Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimédia France/Impact report form
Purpose of the report
FDC funds are allocated to:
- Improve the alignment between the Wikimedia movement's strategy and spending;
- Support greater impact and progress towards achieving shared goals; and
- Enable all parts of the movement to learn how to achieve shared goals better and faster.
Funding should lead to increased access to and quality of content on Wikimedia project sites – the two ultimate goals of the global targets, individually and as a whole. Funded activities must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."
Each entity that receives FDC funding will need to complete this report, which seeks to determine how the funding received by the entity is leading towards these goals. The information you provide will help us to:
- Ensure accountability over how the money was spent. The FDC distributes "general funds", for both ongoing and programmatic expenses; these funds can be spent as the entity best sees fit to accomplish its stated goals. Therefore, although line-item expenses are not expected to be exactly as outlined in the entity's proposal, the FDC wants to ensure that money was spent in a way that led to movement goals.
- Assess the performance of the entity over the course of the funded period against the stated objectives in the entity's annual plan.
- Identify lessons learned, in terms of both what the entity learned that could benefit the broader movement, and how the entity used movement-wide best practices to accomplish its stated objectives.
For more information, please review FDC portal/Reporting requirements or reference your entity's grant agreement.
Basic entity information
This section will be replaced by a template that pulls information on each entity to be used across proposal forms within a single round.
Overview of the past year
The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of this report. Please use no more than 2–3 paragraphs to address the questions outlined below. You will have an opportunity to address these questions in detail elsewhere in this report.
- HIGHLIGHTS: What were 2–3 important highlights of the past year? (These may include successes, challenges, lessons learned.)
- For your eyes only highlight: Earlier this year we had our first brawl with French intelligence, massive press coverage. It's not from our programs but it clear is a highlight of the last 6 month.
- Brocas: For the first time in France the event Opération libre took place in Brocas (a small city in the Landes with 800 people). Co-organized by organizations supporting open source projects and open data, these project aimed to make accessible and freely licensed data, information, contents on the city. Several Wikimedians participated, on-site or remotely, improving and creating articles, training the people of Brocas on Wikipedia, taking pictures of places and monuments. We worked with our partners like OpenStreetMap and Tela Botanica. A great opportunity to strengthen our relationships with other associations working on the same topics. Results: almost 10 articles created/improved and 500 pictures uploaded.
- Editathon Quai Branly: For the European Night of Museums in May, Wikimédia France organized, in partnerships with the Quai Branly Museum, an edit-a-thon during 2 days. Wikimedians, librarians, curators have worked together to create and to improve Wikipedia contents. Almost 60 articles were created and improved.
- A picture from our project with the Museum of natural history of Toulouse was elected Picture of the year 2012 on Wikimedia Commons. It emphasizes the quality of the pictures this kind of project creates (617 valued pictures, 312 quality pictures, 69 featured pictures as of April 2013).
- SWOT: Reflecting on the context outlined for your entity in the FDC proposal, what were some of the contextual elements that either enabled or inhibited the plan?
- Strengths: Organizational strengths that enabled the plan
- According to the proposal form of round 1: Wikimédia France is a long standing chapter (2004) with experience on:
- Accounting and financial management (empowerment and security of fundraising process): thanks to Sebastien Baijard (Fundraising and sponsorship manager), Sylvain Boissel (Tech manager), Nadia El Moussaoui (hired in January as Administrative assistant) and the working group dedicated to fundraising (around 10 volunteers involved) Wikimédia France has developed a payment system through Paypal, a monthly donation process, a new process of donation treatment (regular emails and informations for donors, processing time to record wire transfer with bank, etc.). Moreover, Wikimédia France has developed several communication initiatives towards donors (e.g. launching the major donors program).
- Experience effect of a staff team: Wikimédia France has a united staff team. At the end of June, Wikimédia France had five employees and one intern, all dedicated on a specific topic. For staff members dedicated to Programs, they are recognized by external partners and have developed a solid knowledge about the networks. Moreover, they are autonomous and interested in the overall functioning of Wikimédia France and programs. At last, they are very involved in their work. This strong team has enabled the chapters to commit to long term projects which require staff to plan and organize the project on a day to day basis such as Afripédia, or to work and travel during working hours for the PhD students training.
- Project managing: we have developed a "routine" and best practices on project management (planing, budget monitoring, reporting stages, results according to metrics and objectives, monitoring tools and tracking process for new contributors).
- Volunteers involvement: We have nearly 400 members including 60 involved directly in Wikimédia France activities. To boost the involvement of volunteers, we continue to have meetings within thematic working groups (4 meetings since January). We have, in this way, organized an IRC hours open to all members and Wikimedians early July. The micro-grants process for Wikimedians has been reviewed (more people involved in the committee), local groups (currently 8) are very active (in particular with the launch of a new group in Alsace).
- Strong institutional partnerships (GLAM, Education): We work with more external and various partners. In GLAM, with museums, Archives Nationales, etc. In education, with schools, universities and Éducation Nationale (via CLEMI, agency of the French Ministry of Education in charge of media education across the education system). With a district of the municipality of Paris. We pursue the partnerships developed in 2012 (Ministry for Culture, Agence Française pour la Francophonie and Institut français for the Afripedia project, Open Knowledge Foundation for the Public Domain remix contest, etc.). We can count more than 10 new partnerships over the last six months.
- Weaknesses: Organizational weaknesses that inhibited the plan
- The last Executive Director of Wikimedia France left in December 2012, less than a year after his appointment at this position. In order to replace the ED, the Board decided to go through a heavy process to recruit the new ED and get help from an HR firm. This resolution had a huge impact on the organization of the chapter: board and staff members had to do the tasks of the missing ED, moreover it has brought an uncertainty in term of management because it is difficult for a board to act as a director for day to day management. In June the HR firm received about 170 applications for the position of ED at Wikimédia France. In July, Wikimédia France and the HR firm will conduct the interviews of the candidates. We might make an announcement during Wikimania at Hong Kong regarding this topic.
- Due to the round 1 FDC gap funding, we had to postpone some projects, cancel others, think about external resources in order to fund programs and reconsider governance process to maintain quality activities taking into account the impact of our activities on Wikimedia projects and the involvement of volunteers.
- Opportunities: External opportunities that enabled the plan
- Wikimédia France is recognized as a reliable partner. As stated above, we have maintained good relationships with our partners, and we are doing our best to keep it that way. For example, the context is favorable to us especially in projects related to education. The Ministry for Education decided in 2013 to focus on digital teaching and media education − two areas on which we are working at Wikimédia France to introduce Wikimedia projects in high schools. In that direction, we started at the end of June a partnership with the CLEMI in order to launch a national Wikicontest for high school students in September 2013. Our expertise and our partnerships already under way in GLAM and Education, for example, allow us to "reassure" the other potential partners − a kind of jurisprudence.
- For the last 18 months, Wikipedia’s image has changed in France, facilitating our partnerships development and media contacts. We intensified our communication on our blog (17 blogposts in the last 6 months), in order to be better relayed by media. More broadly, we observe a positive focus by media about Wikimedia projects. See the press review. However this focus is due, in part, to the DCRI case. We took the "opportunity" of the media coverage of the case to intensify our communication about the Wikipedia working.
- Threats: Risks or threats that inhibited the plan
- Declining volunteers involvement, A balance must be found between staff and volunteer activities. To overcome that, the idea is to provide more direct support to Wikimedia community (material, meetings, “doors opener”, logistics). The community must feel that Wikimédia France is here to help them to improve the projects. We must be present too on a large part of the territories to develop, consolidate our network, promote the creation of local groups of contributors. This threat will always be there for Wikimédia France, as we work almost exclusively through the involvement of volunteers. We continue our efforts to facilitate the involvement of volunteers (see below: Program 6 Community to observe activities and efforts to overcome these threats).
- Can not respond to all partnership proposals − not enough volunteers or too many/big project proposals. This threat has been very real during the last six months. We receive more and more partnership proposals without being able to hire additional staff dedicated to support these programs. We had to make strategic choices for some programs, and paid more attention and efforts in order to facilitate the involvement of volunteers.
- Financial uncertainty to run long-term projects. Diversification of funding sources can help mitigate such threat: launching a circle of major donors, diversifying our means of payment (Paypal, monthly direct debit, etc.) and seeking financial partnerships (such as foundations) for targeted programs.
- Strengths: Organizational strengths that enabled the plan
- WIKI-FOCUS: What Wikimedia projects was your entity focused on (e.g., Wiki Commons, French Wiktionary) this year?
- French Wikipedia. Training sessions targeted toward several different types of new contributors (in particular researchers, students, curators, librarians, etc.), development of the Framakey-Wikipedia (Wikipedia offline on a USB stick made available online and in some libraries)
- Wikimedia Commons. Many uploads from people that benefited of support from Wikimédia France (media accreditations, photo equipment, photo parties) ; a new mass-upload project (the Ancely collection: over 2,000 pictures), improvement of the categorization and metrics for photos "supported by Wikimedia France", see: commons:Category:Supported by Wikimedia France. At the end of June: 40,000 pictures "supported by Wikimédia France".
- Wikidata. Four workshops have been organized in Rennes, Paris, Grenoble and Toulouse by Wikimedians
- Wiktionary. During the last training in Kinshasa (Afripedia project), attendees added content to Wiktionary in their national languages (swahili, lingala, bakongo, kirundi).
- GROWTH: How did your entity grow over the past quarter vs. the previous quarter (e.g., Number of active editors reached/involved/added, number of articles created, number of events held, number of participants reached through workshops)? Response:
- Regarding new contributors:
- number of new contributors (thanks to Wikimédia France programs): around 620
- number of new articles created: 244
- number of files uploaded on Wikimedia Commons by new contributors: around 150
- total volume of edits: >1 Mo
- Regarding events:
- number of conferences/worshops/exhibition/Wikipermanences (organized or not by WMFr): 66
- number of people reached (in workshops, Wikipermences, trainings): 553
- About enrichment of Wikimedia Commons by Wikimedians, with support from Wikimedia France (source)
- Count: 10,855 files, by 29 distinct users
- Distinctions: Quality images: 168 (by 15 users) ; Featured pictures: 21 (by 7 users)
- Usage: 1,227 distinct files used ; 10,490 total reuses across 227 wikis
- Regarding new contributors:
The FDC requires information about how your entity received and spent money over the past year. The FDC distributes general funds, so your entity is not required to use funds exactly as outlined in the proposal. While line-item expenses will not be examined, the FDC and movement wants to understand why the entity spent money in the way it did. If variance in budgeted vs. actual is greater than 20%, please provide explanation in more detail. This helps the FDC understand the rationale behind any significant changes. Note that any changes from the Grant proposal, among other things, must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."
Provide exchange rate used:
- $US 1 = 1.250 € (rate of the proposal)
Table 2 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.
- Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.
Revenue source Currency Anticipated Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Anticipated ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Explanation of variances from plan FDC allocation € 73,800 73,800 0 - - 73,800 92,250 92,250 Membership fees € 4,000 2,044 2,008 - - 4,052 5,000 5,065 Financial interests € 5,000 14,000 0 - - 14,000 6,250 17,500 Financial interests were underestimated Other revenues € 0 719 55 - - 774 0 967 Goodies, trainings payment Direct donations € 0 0 5,700 - - 5,700 0 7,125 K Total € 82,800 90,563 7,763 - - 98,326 103,500 122,907
* Provide estimates in US Dollars
Table 3 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.
- (The "budgeted" amount is the total planned for the year as submitted in your proposal form or your revised plan, and the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year. The "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative amount spent over the budgeted amount.)
Expense Currency Budgeted Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Budgeted ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Percentage spent to date Explanation of variances from plan Francophonie and languages € 19,300 2,133 5,808 - - 7,941 24,125 9,926 41.2% The last training session was held in late June. Most expenses will be taken into account in July GLAM € 10,000 802 348 - - 1,150 12,500 1,438 11.5% We found solutions for free-of-charges training sessions and events. Community € 5,875 1,981 2,547 - - 4,528 7,344 5,660 77.1% We planned for more community grants, which were not spent. For meetings or conferences, accommodation was most of the time paid by structure which invited us. Communication and pedagogical material € 4,700 1,100 1,237 - - 2,337 5,875 2,921 49.7% We did not make goodies as we planned and we printed only the booklets needed for the last 3 months. Europeana € 30,000 30,000 0 - - 30,000 37,500 37,500 100% Research and education € 8,500 182 8,910 - - 9,092 10,625 11,365 107% Semanticpedia € 18,500 0 654 - - 654 23,125 818 3.5% Projects (planned for last quarter of this reporting period) with external partners and contractor are behind schedule, hence the underspending for this year. These projects represent approximatively $20.800 (Hosting of the project by Wikimédia France, Development of DBpedia live in French, etc.). Most of this money should be spent by the end of the next quarter Wikimania € 10,000 0 2,400 - - 2,400 12,500 3,000 24% Other costs will be paid in August 2013 Functionning € 67,500 33,754 19,125 - - 52,879 84,375 66,099 78.3% We have less staff than expected. Board meetings are cheaper since we meet in our new office. Fundraising € 31,000 40,412 3,573 - - 43,985 38,750 54,981 141.9% 2012 fundraising was much more efficient than expected. Though this is a good thing it generated extra cost, especially in managing the flow of checks we received. Staff costs € 181,300 66,457 58,617 - - 125,074 226,625 156,343 69.0% The ED has left, we canceled the "community" recruitment (as it was also canceled for next year / ~14.3k€ on the semester). We only had 1 intern instead of 2 in our initial plan (~2.2k€ on the semester) Total € 386,675 176,821 103,219 - - 280,040 483,344 350,050 72.4%
* Provide estimates in US Dollars
Progress against past year's goals/objectives
The FDC needs to understand the impact of the initiatives your entity has implemented over the past year. Because the FDC distributes general funds, entities are not required to implement the exact initiatives proposed in the FDC proposal; the FDC expects each entity to spend money in the way it best sees fit to achieve its goals and those of the movement. However, please point out any significant changes from the original proposal, and the reasons for the changes. Note that any changes from the Grant proposal, among other things, must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."
|Key initiatives||Stated objectives of the initiative (include metrics)||Activities conducted||Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)||If your entity did not achieve the desired objectives, why not? If it did, what enabled this? If the initiative was not in your plan, why did you pursue it?|
Wikimédia France Research Award:
Partnership with Société Française d’Écologie (planned for September 2013)
Work with academic world:
Francophonie and Languages
(Programs and metrics are for all the year)
Wikimédia France give its support essentially by funds (30,000€/year)
Lessons from the past
A key objective of the funding is to enable the movement as a whole to understand how to achieve shared goals better and faster. An important way of doing this is to identify lessons learned and insights from entities who receive funds, and to share these lessons across the movement. Please answer the following questions in 1–2 paragraphs each.
- What were your in the past year, and how did you help to achieve movement goals?
- we hired an administrative assistance in January who allowed us to improve our administrative and accounting procedures.
- despite the gap funding of the round 1 and the fact that we have not been able to hire other employees to support and develop programs, engaged projects have been running.
- renewal of the pedagogical material and welcoming of an intern in March
- as we said we continue to have good reputation with GLAM institution and Education institution, we developed new partnerships with these networks.
- What were your in the past year (e.g., programs that were not successful)?
- Wikimédia France research award (few votes, few press release due to a lack of communication and trouble with organization).
- the regularity of the workshops with institutions is hard to maintain (due to partners organization, lack of time for a closest monitoring)
- Involvement and registration to our workshops dedicated to researchers are not so successful. We have no problem with researchers in charge of courses and PhD students but researchers do not enroll in our training sessions dedicated to science popularization with Wikipedia.
- What (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?
- Association's visibility (with press media, professionals networks and community partners)
- Strength and commitment of our local groups with boost for skills and expertise
- commitment of staff
- What did you encounter and how did this affect what you were able to accomplish?
- While anticipating lack of money and new staff and departure of the Executive director, one of the major challenges for this 1st quarter was to continue programs while being forced to revise down our actions and prepare the 2d FDC round. For the second quarter, we worked on formalizing position description for each employee and we asked a recruitment firm for help with hiring of the Executive director.
- with our partners, it is sometimes difficult to compose with their schedule. This may result in delays or impose a more restricted schedule.
- What are the that other entities can learn from your experience?
- importance of supporting local groups
- importance to have good relationships/networks and a good external reputation. It is very important to have people (staff or/and volunteers) with specific contacts (Education, GLAM, etc.) and diversified skills.
- Regular meetings and discussions on several mailing lists about programs with board, staff and volunteers (monthly meetings by Skype, IRC hours since July, regular reports available on Meta and on our working wiki)
Lessons for the future
The Wikimedia movement grows as each entity in the movement reflects and adapts its approaches to changing needs and contexts. The questions below encourage you to apply your thinking in the sections above of "how well have we done" and "what have we learned" to the development and execution of future organisational and program strategies. The questions below can be informed both by your own entities' learnings, as well as the learnings of other movement entities (e.g., adding a new program that appears to have caused significant impact in several other countries or communities).
- What organisational or program strategies would you continue?
- Continue to work with our current trusty partners in order to develop more projects and convince other partners in the same thematic.
- Continue and intensify the support of local groups
- Making our target audience self-sustaining (potential contributors) and partners: edit more specific pedagogical materials for specific profiles.
- We have to rely on metrics tools (and develop other tools) to better evaluate and plan our programs.
- What might you change in organisational and program strategies in order to improve the effectiveness of your entity?
- for programs:
- better planning of the actions along the year − between actions planned and opportunities which will come during the year
- focusing our trainings in direction of trainers in order to have more impact (e.g teachers, researchers, etc.)
- giving a thematic to our workshops, Wikipermanence and trainings and impose registration in advance for attendees
- We are hiring an Executive director, to tackle the challenges detailed in the SWOT (work burden on board and staff members and day-to-day management)
Stories of success and challenge
Of all the accomplishments highlighted through this report, please share two detailed case studies: one "story of success" and one story of challenge that your entity experienced over the past year (2–3 paragraphs). Provide any details that might be helpful to others in the movement on the context, strategy, and impact of this initiative.
Case study: success
- Long-term trainings with PhD students
Since 2011, Wikimédia France has partnered with the University of Lille Nord in order to train PhD students to Wikipedia. The objective of this partnership is to organize training sessions, entitled "Promote our knowledge with Wikipedia" where students are encouraged to expand, on their area of expertise, Wikipedia articles and other resources available on all Wikimedia projects. In 2013 we conducted 2 training sessions with 45 PhD students: 28 articles created on fr.wp.
- Resources used:
- Money spent: transportation paid by the University of Lille
- Volunteer hours invested: 2/3 volunteers for running workshops and the monitoring of PhD students on Wikipedia. (8h by volunteers)
- staff hours invested: between 30 and 40h
- computer room
- slide show and booklet presenting how to use and contribute to Wikipedia.
- Programming activities: each session was composed of several parts:
- Week 1 half a day of classroom training (3h) in order to discuss and explain knowledge sharing, the inner workings of Wikipedia and their role as young researchers in knowledge sharing.
- Week 2 a week "to digest" and to assimilate these concepts.
- Week 3 half a day of classroom training (3h) in order to practice Wikipedia syntax, identify articles linked to their area of study and propose objectives for their contributions (number of article creation/improvement).
- Week 4-5 following up to these classroom trainings, PhD students worked at home on their contribution according to their objectives. Time to contribute varies from one session to another.
- in the midterm (week 6-7), we organize several meetings (small groups of PhD students) using Skype in order to review progress and adapt objectives.
- at the end of the session (week 9-10), attendees have to do a final report (by email or by Skype). They have to complete an evaluation questionnaire (spreadsheet) and update coordination page on Wikiversity.
- depending on the objectives achieved or not by PhD students, the “course credits” allocated for these trainings (required to defend a thesis) are granted in accordance with the University of Lille and the PhD student.
The participants of the trainings are PhD students, all levels and thematics combined. We favor the first years of thesis. We supervise 25 PhD students per session.
- Goals of the program
- all PhD students have made at least a contribution in Wikipedia main namespace.
- in the final report, Phd students say they realized the importance of sharing knowledge as one of their function as researchers.
- of 20 PhD students registered, we hope at very least 10 articles created.
- Monitoring tools:
- spreadsheet shared by supervisors (with attendees email, nickname, userpage, attendance to training sessions and remote meetings, evaluation questionnaire and updating coordination page on Wikiversity)
- spreadsheet for evaluation questionnaire, see: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEhDMGFnelpjYnRwc3d4LS1kaHBOS3c6MQ#gid=0
- coordination page on Wikiversity, see: v:fr:Recherche:Atelier-projet « Wikipédia et MediaWiki »
- Wikiscan: example with the last training
- specific userbox on their userpage to track their progress: fr:Wikipédia:Wikimédia France/Bandeaux ateliers
- 1 Report of the last training
- about the duration of the session: fair
- about time dedicated to discussions: fair
- about time dedicated to practice: more practice during the second session would have been better
- about the level of the training sessions: correct
- about the usefulness of the session in their university studies or their work: not entirely convinced
- about the desire to continue contributions after the session: slightly agree
- We would like to measure other elements:
- a long term monitoring in order to have some elements on their continuing contributions after 3 months, 6 months and 1 year.
- a better tool or method to evaluate more quickly the quality of their contributions.
- For next sessions, our goals are: reaching 10% of regular contributors 6 months after the end of the session ; >1 article by PhD student created ; 80% of contents not revoked ;
- For the organization and monitoring: be faster and more efficient, maybe with the Education MediaWiki extension. Improve the welcoming of the PhD students on Wikipedia by notifying Wikimedia community and have 2 or 3 Wikipedians as sponsors by session.
Case study: challenge
Response: Wikimédia France research Award Wikimédia France has initiated in 2012/2013 an international research prize to reward the most influential research paper on Wikimedia projects and free knowledge projects in general.
- Goals of the program
- supporting/encouraging research teams working on Wikipedia and free knowledge ;
- popularizing scientific research on Wikipedia and free knowledge ;
- promoting the Wikimedia Movement.
- Resources used
- Money spent: €2,970.15
- award: €2,500
- Wikipedia Academy in Berlin: €470.15
- Volunteer invested: 2/3 volunteers for planning, animation of discussion with jury members, links with Wikimedia Community, translation of scientific papers summaries.
- Staff hours invested: 165 hours
- Difficulties encountered and consequences
- regular delays in the planned schedule due to coordination. (End of this project in April 2013 instead of November 2012).
- not enough Wikimédia France volunteers involved on this project --> summaries of scientific papers was not completely translated, not enough communication to encourage votes
- We had no dedicatee for this Award (refusal of Michel Serres, no response from Umberto Eco) --> not enough press release and content for dedicated website.
- Jury members are very busy and few available but they voted in time --> not enough discussion and materials for dedicated website
- significant time devoted for the planning
- French-language Wikipedia community did not approve a a sitenotice to encourage votes --> too few votes from the Wikimedia community (27 votes, >100 planned)
- not enough communication during the launch of the award and during the different stages (submission and vote) --> too few votes from the Wikimedia community
- website traffic not available (due to an oversight during the website deployment) --> no visibility to measure the impact and usefulness of the website
- Participants and results
- jury members: 7 researchers
- 3 coordinators (1 staff member of Wikimédia France + 2 volunteers)
- 27 votes
- 31 scientific papers submitted
- 2 staff members of Wikimedia Foundation (Dario and Tilman) to help with communication and organization
- 1 winner (Center for History and New Media created by Roy Rosenzweig)
- Monitoring tools
- Meta page: Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award for monitoring number of votes and discussions
- Dedicated website traffic: http://researchaward.wikimedia.fr/
- monitoring page on our intern wiki and share document for the 9 organizational meetings during the project.
- Communication tools
- dedicated mailing lists
- dedicated web site
- Newsletter Research
- WMF blog
- WMFr blog
- Press release/blog posts
- Vote call
- blog WMF: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/02/19/vote-most-exciting-research-about-wikipedia/
- WMFr: http://blog.wikimedia.fr/prix-wikimedia-france-de-la-recherche-recompenser-les-travaux-de-recherche-sur-wikipedia-5361
- external relays: http://acawiki.org/AcaWiki:News_Archive, http://web-and-philosophy.org/announcements/wikimedia-france-research-award/,
- announcement of the winner:
- blog WMFr: http://blog.wikimedia.fr/laureat-2013-du-prix-wikimedia-france-de-la-recherche-5517
- blog WMF: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/10/wikimedia-france-research-award-winner/
- Newsletter Research: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2013/April#Wikimedia_France_research_award_winner_announced
- Signpost: en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-29/Recent_research
- external relays: http://clioweb.canalblog.com/tag/prix-wm-france
- Center for History and New Media (winner): http://chnm.gmu.edu/news/wikimedia-france-research-award-2013/
- Next Research Award
For the next Research Award: (scheduled for autumn 2014), we will:
- pay more attention:
- to the calendar for a sitenotice on the Wikimedia projects in order to encourage more participation in the voting
- to provide summaries of scientific papers in several languages and other medias (for example, interviews of co-authors and jury members, etc.) on our dedicated website.
- to involve more volunteers of Wikimedia France (for translation and communication)
- expand the network for the voting call (find other mailing lists involved in these issues).
- find external partners to better promote the project and planning an award ceremony.
- find a dedicatee: for example Roy Rosenzweig (the first recipient)
- Programming activities Research Award 2014
- August-September 2014: contact jury members, contact Center for History and New Media to propose Roy Rosenzweig as dedicatee, update of Meta page, update of dedicated website, contact external partners.
- Early September: Call for Wikimedia community's participation, preparation of messages / sitenotices in different languages
- End of September: papers submissions dead line, Jury starts selecting 5 shortlisted papers;
- Mid of October: 5 shortlisted papers chosen by the jury; publication of summaries of shortlisted papers (in several languages) and discussion, press kit, update dedicated website for communication.
- Mid of November: Closing of votes
- End of November: Public announcement of the winner, press release.
- What are some of the activities that are happening in your community that are not chapter-led? What are the most successful among these, and why?
- Provide any other relevant information that may be helpful or relevant for the FDC (e.g., links to any media coverage, blog posts, more detailed reports, more detailed financial information).
- WikiRevue n°2: File:WikiRevue (quarterly report -April to June 2013).pdf
- Media coverage: fr:Wikipédia:Revue de presse#En 2013
Is your organization compliant with the terms defined in the grant agreement?
- As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.
- Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".
- Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Grant funds as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".
- Report any Grant funds that are unexpended fifteen (15) months after the Effective Date of the Grant Agreement. These funds must be returned to WMF or otherwise transferred or deployed as directed by WMF.
- Any interest earned on the Grant funds by Grantee will be used by Grantee to support the Mission and Purposes as set out in this Grant Agreement. Please report any interest earned during the reporting period and cumulatively over the duration of the Grant and Grant Agreement.
Accrued interests will be credited in January 2014