Talk:Reports

Old discussion

A wiki template for small langs, with a few line breaks between subjects, might be a good idea. +sj+ 23:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ironically, this page appears to be abandoned. --Cromwellt|talk 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Activity

Active reporting has been happening elsewhere. I've transcluded and included much of it here as a jumping off point. More work like what the Signpost did in 2006 is needed to help synthesize and summarize the changing tenor of different projects. -- sj + 22:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of copies?

I'm not sure what the point is of copying content here from the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, rather than just linking to these pages:

foundation:Meetings

foundation:Reports to the Board

foundation:Annual Report

foundation:Financial reports

On the negative side, it significantly increases the risk of bit-rot. For example, there's a newer Annual Report, and a newer 990, than are listed on this page. Nor am I seeing any significant translation activity (a process which surely could be improved irrespective of where the translated documents are hosted).--Eloquence 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, what content is copied here? You mean the links to various reports on wmf:? (Uh, and also reports to the board. But these are not in the wiki, only in foundation-l.) Well, I agree that this is not the optimal way to do it, but I imagine that the point of this page is to have a central list of all reports. $wgEnableScaryTranscluding would allow to avoid that.

I don't think that translation would be a good reason, because translations can be added also to wmf:. --Nemo 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The ideal is to have a central page with deep-links to all of the above. It should also link more prominently to the canonical subpages you mention. (Bitrot cuts both ways -- since fewer people have access to the foundationwiki (a policy that we could improve upon dramatically -- everyone should be able to post to talk pages there), it is also sometimes out of date, and only includes WMF information.)

I would expect translations to end up on whichever wiki hosts the original, and links to various languages would appear on a translated version of this summary page (currently, here on meta). –SJ · talk 03:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the index and to the copies of the Reports to the Board. Yes, scary transclusion might be nice to have for this kind of application, but in the absence of that, I'm not convinced that the added value of "everything on one page" justifies maintaining separate copies that may go stale and confuse readers. I would rather point people to the official, maintained version.--Eloquence 20:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you worried about the wiki used, or the existence of a list of lists? Absent a way to transclude just the TOC from a bunch of subpages, someone has to take the time to update a page like this to make it available in this format. As Nemo says, there's no duplicatoin here, just a centralized list of links. –SJ · talk 03:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with duplication of indexes and such if there are people who want to keep them up to date. That doesn't seem to be the case so far for the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report / Financial Report index, so I've replaced it with a summary for now.

Of course, ultimately, this points to the confusing and arguably unnecessary division between wikimediafoundation.org and meta.wikimedia.org. Perhaps it's time to think about the technical requirements and information architecture for a single wikimedia.org wiki that meta.wikimedia.org and wikimediafoundation.org could be gradually merged into. :) --Eloquence 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

+1, I think one of the best benefits of having things like this here is that we can have more open discussion on talk pages etc (that we can't on wmfWiki). Trying to find a nice way to merge the two could be very nice (and maybe even show off the community infrastructure more to people which I think could be a very good thing).James (T C) 08:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

New table of Latest reports

SJ and I have been kicking around a new table format to quickly summarize the latest reports from each of the different parts in our movement (basically a more comprehensive and usable version of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports#Overview). I haven't filled it entirely in yet, but have started. I think this one will be a lot more useful as a guide than the extensive lists we've got now. Once we get the table updated, I suggest we archive everything else on this page and just link to relevant Chapters reports pages (which I can't really follow; it's some kind of template maybe??). We might need to move the summary of Foundation Reports to its own page or category.Stu 21:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We had a good discussion in Berlin about effective transparency. One thing that has bothered me is how hard it is to find the latest reports from all the different parts of our movement. So, I just revised this page to begin with a table that highlights the latest reports from the Foundation, the Chapters, and other parts of the movement. I'm hoping this will give all of us a good quick reference to see the latest activity and financial reports. It would also be great if its tabular format helps highlight when a particular team is overdue to create reporting and link to it. I tried to add all the different reports I've seen on internal-l, wikimediaannounce-l, foundation-l, and even the presentations from the Chapters conference. Apologies for those I left out. I think this could be really useful. If you agree, pls go add a link or otherwise improve!Stu 01:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, my general design principle was to have Latest Reports be comprehensive across all different groups, including Foundation, Chapters, and others. Then we could have more detail (or links to other pages) for each of those groups.Stu 02:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stu, thanks for the steps taken. I am not sure if the presentations on the chapters meeting can be unified with the financial reports - some chapters might have included some numbers in it, but also quite some didn't because after all it is only three minutes, and then financials are not the most interesting to talk about. I would rather suggest to create an extra column for that. Effeietsanders 06:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the column headings got messed up.... Good catch. I've fixed so the presentations are now back under "Other."69.106.255.65 06:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, makes much more sense, thanks :) Effeietsanders 07:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the Foundation reports back to their own page -- Foundation reports. This now matches the way Chapters reports are handled. It was bothering me that this page seemed too Foundation-focused. It's a lot cleaner now and this page ends up as a summary and pointer to other more detailed collections. I'm still thinking about ways to simplify the table a bit more; the idea is to a) give the latest snapshot and b) highlight those organizations that haven't given updates recently to try and gently encourage them to share the latest news.Stu 17:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I probably just made it worse then :P I tried to seperate different types of information (reports vs continuous streams of info). I think the best encouragement is btw to ask questions - but that is of course a whole other matter, this might help you find the answers. There are several other categories of reports/information chapters might share (overview press mentions etc) which we might or might not find interesting. Effeietsanders 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Composite calendar for updates?

I was chatting with Asaf and Bence about how the various reports are updated or linked to from Meta. [Answer: some ad-hoc by whoever notices, some by chapter members and staff, some by WMF staff]. Are there some existing calendars that could be combined into a movement-wide calendar of news, reports, and other updates?

I'm not sure we have one for the WMF. For that set of work alone, we have

• A set of predictable annual summaries. Planning: long-form monthly reports, minutes from quarterly Board meetings, and an Annual Report (both forward-looking and reviewing outcomes of the past year). Financials: quarterly/semiannual/annual financials, an audit report, and a charity report (990). Other: State of the X updates at Wikimania each year (projects, technology).
• Annual events: the fundraiser (becoming more spread out over the whole year), Wikimania, elections for Trustees and FDC members, recruitment of Committee members (Ombudsmen, AffCom, AuditCom). And reports on/from the same.
• Periodic updates: project updates, and outcomes for each of a dozen major projects, and a multitude of logged office hours.
• Periodic roadmaps: sporadic strategy updates (like the FDC and narrowing focus updates), and technical roadmaps. A few a year.
• Periodic news: blog posts, both technical and other. And announcements sent to the announce mailing list.

Then for chapters there are

• Annual summaries. Planning: an Annual report, a state of the Chapter talks at the Chapters conference. Financial: many have a separate financial report; those with a fundraising agreement with the WMF have an annual fundraiser/financial report, and interim data-sharing.
• Annual events: the Chapters conference; sometimes a finance meeting (as in 2012).
• Periodic roadmaps: overall strategy (Vision 2020 / chapter-specific N-year plans), specific large projects have their own.
• Periodic reports and news: some chapters have monthly or quarterly updates [some for members only]; blog and website updates

For the communities, there are

• Community-wide newspapers and 'zines (Signpost, Kurier)
• Project-specific newsletters (POTY, WikiCup, WikiProject FOO)
• Smaller opt-in updates (sign up for sporadic announcements about... topical/regional events)
• Research projects (summaries reported out on wikimedia-l or wikiresearch-l; some surveys taken and reports published on a meta page)
• Periodic reports and news: most blog posts and planet / twitter updates

Some of the above have clear schedules that could be fit onto a calendar. Others have dates associated with them but are only known a few days before publication. Others are continuous or aggregations of lots of small things that wouldn't fit on a [forward-looking] calendar but could show up on a historical timeline. If we can find a reasonable way to lay this out or visualize this, it would be useful to any summarizers and synthesizers of the work going on. And might make the process of generating things like "State of the X" reports easier and more automatic. –SJ talk  04:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good topic. A couple things to consider:

• If using a wiki for this purpose, I think it makes the most sense to leverage the Category system somehow. I did a lot of work on getting things on Meta into categories by year a while back, and User:Another Believer has been doing similar things more recently. Maybe this could be built upon.
• If considering non-wiki software for this purpose, I'd suggest taking a look at Calagator as a possible base on which to build. It's a Portland-based calendar for tech and community events, and it's free software. I know the developers originally intended to expand it for use for other purposes, but I'm not sure how far they got. http://calagator.org

-Pete F (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation

Is the Wikimedia Foundation no longer producing any report? Nemo 16:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nemo, thanks for highlighting those needs for updates. We have regular quarterly reporting since 2015 as noted on the Foundation Reports page. I went ahead and updated the links to that and the current annual plan draft. I will need to inquire a little as to the financial reporting link as it is not obvious right away. JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your answer is quite cryptic. My interpretation is that it means yes, the WMF stopped producing any report, given no quarterly report or quarterly review has been produced in 3 months. Can you confirm? Nemo 12:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nemo, I was not meaning to be at all cryptic. Rather, I meant to clearly point out that I linked the current WMF reporting from meta to the reports table and tried to communicate to you where that change in reporting style was documented on the foundation reports page. In doing this, I hoped to connect you to the most recently published reporting with the one exception that I could not immediately confirm the most recent financial report link. As we have just been completing quarterly review meetings for Q3 this past week, I find the statement that we haven't produced anything in 3 months premature. Importantly, the timing of the report releases is not immediately at the change of quarters but after each of the review meetings are held. Our last reviews were released for Q2 January 19 through 22nd and are listed, by department, in the table on the quarterly review page linked. Our process involves both preparation of our reporting as well as review meetings for each department. As we have been following our usual quarterly review process and I have heard nothing to suggest otherwise, it seems you are simply needing to allow the time for the process. Please do let me know if I remain at all unclear. Thanks - JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I see [1] now, good. For the future, I suggest to add the expected date of future publication in the table, especially when the quarter ends. Nemo 06:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify for readers confused by this exchange: Nemo's above claims ("no quarterly report or quarterly review has been produced in 3 months") were false, as one can easily verify via the linked pages; e.g. the most recent quarterly report was published just on March 11. CCing Greg who is handling publication of these currently. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: We are indeed still generating these reports, although we are reviewing the process internally right now for future quarters (based on internal feedback and community feedback). Reports from teams for the most recently ended quarter are being posted now, and an org-wide report will be made available after. I like the idea of publishing a more clear timeline, but since it might be changing for next quarter, probably best to hold off on doing for now. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(Indenting fixed.) Of course I count from the date of the event as reported in the page. I admit I rounded from 85 days elapsed to 90, in my statement. I agree it's important to note that File:Wikimedia Foundation Quarterly Report, FY 2015-16 Q2 (October-December).pdf was only published in March; however that's hardly an argument WMF employees can use against others, including while accusing them of saying falsehoods (a habit I recommend to abandon).

As for sources of confusion in this exchange, I'd rather say that all the defensive replies are to blame; it would have been enough to say "Yes, we're a bit late on the current cycle but are working on it". So many words spared. Nemo 11:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

One comment on that wording - late for this cycle, which only began a couple weeks ago, would be a bit premature to state. The quarter ended a few weeks ago, meetings happened shortly after, and notes are being posted - which has been the process for about a year (as noted earlier). So I think a more accurate statement would be that this cycle just recently started, and we are currently going through the process of posting the notes and report. Also, when we announced the last quarterly report, we acknowledged and explained why it was late. I also sent a note out before it was posted forewarning that it was going to be late. Since the reports cover 90 days of time, your observation that it has been 90 days since the last process seems to support that this one is not yet late. It would be difficult for us to begin to post notes or start the process before the period we are reporting on has actually concluded. I hope that helps clarify things. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal

I know the reports for WikiJournal came in a bit late, but is it ok to mark it as up to date now (and perhaps note the delay in the comment box? Also, is it all right to make the next report after Dec 31, 2018, since our latest report covers the period up to Dec 31, 2017? Mikael Häggström (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group reports for 2018

Resolved.

Hello! I just updated the table to add links to the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group's 2018 report for the Wikimedia Conference, as well as links to the 2018 Wiki Loves Pride campaign and results pages. We don't receive any funding, and we're a thematic user group, so our reporting is very simple. @DNdubane (WMF): I don't know who to contact in order to (hopefully) update the group's status at Wikimedia Summit 2019/Eligibility Criteria, so we can be eligible for representation at the summit. I see you edit this page often. Are you able to provide any insight, or direct me to someone who can help? Thank you. -Another Believer (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE): Pinging you as well, just so this is on your radar. -Another Believer (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved. -Another Believer (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Annual reports due dates

Currently the due dates for annual reports for groups are for exactly one year after the report period started (as in, ours starts 4 march, report for the year is due 4 march the next year). Given that these are reports for that report period, however, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to require the reports by the end of the same period they're for, as that requires us to write and submit the reports before the end of the period they are for in order to be within compliance.

For other reports, such as for grantmaking, there's generally a one-month period included after the end of the grant period before the report is actually due, allowing ample time to fully write the report and include everything that happened even right up to the end of the specific report period, as well as review it within the organisation or group in order to ensure nothing was left out or otherwise needs revision.

I highly recommend adopting similar practice here, as this is just confusing. -— Isarra ༆ 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

PHWC

We have an updated 2018 and 2019 Reports. Notice via Wikimedia-l bounced back. By the way, we do not have a staff. Thanks. -Filipinayzd (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism User Group reports for 2018

Hello! The Art+Feminism user group has just completed the writing of the pending report and has updated the links on the general reports page. We are leaving this message so that someone from the foundation can proceed to update our status. Thank you very much!--Yhhue91 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yhhue91, I think the page says it's fine for you to do that, and I think it's safer if you proceed ASAP so there will be no issues re: ASBS eligibility to vote. Thanks! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month User Group report for 2018-2019

Hi! WAM user group has updated the report for 2018-2019. We sent emails to inform you that we updated it but the status doesn't change. So we are leaving this message so that someone from the foundation can proceed to update our status. Thank you. Li-Yun Lin (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)