Jump to content

Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia CH/Impact report form

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Purpose of the report[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Basic entity information[edit]

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

Table 1

Entity information Legal name of entity Wikimedia CH
Entity's fiscal year (mm/dd–mm/dd) 01/01-12/31
12 month timeframe of funds awarded (mm/dd/yy-mm/dd/yy) 01/01/2013-12/31/2013
Contact information (primary) Primary contact name Charles Andrès
Primary contact position in entity chief Science Officer
Primary contact username chandres
Primary contact email charles.andres@wikimedia.ch
Contact information (secondary) Secondary contact name Patrick Kenel
Secondary contact position in entity President ad interim
Secondary contact username Pakeha
Secondary contact email patrick.kenel@wikimedia.ch

Overview of the past year[edit]

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

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


    • Between the 2012-2013 FDC proposal and the end of the 2013 year we have increase our membership by 190%. While most of this new members are supportive members, some of them are Wikimedians, old or new. Luckily this massive increase in members occurs at the moment we recruited two community liaisons and then drastically improved our communication to the members and most of all our availability for members. While it's hard to have figures to measure the impact in 2013, during the 2014 General assembly we had 36 members present, the biggest crowd we never had for a general assembly.
    • From an organizational point of view the major highlight was the massive increase of staff, from 1 people to 4. This increase reflect a double strategy. First WMCH focus on the communities, that why we recuit two community liaison to strengthen the link between the association and the communities. Later in the year we recruit two chief to replace the chief administration officier who left us in July. The point was that even for a small entity like us, it's not possible to recruit only one people who can cover the duties of administrative task and programatic activities. That's even more true with the increase of reporting and application preparation required by the new FDC process.
    • The third highlights is the call for project and the preparation of the annual plan. For two years we had a process almost fully leaded by volunteers, but while it do not change anything about the quality of the ideas, it was not efficient to first create a coherent annual plan, and motivate the enough members of the community to participate.
  • SWOT: Refereeing to the SWOT analysis for the 2013-2014 FDC proposal:
    • Strengths:
      • Staff/board with wide culture in Swiss local association and Wikimedia Movement
        while the swiss culture in swiss local association hasn't proved yet to be a strength for the association, we expected to be one in 2014 with a significative increase of local fundings for our activities. In the other hand the Wikimedia Movement culture of the staff and board has proved to be a strong ciment between people, it's what linked us.
      • Experience in Programs (Education/GLAM/Offline)
        This program are still strong in WMCH, they are entering in a maturation phase where they should became less dependent of volunteers work to be realize, but in the meantime more open to welcome/support new volunteers with their own ideas of project.
      • Skilled and motivated volunteers
        The motivation of the few active volunteers has been demonstrated again with the organization of the WikiLovesMonuments Contest, but this success is also a warning that programs success should not rely on the involvement of too much volunteers who were not initially involved.
      • Fundraising experience (both WMF and Swiss)
        each year WMCH increase the numbers of members and the total amount of funds raised during the WMF fundraising and directly to the chapter
    • Weaknesses: Organizational weaknesses that inhibited the plan
      • Low volunteers turn-over
      • natural reluctance of movement members to the increase of reporting, planification and evaluation.
      • The lack of strategic plan weakened us in 2013 and prevent us of building a really strong annual plan.
      • Our call for project process was not efficient enough
    • Opportunities: External opportunities that enabled the plan
      • GLAM institutions raising their awareness for collaboration with online/digital partners
        GLAM opportunities are numerous in Switzerland, in 2013 it has been especially illustrated by the Wikipedian in Residence at the Federal Archives.
      • Wikimedia projects are well known in Switzerland and Wikimedia CH's brand is considered like a strong and valid brand
        This opportunities is a door opener, but we start facing the problem that Wikimedia can have the wrong image of being a "rich project", swiss fundraiser do not really understand why they should finance our projects, and in the other hand, GLAM are often contacted by some volunteers offering WMCH service without prior coordination with the chapter.
      • High demand from education world for Wikip/media trainings
        in 2013 we just start to take advantage of this opportunity, but it's really promising. Education can be easily and efficiently linked to the work of the community liaison.
    • Threats: Risks or threats that inhibited the plan
      • Decreasing community participation
        In Switzerland we are more concerned by the isolation of community members, that's why we recruited two community liaison. When trying to recruit new editors, we often face the request of real meeting of the existing community that's why it's important to first support the actual community and then develop a strategy of recruitment.
      • Transitional period (more staff members and split of competencies) connected with an internal re-organization
        The transitional period had contrasted effect in wikimedia CH. The major negative point was the necessary length of the recruitment process, increasing significantly the workload for some board members. As a consequence the board were available during the call for project period leading to weakened the process. The recruitment of the CSO has been done later than expected, really late in the call for project process, increasing again the weakness.
      • Governance challenges
        In 2013 the main governance challenge has been to anticipate governance challenges, like setting up a proper and transparent hiring process, as well as setting up staff management process, staff evaluation process, annual plan building process.
    • Wikipedia
    • Wikimedia Commons
    • Wikisource
    • Members: 387 members, an increase of +190% in one FDC period
    • Board: seven to six with the resignation of the former president when hired to became the CSO
    • staff: 0.8 FTE (CAO) to 3.4 FTE (0.8 CAO, 1 CSO, 2*0.5 CL, 0.6 CIO)

Closer to the Wikimedians, closer to the Wikimedia Projects

This slogan has been invented around the end of September as part of the application process for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) in view of the fundraising and the activities of the following year. Looking at the detailed activity report, you will notice that it can also stand for the sum of activities of Wikimedia CH in the year 2013. In the 8th year of its existence, our chapter has made a great step forward in terms of professionalization. In 2012, the administration has been transferred from the Board to a staff member together with the first office rental. In 2013, the same has been the case for the management of projects. At about the same time, community support has been a made a priority of the chapter. Meanwhile, costs have increased, but even so has the overall output regarding the involvement of volunteers and the creation of free knowledge. It was a successful year for GLAM partnerships as well as for efforts to distribute Wikipedia offline. In some ways, 2013 was also groundbreaking for education initiatives - a development worth a consideration in the future. On top of that, a picture from Switzerland has been selected as winner of the 1st prize of the international Wiki Loves Monuments contest on Wikimedia Commons.

While the association has been active through its volunteers and its employees in many different parts of the country (with an exception notably of the small Romansh-speaking areas), the most stunning progress has been made in German-speaking Switzerland (Deutschschweiz). The main activities of the association have been steadily moving away from the region where it has initially been founded. This trend has come to a close thanks to a dedicated new staff person. Muriel has been praised by some members with whom she has been most involved with for her great deal of social competence and for being communicative and helpful. It seems that Wikimedia CH has come closer to German-speakers within a few months.

Recently, a German blog has dealt with the question if there's a widening gap between those frequently editing Wikipedia and the people actively involved in Wikimedia organizations. It stated that parallel structures are a nuisance for the projects and that they contribute in parts to a decrease in participation. Unlike the author of said blog post, I don't think we're going to see a move to the administration of content being carried out by dedicated staff paid on donations. We should rather extend our new model with community liaisons supporting the volunteer community and the development of the Wikimedia movement wherever they can.

-- Patrick Kenel, President

Financial summary[edit]

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

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


Provide exchange rate used: average rate for 2013 0.9271

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

  • Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.
Revenue source Currency Anticipated Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Anticipated ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Explanation of variances from plan
Membership fees CHF 10,000 1,325 420 201 13,015 14,961 10,786 16,137 Increase of membership of 66%
FDC Allocation CHF 362,000 362,000 - - - 362,000 390,465 390,465
Donations CH CHF 20,000 35,996 12,928 3,827 78,398 131,149 21,573 141,462 At the time of the FDC application we had no clues about the impact of our new strategy of localized message during the fundraising campaign and the press campaign to rise awareness of swiss citizen about local project
Earmarked Donations CHF 100,000 30,000 - - - 30,000 107,863 32,359 The major party of the expected earmarked donations were expected for the Eduwiki conference.
Income of courses CHF 0 D E F 1500 1500 - 1,618 First result of the new Education program
Total CHF 492,000 429,321 13,348 4,028 92,913 539,610 530,687 582,041

* 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
salaries CHF 191,160 24,599 41,750 42,630 79,777 188,756 206,191 99%
IT support and hosting CHF 75,000 18,578 9,032 25,714 31,119 84,443 80,897 113% unplaned VAT invoice
administrative costs CHF 52,000 7,933 15,408 26,526 35,185 85,052 56,089 164% staff search: 4000CHF, an expense that should not be repeated, all the administrative costs are include in this line even for the projects
fundraising expenses CHF 5,000 10,221 0 329 2,961 13,511 5,393 270% the cost of the credit card donation wasn't possible to anticipate, anyway even if the fundraising expenses are increasing a lot, they remain lower than 5% of the funds raised in Switzerland
Community support CHF 80,000 4,472 8,914 19,189 16,812 49,387 86,291 62% the failure of the WCA explain an important part of the underspent in this budget line
GLAM projects CHF 100,000 354 1,341 51,017 14,700 67,412 107,863 67% The herbarium project cost was decreased a lot by the switch to the civilian servant model. No other reprostation were buy as the outcomes were not clear enough and also because the herbarium project show us that this type of project can be supported by local fundraiser and sop shouldn't be found with donors funds
Free content generation CHF 33,000 122 134 150 7,538 7,944 35,595 24% most of the project planned are postponed in 2014 and will cost fare less than anticipated
Support to like-minded assocations CHF 35,950 0 6,664 4,450 2,500 13,614 38,777 38% Support to wikimini is splitted between 2013 and 2014, one project was postponed and we finnaly did supported financially wikidata
Education CHF 81,600 0 521 362 2,037 2,920 88,016 4% the canceling of the Eduwiki conference explain the variance
Total CHF 653,710 66,279 83,764 170,367 192,629 513,039 705,113 78%

* Provide estimates in US Dollars

Progress against past year's goals/objectives[edit]

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."

Community support[edit]

Community support

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • To Support the Wikimedia Chapters Association (WCA)
  • To Support Wikimedians
  • To Support foreign Wikimedia entities
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
  • WCA
    At the end of the day the Wikimedia Chapters Association failed, but Wikimedia CH is proud of the work accomplished and we consider that the investments were done in a sustainable way:
    Two volunteers and two staff were involved in the WCA.
  • Support to Wikimedians
    Two Community liaisons hired for the German and Italian-speaking parts of Switzerland
    We improved our internal communication, by creating a monthly newsletter that informs all our members on the actual projects. We also increased the presence of chapters representatives in Wikimedians meetings to inform more efficiently about the help we can provide
    10 scholarships awarded (9 actually used) to Wikimedians over the world to attend Wikimania, + 3 Swiss Wikimedians who never received any support from Wikimedia CH before
  • Support foreign Wikimedia entities
    +1 new foreign entity supported (WMSA),WMCH support the JO'burgpedia project from Wikimedia South Africa with 500 €
Boukary et sa mama (3886281995)
  • WMCH has sponsorized a digital camera in Bamako, Mali to help people making and publishing free licensed medias. This camera is freely borrowable at Jokkolabs Bamako. This initiative helps to get new pictures from Mali https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Medias_supported_by_Jokkolabs_Bamako_-_Digital_Camera and to empower local wikimedians.
    During our Call for projects we received 25 "proposals" by 8 different WMCH members, 3 staff and two Board members. Among the members, 4 had never asked for support before.
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Stabilize infrastructure
  • Increase participation, Improve quality, Increase reach, Encourage innovation
  • Increase participation within the movement, Improve quality, Increase reach
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • WCA
    We prepared the WCA bylaws
    We created a videoconference service available for all everyone in the movement. We use it on a weekly basis and several groups ask to use it. We aim to promote it more in 2014.
    We initiated an exchange group to promote knowledge transfer between chapters and THORGs
  • Support to Wikimedians
    Call for projects 2014:
    We opened a call for project for the 2014 Annual Plan. The Wikimedia CH members and staff were invited to propose two types of projects: Volunteer driven and Staff driven
    The Volunteer driven projects are projects proposed by one, or a group of WMCH members, that require only financial support and basic staff support (standard Community manager support). The Volunteer driven projects should be recognized as useful for the association or the Wikimedia movement, and so it should be a community decision to decide whether or not they should be supported.
    The Staff driven projects are projects proposed by volunteers that require essentially staff work, or proposed by staff themselves. These projects should also be recognized as useful for the association or the Wikimedia movement, and so the community opinion is needed to decide whether or not they should be support. Eventually, the staff driven projects need to be chosen by the Board among the projects supported by the members in order to assure a good distribution of the workload between the staff.
    The proposal period was June 1 to July 31, with a community (WMCH member) review period from July 1st to August 31.
    Support for the community on three different levels: support for projects, support for groups (reunions) and support of individuals
    Support for Projects and like-minded organizations:
    Flyers and Brochures were realized in order to support the Kiwix project http://kiwix.org/wiki/Brochure and distributed during Wikimania.
    Together with WMDE, WMCH launched the idea of the "Chapter's Village" during Wikimania, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimania_2013_Chapters_Village, where chapters and groups could host a booth in order to present their activities and projects. Wikimedia CH had a booth where we presented some of our main project like Kiwix, but also new project to be supported like the Public domain project.
    Wikimedia CH booth
    Support for groups/reunions:
    Wikipedian meetups have been taking place for years in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, mainly in Zurich. Rather new was the planning of a framework activity to most of these reunions. Together with the orgainzers of these Wikipedia meetups, we found a model where WMCH financially supports the visit of cultural institutions as framework program for these Wikipedia meetups. Therefore WMCH supported the visit of the museum at "Theater Stok" in Zurich - and the Wikipedians who attended created an article about this museum, as it didn't yet exist. WMCH is happy to support such visit also in the future.
    Support for Individuals:
    We launched a micro-grant committee to support Wikimedians needing financial support under 500 CHF
    We are founding member of an association that runs a cultural café in Lugano, whose mission it is to promote cultural activities in the Italian-speaking Switzerland and northern Italy. Wikimedia CH will propose regular activities in the café for the community.
    Wikimedia CH resolved to support the Wikimedia Participation Support program with an annual contribution of 5000 $, therefore joining the Participation Support Committee.
    Attract new members to the community
    In order to attract new community members, the community liaison organizied a workshop with Wikip/medians who have held workshops about Wikimedia projects in the past. It was a kick-off meeting among peers, where different possibilities on how to approach potential new contributors to Wikipedia or Commons have been discussed. This meeting allowed us to set up a working group which collaborates and exchanges ideas on how to hold workshops and attract potential new editors/active wikimedians in the future.
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?
  • WCA
    The failure of the WCA has several causes, and even with the dedication of a few people, it's hard to build something like that. Anyway, the WCA initiative strengthened the link between the chapters who were really involved and promoted the benefices of regular communication and know-how exchange. The visible results are in fact not seen under the WCA label, but several initiatives were initiated by the WCA preparation.
    We helped to prepare bylaws for a possible incorporation of the WCA. Even if the WCA will not be incorporated, this work was not too expensive and the results are interesting:
    Bylaws are ready, and could be used in the future if needed
    The preparation work helped to understand the challenges and the benefit of the incorporation
    The interaction with the Canton of Geneva and the CAGI were really positive and will be useful for WMCH in the future
  • Support to Wikimedians
    The call for projects process was not as successful as we expected. We failed to motivate members to apply, the process used suits only to "big" projects. The complexity of the process was also too high for the Board, and only two Board member actually reviewed the proposals.
  • Support foreign Wikimedia entities
  • WMCH activities in Africa have been challenged in 2013 with the political instability in Mali and northern Africa

Any additional details:



Specimen from the Swiss Herbarium of Neuchâtel
What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • Increase the GLAM partnerships, particularly with scientific museums
  • Sharing technical knowledge and competences on technical aspects of GLAM projects
  • About 30'000 digitalizations in Herbarium, 1000 QR codes in 3 botanic gardens in 2013. At least 2 new botanic gardens in 2014
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
The Pénard collection
Amoeba from the Collection Pénard MHNG
  • The partnership with the Invertebrate department of the Geneva Natural History Museum for the digitalization of the Pénard collection of amibes produced 8166 pictures, that need to be curated before upload on Commons. The Pénard project will start again in 2014 with the deployment of the GWToolset.
  • Three libraries started to collaborate with us, two uploads project and an agreement with the Swiss National Library for hosting two Wikipedian in Residence in 2014 (four volunteers and two staff involved in these projects)
    96 images were uploaded in jpg and original tiff quality
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickiana got translated into 25 languages/dialects
    51 images used in 43 language versions of wikipedia and wikimedia projects
    Central library of Solothurn
    1159 Public Domain files from the collection of the ZBS to Wikimedia Commons.
Wide view from Hospital-courtyard over the landscape of the city of Solothurn, in the foreground depicting shepherds and cows as staffage. View from S (point Hospital-courtyard) of the town Solothurn and the surrounding landscape with the cave of Jura. Depiction extremely rich in detail with recognizably of all houses and localities, in the foreground depicting agriculture and vegetable gardening as well as shepherds staffage. Surrounding landscape. In the foreground depicting fields and shepherd staffage

Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Increase participation, Improve quality, Increase reach, Encourage innovation
  • Increase participation, Improve quality, Encourage innovation
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Neuchâtel Herbarium project received a 30'000 CHF donation from the Loterie Romande
  • Swiss National Archives (1 staff, 2 volunteers): Wikipedian in Residence for 6 months, in process
  • Zentralbibliothek Zürich (3 volunteers, 1 staff): total of 40 96 pictures uploaded numbers changed May 2 2014
  • Theater Museum Bern (1 volunteer): March 2013: second meeting; draft project plan
  • University of Bern Library (2 volunteers): cooperation (training sessions) started in Jan 2013
  • Kosciuszko Museum, Solothurn March 2013: guided tour for about 15-20 Wikipedians. The museum might be interested in a content partnership
  • Wikipedian in Residence at the Federal Archives: an interview has been published in the GLAM July newsletter on OUTREACH
  • Participation to the OpenGLAM workshop during the OKCon pre-conference. A roundtable with some of the most active Swiss OpenGLAM actors, library, museum, OpenDATA.CH.
  • Support to the GWToolset: The toolset was granted by WMCH in 2013 and other Wikimedia chapters under the leadership of Europeana. Although many features of the original roadmap were abandoned, the project has achieved to implement the most important one: a Mediawiki extension allowing mass-uploads. On the operation side the project is a success too, the extension is online on http://commons.wikimedia.org. This project, which was experimental in many ways, was very rich in learnings for our movement. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GWToolset
If your entity did not achieve the desired objectives, why not? If it did, what enabled this? If the initiative was not in your plan, why did you pursue it?
  • The herbarium digitization projects were successful and not - both in the same time! The digitization process is currently working very well, for a reasonable price, thanks to the civilian servant, and with a good quality. The bottle neck is the upload, since the beginning of the project, this part has always been defined as a "volunteer work", but with 15Mo per picture, it's not something that can be done from home. We haven't been able to solve the problem as expected, we are now expecting that the GWToolset will be the solution.
  • GLAM fields is complicated, there is a lot of different interest among the potential partners and it's not always easy to be sure that the interest of the Wikimedia Movement are correctly adressed. WMCH took a carful approach in establishing partnership or joining networks.
  • QRcodes project are postponed due to a lack of sufficient impact on the Wikimedia projects. One project will be realized in 2014 and will provide audio description for several Wikipedia articles, but the global project with the botanical gardens is postponed until we find a way to include a significant improvement of the Wikipedia articles. QRpedia project are often welcomed by partners, but from a Movement point of view, just increasing the visibility of Wikipedia is not enough, especially in Europe where Wikipedia is already well-known. We aim to create such partnerships in the future, but with a specific effort to include Wikipedia articles improvement.
  • The pilot project with the ZBZ will not continue for the next time. The main reasons are that, before uploading, the material needs to be prepared: digitize, enter in the catalogue, select. The time estimate is in hours per single image. ZBZ got a 10 MIO CHF funding from the ZH Lottery funds to digitize some of their assets. This, together with the preparations of the 100 years of existence celebrations 2017, take up all resources.
  • Our success in creating contacts with GLAM become a problem: we fear to have an issue with the workload associated with all new partnerships and the available staff and volunteers time. We planned to prepare a "GLAM protocol" that should have provided a set of guidelines to our members about contacting potential new partners. The goal was to avoid that good contacts fail due to a lack of follow-up by the association. In the meantime, most of the members of the association active in promoting GLAM partnerships became aware of the problem, and changed their strategy of GLAM outreach. WMCH and WMCH volunteers expect that the release of the GWToolset will help to solve most of the problems with GLAM partnerships.

Any additional details:

Free content generation[edit]

Free content generation

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • Increase content in the Wikimedia projects, valorization of the volunteer's work and involvement
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
  • On 31 December 2013, there were 11'453 pictures supported by Wikimedia CH on Wikimedia Commons, of which 437 were quality images and 22 featured pictures.
  • The two community managers were hired especially to do the valorization of the volunteer's work and involvement, this aspect is actually reported in the Community Support section
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Increase participation, Improve quality, Increase reach
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
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?
  • Free Content generation is an hybrid program that actually fall into several other program like Community support and GLAM. It make this program hard to evaluate if it's not the first level program (including GLAM for example), we will not pursue with this program as is.
  • The Living tradition program is an important one for the association in term of potential outreach and original content creation, but it also need to involve key partners in Switzerland who cannot be approach without a long term strategy. We finally postponed this project to 2015 in order to make a proper preparation in 2014.
  • The WikiVillage project first planned in 2013 will actually take place in the second part of 2014.

Any additional details:

Support to like-minded associations[edit]

Support to like-minded associations

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • To increase visibility and credibility of the association, To create synergies
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
  • WMCH joined the Opendata.ch association, the Swiss chapter of the Open Knowledge Foundation
  • WMCH financially support the technical development of Wikimini
  • WMCH financially support the realization of a study about Creative Commons licenses and Swiss law
  • WMCH supported the operation RE:PublicDomain
  • We evaluate the potential impact and outcomes to join the two association "Suisse Culture" and "Forum Helvetica"
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Stabilize infrastructure, Increase participation, Increase reach
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Providing financial support to attend the OKCon conference in Geneva in September 2013.
If your entity did not achieve the desired objectives, why not? If it did, what enabled this? If the initiative was not in your plan, why did you pursue it?
  • We actually found no added value to be an official member of OpenData.ch Interaction with members of this association can be done without being part of their association. We actually realize that being part of such association can actually lead to communicate the wrong message that Wikimedia CH may support all of the public positions of Opendata.ch. While we share many values of the OKFN and its chapters, we (Wikimedia community) are not aligned with all their positions.
  • The support to like-minded associations is a program we will not pursue as is, it's the reminiscence of the old Wikimedia CH strategy that was not enough focussed on the impact on Wikimedia projects. We aim to make of Wikimedia CH a chapter 100% dedicated to Wikimedia volunteers. It doesn't mean that we will not continue to support local association, but we will increase the requirement of direct impact on Wikimedia projects, and these supports will eventually fall into the Community support program.

Any additional details:



What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • To increase the adoption of Wikimedia projects by the Academic world, To improve quality by reaching new qualified editors
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
  • We will repeat in 2014 the course for the doctoral program
  • Wikimedia CH conducted its first for-fee intervention in a school with three conferences and two workshops proposed during the New technologies day at the ECG Martigny.
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • To increase the adoption of Wikimedia projects by the Academic world, To improve quality by reaching new qualified editors
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Contacts with the Federal Technology Institute of Lausanne, 1 training day in June for staff (communicator and librarians), participation in Fall in a Day of Free Software
  • Collaboration with the "Semestre de Motivation de Neuchâtel" (Motivation semester for student in school failure), three session animated by Charles, and one only by the teachers. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Projets_p%C3%A9dagogiques/SEMO_(Neuch%C3%A2tel). The same students participated in one afternoon of Wikipedia initiation for seniors
  • Wiki Loves Monuments expedition with youngs in school failure: 8 students make pictures of a monument close to the school cité Suchard,Usine Suchard, for a total of 16 files. The wheather was not good and the number of pictures is then quite low
  • The week after, one young from the previous group taught to a couple of seniors how to upload pictures on Commons for the WLM contest and how to add one of her pictures in a wikipedia article.
  • One course in the doctoral program in organismal biology
  • Diego Hättenschwiler (Hadi) made a presentation and training on Wikipedia for librarians at the BFH in Bern and for lecturers at the Fachhochschule Luzern (University of Applied Sciences in Lucerne).
  • Emmanuel Engelhart led an initiation lesson at the University of Applied Sciences in Yverdon
  • Since 2006, Gabriel Thullen run a project in the Collège des Colombières. In 2013 his work has been rewarded by an article in National Geographic. Project page on Wikipedia
  • Before becoming CSO of Wikimedia CH, Charles Andrès was teaching at the University of Neuchâtel. During one of the project, Unine students realized movies to illustrate the growth of peas plants. The movie has been realized with the camera of the digitization device of the herbarium project.
Pea de-etiolation
  • In November, Muriel and Charles participated to the Oikos conference «How sustainable can the Web-based business be», host by the University of St. Gallen. Charles gave a 45min conference about the Wikipedia business model, and Muriel conducted a 90- minutes workshop.

Ilario Valdelli conducted several lessons at the University of Milan and a presentation of Wikimedia/Wikipedia at a high school in Caserta for a total of 400 students.

Furthermore, in November 2013 a kick-off meeting was organized for Wikipedians & Wikimedians who do Wikipedia-Workshops. The target was to have a group of peers that work on a best-practice workshop-concept and support each other for future workshops. The detailed report about this meeting - as well as documented results - can be found here: https://members.wikimedia.ch/Workshop_Introducing_Wikipedia/de

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?
  • Why we have canceled our EduWiki Conference: Thanks to a very good relation with a professor from the University of St.Gallen - and her interest in participating at the EduWiki Conference - we seized a chance and started to think about hosting the event directly at the University of St.Gallen. A few weeks later, the professor discussed her intent with the University foundation council and got a strong advise against hosting the EduWiki Conference from an emeritus professor. This emeritus professor was a former ETH professor (Swiss federal institute of Technology Zurich) who's apparently familiar with the Wikimedia Movement but very critical in terms of the EduWiki Conference not being well established in the academic community. Due to this negative answer from the emeritus professor, our contact person had no choice but to refuse to host the EduWiki conference. The EduWiki conference was an important part of our budget in Education for 2013, and for us it was a non-sense to take the risk to organize it without the full support of a Swiss University.

Any additional details:

Staff and office[edit]

Staff and office

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • To improve administrative task treatment, free volunteers time, increase donors satisfaction
  • Increase and outreach of projects, increase of chapter's members, member satisfaction, increase of fund raised outside of the movement
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
  • As of 31 December 2013, Wikimedia CH has 387 members, which is an increase of about 66% compared to one year before. Thereof, 115 are supportive members and 19 members represent legal entities. 272 are primarily German-speakers, 105 French-speakers, 22 Italian-speakers and 1 Romansh-speakers. The gender distribution is as follows: 328 male, 59 female.
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • To improve administrative task treatment, free volunteers time, increase donors satisfaction
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Hiring of two C-level staff members : a Chief Administrative officer, Anh Chung, who partially replaces Chantal Ebongué who left us in July, with a more administration-based profile. And a Chief Scientific Officer, Charles Andrès, who is in charge of the GLAMs and academic oontacts, as well as the relational and administrative tasks related to the Wikimedia movement.
  • Contract with Manuel Schneider, CIO (60 % mandate) who was before only volunteer, since 01/01/13. His mandate is to host all or websites and IT support for WMCH and the projects supported by the chapter
  • Hiring of 2 community managers (2 x 50 %).
  • Request for outside funding for a foundation that supports cultural projects for the herbarium project : we got 30'000 CHF of support.
  • The about 2500 2012 donors that needed it received a tax attestation in January
  • The big donors of 2013 received a thank-you letter
  • Our members wiki was really improved and a monthly newsletter is send to all our members
  • We have more than doubled our members between the submission of this FDC application and this impact report
  • We are implementing members, donors, and other needed database in CiviCRM. Is should allow us to better follow members as donors as well as a good monitoring of the Newsletters in 4 languages. example Summer edition and september edition
  • Wikimedia CH is now licensed to host Civilian Service workers. This allows us to hire people for short term contracts with a really low cost, but without "social dumping" as civilian service workers cannot take positions that enter into competition with regular workers (for example no administrative work). For 2013 we are allowed to host two civilian servants at the same time, they will be assigned to digitization project in Neuchâtel and Lausanne.
If your entity did not achieve the desired objectives, why not? If it did, what enabled this? If the initiative was not in your plan, why did you pursue it?
  • the external contractor for accountings is not an efficient method for us. Accounting is not only a question of book keeping, the reporting part is also really important, for that we need that regular staff follow more regularly the accounting process.

Any additional details:

Lessons learned[edit]

Lessons from the past[edit]

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

1. What were your major accomplishments in the past year, and how did you help to achieve movement goals?
  • Community liaison work: even if it's not yet measurable, we already know that recruting two community liaison has been the major accomplishment of the 2013 year. Wikimedia CH took extra care to recruit people that will serve the community, that's also why we prefer to use "community liaison" than "community manager". In Ticino one exemple of Ilario's good work is bringing old wikipedian back in wikipedia and asking support to the association. In the same spirit, Muriel succeed to get an experienced Wikipedian asking for support for the first time to the chapter and another one join WMCH general assembly in 2014.
2. What were your major setbacks in the past year (e.g., programs that were not successful)?
  • The call for project has been disappointing, but we can build on that. In 2012, the call for project process seemed to be efficient, that's why we repeated it in 2013, with some minor improvement like categorization of the proposal, a longer period for community review. But we face a weak participation from members, in all step, few proposals, few comment and few review by the board member. Anyway, the work of the community liaison helped to contact directly the members of the association in order to build an annual plan that match our communities expectation.
3. What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?
  • Previous CAO work, even if Chantal left us after only one year, she build the basis of the association administration, and the new staff hadn't to reinvent everything
  • Community liaison work: having two people dedicated to talk to the communities increase a lot the feedback to the board and the staff, allowing a better understanding of communities wishes.
  • The development of the GWToolset help us a lot to slow down GLAM collaboration and focus on the quality of this collaboration rather than the quantity.
4. What unanticipated challenges did you encounter and how did this affect what you were able to accomplish?
  • The difficulties to integrate people not coming from the wikimedia movement have been harder than anticipated, creating some minor conflicts. People coming from the outside do not know the funding scheme of the Wikimedia movement, and therefore can understand the requirement of impact on the wikimedia projects as a sign of "un-welcoming". On the other hand, this extra focus on Wikimedia project has been welcomed by swiss wikimedians, member or not of the association.
  • When recruited staff, a natural behavior is to start additional projects than the one planed. It was not 100% unanticipated, but the extent of the challenge was bigger expected.
5. What are the 2–3 most important lessons that other entities can learn from your experience? Consider learning from both the programmatic and institutional (what you have learned about professionalizing your entity, if you have done so) points of view.
  • Professionalization can only been done by step, not one staff after another. You definitively need to recruit several peoples at one time to enable work team, but by doing that the HR work increase drastically. It's therefore needed to prepare in parallel of the recruitment process a review of the board capacities and the framework for a good management process. For exemple the staff reporting requirements (size, frequency, format, place) should ideally be defined before the staff start to work.
  • Annual plan cannot be efficiently prepared by a full bottom-up approach. Acting like this will eventually lead to an annual plan than lack coherence. But in the other hand, a wikimedia organization cannot adopt a full top-down approach, you cannot impose to the community the programs, otherwise you will lack both community support and community involvement
  • Mix background in the staff is the key. Our movement is both very original and not so much. We are building something that has not been done before, all based on collaborative works, but in the meantime we are adopting the necessary rules of good governance and accounting, consequently, a Wikimedia organization staff team need a balance between people coming from and outside the movement. But, at the end of the day, the adoption of the movement values is essential, thus "outsiders" should be recruited with that in mind.

Lessons for the future[edit]

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

1. What organisational or program strategies would you continue?
  • We believe the community liaison model is the good one, that's why we will have another step of increase of staff in 2014 with a 0.5 FTE french community manager. We will also recruit a 0.2 FTE administrative assistant as last recruitment (see change section for the rationale). "Last" because it should be the last stable recruitment of WMCH, other positions in the future should be based on external fundings project dependent.
2. What might you change in organisational and program strategies in order to improve the effectiveness of your entity?
  • After looking to others entity programs and discussion with different stakeholders, we decide to defined few but clear programs:
  1. Community Support ("Support to like minded association" and "international" will be included in community support in order to emphasize that WMCH efforts should be always lined with Wikimedia projects and communities.)
  2. Outreach (Education and GLAM will be include in a global "outreach" program to reflect the similarities and then increase the interaction.)
    • GLAM
    • Education
  3. Offline Dissemination
  4. The Alps
  5. Association sustainability
  • We will improved our "call for project" to enable more community members to participate and try to be sure to have an annual plan that reflect as much as possible the community willings.
  • We will abandoned the outsourcing of the accounting due to the following reasons: lack of visibility on the details of the entries between monthly reports, lack of reactivity from the accountant which is outsourced and work only part-time. The way it was set up, it was not complying with our internal control system.
3. Please create at least one learning pattern from your entity's experiences this year and link to it here.
improved learning pattern

Stories of success and challenge[edit]

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

Case study: success: Goods things arrive to those who dare[edit]

Charles Andrès, Wikimedia CH CSO, presenting the Wikimedia business model to students during the 2013 Oikos conference in St. Gallen

On 14 November, Muriel and Charles participated at the Oikos Conference in St Gallen, «How sustainable can the Web-based business be».
Charles gave a 45 minutes speech about the sustainability of the Wikipedia model. He talked about three aspects: having content, readership and incomes, and how they are interconnected. The topic of the conference was the sustainability of web-based business, that’s why he found interesting to include also the challenges about having Wikipedia distribution even in countries with internet problems. All the web-based business only targets countries with a good internet access, and do not care about this problem. It was really interesting to see the students thinking about this.

The reception of the conference was really good, and attendees really participated in the discussion afterwards. Actually, it was a challenge to talk to this type of attendance, as we did not expect that they are aware and interested in the topic. What they told us is that they really enjoyed because it’s not a topic (Wikipedia business model) they usually have in their regular courses. It gave us the opportunity to think freely about the problem and to ask questions without fearing to be totally out of scope. We also heard that students of economics are more and more open to alternative models, and even more, they start to be reluctant to all-for-profit models.

The talk after Charles' one was about investment, and the speaker made some critics about the Wikipedia model, basically saying it cannot work for another 10 years. It was interesting to see that the students in the attendance got offended and took that like an attack against Wikipedia. One of the organizers even came afterwards to apologize. This is a really interesting point. We were not offended by the comment. We think they were accurate, according to a certain standard of economic analysis, but it was really interesting to see that the next generation was thinking that better than condemning, the search for an alternative model would be more efficient.

In the afternoon, we had the opportunity to hold a workshop for 90 minutes and to get involved with students. In a first introduction sesssion, Muriel introduced how to contribute to Wikipedia. In a second step, we split in three groups to work on different challenges: "How to edit Wikipedia", "How to improve diversity on Wikimedia projects" and "What could an alternative financial model look like for Wikimedia"
The group about diversity raised some interesting points:

  • to adress elderly, try to use in-house lessons, to target elderly people who have few mobility and knowledge in informatics
  • Think about delayed editing, people writing for the elder
  • Females are more emotional than males, so the motivation to edit Wikipedia has more chance if it lies in the overall mission «sharing knowledge». The girl who said that also said she never realized that the work she’s doing in class can benefit to someone else in the world, and maybe in areas where educational resources are hard to obtain. Now that she experienced this feeling, she wants to contribute.

The group about about financial model pointed out:

  • That readers may be ready to buy good quality merchandising product if they reflect the Wikipedia spirit
  • There is room for a market for Offline solutions

In the topic about getting new editors, we presented the Visual Editor. Actually the discussion with the students about VE was really constructive. They pointed out that the problem with the Visual Editor is that it doesn't reward the people for their investment, whereas when you succeed to use Wikisyntax, you experience self-satisfaction. We presented our Education programs. The point about the education program was the value of the work, the valorization of the individual work. We used the same point than Rod from the WMF, that normal school assignment has a readership of 1 people, whereas the average readership of a Wikipedia article is 17, and it’s a basic number of articles divided by the numbers of readers, whereas we know that hundreds of thousands articles have no reader. What we were hoping, but not sure we can get it, was that students in the attendance demonstrate a willingness to have an Education program at their university, and it actually works. We had 12 people who joined the workshop in the afternoon, and most of them were really hoping they can put some of their future assignments on Wikipedia. It’s important to point that the goal of an Education program is not to have new individual contributors, it's to increase the quality of the content, and to create the basis for a sustainable income of content. If we succeed to have Wikipedia assignments in all the first years of bachelor studies in Switzerland, we do not care if the student continues to edit Wikipedia, because year after year we will have fresh first year students who will edit Wikipedia, then the turn-over is guaranteed.

Furthermore the students introduced the idea of a "Wiki Coffee", which would be a space for students where they can grab a coffee and work on Wikipedia in company of other students. This idea was very welcomed by all attendees of the workshop. Muriel talked to the oikos board after the workshop and we're now thinking about realizing such a Wiki Coffee this year at the University of St.Gallen.
One common point that has risen both after the conference and during the workshop is the need of external expertise to evaluate the psychology and motivation of the current contributors, in order to identify the patterns that can turn somebody into a new contributor.
The take-home message: Do not hesitate to meet students in fields that are not the obvious target students, they can surprise you!

Case study: challenge[edit]

A chapter's annual plan should be the reflection of the wishes of the Wikimedia communities, but how could you plan a set of activities when the main wish of Wikipedians is to write a Wikipedia article? Obviously this is not an excuse for Wikimedia organizations to not build annual plans or to elaborate strategies, but still we need to respect what the majority of the Wikimedia community members really wants. So, the way to the budget and annual plan for 2014 was a challenging one for Wikimedia CH.

In 2012, we tried to implement a Call for Projects in Switzerland to enable Wikimedians to propose their project in an organized way. Considering that we were starting from scratch, we were really happy with the first Call for Projects. We had 30 project proposals, by more than 10 members. Our annual plan was almost totally done by aggregating the majority of these proposals. That said, our annual plan had the advantage of really reflecting what our community wanted. The mistake, however, was that our plan was really lacking coherence due to random projects, and foremost we hadn't evaluated enough the feasibility of the projects - especially in the case where one volunteer is proposing several projects. The main consequence of the latter was the inability to run some of the suggested projects in 2013.

Between 1 July and 31 August 2013, a second Call for Projects has been open to members. The Call for Projects has been published on the Members wiki earlier than the year before (August/September). In the course of these two months, Charles, who has played an active role in the planning when he was still President, was in the process of being hired as WMCH's first CSO. Mostly with his professional background from university, he managed to work out some guidelines for the CfP that went beyond the previous edition and the projects were presented in a more coherent framework. For example, it has already been mentioned that the proposals were split into volunteer-driven and staff-driven projects, and also thematically grouped into 8 different categories (Education, GLAM, Community, Free Content generation, International, Events, Research, Technology). Project proposals with an amount of under 500 CHF were encouraged, but not for the Call for Projects. For them, the Micro-grants Committee was about to be created in the same period and is now active. According to talks and discussions with our members and the Wikimedia community, this was the type of support that was wished for by the volunteers.

In the end, the call for project 2013 was unfortunately not as successful as expected. The list of proposals was shorter, but had to be looked at in a more detailed way during the commentary period. The reason was that the list of projects considered to be funded had to be ready for the upcoming FDC application around the end of September. Not many Board members took part in the commentary period with their expertise. Patrick, the new President ad interim, has proposed one project himself. He gave inputs on which projects might be useful regarding content and participation. One of the ambitious projects he was fond of was about how to certify continuing education training. Eventually, the projects were put together into 6 programs, to some degree still representing the 8 thematical categories. We're optimistic that this model works fine, but that still needs to be seen in the reporting of this year.

The major setback in 2013 was the lack of participation of WMCH members and the Wikimedia community. To approach the challenge of future involvement of Wikimedia CH members and the Wikimedia community in Switzerland, we had recruited two community liaisons in the meantime: Thanks to them we received several feedbacks and inputs that help us to build a better annual plan for 2014, closer of the Wikimedians' wishes and needs. We will launch the Call for Projects even earlier in the year (April), and search for early inputs about how we should do this call. We will try to find the right balance between "asking the community what they want to do" and "proposing activities to the community". Most of the Wikimedians just want to write articles, and only few, those we sometimes call the "Meta Community", have ideas for "programs" and "projects" at a chapter level. The challenge for a chapter is to help the meta-community members to implement their projects, while still helping the majority of the community to do what they like to do and to facilitate them in their activities.

Bottom line, our annual plan is the activity that states how we will implement our own strategy, how we adopted the movement strategy to our situation and - most of all - what we will do for the movement. It's important to not underestimate its importance - but at the same time it remains a challenge to have an annual plan endorsed by the communities.

Additional learning[edit]

1. What are some of the activities that are happening in your community that are not chapter-led? What are the most successful among these, and why?
  • Several Wikip/media introduction courses are not done under WMCH initiative and are really successful
  • Members meet-ups are mainly organized by the community and not led by the chapter, we just aimed to support them as much as possible
  • The project Edelweiss is really successful.
  • On the french wikipedia, the welcoming of newbies is mainly done by volunteers independently from chapters.
2. Provide any links to any media coverage, blog posts, more detailed reports, more detailed financial information that you haven't already, as well as at least one photograph or video that captures the impact your entity had this past year.


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

1. As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.
  • Canceling of the EduWiki conference
  • replacement of the CAO by a new CAO and a CSO was not planed at the time of the FDC proposal
2. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".
  • yes
3. Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Grant funds as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".
  • yes

Financial information[edit]

1. Report any Grant funds that are unexpended fifteen (15) months after the Effective Date of the Grant Agreement. These funds must be returned to WMF or otherwise transferred or deployed as directed by WMF.
  • N/A
2. Any interest earned on the Grant funds by Grantee will be used by Grantee to support the Mission and Purposes as set out in this Grant Agreement. Please report any interest earned during the reporting period and cumulatively over the duration of the Grant and Grant Agreement.
  • In 2013 we had 106.75 CHF of interest on the account receiving the FDC allocation.


Once complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes. --Charles Andrès (WMCH) 21:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)