

What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?

1. Wikipedia-day meetup
   1. 2 volunteers organized it; 30 people showed up and a journalist from the national news agency MTI
2. meet the chapter
   1. monthly chapter meetup, that after the first in April, quickly got merged into whatever meetup/event we held in the office (the office is fully open to visitors during regular working hours)
3. Office opening party
   1. 9 participants (March)
4. Wiki-meetup+award ceremony of the 3rd annual spring cleanup contest & the Article of the year 2012 competition
   1. 20 people showed up
5. Developers' workshop
   1. 5 participants discussing about the Labs, Wikidata, a Visual Editor, Lua and the TemplateSandbox
6. Wikiproject Plants meetup
   1. 4 participants engaged in discussions about the future (that culminated in one QR-project as on 2014)
   2. combined with an editathon
7. hosting the Program Evaluaton and Design Workshop in Budapest
   1. 23 international and 3 local participants
8. Participating on the Annual Free Software Conference
   1. there is a clear interest in "hacking" MediaWiki
9. Chapters Conference, Milan
10. 3 persons represented WMHU at the event
11. huwiki's 10 year anniversary
    1. 24 participants
12. 4th Annual WikiCamp
    1. 18 participants from 4 countries
    2. organized as a free side pre-event of Hungary's largest art festival, the "Művészetek Völgye" (Valley of Arts)
    3. a lot (unmeasured) number of photos and 30 new articles were created as a "side-effect"
13. Wikiproject Miskolc meetup
    1. the "official inauguration party" with 10 participants
14. Wikimania HongKong
    1. we distributed three scholarships
15. participating at the Civil Associatons' Night
    1. based on the highly successful Night of the Museums event
    2. there were the four of us in the office; joining literally in the last minute resulted in no visitors
16. Wiki Loves Monuments award ceremony
    1. organized by our governmental partner for the project
    2. about 40-50 participants
17. Awards ceremony for the statistical article writing contest
    1. 5 participants from WMHU and huwiki side combined

+1 the office is open to visitors during regular working hours

If your entity did not achieve the desired objectives, why not? If it did, what enabled this? If the initiative was not in your plan, why did you pursue it?

• it took a long time to find a suitable office for a reasonable price, that resulted in the delay of some meetups

Any additional details:

Education

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.

• To improve the quality of Wikipedia by involving schools into editing

WikiCamp 2013

What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)

• Five workshops were held; two at a university, one at a high school, one at our office and one at an external site

Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?

• increase the quality of Wikipedia, increase reach, gain new editors

What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?

1. A tutorial editathon at a high school in Budapest
   1. as part of the open day at the school; gained high interest, but low return
2. Nepsport cooperation
   1. please find it as a case study of what did not worked well for 2013 below
3. ELTE university workshop
   1. 12 students participated in improving linguistic articles
   2. though initially unsuccessful (as nothing followed up) this has now developed into a continous project
4. Developers' workshop in our office
   1. Find details above as apart from offering the office space, WMHU was not taking active part in it, it was a community event
5. ELTE university workshop revamped
   1. in collaboration with the associate professor of the Department of the Hungarian Contemporary Language 6 students created a Linguistic Portal [[1]] and a Linguistics Workshop [[2]]. All students are now required to partake in it, being part of the seminar for the semester. The event has been renewed in 2014 for the spring semester and probably will continue later on in 2014, 2015, etc.

If your entity did not achieve the desired objectives, why not? If it did, what enabled this? If the initiative was not in your plan, why did you pursue it?

• We tried to pass on too much information which scared away a lot of interested people
• After reaching only a partial success at first, we redesigned and succeeded in our cooperation with ELTE University

Any additional details:

Organizational development

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.

• To grow the chapter into a more mature state,thus creating the possibility to conduct more complex or demanding projects than ever

What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)

From a somewhat semi-professional "group of friends-like" organization, we developed into a standard NGO

Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?

• organizational development

Andrea Tóth, office manager

What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?

1. we hired our first ever FTE
   1. previously we had an on-demand PTE for and hourly salary working from a home office
2. we rented our first "real" office in March
   1. we centralized all of our administration in one place and also using it to store all the chapter assets
3. we hugely expanded our policies and updated those few existing
   1. from having only a privacy policy and a somewhat basic donor data policy, we now have a complete set of up to date written procedures based on the Foundation's policies, covering virtually everything needed, fully complying with the local regulations
4. we held an online initiative on huwiki about identifying our mid and long term strategic goals
   1. those existing in our bylaws found to be perfectly fitting to our findings and ideas, so technically no changes were made but instead they got reinforced

If your entity did not achieve the desired objectives, why not? If it did, what enabled this? If the initiative was not in your plan, why did you pursue it?

• except for the single paid employee, everybody else has a daily job, what pushes almost all of our activities into the weekends

Any additional details:

Photos

• 
  The new office
• 
  during
• 
  moving in

Lessons learned

Lessons from the past

A key objective of the funding is to enable the movement as a whole to understand how to achieve shared goals better and faster. An important way of doing this is to identify lessons learned and insights from entities who receive funds, and to share these lessons across the movement. Please answer the following questions in 1–2 paragraphs each.

1. What were your major accomplishments in the past year, and how did you help to achieve movement goals?

• Launching two QR-projects, both with long term agreements, and similarly a long term agreement in relation to Wiki Loves Monuments and another one in regards to Wiki Loves Public Art. We hosted the PED workshop. We were successful in revamping ourselves both mentally and phisically. We hired our first ever FTE. We opened our first ever "normal" office. We significantly expanded and refreshed our internal policies. We led an initiative to set our mid and long term strategies only to find out that they are already in our bylaws since 2011 and they are fitting perfectly to our results.

2. What were your major setbacks in the past year (e.g., programs that were not successful)?

• Népsport (find below as a case study)

3. What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?

• find the brief case study about the revamping of WMHU from a project-leader-only into a fully supportive organization

4. What unanticipated challenges did you encounter and how did this affect what you were able to accomplish?

• ourselves and our mindset and practices what drove us into awrong directions and gave us negative approach and negative ideas

5. What are the 2–3 most important lessons that other entities can learn from your experience? Consider learning from both the programmatic and institutional (what you have learned about professionalizing your entity, if you have done so) points of view.

• self-measurement is important but it has to be carried out carefully
• all projects should have an owner, who is ideally its creator

Lessons for the future

The Wikimedia movement grows as each entity in the movement reflects and adapts its approaches to changing needs and contexts. The questions below encourage you to apply your thinking in the sections above of "how well have we done" and "what have we learned" to the development and execution of future organisational and program strategies. The questions below can be informed both by your own entities' learnings, as well as the learnings of other movement entities (e.g., adding a new program that appears to have caused significant impact in several other countries or communities).

1. What organisational or program strategies would you continue?

• leading only 1-2 projects and only if no volunteers are willing to take them, otherwise remain support-only

2. What might you change in organisational and program strategies in order to improve the effectiveness of your entity?

• amend the chapter further to this full support approach by revamping our yearly plan and microgrants program(s)

3. Please create at least one learning pattern from your entity's experiences this year and link to it here.

Stories of success and challenge

Of all the accomplishments highlighted through this report, please share two detailed stories: one story of a success and one story of a challenge that your entity experienced over the past year in a few paragraphs each. Provide any details that might be helpful to others in the movement on the context, strategy, and impact of this initiative. We suggest you write this as you would tell a story to a friend or colleague. Please refrain from using bullet points or making a list, and rather focus on telling us about your organization's experience.

Case study: success

• From leader to supporter - changing the approach and philosophy of the chapter

Wikimédia Magyarország finished 2012 with an excel sheet of fifty something projects that it was struggling to complete. This struggle resulted in an overwhelming feeling of failing and decay.

However it was not the case; as the internal review (what was followed by a WMF review) showed, the chapter was continously growing in the absolute number of activities and/or the complexity of them.

The board decided to start 2013 with only two projects, WLM and the WikiCamp in our minds set as goals, and gave a heartbraking farewell to the project ideas sheet. We decided to say yes to all proposals if the proposers take the ownership of them. We quickly built up the capacity (first ever FTE in February, first ever "real" office in March) to be able to support any initiative that comes along.

This decision actually revitalized ("freed up") our membership what led to new ideas and projects that - if we keep up with the old practices - probably would have never happened, like the creation of Wikiproject Miskolc and the revitalization of Wikiproject Plants, both now owning one QR-project each.

The chapter's transformation into an almost support only function gave us some hard time to explain (as our idea to not to lead projects anymore sounds bad) but proved to be an absolute success. Even those two projects we (the board) wished to complete were successfully taken over by volunteers.

Formally there were no chapter-led projects in 2014 (though most project-owners were also chapter members) however the total number of our activities grew about 1/3 compared to 2012.

Case study: challenge

• Népsport cooperation

The online version of Népsport, a sports newspaper reached out to us that they wish to improve the sports content of the Hungarian Wikipedia. The two workshops we held were too much into the details and so over-comprehensive that it did take away all the interest of all the participants, resulting in so minimal activity that it just died within a few days. The biggest lession learned was a general observation, namely "the less is sometimes more". We should have been minimalists, offering them only how to tutorials instead of going into policies and guidelines and such.

Additional learning

1. What are some of the activities that are happening in your community that are not chapter-led? What are the most successful among these, and why?

• WMHU had only two initiatives (WikiCamp and WLM) that we wished to complete; both were picked up and led by volunteers (some being members as well) The chapter offered the level of support needed to the initiatives; technically all of our activities were volunteer-driven; board members in their official capacity led only one event, the statistical writing contest. The FTE gave just the support needed or requested to complete the events
• The, WikiCamp, WLM and the two QR-projects were all complex and completely volunteer driven projects; all spending well below the expected yet resulting in clear success and long-term cooperation possibilities or actual long term contract(s) - bringing in new partners - and all creating small but enthusiastic communities around themseves

2. Provide any links to any media coverage, blog posts, more detailed reports, more detailed financial information that you haven't already, as well as at least one photograph or video that captures the impact your entity had this past year.

• please find them in our quaterly reports and project-pages
• PED workshop on WMF blog and GLAM newsletter article about the statistical article writing contest

Compliance

Is your organization compliant with the terms defined in the grant agreement?

1. As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.

• no deviations apart from an average underspending of 50-60%

2. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

• YES

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 Grant funds as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

• YES

Financial information

1. Report any Grant funds that are unexpended fifteen (15) months after the Effective Date of the Grant Agreement. These funds must be returned to WMF or otherwise transferred or deployed as directed by WMF.

• 8 442 484 HUF (vs 14.85M grant)
• 3 768 568 HUF (vs actually received new funds in 2013)
• both as of 31.12.2013; without calculating the expansion of the grant into Q1/2014

2. Any interest earned on the Grant funds by Grantee will be used by Grantee to support the Mission and Purposes as set out in this Grant Agreement. Please report any interest earned during the reporting period and cumulatively over the duration of the Grant and Grant Agreement.

• ~308 946 HUF (~$1 381.07) - total

Signature

Once complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes. --Vince (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)