This form is for organizations receiving Annual Plan Grants to report on their results to date. For progress reports, the time period for this report will the first 6 months of each grant (e.g. 1 January - 30 June of the current year). For impact reports, the time period for this report will be the full 12 months of this grant, including the period already reported on in the progress report (e.g. 1 January - 31 December of the current year). This form includes four sections, addressing global metrics, program stories, financial information, and compliance. Please contact APG/FDC staff if you have questions about this form, or concerns submitting it by the deadline. After submitting the form, organizations will also meet with APG staff to discuss their progress.
We are trying to understand the overall outcomes of the work being funded across our grantees' programs. Please use the table below to let us know how your programs contributed to the Global Metrics. We understand not all Global Metrics will be relevant for all programs, so feel free to put "0" where necessary.
For each program include the following table and
Next to each required metric, list the outcome achieved for all of your programs included in your proposal.
Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome.
In addition to the Global Metrics as measures of success for your programs, there is another table format in which you may report on any OTHER relevant measures of your programs success
Please tell the story of each of your programs included in your proposal. This is your chance to tell your story by using any additional metrics (beyond global metrics) that are relevant to your context, beyond the global metrics above. You should be reporting against the targets you set at the beginning of the year throughout the year. We have provided a template here below for you to report against your targets, but you are welcome to include this information in another way. Also, if you decided not to do a program that was included in your proposal or added a program not in the proposal, please explain this change. More resources for storytelling are at the end of this form. Here are some ways to tell your story.
We encourage you to share your successes and failures and what you are learning. Please also share why are these successes, failures, or learnings are important in your context. Reference learning patterns or other documentation.
Make clear connections between your offline activities and online results, as applicable. For example, explain how your education program activities is leading to quality content on Wikipedia.
We encourage you to tell your story in different ways by using videos, sound files, images (photos and infographics, e.g.), compelling quotes, and by linking directly to work you produce. You may highlight outcomes, learning, or metrics this way.
We encourage you to continue using dashboards, progress bars, and scorecards that you have used to illustrate your progress in the past, and to report consistently over time.
You are welcome to use the table below to report on any metrics or measures relevant to your program. These may or may not include the global metrics you put in the overview section above. You can also share your progress in another way if you do not find a table like this useful.
Target
Last year (if applicable)
Progress (at end of Q2)
End of year (projected or actual)
Comments
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example
Revenues received during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)
Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.
Table 2Please 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 ($US)*
Explanation of variances from plan
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
* Provide estimates in US Dollars
Spending during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)
Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.
Table 3Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ 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.)
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.
Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".
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".
Global metrics are an important starting point for grantees when it comes to measuring programmatic impact (Learning Patterns and Tutorial) but don’t stop there.
Logic Models provide a framework for mapping your pathway to impact through the cause and effect chain from inputs to outputs to outcomes. Develop a logic model to map out your theory of change and determine the metrics and measures for your programs.
The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of this report. Please use no more than 1-2 paragraphs to address the questions outlined below. You will have an opportunity to address these questions in detail elsewhere in this report.
CHANGES:
None in Q1.
HIGHLIGHTS:
Royal Society editathon 2014Royal Society editathons and coverage. Building on our partnership with the Royal Society, we have launched a Wikimedian in Residence, a pilot project based there in January 2014. The Royal Society is the UK's national academy for the sciences, a fellowship of the world's most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence, founded in 1660. The Resident has been working on setting up diversity Wikipedia events. As a key effort, to coincide with the International Women's Day, the Wikimedian organised an editathon event. The event was held by the Royal Society in collaboration with the Royal Academy of Engineering, the UK's national academy for engineering. We had an editathon, but also an evening of talks about women in science. Dame Athene Donald, FRS, Professor of Experimental Physics at Cambridge presented a short talk on diversity in science, and the work the Royal Society is doing in this area. This was an opportunity for Wikimedia UK to join in this conversation, and show the work that we are going to help with the under-representation of female scientists.
There were many articles created and improved as a result of this high profile event (see here). We have also received coverage in significant media outlets (see here) such as The Guardian and the New Scientist.
The strategy of Wikimedia UK. In March we were very pleased to be able to announce that the board of Wikimedia UK has formally adopted a strategy plan for the charity. The strategy sets out not only our mission (‘to help people and organisations create and preserve Open Knowledge, and to help provide easy access for all’) but also the way in which we aim to achieve that in practice, which has since proved immensely helpful in understanding how our activities fit into our mission. To ensure that our day-to-day activities are closely focussed on reaching our strategy goals, we have committed to record and publish a wide range of measured outcomes which will indicate, on an ongoing basis, how we are performing against a range of strategic goals. The idea being that such an approach will help us understand better the whole picture of our impact, in quite practical terms.
In the long process of preparing the strategy, we consulted widely with the Wikimedia UK community, the Wikimedia community at large, other chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation, and interested individuals. The draft strategy documents were open for public consultation during the beginning of Q1, and feedback received was taken into account along with staff and board contributions. We are confident that as the end result of this process we have a robust strategy that will serve us well in the years to come. It will enable us to maintain and track challenging but achievable targets while keeping the flexibility to focus our day-to-day efforts on whichever individual activities and initiatives will best help us achieve practical impact. We are also continually working on a more accurate definitions to capture our activities - please see the Terminology section below.
WIKI-FOCUS:
en.wp: of the 24 training and editing events held in quarter 1, 23 of them were focussed on editing the English Wikipedia. This resulted in 57 new articles, and the addition of 408,545 bytes of information. The Living Paths project also contributed to the English Wikipedia, resulting in the creation of 284 articles and the addition of 432,332 bytes of information. As well as this, a grant was approved with the aim of improving several important articles to Good Article quality, while the grant supporting the Core Contest saw the conclusion of the competition, with 13 entries.
cy.wp: The Living Paths project led directly to the creation of 2,180 articles on the Welsh Wicipedia in Q1, accounting for the addition of 3,342,120 bytes of information. In addition 2,891 non-free book covers were uploaded with fair use rationales.
Commons: A total of 37,715 files were uploaded to Commons in Q1, supported by a project grant for mass uploads, and scholarships to attend Wiki Loves the European Parliament.
Wikidata: towards the end of Q1 Wikimedia UK organised a Wikidata training workshop, following on from a similar event in September 2013. This event resulted from requests by the volunteers, who felt they would like to be more supported in the project to be able to contribute more. We were glad we can support these requests.
GROWTH:
24 editing and training events held
37,715 files uploaded with a Creative Commons licence
4,382,374 bytes of information added to the article space.
Feature Articles increased by 1.
Featured Pictures increased by 2.
Quality Images increased by 21.
Valued Images increased by 46.
319 people attended editing and training events in Q1.
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."
Table 2Please 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.
The below figures are based on a straight-line 25% per quarter budget for direct costs and overheads, but staffing costs are based off a much more accurate quarterly staff time allocation projection. This will change in quarter two, as we move from straight-line budgeting for direct costs to more accurate quarterly projections.
Our SoRP-based performance ratios - key performance ratios that provide a rough overview of the efficiency of the charity - are as follows:
Governance as a percentage of charitable projects: 12%
Fundraising costs as a percentage of funds raised: 10%
Spending on charitable projects as a percentage of total expenditure: 80%
These are similar to, but not identical to, the Financial Performance Metrics on Charity Navigator. The definitions are as follows:
Governance costs are the costs associated with the governance arrangements of the charity which relate to the general running of the charity, as opposed to those costs associated with fundraising or charitable activity. The costs will normally include internal and external audit, legal advice for trustees and costs associated with constitutional and statutory requirements eg the cost of trustee meetings and preparing statutory accounts. Included within this category are any costs associated with the strategic as opposed to day to day management of the charity's activities.
Fundraising costs are twofold:
Fundraising trading costs which comprise the costs of trading to raise funds including the cost of goods sold and any other costs associated with a trading operation (currently none at WMUK).
Costs of generating voluntary income comprising the costs actually incurred by Wikimedia UK, or by an agent, in inducing others to make gifts to it that are voluntary income. Such costs will include the costs of producing fundraising advertising, marketing and direct mail materials, as well as any remuneration payable to an agent. It will normally include publicity costs but not those used in an educational manner in furtherance of the charity's objects.
Charitable expenditure comprises all the resources applied by the charity in undertaking its work to meet its charitable objectives as opposed to the cost of raising the funds to finance these activities and governance costs. Charitable activities are all the resources expended by the charity in the delivery of goods and services, including its programme and project work that is directed at the achievement of its charitable aims and objectives. Such costs include the direct costs of the charitable activities together with those support costs incurred that enable these activities to be undertaken. Charities may carry out their activities through a combination of direct service provision and grant funding of third parties to undertake work that contributes to the charity’s objectives or programme of work. In such cases, the total cost of the activity involves both costs incurred directly by the charity and funding provided to third parties through grantmaking activities.
Table 3Please 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
Community
GBP
247476
63339
63339
414992
106410
26%
No variance from plan.
Promoting Free Knowledge
GBP
251892
36850
36850
422045
61908
14%
Lower than expected due to poor profiling: the majority of spends will be in Q2 and Q3 for the Wikimania Fringe events. In addition, the second tranche of Wikimedians in Residence is on hold pending a thorough review of successes and failures so far.
External Relations
GBP
64624
24667
24667
108367
41441
38%
This budget comprises our work on Open Space Advocacy, which can be read at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy, and the successful Boards Training Workshop in March 2014. The spend was very much weight towards our Boards Training Workshop, which was very successful and was attended by representatives from both Chapters and the WMF. The majority of the cost was scholarships supporting smaller chapters to attend; we will be recovering the cost from larger conference attendees in Q2.
Fundraising
GBP
73444
15348
15348
123055
25785
20%
Slightly lower than expected but no major variances.
Governance
GBP
169760
15400
15400
284433
25872
9%
Lower than planned due to fewer board meetings and more efficient use of time by trustees.
Total
GBP
807196
155604
155604
1352538
261415
19%
Slightly lower than planned, but nothing unexpected. We are in a good position to continue our work for the movement for the rest of the year, including capitalising on the opportunities presented by Wikimania.
A WMUK activity is an activity or event that is arranged by, carried out, hosted or run in conjunction with WMUK, or which WMUK has significantly sponsored or paid for. To count as a WMUK activity, the charity or its volunteers, staff or trustees must have taken some leading role: merely attending is not enough.
The charity does not claim as a WMUK activity external events or activities that fall outside the above definition, even if WMUK staff, trustees or volunteers attend or are involved in a non-leading capacity. That is the case regardless of whether the individuals attend or are involved on behalf of WMUK.
Examples:
UK Wikimeets are mostly not WMUK activities, as they are not arranged by, carried out, hosted or run in conjunction with the charity, and the charity does not sponsor or pay for them. That is so even though some, many or even all of the attendees may be WMUK volunteers.
An OpenStreetMap conference (run independently of WMUK) does not count as a WMUK activity merely because the charity pays for a volunteer to attend, or merely because it sends a staff member.
The Wiki Loves Monuments contest 2013 in the UK was a WMUK event as WMUK volunteers were closely involved in running it, with staff support, and the charity sponsored the prizes.
Rather than tracking the raw number of activities that the charity and its volunteers get involved with, without regard for their size, we instead focus on a measure of personal engagement that we call an activity unit. An activity unit is defined as one person attending one event. So, a score of 5 units may represent one person attending five separate events, or five people attending one event. For this purpose, no distinction is made between people who lead or help to lead an event, and those who simply attend.
If the event is a WMUK activity, then all attendees contribute one activity unit to the overall count.
If the event is a non-WMUK activity, we count only the activity units contributed by volunteer attendees who are working with us in some way for that activity.
Activity units at advocacy events are given a 0.1 weighting.
As we are primarily interested in external volunteer engagement here, we exclude the activities of WMUK staff or trustees when they are acting in their professional capacities. However, the following are not in themselves reasons to exclude from our activity counts:
The contributor has a grant, scholarship, or is claiming expenses from WMUK or any other organization for the activity
The contributor is being paid to contribute by some other organisation (eg as an employee)
The contributor is a staff member or trustee of WMUK, provided that they are contributing on a voluntary basis outside the scope of their professional duties.
Examples:
A WMUK GLAM editathon that attracts 10 editors is jointly run by one WMUK staff member, one GLAM staff member, and a volunteer. That is recorded as 12 activity units (all those who are involved apart from the WMUK staff member each contribute one activity unit).
WMUK pays the expenses of one volunteer to attend an externally-run open knowledge event. That is recorded as one activity unit.
Two WMUK trustees help to organize the Wiki Loves Monuments contest, with support from three staff members. 500 people submit entries. That is recorded as 502 activity units (the staff support is not counted as it was contributed by staff acting in their professional capacities. The trustee activity is counted, as the trustees were acting not in their professional capacities but as volunteers).
Leading activity units
A leading activity unit is defined as one person taking a leading role in one event. That may include running or helping to run the event, or being one of the lead organisers of an online activity.
Leading activity units are recorded as a subset of activity units, so a person taking a leading role is counted as contributing both one activity unit and one leading activity unit.
Examples:
A WMUK GLAM editathon that attracts 10 attendees is jointly run by one WMUK staff member, one GLAM staff member, and a volunteer. That is recorded as two leading activity units (all those who take a leading role apart from the WMUK staff member each contribute one leading activity unit).
Two WMUK trustees help to organize the Wiki Loves Monuments contest, with support from three staff members. 500 people submit entries. That is recorded as two leading activity units (the staff support is not counted as it was contributed by staff acting in their professional capacities. The lead trustee activity is counted, as the trustee were acting not in their professional capacities but as volunteers).
WMUK volunteers
A WMUK volunteer is a person who has, at least once during the preceding 12 month period:
Contributed at least one activity unit, and
Has provided us with contact details, including at least an email address, to allow us to record them as a unique individual on our database.
Examples:
A WMUK GLAM editathon that attracts 10 attendees is jointly run by one WMUK staff member, one GLAM staff member, and a volunteer. All involved (apart from the WMUK staff member) are asked for contact details, and those who supply them are included in the WMUK volunteer count for one year after the date of the editathon. People who attend but who decline to provide contact details are counted as contributing one activity unit but are not counted as WMUK volunteers.
WMUK leading volunteers
A WMUK leading volunteer is a person who has, at least once during the preceding 12 month period:
Contributed at least one leading activity unit, and
Has provided us with contact details, including at least an email address, to allow us to record them as a unique individual on our database.
This section addresses the impact of the programs / initiatives* and objectives your entity has implemented over the past quarter and the progress your entity is making toward meeting this year's goals. We understand that some metrics may not be applicable in this quarterly report, so please add metrics here if they are applicable.
*In the past, the FDC has used the term 'initiative', but we are using the term 'program.'
All of our objectives are also listed here. The targets identified below are yearly unless otherwise stated; most of them have been set as slightly higher than the targets last year, which was done to reflect the growth of our capacity. The image quality image targets are difficult to set in a way that captures the complexities of the concept of quality on Wikimedia projects. We feel that the targets we have set below are a reasonable reflection of the added value that the chapter provides to the Wikimedia projects. By being a monitoring tool they do, in any case, allow us to assess the progress in how we support the production of high quality content.
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
We will increase the quantity and quality of open knowledge on the Wikimedia projects and other freely licensed resources by
The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase
Uploading content to Commons (number to be tracked but no target as figure could vary wildly)
Measuring positive edit size (sum of positive edit size to be tracked but no target as figure could vary wildly)
The quality of open knowledge continues to improve
Percentage of WMUK-related files used in mainspace on Wikimedia projects excluding Commons (target of 13%)
Number of files that have Featured status on a Wikimedia project including Commons (looking at the total number of such images, target is an increase by 20 by the end of the year)
Number of files having quality image status on Commons (target is an increase of 70 by the end of the year)
Number of files having valued image status on Commons (target is an increase of 50 by the end of the year)
Number of new articles started on a Wikimedia site, excluding the Welsh Wicipedia (target of 200 by the end of the year)
Number of new articles started on the Welsh Wicipedia inspired by WMUK (target of 10,000 by the end of the year)
We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge.
Measure the reputation ratings[2] of organisations that we are working in partnership with, or were working with no more than two years ago (target is a score of 693 by the end of the year, an increase of 5% from 2013-14)
Increasing awareness in annual survey of public opinion (assessing the awareness via a survey - baseline to be established in 2014–15 as this is a new initiative)
Progress against these objectives?
The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase
432,332 bytes from articles created on the English language Wikipedia as a result of the Living Paths project in Q1
3,342,120 bytes from articles created on the Welsh language Wicipedia as a result of the Living Paths project in Q1
The quality of open knowledge continues to improve
Overall 6.5% (below our target of 13% average for the whole year, but see below), this breaks down into:
2.6% of files (980 individual files) uploaded to Commons this quarter are in use on Wikimedia projects excluding Commons.
2,891 book covers were uploaded to the Welsh Wicipedia. These are copyrighted files and included under fair use. These images do not reside on Commons because they are copyrighted, however are directly contributing to the Welsh Wicipedia. We feel this is a strong contribution from Wikimedia UK to the growth of the projects. The 2,891 files uploaded to the Welsh Wicipedia are part of a long-standing project to improve coverage of Welsh-language publications. Unfortunately, CatScan does not include file usage for the Welsh Wicipedia, though statistics for the overall project (last updated 11 April) show that 57.4% of the files are in use. Scaling this down to account for the files uploaded in Q1, this means about 1,660 of the files are used, a very impressive amount.
At the end of 2013–14, 10 media files supported by Wikimedia UK had Featured status on either Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia (any language). As of the end of Q1 this has increased by 2, which is a reasonable contribution to our target of 9.
At the end of 2013–14, 54 files on Commons supported by Wikimedia UK had QI status. As of the end of Q1 this had increased by 21 to 75 files. We have already met our target for the year. The quality or valued image status is something that the chapter can support, but not directly influence, and so the targets were tentative based on previous records. We will continue to monitor the achievements in these areas.
At the end of 2013–14, 11 files on Commons supported by Wikimedia UK had VI status. As of the end of Q1 this had increased by 46 to 57 files. We have already met our target for the year - please see comments above.
341 articles created on the English Wikipedia in Q1, breaking down into: 284 articles created as a result of the Living Paths project and 57 as a result of editing events run by the charity and its volunteers. This can be further split into 8 new articles from education editing events, 20 from GLAM, and 20 from Wikimedian in Residence events. This is on target.
In Q1 2,180 articles were started on the Welsh Wicipedia as a result of WMUK activity. As well as this, some 400 articles have been created on the Breton Wikipedia, 700 in Cornish, and more besides. A partial list can be found here. Tracking the number of bytes added has been prevented outside the English and Welsh Wikipedias by other community's reluctance to use a Living Paths categories on articles created as part of the project. This means that a tool such as CatScan v2 can't be used, which makes tracking progress more challenging.
We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge.
The reputation score for institutions and organisations with which we have a live contact with since the start of Q1 is 497. From last year, Wikimedia UK has established new contacts with 27 institutions (including 13 at educational institutions and 10 at GLAMs).
Survey is in the planning stage.
Activities conducted.
The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase
Along with other Wikimedia affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation's Project & Event Grants, we supported the WIKI loves parliaments project by funding the travel of 3 volunteers, who together with the other participants produced over 1,000 high quality photographs and over 100 videos of MEPs.
In December 2013, a grant supporting the batch upload of 100,000 avionics photographs was approved. Details of the equipment the grant covered can be found on the application page. Uploads started in Q1 of 2014–15, and over time the usage of the equipment evolved to include other batch uploads including works from the National Library of Ireland, New York Public Library, and Library of Congress. Full details can be found on the Commons page about the project.
24 editing and training events were held in Q1, reaching 319 attendees. In addition, the "Hotels and cinema" project grant has supported the expansion of the Althorp article roughly five-fold, with the intention to bring several key articles to Good Article quality. Further details of the grant's aim can be found on its page. 70 communities in Wales have received Wikipedia training, contributing a vast amount of text in particular to the Welsh Wicipedia.
Several of our volunteer grants were focused on increasing the content on Wikimedia projects, and we are glad that we can continue supporting volunteers in these efforts. Four project grants were approved in this quarter, two of which involves purchasing of resource to improve articles on the English Wikipedia, one to support photography which will be used on Wikipedia, and one to support the making of a video showcasing some of the charity's work in GLAM. Project grants approved prior to this quarter has resulted in the promotion of one article on the English Wikipedia to Featured article status and supported the running of the Core Contest with its aim of improving English Wikipedia's core articles.
The figure of 408,545 bytes from editing events can be split into 118,543 from education events, 107,292 from GLAM, and 133,236 from Wikimedian in Residence events.
The quality of open knowledge continues to improve
Wikimedia UK has not specifically undertaken activities in Q1 to increase the proportion of files used in Wikimedia projects. As a result, the 6.5% figure reflects natural uptake of files. It can be argued that some of the grant activities described above caused an increase in quality in addition to adding to quantity of content.
Of the two Featured Picture promoted in Q1, one was a result of Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 and the other from Wiki Loves Parliaments / European Parliament. In February, Wikimedians from different countries gathered in Strasbourg to take photographs of Members of the European Parliament. Wikimedia UK funded three Wikimedians to attend.
Twenty out of the Quality Images promoted this quarter were from Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, with one resulting from a volunteer using WMUK's euipment. It is expected that the increase of Quality Images will not be as large in Q2.
The Valued Images were entirely from Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. It is expected that the increase of Valued Images will not be as large in Q2.
The Living Paths project impacted the English language Wikipedia as well as the Welsh Wicipedia, with 285 articles created as a result of the project. In all,
These are articles created by the release of content eg text and images by the Welsh Book Council. >3,800 articles created; 5,685 new images. As a result of people being trained through the community outreach, as well as existing editors working on articles. A new editor has also created a bot to facilitate with creating the articles. 3,266 out of 5,685 (57.4%) are used on WP articles. 25 training videos have been created to introduce new editors; individuals from 70 groups have been trained in how to edit. Two guidebooks published.
We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge.
The entirety of our activities conducted feed into this area – any project run or discussed in depth with another organisation contributes to this target. The vast majority of our events are run with partner/host organisations, so for example Art+Feminism editathons would be activities that support this area. Our contacts also led Major General Sir Evelyn Webb-Carter of Waterloo 200 to submit a talk to Wikimania 2014 about the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo next year and working with Wikipedia. Two student societies are active - Cambridge and Imperial; and there is interest in two more, likely to be active by September 2014.
Survey in the planning stage.
What worked and what did not?
Grants have been successful in driving the improvement of content, both on Commons through mass uploads and on the English Wikipedia, where grants have supported the Core Contest and rewriting several important articles, with the intention of bringing them to Good Article quality (cf the "Hotels and Cinema" grant mentioned above). The usage rate is short of the target of 13%. Last year's usage rate of 12.7% took most of the year to accumulate, so it can be expected that this figure of 6.5% will increase over time.
However, the nature of uploads this year is significantly different from 2013-14, which, we predict, will influence our metrics. There were very few mass uploads last financial year, while uploads such as the book covers have high usage rates, incomparable to other types of upload. For example, the content donation from Partage Plus (881 files) resulted in a usage rate of 1.8%. However, an event such as Wiki Loves Monuments had a usage rate of 18.0%, and a project grant supporting photography resulted in an 11.5% usage rate. It may be that in future reports it is worth separating mass uploads from other uploads, though through the course of the year the 6.5% figure will change as files continue to be used in Wikimedia mainspaces and other projects such as Wiki Loves Monuments take place.
The 2,891 book covers uploaded to the Welsh Wicipeda are the result of ongoing talks with the National Library of Wales, two years in the making. They are from books published in the Welsh language since 1996. Articles have been enhanced by adding text summaries of the books from the library's catalogue. There is expected to be another batch (about 8,000 in Q2).
Any additional details:
In addition to the above, the Operation Barras and Operation Flavius grant (approved in 2012) led to the promotion of Operation Flavius to Featured Article status in April 2014. The grant mentioned above also related to the categorising of nearly 2,000,000 Geograph images on Wikimedia Commons, done by a bot. This has not yet started due to constraints on volunteer time.
All of our objectives are also listed here. The targets identified below are yearly unless otherwise stated; most of them, especially around diversity or volunteer skill, have been set as slightly higher than the targets last year, which was done to reflect the growth of our capacity. We have been substantially more ambitious in our targets for the number of volunteers and their activities. This is partly due to the prediction that, with better measurement systems, we would be able to capture more accurately the volunteering that is already taking place. The other reason is that, with volunteering being the core of the organisation, we want to be ambitious in what we plan to achieve. These high targets may be possible party thanks to the opportunities offered by Wikimania in London.
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
We will support our volunteers to allow them to contribute effectively and efficiently.
We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers.
Number of friends (target of 420 by end of year). These are subscribers to our newsletter, a new initiative aiming to make our community more involved and informed of our activities
Number of volunteers (target of 250 by end of year). This was not previously recorded systematically
Number of leading volunteers (target of 140 by end of year - an increase of 30% based on the informal records of 2013-14)
Number of activity units (target of 1200 by the end of the year- an increase of 24% based on the 2013-14 records)
Number of leading activity units (target of 145 by the end of the year - an increase of 5% based on the 2013-14 records)
Leading volunteer drop out rate (target of below 10% total for the year)
WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.
Proportion of activity units attributable to women (target of 20% average by the end of the year)
Proportion of leading activity units attributable to women (target of 15% average by the end of the year)
Activity units in activities to encourage other diversity or minority engagement (target of 15 by the end of the year)
WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.
Activity units in training sessions and editathons (total count, including people being trained) (target of 575 by the end of the year- an increase of 5% based on the 2013-14 records)
Leading activity units in training sessions and editathons (ie: trainers only) (target of 95 by the end of the year - an increase of 6% based on the 2013-14 records)
176 friends on the list at the end of Q1. Sign ups have been driven by the donor mailings and forms at events. This is a new initiative for us that started from 0; counting the number of people signed up to our mailing list as an implicit list of the chapter's supporters. As we develop this mailing list and its promotion, it is planned that the sign ups to it will increase too, and so the current numbers are on target.
187 volunteers in this quarter, including the lead volunteers. Future quarterly reports will include a cumulative figure, rather than numbers just for that quarter; as such 187 volunteers does not represent a quarter of the charity's target of 250 in the year. This is not a number that grows quickly in each quarter, but takes a lot of effort to nurture. We will able to monitor this closely to see if we will be able to meet the annual target.
54 leading volunteers in this quarter. This is based on people who have delivered a leading activity unit, and therefore includes six members of staff. Future quarterly reports will include leading volunteers as a cumulative figure, rather than numbers just for that quarter; as such 54 leading volunteers does not represent a quarter of the charity's target of 140 in the year. As this is a figure that also does not grow quickly, we may be under delivering in this area. This target was always meant as an ambitious one, and we will work towards meeting it closer in upcoming quarters.
This quarter has seen 663.9 activity units, including 107 attributable to leading volunteers. Assuming even distribution over the year, this is largely over the target, reflecting the fact that we had a very busy quarter with many activities. Normally, our activities in summer go very quiet, allowing for evening out of the activity units; however, this may not be the case this year due to Wikimania. We will continue monitoring progress in this area. The activity units break down into:
98.6 activity units for GLAM activities (this includes 15 activity units classed as international events)
189.8 activity units for education activities (including those attributable to the Jisc ambassador)
144.5 activity units for Wikimedian in Residence activities
102 activity units for international events (see programme 5; this also includes 15 activity units classed as GLAM)
80 activity units for training events in Wales
and 64 activity units in other areas
115 leading activity units this quarter (of which 11 are attributable to staff). Again, this is over the target thanks to how many activities we had this quarter.
Using this year as a baseline because we the method of measuring leading volunteers is new to this year, so we have no comparable data before Q1.
WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.
35.9% of activity units this quarter where gender was noted are attributed to women. When excluding leading activity units this rises to 50.8%. This is higher than anticipated probably due to many gender diversity events run around the International Women's Day, and strong topical focus on diversity in the Royal Society Wikimedian in Residence project. See below for more details.
19% of all leading activity are attributable to women (dropping slightly to 18% when excluding those attributable to staff). Slightly exceeding our target thanks to many gender diversity events.
5 activity units in activities to encourage other diversity or minority engagement - on target so far.
WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.
297 activity units at training sessions and editing events - somewhat exceeding the target due to the number of training events we have delivered in Q1.
67 this quarter - strongly exceeding due to the number of training events delivered. Both this and the above numbers may decrease around August, as our focus switches to supporting Wikimania, rather than running editing workshops. This partly depends on how the programme of the conference shapes up, and we are open to see how this affects our metrics and targets.
Survey in the planning stage
Activities conducted.
We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers.
176 friends on the list at the end of Q1 - we continue to promote this mode of engagement with the chapter through our communications channels.
2–5. As well as the editing and training events, volunteers have been involved in advocacy events (where leading volunteers give talks to an audience); planning meetings preparing for events such or conferences; general support such as a volunteer helping deliver surveys. Not everyone provided an email address, and some people attend multiple events, which means that the number of volunteers is lower than activity units. Likewise, many lead volunteers are very active, so account for multiple leading activity units.
6. Using this year as a baseline because we the method of measuring leading volunteers is new to this year, so we have no comparable data before Q1.
WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.
We ran nine editing and training events aimed at improving the coverage of women on Wikipedia.
Volunteers have been available for editing events, and other activities such as committee and planning meetings. The figure is higher than the most recent indicator of the proportion of women making up Wikimedia UK's membership (7%).
This was accounted for by the Talking Wikipedia in Ghana event (see programme 5 for details)
WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.
Activity units in training sessions and editathons (total count, including people being trained) (target of 575 a year). Towards the end of Q1 Wikimedia UK organised a Wikidata training workshop, following on from a similar event in September 2013. This event resulted from requests by the volunteers, who felt they would like to be more supported in the project to be able to contribute more. We were glad we can support these requests.
A total of 24 editing and training events took place in quarter 1, with on average 2.79 leading activity units per event (or 1:4.76 leading volunteer to attendee ratio). Wikimedia UK has a pool of accredited trainers who are asked to help at events: out of 40 available trained trainers, including the 8 that attended the February 2014 session, 18 have supported at least one event in Q1, 11 of which supported two or more events. One of the accredited trainers provided training after attending train the trainers, but before the accreditation process was formally completed. A total of 43 leading activity units were delivered by trained trainers. In contrast, 21 leading activity units were delivered by trainers that have not attended one of our train the trainers course.
Survey not yet conducted
What worked and what did not?
35.9% of activity units this quarter where gender are attributed to women. This, however, under-records people attending events. CiviCRM was not set up to collect this information until the last month of Q1, so we do not have accurate data for this report - it may be that the statistics would be even higher. However, reports from trainers at Wikimedia UK editing events indicate that were well attended by women, for example the Live Art+Feminism editing and training session was mostly attended by women.
While moving our events management and recording to CiviCRM has presented some challenges, it has offered some advantages. For instance, in preparation for the Future of Education (a Wikimania fringe event) we were able to collate the details of people who had attended education related events organised by Wikimedia UK since the start of the 2014-15 year and email them a notice about the event.
Any additional details:
Board has 33% women and 20% BEM. Wide age range. Geographical diversity with representatives from three of the UK nations.
Transitioning from members newsletter to a friends newsletter took longer than planned with the drafting of the new template, with the first Friends Newsletter going out on 1 April covering the month of March. In that issue, there was a tracked open rate of 29.9% and of those a click-through rate of 33.3%, both of which are short of our targets of an open rate of 40%, and from open emails a clickthrough rate of 60%.
The latest donor newsletter was distributed in April. The Wikimedia Foundation's distribution resulted in a 35% open rate and 2.65% click through rate. The Wikimedia UK distribution gave an 18.0% open rate of those a 10.1% click through rate. The target of an open rate of 35%, and from open emails a clickthrough rate of 40% may prove challenging.
Use effective and high quality governance and resource management processes
All of our objectives are also listed here. The targets identified below are yearly unless otherwise stated. They reflect our commitment to incrementally improve on our governance management, and, if needed, work on ensuring a high level of metrics tracking an transparency. Our fundraising targets reflect the work we do on diversifying the funding streams of the chapter.
We are seen as an organisation that uses effective and high quality governance and resource management processes.
We will work to reduce barriers by education, campaigning, and the elimination of physical access difficulties.
We have effective and high quality governance and resource management processes, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.
Progress on targets in the Hudson and Chapman governance reviews (All targets that we agree with have been completed and independently reviewed)
Progress towards PQASSO 2 (Complete all internal preparations for PQASSO 2 ready for external accreditation)
We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.
Transparency score as measured by annual survey
Transparency compliance as determined by Governance Committee against published transparency commitments
We have high quality systems to measure our impact as an organisation.
Progress towards full implementation of automated and manual tracking/measuring systems
We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream.
Number of separate donors (target of 6,000 by the end of the year, a 9% increase from last year)
Funds received from sources other than WMF fundraiser or FDC (target an increase of 7% from the previous year, measured by the end of the year)
Proportion of funds from sources other than WMF fundraiser or FDC (target of 47% by the end of the year)
Proportion of funds from direct debits (target of 45% by the end of the year)
Progress against these objectives?
We have effective and high quality governance and resource management processes, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.
Very good progress - all Hudson review targets met or assimilated. In Chapman review 11 achieved, one underway and two awaiting consideration.
In Q1 continued work on financial systems (Procurement). Implementing new finance systems, Governance, Trustee induction continues.
We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.
Survey is in the planning stage.
The Governance Committee will meet in Q2 to set transparency commitments.
In Berlin several chapters indicated a desire to know more about the Training the Trainers programme and we have shared our forthcoming international session with them - Spain, South Africa, Italy, the Netherlands and Estonia have already registered. WMUK volunteer leaflet files shared with three chapters for localisation.
We have high quality systems to measure our impact as an organisation.
CiviCRM starting to be in use, recording events and logging participants.
We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream.
5,266 separate donors in Q1, establishing a firm progress towards the target.
89% for Q1. Outstanding gift aid had a disproportionate impact on this and all income data which will even out over the course of the year.
56% for Q1.This is higher than projected this quarter because of a large chunk of backdated gift aid income.
28% for Q1.This is proportionately lower because the gift aid income increased the overall amount of which this is a percentage.
Activities conducted.
We have effective and high quality governance and resource management processes, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.
Hudson recommendations: At the March 2014 board meeting it was agreed to implement the following: a two-year term for the Chair; the Governance Committee will be chaired by the Chair of the board of trustees; clarify trustee officer roles; agree strategic plans with traffic lights on progress to follow. In addition, a governance handbook for trustees has been created, and the board agendas are now planned by the Chair and Chief Executive.
Chapman recommendations: At the March 2014 board meeting it was agreed to implement the following: creation of a strategy (cf. strategy overview and linked pages); draft strategic goals and how they will be implemented (cf. strategic goals and strategic monitoring plan).
We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.
Survey will take place later in the year.
The Governance Committee will meet in Q2 to set transparency commitments
We have high quality systems to measure our impact as an organisation.
Q1 of the 2014-15 financial year has seen us start to use CiviCRM to document our events and activities; before it was used primarily for membership and donation contacts. The transition is ongoing, with Eventbrite still being used in a handful of events necessitating key information is transferred over. Having information on our activities in CiviCRM has facilitated the production of this report. Wikimetrics has also been a useful tool in assessing the impact of editing events and the longevity of editors involved. The Tech Committee is currently discussing how to measure the quality of an article over time, so that Wikimedia UK has a more sophisticated way of assessing the charity's impact on the quality of open knowledge (Goal 1.2). CatScan v2has also been an invaluable tool in producing this report.
We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream.
Ongoing fundraising operational activities. The figure reflects a continuation of regular donors plus some additional single gifts as a result of mailings.
Ongoing fundraising operational activities. Managing the gift aid process.
Ongoing fundraising operational activities. Managing the gift aid process.
Ongoing fundraising operational activities. Managing the gift aid process.
WMCON 2014 - Wikimedia UK presents its strategy and measurement process
What worked and what did not?
There has been progress against the recommendations make by the Hudson governance review and the Chapman governance audit.
Most members of staff now have hands on experience of using CiviCRM. As this is the first time we have used the software for reporting against our new strategic goals, it has been time consuming to implement but will presumably be quicker for future reports.
A substantial achievement in the area of fundraising in this quarter was successfully becoming a member of the Fundraising Standards Board. We wanted to demonstrate our commitment to the support our donors have shown us, which in 2013 was over £250,000 of direct gifts to the charity. As a result we have become a member of the Fundraising Standards Board and committed to meeting the terms of their fundraising promise (which are, commitment to high standards, being honest and open, clear, respectful, fair and reasonable, and accountable. The details are here.) Most importantly we have now developed a supporter complaint procedure which we will continue to highlight to donors, and work on providing even better service to them.
Any additional details:
Wikimedia UK hosted an inter-chapter governance workshop on 1 and 2 March 2014 to share good practice. The workshop was positively received by attendees, and has resulted in a similar event planned to take place it the lead-in to Wikimania in Q3. Various presentations were given at the Berlin conference by Wikimedia UK representatives about governance.
All of our objectives are also listed here. Many activities here are new initiatives where we would not have previous data. We have set broad targets that will allow for some experimentation and pilot work.
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
We will work to reduce barriers by education, campaigning, and the elimination of physical access difficulties.
Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.
Total number of scans of QRpedia codes (target 14,000/month)
Projects addressed at new readers being enabled to access Wikimedia websites (3 activities by the end of the year)
There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge.
Awareness score in annual national survey of public opinion (baseline to be established in 2014–15 as this is a new initiative)
Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of Open knowledge.
Responses to EU and UK government policy consultations (narrative - to monitor)
Involvement in EU and UK advocacy activities; Involvement in advocating legislative change within GLAM, Education, and other organisations (narrative - to monitor)
Progress against these objectives?
Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.
QRpedia scans (figures derived from stats.wikimedia.org.uk) - slightly exceeding the target:
February 2014 – 12,698 (508/recorded day)
March 2014 – 20,588 (664/day)
April 2014 – 19,224 (640/day)
Daily visits to qrpedia.org (top) and qrwp.org (bottom) between 31 January and 30 April 2014. Information available at stats.wikimedia.org.uk
There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge.
Survey in planning stage.
As a part of our efforts to raise organisations' awareness of the benefits of open knowledge, we have engaged in a series of advocacy activities beyond our work within the European Union projects. We do record these activities as a part of our 'activity units' tracking, but it is not easy to capture the impact of that work otherwise, hence no direct targets are applied to this work. We would like to present here our activities in this area. In Q1, we have had representatives from WMUK community present at nine different conferences (e.g. the high profile Open Educational Resources conference in April 2014), where they were speaking about the work of Wikimedia UK, how the audience could get involved, and why. We estimate reaching about 250 people (in person) via these talks in Q1. We have also run a grant that supported the hosting of the externally organised What I Know Is symposium at the University of Stirling. It was an event about the interdisciplinary research symposium on online collaborative knowledge building, where Wikimedia work was a recurring theme, showing how various educators in the audience could apply it in their research, and even teaching. Overall, this is an important area of putting the open knowledge on the agenda of these conferences, which in future may result in changes in the organisations that attended.
Another area where we work on raising awareness of open knowledge is producing and distributing the information brochures about Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia UK. For example, we use Education case studies brochures when we engage in advocacy with educators audiences (as some of the examples above). This is found to be an effective way to start an engagement with another person or organisation, in a situation where they prefer to read through some physical materials first.
Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge.
As is mentioned below in Lessons learned from this quarter, we also sent out letters to each of the UK's 73 MEPs, encouraging them to advocate copyright change in the European Union. The chapter has not engaged in this kind of activity before, and it was reassuring to receive seven responses (covering the five largest parties in the UK), all supportive of our position.
Lobbying activities by the Wikimedians in Residence in their host organisations - ongoing. At the JISC Wikimedia Ambassador, the largest project deliverable, a ten-thousand-word infoKit on Crowdsourcing, has gone live on Jisc infoNet in Q1. It encourages other organisations to work openly in all areas, and is being suggested to any organisation that comes to contact with Jisc and wants to work with them. As Jisc is an organisation that comes in contact with almost any organisation in the UK that works within the area of information and education technology, the range of impact in terms of raising awareness will be significant. The Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador programme was coming to an end in Q1, and so the Ambassador was summing up his work in a series of widely read blogs, such as this and this.
At the Wikimedian in Residence project at the National Library of Scotland, the proposed trial release of NLS digital content to Wikimedia Commons has been approved and was scheduled to go ahead in April 2014. In addition to the content previously approved for the Flickr account, several hundred additional images and files have been selected for upload. This is a step forward in opening up of this institution.
Additionally, WMUK work around the European legislation continues.
What worked and what did not?
There was a meeting with representatives from Young Offenders Institutions. While they were interested in the proposal to use Kiwix, there was concern that some articles might include violent themes, for example some film articles. The next step is to consult with the team behind Kiwix whether a modified version can be made available.
As discussed below in programme 4, the interface for the QRpedia stats could be more user friendly. This is something we would like to improve when capacity allows.
It is often seen that a residency of a Wikimedian in a particular institution gives that organisation a boost and encouragement towards its work in the area of open knowledge. A constant presence and lobbying of the Resident, towards with the visibility of that project within an organisation, puts pressure (or encouragement) to the management to finally act on the openness agenda. This trend, together with others, will be looked at as we review the Wikimedian in Residence programme more closely in Q2.
All of our objectives are also listed here. Many activities here are focused around developing new tools where we would not have previous data. We have set broad targets that will allow for some experimentation and pilot work, realising that it would be impractical to set targets for tools we are only working to set up this year.
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
We will work to reduce barriers by education, campaigning, and the elimination of physical access difficulties.
There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of open knowledge.
Number and availability of the project tools we host or support
There are robust and efficient tools readily available to allow WMUK - and related organisations - to support our own programmes and to enable us to effectively record impact measures.
Uses of the internal or supporting tools we host or support
Progress against these objectives?
There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of open knowledge.
Wikimedia UK hosts QRpedia (usage details in programme 3) and the Virtual Learning Environment. The latter has moved to beta testing. We have also supported the developments around the Mass Upload Tool. Bearing in mind our capacity, and lack of a technical project manager person, it is felt that this is on target.
There are robust and efficient tools readily available to allow WMUK - and related organisations - to support our own programmes and to enable us to effectively record impact measures.
CiviCRM is being used by the charity to manage our contacts and is being used to facilitate reporting. Once the Virtual Learning Environment has moved out of beta testing and is being used, there will be statistics available on its usage. The chapter currently uses piwik to produce statistics on the usage of QRpedia and other sites under WMUK's control (ie: our wiki, blog, the WLM UK site, and the VLE). As above, this is judged as being on target.
Activities conducted.
There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of open knowledge.
In April the Virtual Learning Environment was made ready for testing. The community was invited to test the side and give feedback. This is being gathered here.
There are robust and efficient tools readily available to allow WMUK - and related organisations - to support our own programmes and to enable us to effectively record impact measures.
WMUK have been getting consultancy to help with CiviCRM, our contact record management system. The system is being used to measure our progress against our strategic goals, recording details such as activity units and volunteering. It continues to be a work in progress.
Piwik allows us to measure visits to our various sites, including QRpedia. In late April, the tool stopped working temporarily, meaning statistics for 18 to 24 April were temporarily unavailable. Once this was brought to the attention of our contractors the problem was quickly fixed and no data was lost. Institutions have found the piwik interface difficult to use, and the charity's Tech Committee is considering whether the tool could be modified to make access easier.
What worked and what did not?
The interface for piwik is not currently as user-friendly as people using the tools would like. While piwik offers a lot of information, it is important to make it easy to find. This issue is currently being looked at. Regardless, usage of QRpedia is regularly exceeding the target of 14,000 scans per month (mentioned in programme 3). Though the charity advertised for a project manager in Q1 in order to assist with running the tech side of things, ultimately finding someone to fill the post was unsuccessful. After a low number of direct applications we sought out agencies, but ultimately the agency fee was considered too high.
Any additional details:
Between 24 April and 16 May Wikimedia UK was accepting tenders for a contractor to support this particular programme. Further details of the brief can be found here. The contractor will produce a report for consideration by the charity's board.
Develop, support, and engage with other Wikimedia and open knowledge communities
All of our objectives are also listed here. The targets identified below are yearly unless otherwise stated; most of them have been set as slightly higher than the achievements of last year, which was done to reflect the growth of our capacity. We are tracking the international support in such a focused way for the first time this year, and are keen to learn from the metrics we get back.
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
We will work with other Wikimedia communities and organisations in an open way to facilitate shared learning across the entire movement. We will encourage and provide support to other Wikimedia communities to help them develop, diversify and thrive. We will play a leading role in sharing good practice and acting as a focus for debate. We will work with non-Wikimedia open knowledge groups to further our open knowledge vision.
A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities
Funding to support other chapters and Wikimedia groups (target of £10,000 by the end of the year)
Activities held for or jointly with other chapters and Wikimedia groups (target of 7 by the end of the year including 5.2 and 5.3 events)
Total shared activity units in shared activities with other chapters and Wikimedia groups (target of 150 by the end of the year)
Number of UK based Wikimedia events other than WMUK events (monitor)
An increased diversity of Wikimedia contributors
Activities specifically directed to supporting the diversity of other chapters and Wikimedia groups (target of 1 by the end of the year)
Wikimedia communities are skilled and capable.
Activities specifically directed to help train or to share knowledge with other chapters and Wikimedia groups (target of 1 by the end of the year)
Open knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.
Number of shared activities hosted with groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK (target of 5 by the end of the year)
Total shared activity units in shared activities hosted with groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK (target of 40 by the end of the year)
Progress against these objectives?
A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities
£10,149.39 spent in this quarter. This is largely due to the board governance workshop run by WMUK and held in Q1, but does not take into account costs reclaimed from the event, for example if we booked a hotel on behalf of someone else and then they paid us. We have, in any case, largely committed the spend allocated to support this area, which is as planned.
Wikimedia UK supported four events with other Wikimedia groups or chapters. Many of these were opportunities picked up after the planning for the year, and bearing in mind Wikimania in Q3 it may mean that we will exceed our target. We will be monitoring the progress here.
103 activity units, again indicating that we may exceed the yearly target (counted people who worked on delivery of these activities, and, with weighting, the audiences). We have delivered more activities in this area than originally planned due to the strong involvement in the Berlin conference in April. We will be monitoring the progress and basing our planning for later quarters of the year - and next year - on that.
We wanted to capture events in the community that we know of, but that have not been supported by the chapter. Three training, editing, and advocacy events took place in quarter one. On top of this, there were twelve meetups in seven cities, indicating an active community.
An increased diversity of Wikimedia contributors
We have supported one event delivered in this area, meeting our target for the year. This is not an easy area of activities, and if other opportunities come up we will work to support them - it will not be a focus of our activities though.
Wikimedia communities are skilled and capable.
One key event was held. This met our target and initial plan for the year. If capacity allows, we would be open to engaging in further activities in this area - some are in initial planning stages at this point - which will be monitored.
Open knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.
1 and 2. An Open Coalition Coordinator was recruited in Q1 and started in post in early Q2. The main role of this person will be to deliver this area of work, and the recruitment has been on target so far.
We were involved in many events furthering this goal. In addition to the editathon in Ireland (the Battle of Clontarf 1000 editathon), the talk in Ghana, the 1-2 March governance workshop, and four presentations at the April chapters conference in Berlin, another of our volunteers were supported to attend the EduWiki conference that was held in Belgrade by Wikimedia Serbia. We supported three people to travel to the Zurich hackathon. Finally, we supported the travel of one volunteer to Bremen to give a talk during one of Wikimedia Deutschland's GLAMster meeting. All of these activities meant we could share our knowledge with other chapters, giving them ideas of projects to run and areas to work on.
Wikimedia UK supported the Battle of Clontarf editathon by sending along a trained trainer. The governance workshop saw board members from across the Wikimedia movement gather in London to share experiences and learning points. It was positively received by attendees and as such another is being planned for immediately before Wikimania in Q3.
Wikimedia UK publicise relevant events through the events page on the UK wiki.
An increased diversity of Wikimedia contributors
The Talking Wikipedia in Ghana event was held in March, with outreach materials supplied by Wikimedia UK. This was an event run by a volunteer we have collaborated with for Black History Month two years ago, and thanks to regular contact he decided to set up a Wikipedia initiative as a part of his work [1]. This was an informal meetup, with a brief presentation about Wikimedia projects by the volunteer Kwaku, and an open discussion.
Wikimedia communities are skilled and capable.
On 1-2 March Wikimedia UK organised and hosted a governance workshop for trustees of Wikimedia chapters. This fed into discussions at the Berlin Wikimedia conference, and due to positive feedback from attendees another governance workshop has been arranged for immediately before Wikimania in Q3. Four talks were delivered at the Berlin conference, sharing our knowledge and in effect increasing the skill of the audiences: 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Open knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.
1 and 2. An Open Coalition Coordinator was recruited in Q1 and started in post in early Q2.
What worked and what did not?
The Clontarf event was particularly successful, with support from the Open Knowledge Foundation Ireland, and the group of editors involved considering establishing Wikimedia Ireland. We have not engaged much with the community in Ireland much previously, and this event was seen as a sign that both sides would be interested in cooperation. Choosing a culturally important event for the local community, and being sensitive in how we support them (the political considerations are complex), meant that we were well received and able to deliver a productive editathon. Wikimedia UK was thanked for their support of the event on the website about the 1000th anniversary about the Battle of Clontarf:
As well as the 1014 Retold team, the event could not have happened without the support of Wikimedia UK, a registered charity dedicated to collecting, developing, promoting and distributing Open Knowledge. Specific thanks must go to Jonathan Cardy, who provided logistical support, and John Cummings, who led the training session.
We think that initiatives such as the Talking Wikipedia in Ghana event, with an UK based volunteer doing Wikimedia outreach to other countries, should be something the chapter supports where there is capacity. There is a feeling, though, that the event was not as strong in delivery as it could have been. We did not connect with the local Ghana community before running this activity, which meant that the benefits of local links were not explored. It also brought a potential of antagonising the local community because of doing something that was not communicated to them. This, fortunately, did not happen, and we are hoping that with future events we will work on activities together.
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 from entities who receive funds, and to share these lessons across the movement. The purpose of this section is to elicit some of these insights, which will be shared throughout the movement. Please answer the following questions in 1–2 paragraphs each.
What were your major accomplishments in the past quarter, and how did you help to achieve movement goals?
The period of 1 February to 30 April was an eventful and successful period for Wikimedia UK. On 1 April the charity became a member of the Fundraising Standards Board scheme and "has committed to the highest standards in fundraising" ( The details are here.). There was already a donor 'bill of rights' and a supporter complaints procedure has now been drafted and posted on the public wiki. The FSB represents the industry standard for fundraising in the UK. We will continue to work on providing even better service to our supporters. This is a boost to our goal of having high quality governance and resource management processes - requirements that make our processes run smoothly and so strengthen the movement.
For the first time, we reached out to UK Members of the European Parliament in an effort to encourage them to advocate copyright change in the European Union. This is the first time the UK chapter has attempted any such work and is a sign of our growing maturity and confidence. We wrote personalised emails and letters to the 73 MEPs that represent the UK in the European Parliament. In particular, the United Kingdom is lucky to have Freedom of Panorama, but other EU countries have more restrictive laws. We received seven encouraging responses from the UK's five largest political parties. This is an encouraging start and work in this area will continue, in line with our European partners in the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU. In the long run, it may change the legislation in the EU, making it easier for the whole movement to share and create freely available content.
Wikimedia UK's Wikimedian in Residence programme received positive news coverage in April, in particular the New Scientist ran a piece on an editathon run by our Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society. This achieved several of our goals, with the media coverage increasing the audiences' awareness of Wikimedia UK and open knowledge.
What were your major setbacks in the past quarter (e.g., programs that were not successful)?
While our events aimed at improving the coverage of women on Wikipedia have proven successful and generated positive news coverage, it was unfortunate that our event registration forms for much of Q1 were not geared to collecting information in relation to gender and other areas of diversity, which need to feed directly into our metrics. As a result, our evidence is anecdotal, rather than based on firm figures. In general, we have created structure of goals and measurements before the back end of data tracking was fully created for it, planning for learning in the process. We reached some difficulties in setting up our systems for tracking the data, as mentioned above. This is something we are hoping to continually improve throughout the year.
What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?
Having a clear set of high level strategic goals has been very useful in terms of being able to assess what we do and whether it fits into our aims and objectives. Otherwise we continue to rely on a cohesive staff team, our volunteer community and a maturing board. For the first quarter it has been very busy and this is a result of more stability and a growing ability to plan ahead. The next two quarters already demonstrate the certainty of a packed year of focused activities.
What unanticipated challenges did you encounter and how did this affect what you were able to accomplish?
Press reports of vandalism to the page about the Hillsborough Disaster led to a great deal of press attention. We were able to work with members of our community to explain to the media how the edits had been reverted and how the Wikipedia systems work to deal with vandalism. As a result our quotes featured prominently in the coverage. Our Head of External Relations, Stevie Benton, shared how the charity dealt with the news story in a post on the WMUK blog. The Hillsborough disaster is an extremely emotive and charged subject in the UK and the news coverage was pretty sensationalist. As soon as the story broke in Liverpool requests for interviews and comments began to pour in at a steady rate. It didn't help that Stevie was working in Brussels at the time but somehow we slowly began to influence the story. While the coverage was unfavourable to the government, the Wikipedia element of the narrative evolved into being about how quickly vandalism gets reverted, about the volunteers that write and edit the encyclopedia and about the mechanics of editing. At one point we had a volunteer speaking on one BBC radio station about the story in general, and at the same time we had another speaking on another BBC channel about Wikipedia in more general terms.
We were unable to find a suitable candidate for our part-time Developer post. This was disappointing. After seeking alternative routes we have decided to undertake an independent review of our development and IT needs with a view to reporting to the board later in the year and establishing a long term arrangement that suits our aspirations.
What changes might you make in executing your initiatives into the next quarter?
A review of the programme to date and its spending is being written by the CEO for the June board with recommendations for future years' programming. This may affect how we deliver the activities for the rest of the year. The review of Wikimedians in Residence, looking at the programme delivery from the last two years, will report in early Q2 and may represent a change in methodology for implementing this area of our work. We are also planning to share it more widely for the benefit of the international community.
Provide any other relevant information that may be helpful or relevant for the FDC (e.g., links to any media coverage, blog posts, more detailed reports, more detailed financial information).
↑This does not include Gift Aid received in the quarter, which is accrued for in the accounts and is only included at same time as the donations to which the Gift Aid relates. Future reports to the FDC will amend this figure as necessary to accurately reflect Gift Aid received.
↑Our estimate of the external reputation of each GLAM, education organisation or learned society that we work with. The scale goes from 1 to 12, with 1 donating an institution with a local remit, and 12 an institution which is internationally renowned.
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.
None.
Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".
Yes
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".
wikimedia.org.uk
.jpg)
