Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Deutschland e.V./Progress report form/Q2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Purpose of the report[edit]

This form is for organizations receiving Annual Plan Grants to report on their results to date. For progress reports, the time period for this report will the first 6 months of each grant (e.g. 1 January - 30 June of the current year). For impact reports, the time period for this report will be the full 12 months of this grant, including the period already reported on in the progress report (e.g. 1 January - 31 December of the current year). This form includes four sections, addressing global metrics, program stories, financial information, and compliance. Please contact APG/FDC staff if you have questions about this form, or concerns submitting it by the deadline. After submitting the form, organizations will also meet with APG staff to discuss their progress.

Contents

Global metrics overview - all programs[edit]

We are trying to understand the overall outcomes of the work being funded across our grantees' programs. Please use the table below to let us know how your programs contributed to the Global Metrics. We understand not all Global Metrics will be relevant for all programs, so feel free to put "0" where necessary. For each program include the following table and

  1. Next to each required metric, list the outcome achieved for all of your programs included in your proposal.
  2. Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome.
  3. In addition to the Global Metrics as measures of success for your programs, there is another table format in which you may report on any OTHER relevant measures of your programs success

For more information and a sample, see Global Metrics.

Overall[edit]

Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved
2. # of new editors
3. # of individuals involved
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects


Telling your program stories - all programs[edit]

Please tell the story of each of your programs included in your proposal. This is your chance to tell your story by using any additional metrics (beyond global metrics) that are relevant to your context, beyond the global metrics above. You should be reporting against the targets you set at the beginning of the year throughout the year. We have provided a template here below for you to report against your targets, but you are welcome to include this information in another way. Also, if you decided not to do a program that was included in your proposal or added a program not in the proposal, please explain this change. More resources for storytelling are at the end of this form. Here are some ways to tell your story.

  • We encourage you to share your successes and failures and what you are learning. Please also share why are these successes, failures, or learnings are important in your context. Reference learning patterns or other documentation.
  • Make clear connections between your offline activities and online results, as applicable. For example, explain how your education program activities is leading to quality content on Wikipedia.
  • We encourage you to tell your story in different ways by using videos, sound files, images (photos and infographics, e.g.), compelling quotes, and by linking directly to work you produce. You may highlight outcomes, learning, or metrics this way.
  • We encourage you to continue using dashboards, progress bars, and scorecards that you have used to illustrate your progress in the past, and to report consistently over time.
  • You are welcome to use the table below to report on any metrics or measures relevant to your program. These may or may not include the global metrics you put in the overview section above. You can also share your progress in another way if you do not find a table like this useful.
Target Last year (if applicable) Progress (at end of Q2) End of year (projected or actual) Comments
Example Example Example Example Example

Revenues received during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)[edit]

Please use the exchange rate in your APG 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
A B C D E F G H I J K

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Spending during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)[edit]

Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.

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
A B C D E F G H I J J2 K
TOTAL B C D E F G H I J J2 N/A

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Compliance[edit]

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

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".

Signature[edit]

Once complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes.

Resources[edit]

Resources to plan for measurement[edit]

Resources for storytelling[edit]


Basic entity information[edit]

Table 1

Entity information Legal name of entity Wikimedia Deutschland e. V.
Entity's fiscal year (mm/dd–mm/dd) 01/01-12/31
12 month timeframe of funds awarded (mm/dd/yy-mm/dd/yy) 01/01/13-12/31/13
Contact information (primary) Primary contact name Pavel Richter
Primary contact position in entity Executive Director
Primary contact username User:Pavel Richter (WMDE)
Primary contact email pavel.richter@wikimedia.de
Contact information (secondary) Secondary contact name Kasia Odrozek
Secondary contact position in entity Assistant to the Executive Director
Secondary contact username User:Kasia Odrozek (WMDE)
Secondary contact email kasia.odrozek@wikimedia.de


Overview of this quarter[edit]

The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of this report. Please use no more than 1-2 paragraphs to address the questions outlined below. You will have an opportunity to address these questions in detail elsewhere in this report.

CHANGES: Please describe how you changed your plans and budget based on the FDC allocation approved by the Board in December 2012, and your rationale for these changes. You can then use the changed plans and budget as the basis on which to report back on the first quarter.

HIGHLIGHTS: What were 1–2 important highlights of the past quarter? (These may include successes, challenges, lessons learned.)

  • The planned changes to the community experts’ network and Wikimedia’s cooperation with ZDF (“Fact Check” on the Bundestag election) resulted in intense discussion over the course of several weeks, during which the overall role of the organization was subjected to critical examination. In response, and in order to obtain as many different views as possible from volunteers and association members, we held discussion workshops in various German cities. We will take the feedback into account when drawing up the next annual plan. Although heated debates are not usually classed as highlights, they do at least have the potential to help us examine our work in a self-critical manner and to redefine our program lines.
  • An earlier highlight was the Open Sunday community event, which attracted a large number of people. The BarCamp format was very well received; many volunteers took part and there was plenty of scope for discussion.
  • The Education & Knowledge department's evaluation of the 2010-2012 education formats provided useful information for the planning of future education activities.
  • The GLAM on Tour event at the Braunschweig state museum, which around 20 Wikipedians attended, was a success. It represented an important step in promoting cooperation between the community and cultural institutions on a local level.

WIKI-FOCUS: What Wikimedia projects was your entity focused on (e.g., Wiki Commons, French Wiktionary) this quarter?

  • German-language Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia projects involving the German and European legal areas.

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 partipants reached through workshops)?

  • The membership total grew from 5,292 (1,507 active members and 3,785 sustaining members; as of March 31, 2013) to 6.536 (1.667 active members and 4.869 sustaining members; as of July 1, 2013).

About this document[edit]

The heads of the departments Communities Team, Education and Knowledge, and Politics and Society are responsible for the content of this document. The process that gave rise to the document is described below.

In the light of the collected feedback on the Quarterly Report 1/2013, we made slight changes to the procedure for filling out the form (Evaluation Unit, Communication Unit). In particular, we asked the departments to be bolder in dealing with failures and where possible to provide informative quantitative and qualitative measurements in the activities section. In addition, we changed the process so that this time all departments have used the same form. The aim was to make it easier for departments to refer to and comment on other projects. We also wanted to ensure that the overview of this quarter and the lessons learned sections would be written, weighted, and owned jointly by the department heads. As an aid to filling out the form, we provided guidelines on the language of report writing; as a result, the editing (Communication Unit) was far less time-consuming. After publication of the report (and taking account of feedback first of all from the FDC), the process will be evaluated and further developed in order to improve the quality of the content for the movement and to make the report-drafting process more efficient.

We drew up the content of this document using questionnaires that were sent to all Wikimedia Deutschland department heads. The Politics and Society, Education and Knowledge, and Communities Team departments were given 16 working days to provide the required information. The questionnaires contained the questions from the FDC Progress Report, translated into German. The respective project managers provided information on the special projects Wikidata and RENDER. The Communications Unit provided feedback a week later. We checked that all of the forms had been filled out correctly. The Communications Unit then made some small editorial amendments: answers that did not actually relate to the question were deleted or moved to a different section. In a final step, the Evaluation Unit documented the evolution of the document; the Executive Director then approved the final document and approved it for translation.

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."

Revenues for this quarter[edit]

Exchange rate used: $1.30 = EUR 1

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
Transfers from the Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft (direct donations to WMDE) EUR 1,640,000 1,417,975 0 1,417,975 2,132,000 1,843,367.50
  • The expected amount shows the amount of donations expected at the end of the fundraising period (June 30, 2013); however, the remaining amount received by June 30 will be transferred in the third quarter.
Funds from the FDC EUR 1,400,000 1,376,923 0 1,376,923 1,820,000 1,790,000
Corporate Social Responsibility EUR 75,000 0 0 0 97,500 0
  • Provision for later in the calendar year
Royalties EUR 25,000 0 11,145.84 11,145.84 32,500 14,489.59
  • We expect no further income after the second quarter.
Membership fees EUR 150,000 5,105 276,018.75 281,123.75 195,000 365,460.87
  • The amount is due to a large increase in membership numbers.
Interest EUR 5,000 12.77 (WMDE)
12,147.24 (WMFG)
271.05 (WMDE)
5065.68 (WMFG)
283.82 (WMDE)
17,212.92 (WMFG)
6,500 368.96 (WMDE)
22,376.79 (WMFG)
  • The amount is due to positive trends in interest rates (independently of us).
Third-party funding EUR 200,000 0 0 0 260,000 0
  • We don't expect income in this area.
Wikidata EUR 0 38,216 0 38,216 0 49,680.80
  • A large donation of €150,000 from Yandex has already been promised and was paid in the third quarter.
House of Free Knowledge EUR 600,000 0 0 0 780,000 0
  • No funds were acquired in the second quarter of 2013.
EU Funds TAO EUR 20,000 0 0 0 26,000 0
  • Funds will be received later in the calendar year.
EU Funds for RENDER EUR 75,000 0 0 0 97,500 0
  • Funds will be received later in the calendar year.
Toolserver grants EUR 35,000 10,000 0 10,000 45,500 13,000
  • WMUK has promised €11,000 which will be transferred in the third quarter.
Other EUR 0 2,999 802.25 3,801.25 0 4,941.62

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Spending during this quarter[edit]

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
Administration EUR 395,000 80,887.18 103,780.36 184,667.54 513,500 240,067.80 46.75%
Change of role of the association EUR 15,000 0 3,709.43 3,709.43 19,500 4,822.25 24.73%
  • We expect significantly lower expenditure than planned.
Improved motivation in the communities EUR 80,000 0 0 0 104,000 0 0%
  • See explanation on the objective in the text below. The largest items of expenditure are expected in Q3 and Q4; however, these are still lower than planned and thus lower than the amount budgeted.
Improved support for communities EUR 515,000 67,883.74 37,384.95 105,268.69 669,500 136,849.29 20.44%
  • The largest and as yet unspent item is the Community Projects Budget (CPB). The general assembly in Q2 decided on restructuring which means that the further development of CPB and the related expenditure are therefore still open.
Support structures for new active contributors EUR 100,000 0 0 0 130,000 0 0%
  • Work in Q1 and Q2 mainly consisted of coordination. The project started on schedule in Q3 (see explanatory text below) and thus the expenditure will take place in Q3 and Q4.
Taking reader interests into account EUR 70,000 0 0 0 91,000 0 0%
  • Due to the Article Feedback Tool (which will not be introduced), only personnel expenses have been incurred to date. New projects will be commenced in Q3 and Q4; however, expenditure will be lower than expected.
Diversity concept EUR 60,000 10,140.30 2,050.99 12,191.29 78,000 15,848.67 20.3%
  • The fee payments are pending for Q3 and Q4, as is the expenditure on the Diversity Conference planned for November (Q4).
Encouraging participation EUR 112,000 16,176.89 8,835.06 25,011.95 145,600 32,515.53 22.3%
  • The budget includes the portions of the EU-funded project “Silberwissen” (Silver Knowledge), which will run till September 30, 2013. Numerous fee payments will become due when the project is concluded in Q3. In addition, it was not possible to start the materials development as planned. Efforts will be made to start in the coming quarter (Q3), which will also result in further fee payments.
Linking up OER actors EUR 68,000 802.78 4,832.30 5,635.08 88,400 7,325.60 8.28%
  • The largest expenditures will be made in connection with the OER conference planned for September (Q3, Q4).
Free access to state-owned works EUR 80,000 827.28 3,601.07 4,428.35 104,000 5,756.85 5.53%
  • Experts’ fees will be incurred in Q3 and Q4. Several other events are planned but we expect expenditure to be lower than planned.
Representing our interests at EU level EUR 60,000 1,819.19 4,985.50 6,804.69 78,000 8,846.09 11.34%
  • To date, expenses have been incurred for co-ordination, travel to meetings, and commissioned expert studies (see explanatory text below). Expenditure on fees for a freelancer in Brussels and organizational expenses will be incurred in Q3 and Q4.
Continuing partnerships and identifying new ones EUR 90,000 11,070.29 11,214.39 22,284.68 117,000 28,970.08 24.7%
  • To date, expenses for co-ordination, travel to meetings, and printing have been incurred. Organizational expenses will be incurred in Q3 and Q4; disbursements are largely as planned.
Wikidata EUR 80,000 11,581.28 25,892 37,473.28 104,000 48,715.26 46.8%
RENDER EUR 30,000 3,670.45 3,408.57 7,079.02 39,000 9,202.72 23.5%
Public relations EUR 180,000 5,375.33 18,240.66 23,616.99 234,000 30,700.78 13.12%
  • In total, the budget will be lower than planned.
Fundraising EUR 90,000 (WMDE)
140,000 (WMFG)
2,835.83 (WMDE)
26,016.89 (WMFG)
14,687.48 (WMDE)
68,848.90 (WMFG)
17,523.31 (WMDE)
94,865.79 (WMFG)
117,000 (WMDE)
182,000 (WMFG)
22,780.30 (WMDE)
123,325.52 (WMFG)
19.47% (WMDE)
67.7% (WMFG)
  • The donation receipts were mailed in Q2 (hence the higher expenditure of WMFG); no such activity is planned for Q3 and Q4.
International affairs EUR 275,000 2,530.15 41,919.67 44,449.82 357,500 57,784.76 16.16%
  • The situation of WCA is still not clarified. A portion of the funds went to the Wikimedia Conference and another portion will be shifted to the Chapters Dialogue. However, the level of expenditure in this case will depend on the participation of the individual chapters.
Evaluation EUR 75,000 288.34 4,203.46 4,491.80 97,500 5,839.34 5.98%
  • We expect considerably lower cost of materials than planned; however, expenditure on software is also planned.
Monitoring & controlling EUR 15,000 0 0 0 19,500 0 0%
  • This department has not developed even though it was planned, so it is unclear as to whether funds will still be required.
Event management EUR 30,000 0 1,562.34 1,562.34 39,000 2,031.04 5.20%
House of Free Knowledge EUR 550,000 512 882.13 1,394.13 715,000 1,812.36 0.25%
  • The future of the project is unclear but the related budget will probably be adjusted to actual situation.
Supervisory Board EUR 90,000 17,189.68 22,875.81 40,065.49 117,000 52,085.13 44.5%
Personnel costs EUR 2,600,000 (WMDE)
140,000 (WMFG)
513,999.10 (WMDE)
34,911.39 (WMFG)
481,574.79 (WMDE)
33,397.10 (WMFG)
995,573.89 (WMDE)
68,308.49 (WMFG)
3,380,000 (WMDE)
182,000 (WMFG)
1,294,246.05 (WMDE)
88,801.03 (WMFG)
38.29% (WMDE)
48.79% (WMFG)

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Comments on the finances section

1. In accordance with the guidelines of FDC staff from the last report (Q1), we have now reported expenditure for goals/programs as listed in the proposal instead of departmental expenditure. In addition, we have included expenditure for the administrative departments separately in order to cover all expenditure.

In order to make the Q1 and Q2 reports comparable, we have also adjusted the presentation of expenditure for Q1 accordingly. Some items now deviate slightly from the sums reported in Q1. These deviations are due, in particular, to the delays inherent in accounting and the allocation of the costs of the Communication Unit:

  • In the last report we estimated expenditure for March based on internal controlling, as not all items had been recorded and booked for Q1 when the Q1 report was produced.
  • The costs of the Communication Unit that can be allocated to the goals have now been rebooked to those goals.

The Q1 figures are now complete. Starting with the Q2 report, we will use the following procedure: We will report the figures available from the Accounting Department at the time the report is produced; we will then correct the information retrospectively in the next quarterly report should there be any discrepancies due to subsequent accounting. However, we expressly state that we do not expect any major discrepancies, as only a booking period of approximately two weeks needs to be added, as well as any invoices that are submitted late.

2. An interim budget will be prepared and submitted to the Supervisory Board in Q3. The interim budget will present any necessary budget adjustments resulting from Q1 and Q2.


Progress toward this year's goals/objectives[edit]

This section addresses the impact of the programs / initiatives* and objectives your entity has implemented over the past quarter and the progress your entity is making toward meeting this year's goals. We understand that some metrics may not be applicable in this quarterly report, so please add metrics here if they are applicable.

*In the last round, the FDC used the term 'initiative', but this round, we are using the term 'program.'

Program 1: Wikimedia Deutschland will simplify and improve cooperation with and within the communities on a permanent basis to increase participation and motivation within the projects.[edit]

Change of role (Communities Team)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Take a new and more active role in debates and support decision-making processes (we help define themes, disseminate facts, and objectively and regularly reassess our own position.)
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • We generated cooperation with the communities mainly through open dialogue during which we welcomed criticism. This made it possible to take on board various community members’ ideas and wishes, which will be incorporated into cooperation on projects in the next few months. We came closer to achieving our goal of a better communication climate.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: VisualEditor: 3; Tacheles Tour: 27 offline, another 10 online; Article Feedback Tool: approx. 10
    • Paid staff: 0.75 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • Support for the pilot of the Article Feedback Tool in German Wikipedia ended with the opinion poll from the middle of July. WMDE had already withdrawn before this, after contact between the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and the community had, as hoped, become increasingly independent. Feedback was collected using a survey. Wiktionary continues to be interested in introducing the tool; this should be technically feasible in the summer.
  • Introduction of the VisualEditor in the German language version of Wikipedia is being supported; this has been rated positively by the community so far. During the reporting quarter, more than 100 feedback messages on this subject were answered and communicated.
  • The Tacheles Tour by the Supervisory Board, Executive Director, and staff took place in Munich, Cologne, and Frankfurt am Main (as well as online) and resulted in an extended dialogue with feedback and comments from the communities on WMDE’s role and position. Twenty-seven community members attended the meetings, with about a further 10 people participating online.
What worked and what did not?
  • Support for the introduction of the VisualEditor has worked well. Cooperation with the WMF and the community has also developed well, as we supported the introduction of a tool of this sort for the first time. The feedback was very positive.
  • The Tacheles Tour mentioned earlier in this document received a wide range of feedback and evaluation. Participants in the three locations gave verdicts that were sometimes positive and sometime negative. Openness was welcomed, but consensus on issues such as the community experts’ network, the moving of the Toolserver to Wikimedia Labs, and the ZDF “Fact Check” was not always achieved. The key point for WMDE is that feedback must be taken into account in future cooperation with the community. This begins when activities are planned – long before the actual communication.

Any additional details:


Changing the working climate (Communities Team)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Increase motivation within communities (the motivation of participants increases significantly.)
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • -
Activities conducted.
  • To provide space for community activities on this topic, some of the association’s activities were deferred to Q3/Q4.
What worked and what did not?
  • -


Changing support mechanisms (Communities Team)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Provide even better support for volunteers (greater number of volunteers use our support structures and have received positive feedback for their contributions.)
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • We can assume that the support programs have been well received, since after a three-year gap there has been a meeting of the mentors of the German language Wikipedia, the arbitration panel meets twice a year, a new meeting of administrators is planned for 2014, and various active contributors regularly make use of the support offered.
  • As a result of the appointment of two student employees, the Communities Team can now be contacted at all times during working days and volunteers can expect an immediate reply to simple queries. More complicated queries are dealt with within three to five working days. Some parts of the community perceive this as a significant improvement.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: All events supported by the Communities Team were led by volunteers. More than 20 people have been involved in this capacity in addition to the participants.
    • Paid staff: 1.4 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • We provided financial and organization support to 71 volunteers on 14 activities ranging from photographic documentation of a sporting event to a GLAM meeting with museums. We gave seven Wikipedians e-mail addresses and business cards for their voluntary work and helped six people with accreditation.
  • A general rule for meetings was introduced in April: payment of additional meal costs for everyone. This standard rule was changed again in June to types of support that are more appropriate to needs (such as catering).
  • Since July 1, 2013 there has been liability and accident insurance for events organized by and for the community. This insurance protects both participants and organizers, regardless of whether the event involved is a group excursion, the annual meeting of an editing team, a workshop on a particular topic, or a completely different special event. The insurance covers a maximum of 50 events involving a maximum of 1,500 participants, and volunteers must register in advance. So far five events/organizers have registered and 97 people have been insured.
  • Support:
    • Festival summer: 31 music festivals, 23 different participants, one organizer, two supporters. Result: 3,780 photos of more than 100 bands at festivals (only a small percentage of all the photos taken. After the festival season, more images will be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons).
    • State parliament (Landtag) project: one organizer, visits to three state parliaments with 15, 14 and nine participants respectively, + nine school student photography clubs. Result: 2,983 photos of approx. 200 Landtag members (908 from Lower Saxony, 930 from Baden-Württemberg, 1,145 from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania).
    • Other support in detail: Wikimedia Deutschland/Community-Budget
What worked and what did not?
  • The rule on additional meal costs, in particular the method of calculating them, turned out to be too complicated for the volunteers and was therefore made optional.


Program 2: Wikimedia Deutschland will increase the diversity of knowledge in Wikimedia projects to enable adequate representation of different perspectives in the projects.[edit]

Changes for new Wikimedians (Communities Team)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Provide attractive support mechanisms to encourage new Wikimedians to stay on board (support structures encourage more Wikipedians to remain involved in the projects).
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • During the second quarter, we worked on the organization of meetings/workshops to develop local contact points. We have not yet addressed any new contributors directly in this work. However, the activities conducted to date have had a positive impact on current Wikipedians’ motivation. In the future, they want to actively contact new authors in their local region. For this purpose, they are setting up local support structures with the help of the association. These structures will provide easier and longer-term support to new contributors, who get involved with Wikipedia as a result of local activities.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: Main organizers from the local communities: 12 (1 x Cologne + 4 supporters, 3 x Hamburg, 1 x Bremen, 3 x Munich), and interest from 15 other people. During the next quarter we will see how many people actually get involved in the implementation.
    • Paid staff: 0.2 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • We have organized a workshop on local work in Cologne. So far, 14 people have registered for this event. We also started pooling all information and support structures so that we could do preparatory work in various cities (Hamburg, Cologne, Munich, and Bremen) during the second quarter.
  • The overall approach consists of two levels. We are initially working with local contributors to expand our existing support structures and develop new ones. These will then form the basis for the new support structures for new contributors to be tested in the third and fourth quarters.

We were able to hire additional staff for the WMDE office at the end of the second quarter. As a result, we now have and use more resources and expertise in our activities.

What worked and what did not?
  • We worked well with local actors who were already fundamentally interested in local contact points. These individuals take the lead on developing specific local structures. The association helps them when they need support with specific tasks. As a result, the local activities are dovetailed with the relevant regional actors. The help provided by the WMDE office takes the form of non-bureaucratic support, knowledge transfer, and the establishment of networks between local actors in various locations. The contact persons set up information services in WP:<Region>-Name. This information differs from region to region. Experience has shown that the local contact persons are generally active contributors who are already involved in a large number of projects. We need to decide how we can make sure that these individuals are not taking on too much work.

Any additional details:

Changes for diversity (Education and Knowledge)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Provide attractive support mechanisms to encourage new Wikimedians to stay on board (support structures encourage more Wikipedians to remain involved in the projects).
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The development of the diversity concept is based on an amalgamation of all of the knowledge and ideas acquired so far, also including studies and discussions on an international level. Using this information, we were able to identify preliminary fields of action, which we will discuss with the communities during the coming quarter in order to develop concrete initial measures where appropriate.
  • We were able to get the communities involved by holding a workshop. On the basis of our experience, we can develop further open innovation formats to get the different Wikimedia communities involved in the development of the diversity concept in a variety of ways.
  • The development of multimedia learning, teaching, and information services for Wikipedia during the series of events at Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin facilitated the transfer of (gender) expertise. The concepts will be analyzed and evaluated at a later stage.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: 25 volunteers attended the workshop on diversity and quality. Surveys/interviews: around 60 Wikipedians. Our partner organization Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin conducted structured interviews with eight Wikipedians as part of the analysis.
    • Paid staff: Education and Knowledge Department: 0.7 FTE; Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin: 0.4 FTE.
Activities conducted.
  • The first part of the concept was concluded, that is, a survey of the current situation, systematic processing of what we currently know about the gender gap in Wikipedia, and a draft of potential fields of action aimed at improving gender diversity. To this end, we evaluated studies, analyzed best practices, and conducted community surveys.
  • We also held a workshop at the WMDE office to discuss gender diversity and quality. Twenty-five people attended this event.
  • A series of events on media didactics and concepts took place at Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin. Eight project teams (23 students) developed concepts on multimedia learning and information services for Wikipedia. The focus of the concepts was on giving and receiving feedback, conflict resolution in Wikipedia, and gender diversity.
What worked and what did not?
  • Drafting the analysis and recommendations for action (part 1 of the diversity concept) involved a greater need for coordination between WMDE and its partner organization, Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin. This coordination mainly concerned the language used in the concept. The challenge is to translate academic language into terms that can be understood by the general public. This is the only way that theoretical concepts on diversity and Wikipedia, as well as on gender and Wikipedia, can be presented to a wider audience.

Any additional details:

  • Blog article: "Workshop: Can you have quality without diversity?"
  • Planning page on Wikimedia’s Diversity Conference:
  • In the future, we should not talk about diversity in general when we mean gender diversity. The communities and other interested parties are critical of the fact that the general use of this term conceals other types of exclusion. WMDE’s activities in 2013 are aimed at gender diversity. In addition, the aim of developing a diversity concept is to draw up a method for reaching other under-represented groups. We should ensure that we use the term more precisely in future publications, discussions, and so on than we have done so far.


Changing participation (Education and Knowledge)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Develop a range of offers that will encourage a wider variety of groups to participate (many new formats have been tried out and the successful ones will be replicated on a wider scale).
  • Project: DE.WP, Wikimedia Commons, other Wikimedia projects
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The collaborative production, publication, and communication of the report changed the way that we work with the part of the community that had previously conducted education activities. A self-steered group of volunteer Wikipedians was formed out of a formerly steered group. These people will continue work on some of the previous programs as an autonomous volunteer group.
  • The recommendations for action in the report describe what our work in the education sector will focus on in the future: (1) We need to revise the structures of our educational services in line with specific target groups and to connect online and offline structures; (2) we need to establish quality assurance mechanisms on various levels; (3) we need to further develop the combination of voluntary work and structured educational activities; (4) we should develop professional teaching and learning materials for a very wide range of contexts; (5) we should ensure that our partners are included in conceptual work over the long term. The evaluation helped us to focus our work and develop new approaches ranging from the new real-life formats for new target groups to local networks.
  • The evaluation showed that there is an urgent need for materials. In cooperation with the EU initiative Klicksafe, we produced teaching materials that give teachers concrete ideas on how they can use Wikipedia in class. This allows us to reach new target groups and to integrate Wikimedia projects in class on a large scale.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: the number of volunteers involved consists of around 20 volunteers from the Wikipedia communities and association members who have actively participated in the change process by joining discussions and taking part in talks.
    • Number of people who attended the events: 135
    • 2.4 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • During the last quarter, we published an evaluation of and critical thinking on our educational activities to date – a 22-page report. The final part of the report describes six fields of action that outline the future focus of our work in education. We also held a transfer workshop, which was attended by around 20 active community members.
  • We also held several workshops on diversity – our major topic – during the past quarter. All of these events focused on women and Wikipedia. Twenty-five active female bloggers met in Hamburg. We held two sessions on diversity in action during a workshop at the GIZ summer academy. Twenty-five people attended. As part of our goal of encouraging older people to get involved, we held nine workshops in Cottbus and Munich at which we taught 30 older people about Wikipedia. In addition, we took part in two specialist events on women’s online participation on the internet where we gave talks on forms of (self-) regulation in Wikipedia and the shaping of knowledge production in Wikipedia. The audience comprised 35 women. For the first time, we held a meeting at our office in Berlin in cooperation with Mozilla for some 20 people who are active in the education sector. The participants discussed the links between learning and technology.
  • During the past quarter, the Education and Knowledge Department revised the information about Wikipedia on the website of its partner organization, the EU initiative klicksafe. We also completed the teaching materials on Wikipedia in the classroom (around 60 pages). The aim is to publish this material during the third quarter. We held two meetings on this topic with the actors involved and the community.
What worked and what did not?
  • We evaluated our activities to date with the aim of developing new formats. This evaluation produced important results and led us to redefine our activities. However, these changes caused confusion and disappointment among the community members who identified strongly with the previous activities. The conflict management proved time-consuming and as a result, we were not able to work on planning new education formats as much as we had wanted. In the future, we should allow more time for communication, discussion, and participation in change processes that affect our communities.
  • One positive outcome at the end of this difficult process was that the community members who were active in the education sector are continuing part of their previous activities as a self-organized group.
  • Women Edit is a first new format. Tests have shown that it is a promising format. It links the digital world with real-life contact and is specially tailored to women. It will be extended to other cities in the next quarter. Regarding the establishment of further formats, the inclusion of the experiences of other chapters has not worked well so far, as the necessary structures have not yet been set up.
  • We need to pay closer attention to changes in how we work with volunteers. Such changes should always provide concrete options for volunteer involvement.

Any additional details:

Link to the report (in English):


Program 3: Wikimedia Deutschland will enable readers to bring their personal perspective into the Wikimedia projects.[edit]

Changes for readers (Communities Team)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Our objective is to collect data on reader interests and to ensure these interests are being heard in Wikimedia projects (we gather and process information on reader interests and regularly bring our findings into the communities).
  • Project: DE.WP
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • Although AFT was rejected by the majority, there was recognition that feedback from readers is not only appreciated as praise and motivation, but that it should also be considered valuable for improving quality.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: Around 10 volunteers were involved in the Article Feedback Tool (AFT) and 155 Wikipedians contributed to the collective opinion.
    • Paid staff: 0.2 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • A poll during the AFT pilot phase took place, in which people were made aware of the various feedback options for readers.
  • We are currently looking for volunteers to carry out a meta-study on the topic of Wikipedia readers and their interests.
What worked and what did not?
  • Even though the AFT has been rejected, the community is still fundamentally interested in feedback. The German-language Wikiversity would like to use AFT as soon as it can be made available.

Any additional details:


Program 4: Wikimedia Deutschland will form new cooperations to establish the concept of free knowledge on a broader basis.[edit]

Changes in the educational sphere (Education and Knowledge)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Link up players to make free knowledge a reality in the area of education (free educational content is on the agenda of key actors in school education and the first pilot schemes have been tested).
  • Project: General
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The targeted approach of supporters, partners, participants and networks brought us closer to the planned goal of making stakeholders from the education sector aware of the topic of OER. The network of partners and supporters of the conference play an important role in this effort. The collaborative planning of the conference generated new ideas and first concrete pilot schemes. One example is the idea of a teacher training on OER. Additionally, the joint collection of a large contact database of OER stakeholders will be very useful for future model projects.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: 60 volunteers involved, including around 14 partners and supporters of the OER conference and 50 participants who have made submissions for the conference program, as well as the review team for the program. Additionally, because of the focus on open educational resources (OER), 5 participants from the Wikiversity project were involved.
    • Paid staff: 0.4 FTE (Education and Knowledge Department) and 0.5 FTE external
Activities conducted.
  • In the last quarter, we focused on the acquisition of five partners (Creative Commons, the Berlin-Brandenburg Broadcasting Media Authority, the Co:llaboratory, and the Werkstatt (studio) of the Federal Agency for Civic Education) and nine supporters (see website) for the OER conference. We started on the detailed and overall program planning for the conference, started a call for participation and drafted a detailed schedule in collaboration with the program team and the partners.
What worked and what did not?
  • WMDE’s work in this new field brings it into contact with many new participants in the field of “Open Educational Resources.” These new partners are an asset to the substantive work of the association.
  • The networking concept of the whole project is also reflected in the organization of the conference. We are working with new collaborative tools and in flexible multi-disciplinary teams. Such collaborative event planning is, however, very time-consuming and this extra time must be scheduled in.
  • The targeted outreach to participants from the area of education was achieved by selecting partners who communicate in their networks and invite other participants. However, this makes it difficult to measure and plan the impact of our own work. Preliminary pilot schemes have already resulted from the support of a partner which has its own funding priority for Open Educational Resources that will in turn feed into the conference program. Experts involved in the call for participation are now also exchanging ideas with us regarding upcoming projects.

Any additional details:


Changes for state-owned works (Politics and Society)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Use our political lobbies to make state-owned works freely accessible for use (our own regulatory proposal for the use of state-owned works attracts the attention and support of the general public).
  • Project: Wikimedia Commons
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • There is currently no large-scale empirical study of the current degree of openness of German regional authorities. We are creating this data layer with the selection of the questions and the programming work for the purpose of recording responses. In doing so, we will ensure that citizens, NGOs and local authorities themselves are working on a more open approach to state-owned works.
  • Staff:
    • Paid staff: Workshop in Berlin on the survey matrix of the Digital Openness Index on April 4, 2013 with 9 representatives of our partners. Politics and Society Department: 0.8 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • While the regulatory proposal concerning the copyright status of public works is still being modified, the Politics and Society Department has increasingly focused on the conditions for access to public works in the last quarter. The project Digital Openness Index is focused on collaborating with partners from academia and civil society to measure and compare the degree of openness displayed by local authorities and federal states in the German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland). Questionnaires on five topics (open government data, open education, open policies, open source software, and open infrastructure) were developed in workshops and through peer review. These will be submitted to a selection of local authorities and federal states.

The results of this study will be published within the course of the year and will help to map the current situation in the German-speaking countries and to provide incentives for citizen participation and free knowledge in public institutions.

What worked and what did not?
  • Cooperation with like-minded organizations such as Digitale Allmend (CH), Freie Netzte/Freies Wissen (Free Networks/Free Knowledge) (AT) and Open Knowledge Foundation Germany has proved to be productive. We managed to draw up the questions and evaluation criteria for the survey tool in a collaborative process.

Any additional details:


Changes at the European level (Politics and Society)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Establish the preconditions to represent our interests at EU level (in cooperation with partners, we succeed in developing and implementing a sustainably funded model that guarantees our presence at EU level).
  • Project: Meta-Wiki as a platform for discussion and all Wikimedia projects relating to European legal area
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • While the first quarter served primarily to provide a working basis for the Roadmap to Brussels project on Meta-Wiki, the second quarter saw the first concrete agreements with Wikimedians from various European countries concerning the establishment of an international and openly accessible working structure.
  • As a first step, the working group that has been set up will improve the monitoring of ongoing EU initiatives and will supply the entire Wikimedia network with information on a regular basis. The professional NGO work of European Digital Rights and our “Wikimedian in Brussels” will assist us in this by serving as a local point of contact.
  • In the third quarter of 2013, we will focus additionally on gathering information on the identified “core issues” (government works, orphan works, freedom of panorama) and on presenting opportunities for the communities to participate (e.g. in a session during Wikimania) .
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers: eight (as active participants of the Brussels meeting), 20 other volunteers as commentators on mailing list “wikimedia-l” or e-mail.
    • Full-time staff: Politics and Society Department: 0.2 FTE
Activities conducted.
  • At the kick-off meeting in Brussels from April 5-7, a total of 11 Wikimedians from several European chapters discussed the central challenges for advocacy at the EU level.
  • At the Milan Chapter Conference from April 18-21, the project Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU (working title) was presented by Nikolas Becker, WMDE Supervisory Board Member, and discussed with chapter and WMF representatives.
  • The first EU Policy Monitoring Report was published on the “advocacy-l” and “wikimedia-l” mailing lists on May 29 and will now be continued on a monthly basis.
  • Dimitar Dimitrov was appointed by WMDE as “Wikimedian in Brussels”. He will act as a local contact for European chapters and the WMF, produce tools to monitor the legislative agenda and cultivate initial contacts with EU institutions.
What worked and what did not?
  • The work of user:dimi_z was vital for the substantive preparatory work and organization of the Brussels meeting. The response to our invitation to Brussels was, however, not satisfactory. One possible reason could have been that some Wikimedians’ time was tied up in the chapters meeting held two weeks later. The meeting was nevertheless a hopeful beginning for a new collaborative working structure that will benefit the whole movement. A key finding is that a very high degree of transparency and communication with many different stakeholders (volunteers, chapters, WMDE) will be necessary.
  • From the Milan conference, which dealt with several issues as expected, we learned first and foremost that a new participation offer such as the “Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU” must be repeated through as many channels as possible and at every possible opportunity. The meta-wiki has so far proven to be insufficient as the only platform for this kind of activity, we will therefore be focusing more on push information via the advocacy mailing list, for example.

Any additional details:


Changes in partnerships (Politics and Society)
What are the objectives of this program? Please include metrics.
  • Continue our partnerships in the cultural sector and find new fields in which we can effectively demonstrate the benefits of free knowledge (new partnerships come about as a result of direct inquiries from our association and there is demand for our consulting activities).
  • Projects: DE.WP, Wikimedia Commons, Tool Server and WMF labs
Progress against these objectives (include metrics and # of volunteers/staff involved)?
  • The inquiries we have received from many cultural institutions, such as museums and research institutes, show a high degree of openness towards and basic interest in cooperation projects. It became apparent, however, that the work in the GLAM sector requires intensive discussions and explanations with the Wikipedia communities and the cultural institutions. Especially the communication of the project objectives in the GLAM sector to the communities must not fall behind communication with the public. When it comes to future measures, Potential project participants should be addressed in advance. Such an approach should focus more on targeting and encouraging local Wikipedians who are already active in cultural institutions to independently initiate GLAM collaborations.
  • The approach of establishing cultural partnerships that act as a model for further collaborations, came to fruition in the collaboration with ZDF. Coverage of the cooperation with the German Archaeological Institute (DAI), had exactly this effect, prompting the ZDF to approach the Politics & Society Department to suggest a new form of cooperation for the ZDF “Fact Check” Format.
  • Staff:
    • Volunteers:
      • ZDF “Fact Check”: Well over 100 volunteers have been involved, some very intensively, in discussions on the introduction of the measure. Since the start of the project on May 13, ten Wikipedians are known to be among the regular participants of the ZDF “Fact Check”.
      • Braunschweig (Brunswick), Germany: A volunteer for on-site preparation, 20 volunteers as participants in the program (editathon, excursion), 30-40 guests of the Wikipedia lecture and workshops.
    • Paid staff: 1.5 FTE from the Politics and Society Department
Activities conducted.
  • Wikipedians and academics from various institutions worked together to draw up the limes map, a dynamic, interactive map of the Roman limes. This will form the basis for the appealing application of digitized data and their link to Wikipedia content. The limes map project was presented at this year’s GLAM Conference in London (see FDC Q1 2013).
  • As part of a collaborative project with ZDF, a Wikipedian in residence was deployed for five months as part of the pilot project ZDF “Fact Check”. On the new ZDF online platform, statements from politicians are checked for accuracy collaboratively by the online community. The resulting content such as infographics, videos, and texts will be published under CC-BY licenses for the first time.
  • An updated version of the German GLAM brochure (Din A4, 20 pages) aimed specifically at cultural institutions has been published.
  • The first GLAM-on-Tour event was held in Braunschweig, Germany, in conjunction with the federal state exhibition “The Romans are coming!” of the Braunschweig state museum. Wikipedians interested in culture got a weekend-long sneak peek at the exhibition and met with employees of the museum in connection with the aim of establishing a local and sustainable structure for cooperation.
  • In June, we published the English-language edition of our brochure on the risks and secondary effects of non-commercial licensing clauses. A printed version will be distributed to English-speaking users in the coming months (also on Wikimania).
What worked and what did not?
  • The limes map can be presented well but cannot yet be included in Wikimedia projects. The limited capacity of the Toolserver is a technical barrier stopping the further use of the map in Wikipedia. It is not yet possible to integrate Open Street Map- based maps into Wikipedia, but this is essential to ensure the sustainability of the measure.
  • The cooperation with ZDF is based on the good reputation of Wikipedia, which, like ZDF “Fact Check”, is based on well-founded statements. For this reason, Wikipedians in particular are invited to participate in checking the facts in the upcoming parliamentary elections. The discussion on the project in advance was controversial and surprised us in its intensity. Nonetheless, the criticism of the project also reveals an opportunity. In the medium term it could contribute to rebalancing the relationship between “community-driven” projects and “association-driven” projects.

With the GLAM brochure we now have a means of communication for addressing cultural institutions; with the integrated self-test “What are you doing with Wikipedia?” GLAMs can better identify their own needs for information.

  • Initiated by local Wikipedians and prepared together with WMDE, the GLAM-on-Tour event, “The Wikipedians are coming!", in Braunschweig was an important step towards promoting the establishment of sustainable cooperation structures nationwide through regional events. The combination of various event sections (editathon, excursion, musketeer meeting etc.) was an attractive opportunity for 50 volunteers and other interested people. The intensive organization and good communication with the participating volunteers was very helpful. More GLAM-on-Tour events are planned.

Any additional details: 1. Links to the presentation of the Limes map project and GLAM conference in London:

2. Links to ZDF fact check

3. Links for GLAM brochures

4. Links to the GLAM on Tour in Braunschweighttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Die_R%C3%B6mer_kommen!/Dokumentation


Special programs[edit]

Wikidata[edit]

In the second quarter, all Wikipedias enabled access to the data on Wikidata. Two new types of data for entering time and coordinates into Wikidata were also introduced, resulting in over 300,000 times and coordinates being entered just a short time later. The Wikidata community continued its rapid growth in Q2 2013, with between 10 and 15 million edits per month.

A roadmap of the next steps that need to be taken to develop Wikidata has been drawn up. The next quarter will see the addition of more export formats and links as a data type, as well as the possibility of carrying out simple requests in Wikidata. By the end of the year, it will be possible to sort and rank Wikidata entries (to mark them, for example, as outdated), and make more complex requests.

Additional information

RENDER[edit]

In the second quarter, the RENDER project team worked on the final versions of the support tools as part of the EU project. They incorporated the results of the first tests and the feedback and suggestions that were collected during the cities tour in the first quarter. All the software developments for the project were successfully relocated to Wikimedia Labs.

Additional Information

Lessons learned[edit]

Lessons from this quarter[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 from entities who receive funds, and to share these lessons across the movement. The purpose of this section is to elicit some of these insights, which will be shared throughout the movement. Please answer the following questions in 1–2 paragraphs each.

What were your major accomplishments in the past quarter, and how did you help to achieve movement goals?

  • A large number of issues relating to the Wikimedia movement – some of them controversial – were discussed at the Open Sunday community event. For example, the question of the relationship between gender diversity and quality was raised and it became clear that there is a great deal of interest in the issues involved in this topic.
  • The community values the association’s chairing of the discussion on communication issues relating to the paid editing project (Dirk Franke, Community Projects Budget - CPB); the support for the development of Wikidata and the introduction of the VisualEditor (Lydia Pintscher); and the Article Feedback Tool pilot (Denis Barthel). Discussion on these topics was more conflict-free and constructive and yielded useful results.
  • ZDF “Fact Check”: the cooperation with Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) represents the first time in Germany that a public television broadcaster financed by license fees has contractually undertaken to publish research findings and finished content under CC-BY and to make them available for download in its media center. The impact of this step should not be underestimated, since other public broadcasters may base their own licensing policy on it. However, the Wikipedia community severely criticized the launch of the project for various reasons

What were your major setbacks in the past quarter (e.g., programs that were not successful)?

  • The ZDF “Fact Check” project (details: Changes in partnerships) aroused a great deal of controversy in the German Wikipedia community. Criticism focused mainly on the fact that Wikipedians should not be used to meet the needs of a public television broadcaster. The use of the term “Wikipedia” in connection with a non-encyclopedia project gave rise to widespread skepticism and a feeling of having been co-opted. The Politics and Society Department did not sound out the mood of the community prior to the project launch. This poor communication was exacerbated by the fact that a press release about the cooperation issued by the association did not take the loud criticism on board and continued to use the phrase that had been criticized (“in the name of Wikipedia.”) This gave the impression that the association was ignoring the concerns of volunteers. In hindsight, however, one of the reasons for the vehemence of some of the criticism may have been was that there was no clear project schedule at the start. A hastily prepared Q&A about the project did not entirely remove the doubts.

What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?

  • All real-life formats repeatedly turn out to be the backbone of the Wikimedia projects. They also provide the basis of online communication. Promotion of open and participatory formats is a key aspect of WMDE’s work and is important in all projects.

What unanticipated challenges did you encounter and how did this affect what you were able to accomplish?

  • If it is unclear who the contact persons are, or if it is not evident where financial and/or organizational support begins and ends, this has a negative impact on collaboration with the community.
  • Volunteers have not always been appropriately included in content-related changes, such as changes to the community experts’ network. This had led to confusion, disappointment, and rejection among community members who have made a major contribution to the association’s educational activities. There has been criticism on the grounds that paid staff and volunteers talk a different language and that there are too few opportunities for dialogue (e.g. real-life meetings) and for direct involvement in change processes.

What changes might you make in executing your initiatives into the next quarter?

  • It must be possible to involve volunteers at an early stage. In the future, we need to include flexible opportunities for feedback and participation without anticipating the outcome beforehand. It is also apparent that different groups of volunteers expect different forms of participation. What is offered must reflect their individual needs.
  • To enable participation in all projects, the future emphasis must be on communicating a comprehensible and transparent project plan.
  • In the pilot phase of the ZDF online platform, a “Wikipedian in Residence” (Tim Moritz Hector) is working as the liaison between the broadcasting organization and the Wikipedia community. He was able to allay some concerns on the part of the community and is the contact person for anyone who would like to get involved in the format because they find it interesting. For future projects, however, we shall undertake more extensive communication so that projects that rely heavily on volunteer involvement can be discussed right from the start. This can give rise to a shared understanding – for example of what helps to counteract the impression of the community being co-opted and of an ownership debate.

Additional information[edit]

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).

Compliance[edit]

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

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".

  • Yes

Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Grant funds as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

  • Yes

Signature[edit]

--Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)