Wikimedia Conference 2013/Documentation/Day 2

Three letter funding models[edit]

(Notes appear to be lost.)

Chapter peer review[edit]

These are notes for a workshop session in Milan on inter-chapter (and other group) peer reviews 11.30-12:55.

Attending: DerHexer (WMDE), Fae (WMUK), nikerabbit (WMFI), Pharos (WMUS-NYC), Nemo (WMIT documenter), Polimerek, (WMPL), Raul (WMEE), Kirill (WMUS-DC), Bence (AffCom), Goran (WMRS), Gabriel (WMCH), Stu (WMF), Bengt (WMSE)...

Expected outcomes and benefits for a peer review[edit]

Two whiteboards:

Expectations -> Process?
- more members (by) more involvement?
- support funding applications
- stability
- cooperation
- risk management/prevention
Deliverables
- neutral, objctive, strict (not forgiving), but to assume good faith
- give useful advice, appropriate to chapter status
- exposing weak points, sensitive issues
- have someone from the same contry...
- build on standard peer review processes -> focus on what we want to achieve the ask for methods

Among peers: it's not an audit with bad consequences if the chapter doesn't comply.
- Should be friendly. (But also official scientifical/etc. assessment and certifications are supposed to.)
- Also academical review gives bad feelings although it should be the opposite.

What types of review do we want?[edit]

Resources:

Page of some guidance (but not an agreed standard) on Peer Review

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Peer_Review

Example real peer review (WMEE - WMUK) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:F%C3%A6/sandbox
- Google hangout + Etherpad/Gdoc for half a sunday: cheap
- Raul: not everything directly implementable but useful
- Challenge: understanding the country (especially law requirements)
WCA exchange to raise requests for participation

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Chapters%27_Exchange

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Governance/Checklist

Background[edit]

Reviews and assessment is often done by charities by "lending each other" board members.
It's very hard to find someone to assess our chapters (too obscure from outside), and also very expensive.
WMF does some high-level assessment and evaluation of chapters and is expanding, but it is different from a thorough assessment. So many chapters to assess, different systems can co-exist?

Questions[edit]

It WMPT's asking around for ideas on howto revitalize a chapter a sort of peer review?
Informal/formal process and publishing reports or not (it has different effects especially in crisis situations).
Define a process, then ask Garfield to assess it and whether following it can giveadditional points to applicants for WMF funding?
A way to help small chapters? (Is that peer review?)
- It can also help big chapters, without assuming big is better.
Does it need to follow a precise process and grid equal for everyone (e.g. set a checklist)?
Who's interested in this room?
- As evidence providers/reviewee: 12
- As reviewer: almost same number
- At a professional level: half of that (6?)
How to review chapters in languages you don't know?
- Preparation on written documents
- Review in a team of people knowing multiple languages
Try some non-English example

What are the key questions and evidence that we should raise in any peer review?[edit]

A checklist works also for self-assessment

Helps not getting lost in details an reading especially for biggest chapters
Needs to be in more languages

[++] What do you do?
- [7] Do you have a strategy or are you doing day by day?
- [3] Does your activity support the projects in the long term?
How good are your relationships with Wikimedia projects? (Community? Volunteers? Donors? ...)
[2] How can it be easier?
[5] If you have staff, what relations does it have
- with the board,
- with the community (do they know each other, meet, do what, ...)?
[0] Minority relations
[1] Who are the communities?
[1] Do you support free knowledge
Metrics
- [5] Number of active members vs. board members
- [2] Administrative costs quota

Vote[edit]

See above..but rank on the whiteboard

Big Questions[edit]

Should we pay for professional facilitation?
Do we need official workshop events to help peer reviewers to know how to peer review?
Who is the target?
- If the chapter itself it can be more informal, if it's others (e.g. WMF) less?
- Some peer review in parallel to FDC evaluation to have alternative reports

How to keep chapters volunteers active[edit]

Facilitator: Damiano Ramazzotti Attendees:

A task tree is being drawn up on the screen by the facilitator

First we created an overview of all the different kind of volunteers, then the tasks and the reasons why they are no longer active.

Task tree[edit]

Actors / types of volunteers

Online volunteers
1. 1. 1. Editors
    2. Non official wikimedia project users
  2. (ex. jury members of wiki monuments)
Offline volunteers
1. 1. 1. Board
    2. People who take the lead
    3. People who "help"
Types
1. 1. 1. Enthusiastic - creative but who don't actually do much
    2. Volunteers that try to do everything (supervolunteers)
Donors
Trolls

Types of projects

Content creation
Offline
1. 1. 1. Education on how to use wikipedia
    2. Glam projects
Technical / infrastructure
Project management
1. 1. 1. Coordination
    2. Funding
    3. Reporting
Communications

Issues

Limited time because of day to day work
Difficulty in involving in reaching out to online volunteers
They don't get the resources (logo usage, money, tool) they ask for
Management
1. Managing volunteers
  1. Volunteers might be of "poor quality"
  2. Organizer comitee might not be very competent
2. Coordinating volunteers
  1. Hard to keep in touch after initial contact
    1. (ex. they just attended an event)
    2. Takes a lot of effort and energy
  2. Participants need a personal "touch" and connection
  3. They might feel
    1. Intimidated
    2. isolated
  4. Lack of manpower to take care of them
    1. Inside the chapter
      1. Managing volunteers is a job
    2. Within partner organizations
3. Know who the volunteers are
  1. keep track of new people coming in
4. Not always clear what we need from volunteers
  1. Project constantly evolve
    1. Volunteers find it hard to adapt to rapidly changing projects
  2. Need to break down the tasks
    1. Clarify Roles and responsibilities
      1. After that you find the right volunteers
    2. PRoject first -> tasks--> roles and respons ---> "right volunteers"
5. Increasing competences
  1. Standardize the training of people
    1. Offer reward and resources to attend or give courses
  2. Increase competences of the organizers comitee
    1. Get a good project management handbook
    2. Send someon from your chapter to be trained on Project management
  3. Increase competences of the volunteers
6. Fault tollerancy and making mistakes
  1. Project sould be more fault tollerant
    1. Putting more than one person in charge
    2. Creating a positive climate
  2. Offering them easyer more fault tollerant projects
  3. FInd mix of profesionals and volunteers
    1. Especially for projects which are less fault tollerant
Motivation
1. Discouragement
  1. Trolls
  2. No positive reinforcement
    1. Offer positive reinforcement
      1. "Badges"
      2. Including them within communities and mialing lists
      3. Offering access to activities, tours and stuff
      4. Offering them trips and visits
  3. Power struggles
    1. Some people want to controll but not contribute
2. Lack of interest after some time
  1. Enthusiams is coming down
    1. Leverage volunteers who are motivated and in a good mood to carry others
  2. Individual Burnout
    1. Accept that someone might not be as active at time
      1. Take the risk they might not come back
      2. Leave them a bit alone
      3. Offer positive feedback for the given work
  3. Group burnout
    1. People might be tired after a big project
3. They don't like the proposed projects
  1. gap between board and volunteers
    1. Bad communications
4. Competence issues
  1. Expectations on volunteers are very high
  2. Low esteem of their own skills
  3. Overestimation of the skills they SHOULD have
  4. They overestimate their own competence
  5. "Don't know what i am supposed to add"
  6. They need to be empowered
    1. Tutoring / mentoring
      1. Could be a way to volunteer
5. What kind of motivation your volunteers have?
  1. Motivations are different for each volunteers
    1. Need to identify the personal motivations
    2. Need to identify different motivations of different types of volunteers
6. Some volunters might not be in their right place
  1. Offering certificates
  2. Must make sue it's not only your opinion but that he cannot really do that task
    1. Getting CONSENSUS over the fact that someone is not in the right "place"
    2. Getting feedback from the people this person works wirth (outside of the organization)
  3. Tactfully tell them they are not good at (negative feedback)
  4. Offer training
  5. Pay external experts to train them
  6. Some resist training
  7. Offering another task
  8. Within crysis it might be harder to move people from a task to another
    1. Be able to manage internal crysis
  9. Make sure you know wether negative feedback or change of role might Backfire (ex. volunteer managing server working agains outsourcing it i a moment of crysis)
7. Offer participanta a project to do
Internal crysis affect volunteers
Participation
1. 1. 1. Volunteers expect the board to do everything
    2. Even if given an opportunity people don't contribute (ex about the conference)
Acquiring new ones
1. 1. Harder to physically get together in some countries
Hard to shift from a role to another
1. 1. 1. Hard to convert online from offline
    2. Hard to convert offline to online
    3. Hard to convert from wikipedia to other wikimedia
    4. Hard to convert from non wikipedia to other wikipedia
    5. Hard to convert editors to other....
Tension btw wikipedians and wikimedians
1. 1. 1. WIkipedians might not want to be managed
  2. Don't accept authority
  3. Don't treat you as an equal
People who are productive online might not offer as much value on offline events
1. 1. 1. If you use people time make sure they are productive with it

Solutions:

many solutions are being brought up, specific to each of the problems. However, it should probably be realized that not every solution is good for every scenario. You may have to choose.

(proposed solution are marked bold in the tree)

***The updated Task Tree is uploaded on Commons***

Sunday barcamp[edit]

The tree was updated a bit, we look at up to date .xmind version.
- Poor quality volunteers or organizers? Managing volunteers is a full time job.
- Often no clear todos for the volunteers.
- Negative feedback scares too much; editors stay more if they're left alone. Let room for failure; easy/less important tasks. Needed skills are often over/under-estimated; mentoring and positive reinforcement by more motivated/experienced volunteers is needed.
- Gap between board's proposals and volunteers' interests.
- Accept the burnout, don't stress people. Dorit: On the other hand, volunteers are beautiful balloons, it just takes a needle to make them explode and lose them forever. Always complete negative responses with a positive lookahead (can't be done now but may in 6 months).
Dorit back to the root:
- Mapping the projects
- Mapping the volunteers
- Mapping more than knowing: you can know without sharing and/or systemizing. First thing to do as an ED: talk with people, record their stories, see them in action, map what's going on. Then you can offer help to broaden the horyzon, otherwise help may be rejected.
- Board leaders you can see at this WMCON don't have some sex appeal, they are good at listening and offering a shoulder to cry on.
Often organizations lack informal hangouts and socializing. Just having regular city meetups is important to keep motivation, and it only needs a person wearing a t-shirt and smiling. However, this often stopped happening, except in Germany: very few meetups.
- Decline/death/fragmentation of the community after the demographic boom till 2007?
- Or maybe the world changed outside and changed Wikimedia communities too, e.g. in Italy online communities are no longer meeting in person and true barcamps died. Sometimes however it works, e.g. a surprisingly successful 40-people réunion in Warsaw.
- In fact, in Germany it works because it's common for them (stammtisch) and has to be continued no matters what, even if you're the only one to show up. This also caught on a bit in UK (London).
- Can be done in the office, like WMNL's, it's always different people (about 5-6 at a time, 40-50 across the year) and if there's nobody you can just edit. WMRS tried to host meetings in the new office but there's not great participation, probably a collective meetings burnout: no more such meetings are then being organized.
- Try topic meetups? Not extended board meetings, those are long and exhausting. Why would they want to meet?
- An office in Israel could be a killer because it's boring, unlike a nice setting with a topic (e.g. reading poetry in a library-bar). However in some countries people may prefer not to have to spend on the meeting

positive:  istinit, očigledan, određen, pozitiv, pozitivan, prvi stupanj, samouvjeren, siguran, stvaran, ustanovljen (pi):  pooh

Surprise Surprise[edit]

(lead Christophe Henner, you came slight too late) Attendees:

Ad Huikeshoven (WM NL)
CristianCantoro (WM IT)

Different projects can be presented here a bit more in-depth compared to the State of the Chapters presentations.

Cool project 1: Afripédia[edit]

(Christophe Henner, FR) Kiwix software on a wifi router to give access to Wikipedia off line in places with unstable internet connections. Pilot project about offline Wikipedia training at universities, the edits are uploaded at the end of the day. The students can make mistakes and learn from them. The project is funded by the FDC. An advantage is that the project can easily be used in French-speaking countries in Africa where the connections aren't reliable. Right now, we haven't been able to go to Mali.

Cool project 2: Dictionary of the Vilamovian language[edit]

(Maciej Krol, PL) Dictionary of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilamovian_language, a West Germanic language spoken in the small town of Wilamowice, on the border between Silesia and Lesser Poland in the historical region of Galicia. At present, there are probably between 70 and 100 native users of Vilamovian, virtually all bi-lingual and the majority of them elderly people; Vilamovian is therefore a moribund language. There are about 2900 words in the dictionary right now - http://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kategoria:wilamowski_%28indeks%29.

Cool project 3: "Adotta una parola" (Adopt a word)[edit]

(Cristian Consonni, IT) This is a school project in Emilia-Romagna. Classes have chosen a word to write about in Wikipedia, it had a connection to their home region. In Emilia-Romagna there was a zone damaged by an earthquake. The students who won the prize in the contest donated the money for the reconstruction and so they got a lot of press coverage. The local authorities were happy to give authorisations and access to monuments also for WLM.

Cool project 4: DIY Scanners for archives[edit]

(Osmar Valdebenito, AR) DIY bookscanners were built by volunteers and donated to public institutions (libraries, universities) to scan their historical documents in the public domain. One problem is to teach to institutions how to upload the content they scan on Commons, because they scan a lot but have difficulties with upload.

Cool project 5: Personal contact with strategically important persons[edit]

(Jan Ainali, SE) http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pressmeddelande_2012-05-25/en Letter of intent with Council of the Swedish Central Museums as a spin-off from an image donations.

Cool project 6: Election questionnaire[edit]

See also EU policy, EU policy/Survey

(Nicole Ebber, DE) Draft the questionaire on Meta, with input of the communities and other like-minded NGOs. The questionnaire is sent out to parties etc. before each election. It contains questions about Free Licences, Copyright, Open Data, Education etc. that are important to us. The answers are on Meta and a summary on our website/blog. This helps not only to get the communities involved but also creates a greater public (parties, media, peole) interested in those topics. Nicole and Matthias Schindler will make a best practice in order to share the idea with other chapters.

Cool project 7: Access for blind people[edit]

(Miguel Angel Garcia, ES) Blind people have problems with colors, etc. A study has been worked out by the agency ONCE. We have sent a grant request to WMF to fund this project.

Cool project 8: Photography project[edit]

(Kurt Kulac, AT) The first accreditations for Wikimedia photographers have been given for Football games with the permission of the Austrian Football federation. Now we send photographers also to other events and buy expensive material for them. The application for the Olympic Games in Sochi failed, but it was close to be successful. At least, the chapter was able to take pictures at the Youth Olympic Games in Innsbruck.

Several chapters are doing similar things, we should coordinate on this! Christophe recommends small chapters to look for accreditations, because it costs nothing except time.

Possible coordination page? http://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Accr%C3%A9ditations_presse

WMDE's "Technikpool" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Technikpool WMAT http://mitglieder.wikimedia.at/Projekte/Communitybudget_Fotoausr%C3%BCstung WMFR WMSE "Teknikpool" http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Teknikpool WMNL "Uitleenpool" http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Uitleen_pool

How to share projects between chapters and thematic groups?[edit]

(Daniel Mietchen, WM Med Project)

When doing stuff, consider coordinate with wiki projects or thematic groups. Nicole offers a barcamp session tomorrow.

Chapters' Dialogue[edit]

Nicole Ebber talking about WM DE initiative. Finding out your needs. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue

Meeting with the WMF board[edit]

See WMF board.

Funds Dissemination Committee process[edit]

Katy Love: senior program officer for FDC. Facilitates work of FDC. Good to see that many of you have a sense of what FDC is. Point of session is to clarify things, address concerns. Rare to have a chance to talk face to face. Glad that members of FDC are here to answer your questions.

Want to give you background, explain why it's cool. FDC was formed last year to help board of trustees to make strategic decisions about applyin funds of the movement.

7 members of the community, appointed by the board, 2 more to be appoined this summer.

FDC funds annual plans of eligible entities. These entities can get general funding, not project-specific. Annual plans are the plans that each entity makes each year. FDC funding can cover all sorts of costs, including staff and office, to support programmatic work. They can all be considered in FDC proposals. All of the annual plans are based on programs.

Two rounds of funding per year. One is due in Oct, one in March.

Rigorous process. FDC is an intensive application process, with community review. Will get many questions from the community, FDC and FDC staff. The reason is that because FDC give general funds, there has to be good understanding of how the entity operates, including board makeup and track record.

Eligibility criteria: Eligibility is established by the fact that you're a WM affiliated association that has had at least 2 grants approved. The funding is quite large, up to millions.

Four different grants programs:

Individual engagements grants (for small teams or individuals)
Participation support (for wikimedians to go to non-WMF conferences)
Project grants (for teams and small groups or emerging entities to get funding for a specific project, e.g. an event or a program. Could include part time staff, but it's not an annual plan.)
FDC is for annual plans, and are given for a 12 month cycle, covering operating costs and program support.

Q&A[edit]

Who, how, and what for?
Application process (how to apply, criteria, etc.)

Discussion and feedback will be tomorrow, not now.

Two groups: one moderator, one facilitator, one reporter who will write down the questions.

Group 1[edit]

Questions[edit]

(Name) If you have a budget or proposal, how does FDC cope with the situationwhere there could be other funding sources? Have been asked by FDC how we have a request for funds when we have a grant system already. How do we

FDC process is for general funds: org must give entire annual plan, showing external sources. You have to report your revenue sources in the application.

In the case of WMDE, about 1/5 was from FDC, the rest from outside sources. So what FDC wants is to see what the strategic planning is around projects and funding.

You can't have simultaneous grants from the grantmaking program and the FDC. So if you are applying for funding from FDC, build those requests into that request.

(Tom - WMF) How will FDC find a balance between the money that will go to organizations from the Global South (GS) and Global North (GN) in the mid to the long term? It is well known the bad distribution of formal groups in these two places, having a bigger concentration in the GN. [TO BE ANSWERED LATER]

(Goran) If a chapter wants to do political lobbying, it can't be done within FDC funds: must be supported with a separate grant. How does this work?

- answer: that's an exception. WMF needs to track lobbying funds separately for legal reasons.

(Goran) What if one project in the annual plan is very successful, and the capter wants to expand it?

- Answer: You can then reallocate funds. Find them in your budget or from an external source. Also, you can correct your plan in the next year. This will be considered well by the FDC. Sign of a strong organisation. Don't have to keep a bad program running just because it's funded.

(Delphine) Relationship betwen FDC committee and staff?

- Answer: FDC staff works for WMF: role is to support the process and decision making of the FDC. Facilitate, organise meetings, structure process, review applications, give staff assessment which is one of hte inputs into the process. Garfield isn't FDC staff, but is WMF staff and has a role in the FDC, and provides financial input.

A key part of helping the organisations is the pre-proposal phase, and the feedback and support from the staff on how to structure the report and understand the terms of the process. change from the fist year: by June 8, any entity that wants to apply for round 1 funding in Oct will have to give a letter of intent to alert the FDC. This will allow the FDC staff to have the right conversations in time. Afterfunding, the staff will guide the org through the reporting phase, to ensure that the chapter meets the goals.

Manuel: Can we really upgrade the budget in the 2nd round? Answer: no!! Can flow funding according to program success, but can't change total number.

When you move from Grant to FDC, the reporting requirements change. Huge step needed from a volunteer organisation: really need staff for FDC, because you have serious reporting requirements. How to get the FDC request approved? Answer: park this until feedback session.

(Tom - WMF) Measure of success: feedback to be parked. How to distinguish the measure of success when it comes to different backgrounds? Sometimes a small language Wikipedia can have a completly different measure than the English version, for instance. How to handle that? [TO BE ANSWERED LATER]

(Tom - WMF) How open are the discussions? Are they kept internal?

Answer: GAC has open and closed discussion. Feedback is open, but final shortlist discussion is closed. Same with FDC. Open feedback and review, staff assessment is public, and then closed deliberations for some days,then public recommendations to the board. Board deliberates in closed meetings and then gives an open report on its decisions. It's an intense deliberation process, so it's hard to do that in an open forum.

(Tom - WMF) Self-evaluation: Ongoing monitoring; advisory group. Answer: There is an Ombudsman: Susanna

If there are new ideas in a year, can one allocate funds to things that aren't on the list?

Yes, you can re-allocate funds, but can't change the total, so maybe get external funding, but you can re-allocate funds. Have to report on variance, so there must be a strategic reason. Can explain this in progress reports.

Kartik: WMIN is not tax-exempt. Grants come in 2 instalments, and you can get them in more instalments if needed. You might not get funding if you're not tax-exempt. In India, tax exempt and non-profit are two different issues, though.

Group 2[edit]

6 males and 1 female, volunteers from around the world.

Most are involved in chapters, but not all. Committee members have different ways of seeing the proposals, but they work together to come to a common agreement. Was hard to find how the final funds allocation numbers are made, so more transparency was requested. FDC

Staff goes through legal and financial aspects. After that is evaluated from a program perspective. Recommendation is given to the Board of Trustees.

Difficult to understand how the finding amount was decided. Funds were applied with no strings attached. Depends on maturity and vision for the future.

Applications have to be very detailed: both organisational and programmatic

FDC is very engaged in the process.

Do you need full-time staff? Answer: it's very challenging - not a requirement to have full-time staff, but it helps. FDC realises that this is a higher burden on the board if there is no staff.

Need to be clear about mandates and resgtrictions of grants program vs FDC.

Changing of projects can be done, if they are properly explained at the end of the year.

There is a constant process to improve the FDC process.

France asked if there is a recommendation on organization for applying to FDC.

What if an entity requests for more than they need to allow for the FDC to cut? Response: The organization will be evaluated by the FDC to see how they've worked in the past and what they seem capable of managing. We are volunteers, we know that intentions matter--but we're looking for the maturity level of managing general funds. CFO of WMF was looking back through what percentages of growth for the organization from year to year. The FDC did not want to penalize people for needing a big injection of funds. The first staff will be a big growth. But that's one time, not sustainable over time.

General guidelines for the FDC: 20% growth rate for the organization yearly.

Does the FDC has the same level of flexibility of the Grants Program? If the organization has a history of being mature, a good steward of the money, impactful programs, the FDC will not be as rigid with its funds. The FDC would also want to encourage entities to take advantage of where the momentum is; they don't expect the entities to stick 100% to the annual plans they submitted. The FDC will have an opportunity to see what the changes in the annual plan are through the quaterly reports.

Suggestion: the FDC has done a lot of evaluation of annual plans and chapters. Can the chapters have an insight into what that feedback is, because it would be helpful for the entities. Response: Yes! This is important. The staff assessments are done publicly, the recommendation text is public, but this is a first step. What else can be shared publicly with the entities? There are differences of opinions in terms of what is culturally appropriate (and language issues) to share positively and negatively? The FDC was concerned about that and decided to tackle this issue in the future. They know that many times volunteers work so hard and give them

The FDC main funding process is to help organizations to create impact throught their programs.

Q&A[edit]

-What is FDC doing to balance certain things?
-how doeas FDC copes up with, if any chapter has other financial sources?
    FDC is for annual plan and generally FDC do receive funds from others. However, it should be reported to FDC committe
-foundation will not support lobbying in FDC but exception: GAC for "lobbying" plus FDC is ok
-how does WMF works with FDC committee?
    staff role is to support FDC committee
    they are the one who helps FDC structure thir process
    staff will also support the organization on preparing for FDC
-letter of intent should be published by June if any chapters want to apply
-can the budget be changed after applying in the first round?
    chapters can only apply for one round in a year
-change in the report requirements (later)
-discussion processes are open. FDC members will ask questions along with the volunteers. Recommendations are also public and are sent to the board. However, some discussions are closed. Staff does not influence any decision. You can also reach to an online Onbudsman to reach out to chapter privatley.
-you can reallocate on any new project, there is a flexibility.

other stuff[edit]

FDC election: 2 members in july along with community board elction (same process)
-multiyear funding: not possile because we cannot know what the income is going to be. All entities are at the same level (WMF included)
-my FDC proposal: long term stuff (ED); short term stuff (project manager) = the million dollar question

FDC application program[edit]

6 men 1 woman
chapters background volunteer

1. individual examination
2. meeting and confrontation
        many heads --> many points of view and attitudes

-WMF staff helps with:
        legal advice
        administrative exam
-consensus to reach agreement?
    first evaluation: is asking entity strong enough to manage what they are asking for? Understanding of the movement
-is only funding "general" or request too?
    how deep requests should be?
        proposal must be very detailed!
        proposal are public and written on meta-wiki

-can, once funded, chapter's program change?
    yes, at certain level of evolution is attended.
    programs are revised quarterly
    variations are shared with the FDC, that follows chapter's program developing
-guidelines for submitting budgees?
    20% annual increase is considered as a sort of "guard-rail"

European Policy Working Group[edit]

European Policy Working Group

Meta Page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy Survey "The Free Knowledge Movement. Interaction with European regulatory approaches; survey of current situation and scope for action" Minutes of the Brussels meeting: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy/Big_Fat_Brussels_Meeting/minutes

"Liquid lobbying": our culture of sharing, transparency, openness, collaborative and wiki-style; transfer it to Brussels

Three main topics:

freedom of panorama
Public domain works
(orphan works)

Advocacy advisors list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors EU announcement list creation in progress

Alice: Monster of bureaucracy in Brussels, but it takes effect on all of us (copyright, licences etc) on a national level. This is a huge thing, that we have never done before. Complexity makes it hard to figure out where to start. But the current situation reflects that there is not enough information available to us. What we need: A core team which really takes care of that. This group needs support! Every little little bit of support is essential! Spread the word!

Christophe: EU politics influences more than 20 countries. But not only on an EU level. One example is DMCA (passed in the US), two laws followed in Brussels.

Can you imagine getting involved?
ES: Definitely interested in supporting and learning.
SE: not yet worked in lobbying, but on the threshold to start activities concerning these issues during next year (in SE)
HU: mostly here to learn and listen.
PT:
EE: Have quite some experience in their association for national level, might be happy to support! (depending how things develop)
FR: Already lobbying on a local level, cannot commit atm, but will follow and finds it important. reaching a level of influence in France.
WMF: legal point: limitation on lobbying in the US; special grant agreement is necessary;
WMF: passion: we have no choice than getting engaged
WMF: financial support: seek outside grants! OR figure out that it is necessary doing lobbying and then go for a special agreement
WMF: policy perspective is interesting, use advocacy list for discussion etc.
UK: board was a bit nervous about the lobbying/advocacy part. laws are clear in the UK about right/wrong lobbying. scared, too much work, too abstract; If we come up with something that we can agree with, the board and community will probably join, offers moral support. :) If there are concrete cases, probably happy to consider.
DE: Nicole emphasizes that the barrier is very very low! Forwarding information you happen to see in the news might be helpful. Many eyeballs are important.
PL: Tomasz is involved in an educational coalition which is very broad. They have experience in exactly this process (national level). Can imagine how much work is involved.

Suggested cooperation with EDRI: http://www.edri.org/

We had some discussion on the exact flow etc, as discussed in Brussels. The next steps:

There will be an announcement mailing list
Please all join the advocacy advisors mailing list! https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Help monitor the situation in your own country, and bring issues to attention: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Letterbox
Spread the word, and bring the task forces to people's attention!

Chapters in the Global South and lessons that can be learned[edit]

The moderator presents a summary from yesterday’s session

This is the text of the notes from the previous session; for the final version of the mindmap trext please see below.

Global south issues and proposals

PT

Difficulty to comply to a "noth"/"ngo"/"american" model
1. Incorporation
  1. Difficoult to create an association
    1. Bureaucratic issues
  2. Resistance (from above) to different models of incorporation
2. Much too "north like" indicators of result
  1. need to explain results according to a certain culture and language
  2. Different indicators of success and results
    1. My problem might not be to have more editors but to have more internet
  3. We are trying to find our own metrics
  4. In working for the foundation...
    1. GS countries might have to work towards strategic goals which are not feasable
      1. Not enough participation in saying that such goals are not feasable for them
      2. Especially with WMF guidelines and strategic objectives
3. Concepts that do not fit
  1. Ex. the concept of Club
  2. Importance to find your own model
  3. Why don't they create their own models?
  4. Global north idiom
4. Cultural issues and diversity
  1. Typically will not find people in those countries to such NGO
    1. Difficoult to se economically sustainable
      1. Communicating to a target which better responds to the issue of Wikipedia
        Expats community could finance
        Could be interesting to track where clicks are coming from
      2. They have feel that they have more urgent issues
  2. Wikimedia
    1. Other projects (not wikipedia) might be a good space for work for new people from south
      1. ex. More fit for nell writing based cultures
Infrastructure problems
1. (Ex. no internet)
Difficoulty in attending conferences
1. Lack of money TO the global south
  1. More money FROM the global south is a less relevant issue
2. Not a money issue but an access to money issue
  1. Too few people in the global to involve them
  2. Problems in the application process
  3. People don't know who to contact to access money
3. Visa reject issue
  1. We need to stage meeting in places where it's easier to get visas
    1. (ex. Geneva)
  2. Visa refused for apparently no reason
    1. Typical young Wikipedian complies to standards of people who generally don't get visa (ex. people who might do illegal work or immigrate)
    2. No proval of suffficient disposal of money in account
    3. Difficoulty in transfering money
    4. Rule of how much money to tranfer in account always changes
      1. Wiki VISA project?
Getting volunteers
1. More difficoult for people to get interested and sign up
  1. People associate NGO with poverty alleviation
    1. Harder to recrtuit volunteers
    2. Harder to collect donations
  2. Poverty and other issues and more urgent
  3. Need for a network of recruiters and social change actors and coaches
    1. We must make it easy for people do it
      1. Giving them the necessary economical and other resouces
2. Online
  1. Are we getting new editors in this countries
    1. Before we worry about bringing them to conferences?
  2. Lack of mentoring and support to the new "south" organizations
    1. Mentoring
    2. need for help in figuring out all the various problems
  3. Can we mentor and support these organizations...
    1. ...to the point that they can function?
3. Offline
  1. Hard to turn onwiki volunteers Into offline wikipedians
    1. We might try to separate the two categories
      1. They don't have to be active editors
        Specific onboading process?
      2. They need a basic understanding
      3. They need different skills
  2. Hard to directly get Offline volunteers
    1. Need to have familiarity and some experience
    2. Some chapters don't know how to solve this problem
      1. Programs with education are all structured to get more editors, not offline volunteers
      2. There isn't an onboarding process also for offline volunteers
Contributing issues
1. Contributers have problems contributing about their own country
  1. Lack of notability - Issue of notability
    1. North made criterias
    2. Ex. talking about musical groups who are not famous online but very famous on "the street"
  2. Lack of written sources
    1. Cultures less based on writing
      1. oral citation program was a good idea
        Community did not pick up on it
        Supposedly people thinks it's too complicated (mostly on english wiki)
        
        Not enough energy from people who did like the idea
        
        Could still be picked up
2. Very small communities trying to contribute on a large mature wikipedias (ex .english)
  1. Not interested in contributing in own Specifi languages or topics
    1. Lingua franca overshadows local languages
    2. Subtopic 2
  2. Not capable in contributing in own specific languages ecc..
  3. hard to make noobie contributions stick (ex without reference)
    1. Standards are really high
    2. (ex. Markup, no reference ecc)
    3. Tea House seems to work well
      1. Not huge difference but it helps
      2. Some might not know about it
      3. Many don't know about the Tea House
  4. Main articles are already developed
    1. Oppotunities for contribution are harded to find
      1. Improving existing articles requires a lot of experience
      2. Coulde be a false impressions
  5. The onboarding project is beeing developed to address this issue.
3. The fact that their own language might not be viable is a reason why they don't contribute
  1. What metrics are you using to determine if a specific language in wikipedia is viable
    1. There needs to be a viable community of contributers (before the work is in the incubator)
    2. Has to be active
    3. The software has to be localized
  2. The incubator process makes it hard

       Difficulty to comply to a "north"/"ngo"/"american" model

Incorporation
1. Difficoult to create an association
  1. Bureaucratic issues
2. Resistance (from above) to different models of incorporation
Much too "north like" indicators of result
1. need to explain results according to a certain culture and language
2. Different indicators of success and results
  1. My problem might not be to have more editors but to have more internet
3. We are trying to find our own metrics
4. In working for the foundation...
  1. GS countries might have to work towards strategic goals which are not feasable
    1. Not enough participation in saying that such goals are not feasable for them
    2. Especially with WMF guidelines and strategic objectives
Concepts that do not fit
1. Ex. the concept of Club
2. Importance to find your own model
3. Why don't they create their own models?
4. Global north idiom
Cultural issues and diversity
1. Typically will not find people in those countries to such NGO
  1. Difficoult to se economically sustainable
    1. Communicating to a target which better responds to the issue of Wikipedia
      1. Expats community could finance
        Could be interesting to track where clicks are coming from
    2. They have feel that they have more urgent issues
2. Wikimedia
  1. Other projects (not wikipedia) might be a good space for work for new people from south
    1. ex. More fit for nell writing based cultures

       Infrastructure problems

(Ex. no internet)

       Difficoulty in attending conferences

Lack of money TO the global south
1. More money FROM the global south is a less relevant issue
Not a money issue but an access to money issue
1. Too few people in the global to involve them
2. Problems in the application process
3. People don't know who to contact to access money
Visa reject issue
1. We need to stage meeting in places where it's easier to get visas
  1. (ex. Geneva)
2. Visa refused for apparently no reason
  1. Typical young Wikipedian complies to standards of people who generally don't get visa (ex. people who might do illegal work or immigrate)
  2. No proval of suffficient disposal of money in account
  3. Difficoulty in transfering money
  4. Rule of how much money to tranfer in account alwais changes
    1. Wiki VISA project?
    2. Identify methods of assuring definite seats to specific community and later alternative candidates can be sent to participate in case the first candidates are not getting visa.
    4. Increase the number of seats to assure the global hearing to specified communities of Global South.

       Getting volunteers

More difficoult for people to get interested and sign up
1. People associate NGO with poverty alleviation
  1. Harder to recrtuit volunteers
  2. Harder to collect donations
2. Poverty and other issues and more urgent
3. Need for a network of recruiters and social change actors and coaches
  1. We must make it easy for people do it
    1. Giving them the necessary economical and other resouces
Online
1. Are we getting new editors in this countries
  1. Before we worry about bringing them to conferences?
2. Lack of mentoring and support to the new "south" organizations
  1. Mentoring
  2. need for help in figuring out all the various problems
3. Can we mentor and support these organizations...
  1. ...to the point that they can function?
Offline
1. Hard to turn onwiki volunteers Into offline wikipedians
  1. We might try to separate the two categories
    1. They don't have to be active editors
      1. Specific onboading process?
    2. They need a basic understanding
    3. They need different skills
2. Hard to directly get Offline volunteers
  1. Need to have familiarity and some experience
  2. Some chapters don't know how to solve this problem
    1. Programs with education are all structured to get more editors, not offline volunteers
    2. There isn't an onboarding process also for offline volunteers

       Contributing issues

Contributers have problems contributing about their own country
1. Lack of notability - Issue of notability
  1. North made criterias
  2. Ex. talking about musical groups who are not famous online but very famous on "the street"
2. Lack of written sources
Most new volunteers contribution are getting problems of revert or speedy deletion. Sources like local National Newspapers citation are not sometimes considered as important as them from US, UK or other international ones.
1. 1. Cultures less based on writing
    1. oral citation program was a good idea
      1. Community did not pick up on it
        Supposedly people thinks it's too complicated (mostly on english wiki)
        
        Not enough energy from people who did like the idea
        
        Could still be picked up
Very small communities trying to contribute on a large mature Wikipedia (ex .english)
1. Not interested in contributing in own specific languages or topics
  1. Lingua franca overshadows local languages
  2. Subtopic 2
2. Not capable in contributing in own specific languages ecc..
3. hard to make noobie contributions stick (ex without reference)
  1. Standards are really high
  2. (ex. Markup, no reference ecc)
  3. Tea House seems to work well
    1. Not huge difference but it helps
    2. Some might not know about it
    3. Many don't know about the Tea House
4. Main articles are already developed
  1. Oppotunities for contribution are harded to find
    1. Improving existing articles requires a lot of experience
    2. Coulde be a false impressions
5. The onboarding project is being developed to address this issue.
The fact that their own language might not be viable is a reason why they don't contribute
1. What metrics are you using to determine if a specific language in wikipedia is viable
  1. There needs to be a viable community of contributers (before the work is in the incubator)
  2. Has to be active
  3. The software has to be localized
2. The incubator process makes it hard

Impact of the length of a normal work week: Wikipedia was built on people's surplus time. That's the case in the North, is it the case in the South countries?

Visa issues: Ganesh (Nepal) raises the issue of visa refusals because the typical young Wikipedian from the South is seen suspiciously as staying in a foreign country for a longer time. Getting good relations with the government of the host country is good way to better the situation. And for the scholarships we're looking for diversity so that a waiting list for visa applicants should be created. Have some kind of contact between the WMF and major governments, for example this meeting should be seen as an international conference and not just a private event. Asaf tells that the movement doesn't want to have a close relationship so that they not come under doubt to suppress articles. Another issue is the requirement to have an insurance. Is there funding available?

Getting volunteers: Dumisani: In South Africa we are looking at the provinces and the challenges they are facing, in Johannesburg for example people are not available to work on a volunteer basis and it is also a cultural problem. To do the recruiting we lack manpower. In Cape Town a GLAM project somehow worked, the librarian are used to work on computers and are kind of responsive. But are they motivated for off-wiki engagement and chapter work? Shani (Israel): Give them time to grow something. Asaf: We have so few contributors in the Global South, so let's focus to places like universities where they have favorable conditions to have such kind of hobby. Educational outreach is becoming easier with all the good experiences the movement has made. Photographers and other special interest groups have already a passion and they generally meet. So preach them to include their work in Wikipedia, Asaf tells. Interest groups are also around archives.

Students: An issue: High schools in the GS don't have internet access. We don't have the infrastructure to distribute the offline Wikipedia via DVD to all the students. But we're looking for central distribution using partnerships.

Technology: In some small language communities the IME for Android and other OS are not available. Although the mobile contribution is increasing. The technical team should take it into consideration. Contributors using mobile devices should addressed with different programs.

Offline Wikipedia: The wiki dumps and other offline versions are not created frequently. Tools like book creaters are not available in my Nepali Wikipedia. Laptop producers can sell them with Wikipedia already installed but that's up to operating system people (Microsoft, Apple, Linux). Right now the WMF is just narrowing its focus (doing less things better) so it would be good that the community creates the wiki dumps and keeps them up to date.

Notability: The notability issue is something to be discussed. Oral citations etc. are also a sign that something has changed. Notability is controlled by volunteer administrators, not by Board people. Some are only looking if a new article is notable and propose its deletion if that's not the case. It takes notices on top of the articles who use oral citations until the administrators begin to change their habits. Notability should be defined on the base of specific countries?

Mentoring: The people who didn't make the rules have a hard time getting used to them. They need mentoring. Mentoring shouldn't be limited to editing but also on recruting, organisational management.

Last version of mind map:

Global south

PT

Difficoulty to comply to a "noth"/"ngo"/"american" model
1. Incorporation
  1. Difficoult to create an association
    1. Burraoucratic issues
  2. Resistance (from above) to different models of incorporation
2. Much too "north like" indicators of result
  1. need to explain results according to a certain culture and language
  2. Different indicators of success and results
    1. My problem might not be to have more editors but to have more internet
  3. We are trying to find our own metrics
  4. In working for the foundation...
    1. GS countries might have to work towards strategic goals which are not feasable
      1. Not enough participation in saying that such goals are not feasable for them
      2. Especially with WMF guidelines and strategic objectives
3. Concepts that do not fit
  1. Ex. the concept of Club
  2. Importance to find your own model
  3. Why don't they create their own models?
  4. Global north idiom
4. Cultural issues and diversity
  1. Typically will not find people in those countries to support such NGO
    1. Difficoult to se economically sustainable
      1. Communicating to a target which better responds to the issue of Wikipedia
        Expats community could finance
        Could be interesting to track where clicks are coming from
      2. They have feel that they have more urgent issues
  2. Wikimedia
    1. Other projects (not wikipedia) might be a good space for work for new people from south
      1. ex. More fit for nell writing based cultures
Infrastructure problems
1. They might not have the internet
2. Offline version of wikipedia can be a tool
  1. Focus was shifted away from this
    1. Was not cost effective
    2. No efficient mean of distributing (Cd, flashdiscs ec..)
    3. Central distribution is huge
      1. Finding local distribution partners might help
        Charity organizations
        
        NGOs
        
        Governaments
        
        Educationsl networks
        
        Nations and institutions who are promoting open data (ex European union)
        
        Laptop producers can sell them with wikipedia already online
        
        Operating system people (microsoft, apple, linux)
        Probably the foundation should do it also
        The community should really support the process
        (ex in the process of selecting what data goes into the package)
        Each country should do it
Difficoulty in attending conferences
1. Lack of money TO the global south
  1. More money FROM the global south is a less relevant issue
  2. Need for more scholarships
2. Not a money issue but an access to money issue
  1. Too few people in the global to involve them
  2. Problems in the application process
  3. People don't know who to contact to access money
3. Visa reject issue
  1. We need to stage meeting in places where it's easier to get visas
    1. (ex. Geneva)
  2. Visa refused for apparently no reason
    1. Typical young Wikipedian complies to standards of people who generally don't get visa (ex. people who might do illegal work or immigrate)
    2. No proval of suffficient disposal of money in account
    3. Difficoulty in transfering money
    4. Rule of how much money to tranfer in account alwais changes
      1. Wiki VISA project?
  3. Getting support from national institutions to diminish the Visa requirements
  4. Send invitation to more people than the ones who actually might go (in case some get rejected)
    1. If one is rejected another one is ready
    2. Problematic in countries where you need to book in advance
      1. In that case people who don't get to go are automatically selcted for the next conference
  5. Have more contacts btw Wikimedia Foundation and Local governaments
    1. Not only relationship btw local chapter and the country
    2. Relationship btw the Internation org. and nations
    3. On the other side this might interfere with liberty and indipendence
  6. Organizing regional "south- south" conferences
  7. Add possibility to receive funding for buying an insurance (since it is a requirement for some Visa)
  8. Contact other organizations who had experience with international conferences and visa
    1. (to know what material/ docs is needed)
Getting volunteers
1. More difficoult for people to get interested and sign up
  1. People associate NGO with poverty alleviation
    1. Harder to recrtuit volunteers
    2. Harder to collect donations
  2. Poverty and other issues and more urgent
  3. Organization don't have sufficient man power to do recruiting
    1. Need for a network of recruiters and social change actors and coaches
      1. We must make it easy for people do it
      2. Giving them the necessary economical and other resouces
2. Online
  1. Are we getting new editors in this countries
    1. Before we worry about bringing them to conferences?
  2. Can we mentor and support these organizations...
    1. ...to the point that they can function?
3. Offline
  1. Hard to turn onwiki volunteers Into offline wikipedians
    1. We might try to separate the two categories
      1. They don't have to be active editors
        Specific onboading process?
      2. They need a basic understanding
      3. They need different skills
  2. Hard to directly get Offline volunteers
    1. Need to have familiarity and some experience
    2. Some chapters don't know how to solve this problem
      1. Programs with education are all structured to get more editors, not offline volunteers
      2. There isn't an onboarding process also for offline volunteers
4. Lack of mentoring and support to the new "south" organizations
  1. Mentoring
    1. Should be funded by the Foundation
    2. Experience of mentors should be relevant to the needs of the community
    3. Mentoring not only on editing
      1. Mentoring on...
        Recruiting
        
        Organizing events
        
        Management
      2. Also mentoring on non WIki related skills by external experts: example...
        public speaking
        
        Such professionals might be less available in such countries
        If hard, get help from the Foundation
  2. need for help in figuring out all the various problems
5. Impact of leght of normal work week
  1. People work longer in these countries
  2. Commuting is very long
    1. Harder to fill this time with contributing (cannot edit while packed in a bus!)
  3. In the "north" people edit in spare time or while works that don' require a lot of attention
  4. People in towns are easier to recrtut (more free time)
6. Communicating to a target which better responds to Wikipedia
  1. Examples..
    1. Peopl in towns,
    2. Librarians
    3. Students
      1. Accademics resist the process
        (common problem in any country)
        Solvable
        A lot of resources are available
        Prof. testimonials
        
        Success stories
        
        Accademics have a negative perception of wikipedia
        
        Or they are concerned about student finding out their material comes form Wikipedia
      2. University
      3. High school
    4. Hobbist / special interests groups
      1. Example
        Photographers
        
        Car enthusiasts
        
        BIrd watchers (ex. tell about birds of South Africa)
7. Give a picture of what they can do
  1. They might not see the opportunity and advantages you see
    1. Describe what could happen why you need them
    2. Describe what they might end up doing (ex. meet minister of education)
    3. Show what's happening in other parts of the world
  2. Give them a low bar for participation
8. Study stats of other countries to help you
  1. Ex. active months or less active months
  2. Can be usefull to asses by comparison if one is achieving succesful results
9. Fixing issues with mobile device contribution
  1. Fix interface issues
Contributing issues
1. Contributers have problems contributing about their own country
  1. Lack of notability - Issue of notability
    1. North made criterias
    2. Ex. talking about musical groups who are not famous online but very famous on "the street"
  2. Lack of written sources
    1. Cultures less based on writing
      1. Other notability systems
        oral citation program was a good idea
        Community did not pick up on it
        Supposedly people thinks it's too complicated (mostly on english wiki)
        
        Not enough energy from people who did like the idea
        
        Could still be picked up
        
        The community needs to be really behind it
        Write blogs
        
        Show relevant stories
        
        Videos
        
        Need to work on administrators to make them open to such changes
        Develop alternative guidelines for assessing notability in other countries
2. Very small communities trying to contribute on a large mature wikipedias (ex .english)
  1. Not interested in contributing in own Specifi languages or topics
    1. Lingua franca overshadows local languages
    2. Subtopic 2
  2. Not capable in contributing in own specific languages ecc..
  3. hard to make noobie contributions stick (ex without reference)
    1. Standards are really high
    2. (ex. Markup, no reference ecc)
    3. TEA HOUSE seems to work well
      1. Not huge difference but it helps
      2. Some might not know about it
      3. Many don't know about the T-House
  4. Main articles are already developed
    1. Oppotunities for contribution are harded to find
      1. Improving existing articles requires a lot of experience
      2. Coulde be a false impressions
  5. The onboarding project is beeing developed to address this issue.
  6. Automating the "welcoming" on all Wikis (with bots)
  7. Actual personal welcomes seem to work best
    1. Can be problematic where the rate of noobie is too high
  8. Feedback on first edists seem to dimish participation
    1. Feedback was too strict and rude
    2. "The more you leave people alone the more they stay on wikipedia" (some social scientists)
    3. Me must have evidence based approaches over the resusts of automatized systems (such as the welcoming)
      1. Ex. AB testing
3. The fact that their own language might not be viable is a reason why they don't contribute
  1. What metrics are you using to determine if a specific language in wikipedia is viable
    1. There needs to be a viable community of contributers (before the work is in the incubator)
    2. Has to be active
    3. The software has to be localized
  2. The incubator process makes it hard

       Difficoulty to comply to a "noth"/"ngo"/"american" model

Incorporation
1. Difficoult to create an association
  1. Burraoucratic issues
2. Resistance (from above) to different models of incorporation
Much too "north like" indicators of result
1. need to explain results according to a certain culture and language
2. Different indicators of success and results
  1. My problem might not be to have more editors but to have more internet
3. We are trying to find our own metrics
4. In working for the foundation...
  1. GS countries might have to work towards strategic goals which are not feasable
    1. Not enough participation in saying that such goals are not feasable for them
    2. Especially with WMF guidelines and strategic objectives
Concepts that do not fit
1. Ex. the concept of Club
2. Importance to find your own model
3. Why don't they create their own models?
4. Global north idiom
Cultural issues and diversity
1. Typically will not find people in those countries to support such NGO
  1. Difficoult to se economically sustainable
    1. Communicating to a target which better responds to the issue of Wikipedia
      1. Expats community could finance
        Could be interesting to track where clicks are coming from
    2. They have feel that they have more urgent issues
2. Wikimedia
  1. Other projects (not wikipedia) might be a good space for work for new people from south
    1. ex. More fit for nell writing based cultures

       Infrastructure problems

They might not have the internet
Offline version of wikipedia can be a tool
1. Focus was shifted away from this
  1. Was not cost effective
  2. No efficient mean of distributing (Cd, flashdiscs ec..)
  3. Central distribution is huge
    1. Finding local distribution partners might help
      1. Charity organizations
      2. NGOs
      3. Governaments
      4. Educationsl networks
      5. Nations and institutions who are promoting open data (ex European union)
      6. Laptop producers can sell them with wikipedia already online
      7. Operating system people (microsoft, apple, linux)
        Probably the foundation should do it also
        The community should really support the process
        (ex in the process of selecting what data goes into the package)
        Each country should do it

       Difficoulty in attending conferences

Lack of money TO the global south
1. More money FROM the global south is a less relevant issue
2. Need for more scholarships
Not a money issue but an access to money issue
1. Too few people in the global to involve them
2. Problems in the application process
3. People don't know who to contact to access money
Visa reject issue
1. We need to stage meeting in places where it's easier to get visas
  1. (ex. Geneva)
2. Visa refused for apparently no reason
  1. Typical young Wikipedian complies to standards of people who generally don't get visa (ex. people who might do illegal work or immigrate)
  2. No proval of suffficient disposal of money in account
  3. Difficoulty in transfering money
  4. Rule of how much money to tranfer in account alwais changes
    1. Wiki VISA project?
3. Getting support from national institutions to diminish the Visa requirements
4. Send invitation to more people than the ones who actually might go (in case some get rejected)
  1. If one is rejected another one is ready
  2. Problematic in countries where you need to book in advance
    1. In that case people who don't get to go are automatically selcted for the next conference
5. Have more contacts btw Wikimedia Foundation and Local governaments
  1. Not only relationship btw local chapter and the country
  2. Relationship btw the Internation org. and nations
  3. On the other side this might interfere with liberty and indipendence
6. Organizing regional "south- south" conferences
7. Add possibility to receive funding for buying an insurance (since it is a requirement for some Visa)
8. Contact other organizations who had experience with international conferences and visa
  1. (to know what material/ docs is needed)

       Getting volunteers

More difficoult for people to get interested and sign up
1. People associate NGO with poverty alleviation
  1. Harder to recrtuit volunteers
  2. Harder to collect donations
2. Poverty and other issues and more urgent
3. Organization don't have sufficient man power to do recruiting
  1. Need for a network of recruiters and social change actors and coaches
    1. We must make it easy for people do it
    2. Giving them the necessary economical and other resouces
Online
1. Are we getting new editors in this countries
  1. Before we worry about bringing them to conferences?
2. Can we mentor and support these organizations...
  1. ...to the point that they can function?
Offline
1. Hard to turn onwiki volunteers Into offline wikipedians
  1. We might try to separate the two categories
    1. They don't have to be active editors
      1. Specific onboading process?
    2. They need a basic understanding
    3. They need different skills
2. Hard to directly get Offline volunteers
  1. Need to have familiarity and some experience
  2. Some chapters don't know how to solve this problem
    1. Programs with education are all structured to get more editors, not offline volunteers
    2. There isn't an onboarding process also for offline volunteers
Lack of mentoring and support to the new "south" organizations
1. Mentoring
  1. Should be funded by the Foundation
  2. Experience of mentors should be relevant to the needs of the community
  3. Mentoring not only on editing
    1. Mentoring on...
      1. Recruiting
      2. Organizing events
      3. Management
    2. Also mentoring on non WIki related skills by external experts: example...
      1. public speaking
      2. Such professionals might be less available in such countries
        If hard, get help from the Foundation
2. need for help in figuring out all the various problems
Impact of leght of normal work week
1. People work longer in these countries
2. Commuting is very long
  1. Harder to fill this time with contributing (cannot edit while packed in a bus!)
3. In the "north" people edit in spare time or while works that don' require a lot of attention
4. People in towns are easier to recrtut (more free time)
Communicating to a target which better responds to Wikipedia
1. Examples..
  1. Peopl in towns,
  2. Librarians
  3. Students
    1. Accademics resist the process
      1. (common problem in any country)
        Solvable
        A lot of resources are available
        Prof. testimonials
        
        Success stories
      2. Accademics have a negative perception of wikipedia
      3. Or they are concerned about student finding out their material comes form Wikipedia
    2. University
    3. High school
  4. Hobbist / special interests groups
    1. Example
      1. Photographers
      2. Car enthusiasts
      3. BIrd watchers (ex. tell about birds of South Africa)
Give a picture of what they can do
1. They might not see the opportunity and advantages you see
  1. Describe what could happen why you need them
  2. Describe what they might end up doing (ex. meet minister of education)
  3. Show what's happening in other parts of the world
2. Give them a low bar for participation
Study stats of other countries to help you
1. Ex. active months or less active months
2. Can be usefull to asses by comparison if one is achieving succesful results
Fixing issues with mobile device contribution
1. Fix interface issues

       Contributing issues

Contributers have problems contributing about their own country
1. Lack of notability - Issue of notability
  1. North made criterias
  2. Ex. talking about musical groups who are not famous online but very famous on "the street"
2. Lack of written sources
  1. Cultures less based on writing
    1. Other notability systems
      1. oral citation program was a good idea
        Community did not pick up on it
        Supposedly people thinks it's too complicated (mostly on english wiki)
        
        Not enough energy from people who did like the idea
        
        Could still be picked up
        
        The community needs to be really behind it
        Write blogs
        
        Show relevant stories
        
        Videos
        
        Need to work on administrators to make them open to such changes
        Develop alternative guidelines for assessing notability in other countries
Very small communities trying to contribute on a large mature wikipedias (ex .english)
1. Not interested in contributing in own Specifi languages or topics
  1. Lingua franca overshadows local languages
  2. Subtopic 2
2. Not capable in contributing in own specific languages ecc..
3. hard to make noobie contributions stick (ex without reference)
  1. Standards are really high
  2. (ex. Markup, no reference ecc)
  3. TEA HOUSE seems to work well
    1. Not huge difference but it helps
    2. Some might not know about it
    3. Many don't know about the T-House
4. Main articles are already developed
  1. Oppotunities for contribution are harded to find
    1. Improving existing articles requires a lot of experience
    2. Coulde be a false impressions
5. The onboarding project is beeing developed to address this issue.
6. Automating the "welcoming" on all Wikis (with bots)
7. Actual personal welcomes seem to work best
  1. Can be problematic where the rate of noobie is too high
8. Feedback on first edists seem to dimish participation
  1. Feedback was too strict and rude
  2. "The more you leave people alone the more they stay on wikipedia" (some social scientists)
  3. Me must have evidence based approaches over the resusts of automatized systems (such as the welcoming)
    1. Ex. AB testing
The fact that their own language might not be viable is a reason why they don't contribute
1. What metrics are you using to determine if a specific language in wikipedia is viable
  1. There needs to be a viable community of contributers (before the work is in the incubator)
  2. Has to be active
  3. The software has to be localized
2. The incubator process makes it hard

Evaluating programs[edit]

What is the impact? Franks' October 2013 report about which programs work and which not.

The goal of today is that everybody knows what program evaluation means and establish vocabulary.

Goals of the session[edit]

How to evaluate in line with strategic goals.
How does our program further mission?
Evaluation as a tool to improve programs?
Program evaluation in a young chapter?

Parking lot:

Burnout

What's a program / programmatic activity ?[edit]

A program is something with a theory of change. If it's not made of multiple projects (e.g. multiple workshops), call it a pilot.

Examples:

Outreach to GLAM
Education program
Content Liberation
Community Support

Any sort or set of activities that has direct impact on the mission.

Examples of something that is not a program:

Fundraising
(WMUK) It also leaves out anything which has an indirect impact and just spread seeds, or has an impact on another organization/area.

Evaluation[edit]

Frank provides one definition of evaluation.

Another example from http://enqa.eu/files/workshop_material/Italy1.pdf : «A more rigorous definition of evaluation is:

a cognitive activity aimed at providing a judgement on an action
performed following explicit and clear procedures
with the intention to produce outside effects».

Frank: we need to experiment more, not be scared of failure.
- Example: what if my pilot fails, what will happen to FDC funding at next round?
- Failure is ok if you're learning from it.
- Example: India education program, big failure and weeks of sleepless nights.

The false dichotomy[edit]

Two ways the WMF are using evaluation:

Organizational effectiveness
- But this was described as efficiency
- How to measure effectiveness?
Programmatic impact
- One can find measures and comparisons for specific programs

Frank: not going to show this slide ever again.

Why evaluate[edit]

Improve what we're doing: not something done for the sake of it that seems not worth it and just tiring.
Decide/show what programs are worth replicating/investing on.
This also helps not reinventing the wheel.
- Connect people

What WMF wants to work on[edit]

Establishing a culture of evaluation and shared learning
...

Evaluation expansion[edit]

Also from the earliest point of a chapter's life: it should help you.
Frank: a team talked for 15 hours and produced 15 pages of evaluation template not yet published on Meta.
Dorit: no way, they're volunteers: one page! And I'll have to negotiate with them.

Burnout[edit]

Ziko: WLM-NL evaluation: great! But it was too much for volunteers and we may not be able to do it again, but we may not discover such things until next year. [A matter of externalities?]