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

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


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]

Table 1

Entity information Legal name of entity Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
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 Sandra Rientjes
Primary contact position in entity Executive Director
Primary contact username SRientjes
Primary contact email rientjes@wikimedia.nl
Contact information (secondary) Secondary contact name Frans Grijzenhout
Secondary contact position in entity Board Member
Secondary contact username Grijz
Secondary contact email frans@wikimedia.nl


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)


Successes:

In many ways, the Amsterdam Hackathon was a great success. Not just because it was a well attended event that got high scores in the evaluation forms. But also (mainly) because it was the first major event organised by WMNL in the new set-up, i.e. with an office and support staff. Organising the Hackathon was a test case for volunteer - office cooperation and it worked out very well. Volunteers were pleased they could focus on programming and content, while the office took care of logistics. For us, the Hackathon confirmed that a chapter office can be a great asset for the volunteer community.

The Wikimedia Hackathon 2013 was held in Amsterdam


Challenge (and success)

It is a succes that so many (GLAM) organisations and institutions are keen to work with us. Among them are some of the most prestigious in the country, like the Rijksmuseum and the National Archives. The first Wikipedians in Residence started work in the Netherlands in 2013. It is relatively easy to cooperate with GLAMs in organising attractive events such as editathons that generate publicity and are well-attended. However, it is a challenge to develop longer running programmes of cooperation with these institutions that lead to concrete results in terms of new editors and better content. A survey among editathon participants showed that fewer than 5% of them continue editing.


Challenge

Developing an adequate system for project monitoring and evaluation was also a challenge. In the course of the year we developed tools to systematically record and analyse the impact of our activities. Processing and integrating the outcomes into strategic planning and decision making will be a challenge for 2014, as will be targetting WMNL resources to activities that generate concrete results. This means we will occasionally have to say ‘no’ to volunteers and external partners.


Lessons learned

The main lesson learned during 2013 is that success depends ultimately on the extent to which the chapter succeeds in establishing good relations with the community of editors. Support and good will from the editing community towards WMNL is essential for successful implementation of our workplan. A survey among the community early in the year showed us that many editors were not aware of the fact that WMNL existed to support their work. During the year we started investing a lot of time and energy in communicating with the editing community. We started to see the first positive results in Q4 2013 and Q1 2014: more requests for small grants from the community, new faces at Wiki Saturdays and other community events.


The Dutch language Wikipedia in 2013

December 2013 December 2012
Number of articles 1,700,000 1,100,100 +51%
Number of registered editors 28.859 26,501 +9%
Active editors 1269 1395 -9%
Highly active editors 245 251 -2%
New editors in 2013: 2.572 in 2012: 2.795 -9%


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

  • A core group of active, competent and highly motivated volunteers
  • A track record of developing successful activities such as Wiki Loves Monuments
  • Good working relationships with leading GLAM institutions
  • Board Members willing to invest time, skills and networks
  • Staff that were able to hit the ground running


Weaknesses: Organizational weaknesses that inhibited the plan

  • Core group of volunteers small
  • Changes in composition of Board, including Board members stepping down mid-term
  • Full complement of staff only reached May 1
  • Initially, limited Wiki-knowledge/Wikipedia experience among staff
  • No established working routine between volunteers - board - staff/office.


Opportunities: External opportunities that enabled the plan

  • Leading GLAM institutions such as National Archives/Royal Library and National Museum (Rijksmuseum) are keen to establish cooperation with Wikimedia Nederland
    The first Wikipedian in Residence in the Netherlands started work at Nationaal Archief and Koninklijke Bibliotheek
    Logo Koninklijke Bibliotheek wordmark.svg
  • Respect for and appreciation of Wikipedia as a ‘brand’ is increasing, giving us easy access to organisations, media etc.
  • In-kind contributions by partners reducing costs of activities, allowing us to do more with less


Threats: Risks or threats that inhibited the plan

  • Wikimedia Nederland has not obtained certification as a fundraising non-profit organisation, limiting our opportunities for fundraising and perhaps making us appear ‘less trustworthy’
  • Limited awareness among editor community of the support/resources available through WMNL.


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

WMNL focussed mainly on the NL-Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. We also developed activities with a focus on Wikisource and Wiktionary.


  • 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 participants 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)?


WMNL organised 48 events, drawing 788 participants/visitors. These events are described in detail in the following section. As mentioned before, developing adequate project monitoring and evaluation tools was work in progress during most of 2013. Therefore we are able to give only very limited answers to these questions. Especially the impact in terms of new (or better) articles and other content is still difficult to assess. We are working to improve this in 2014.

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.

Revenues[edit]

Provide exchange rate used:

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 Euro 4,000 819 2,336 586 498 4,239 5,200 5,511
Donations Euro 6,000 1,874 537 1,035 7.052 10,498 7,800 13,647
FDC Euro 269,231 157,051 0 112,180 0 269,231 350,000 350,000
Local project financing Euro 30,000 2,192 24,391 1,729 3,418 31,370 39,000 41,249 Initially, we budgetted € 80,000 local revenue; after Q2 this was reduced to € 30,000
Interest Euro 0 0 0 0 3,198 3,198 0 4,157
Total revenue Euro 309,231 161,936 27,264 115,530 14,166 318,896 402,000 414,564

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Spending[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
I. COMMUNITY: supporting and mobilizing volunteers and editors euro 59,672 3,039 44,033 1,400 20,118 68,590 77,574 89,166 115% Please see extra table below for explanation of deviation from budgeted amounts  [1]
II. WORK: Substantive orientation, collaboration and activity development euro 12,863 853 196 1,514 9,764 12,327 16,722 16,025 96%
III. WMNL: participation, support and brand awareness euro 9,549 5,550 2,057 2,965 2,257 12,828 12,414 16,677 134%
IV. RESOURCES: Strong and sustainable financial position euro 1517 345 0 1,172 2,322 3,839 1972 4,991 253%
V. GLOBAL: International collaboration euro 12,920 202 7,433 4,885 1,298 13,818 16,796 17,963 107%
VI. ORGANIZATION: board, management and support euro 15,107 249 8,999 3,859 10,316 23,423 19,639 30,450 155%
Total program costs euro 111,628 10,237 62,718 15,795 46.074 134,825 145,116 175.272 121%
Staff salary costs including travel (work-commute) euro 144,000 28,308 36,993 37,421 47,871 150,593 187,200 195,771 105%
Office rent and office costs euro 20,000 5,734 5,465 4,069 6,437 21,615 26,000 28,099 108&
Other costs euro 14,200 2,690 5,729 6,530 6,725 21,674 18,460 28,177 153%
Total administrative and other non program costs euro 178,200 36,732 48,188 48,020 60,943 193,882 231,660 252,047 109%
Total costs euro 289,828 46,969 110,906 63,815 107,017 328,707 376,777 427,319 113%

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


[1] The amounts listed under budgetted reflect our expectation of expenditure when submitting our Q3 report. At that point we had started bringing our spending in line with our revised (reduced) prognosis of revenue. Table 2 gives the impression that WMNL overspent especially on programme areas III, IV and VI. In actual fact, these are the programma areas where we most strongly reduced our expenditure compared to our original FDC proposal. We have added a table below which (hopefully) explains how our prognosis of expenditure developed during the year, and which explains deviations.

Table:

Programme area Original proposal to FDC Q1: Revised after FDC allocation Q3: revised because of lower revenue Final expenditure % compared to Q1 explanation
I. COMMUNITY: supporting and mobilizing volunteers and editors 65,700 52,200 59,672 68,590 131% The overspend relates to the Hackathon, for which we also raised additional resources
II. WORK: Substantive orientation, collaboration and activity development 65,700 26,400 12,863 12,327 47% Especially costs of activities with GLAM partners were much lower than expected, due to in-kind contributions of partners. A € 40,000 contribution to Phase 2 of the Europeana GLAM Wiki mass-upload tool was cancelled after the FDC allocation
III. WMNL: participation, support and brand awareness 25,250 17,250 9,549 12,828 74% We managed to raise a lot of free publicity. The costs incurred are mainly related to the development of a new website.
IV. RESOURCES: Strong and sustainable financial position 27,550 17,350 1,517 3,839 22% We did not engage consultants on fundraising in 2013
V. GLOBAL: International collaboration 49,800 38,300 12,920 13,818 36% The costs of a contributions to WLM international were included here, depending on a grant from WMF. WLM-international was funded directly by WMF.
VI. ORGANIZATION: board, management and support 74,650 26,650 15,107 23,423 88% Costs are related to Board meetings and General Assembly, and the development of a CRM system
Total programme costs € 308,650 € 178,150 € 111,628 € 134.825 76%

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."

Program 1[edit]

Program title: COMMUNITY: supporting and mobilising volunteers and editors

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • To bring in new editors and new volunteers from communities/backgrounds relevant to WP and Wikimedia Nederland
  • To provide editors and volunteers with facilities that will improve quality of their work, including funding for projects/ activities
  • To create community spirit and ensure smooth communications within Wikimedia Nederland


What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)

To bring in new editors and new volunteers from communities/backgrounds relevant to WP and Wikimedia Nederland. Metric: number of participants in events that go on to become active in WP or Wikimedia Nederland activities

  • Six writing and training sessions organised to bring in new editors and volunteers. 114 people were trained. A survey carried out after six months indicated editors retention of <5%
  • 4 new volunteers became active, this is an increase of 15% in the number of active volunteers

staff involved : 3 volunteers involved: 6


To provide editors and volunteers with facilities that will improve quality of their work, including funding for projects/ activities. Metric: number and significance of edits and reports on activities

  • 1 request for a small grant received from community member and awarded
  • Technology pool of a.v. equipment established to support community. 5 times equipment on loan to volunteers , resulting in 600+ images uploaded to Commons
    Image created by a WMNL volunteer with a camera from the technology pool
  • 5 people trained in uploading sounds to Commons. 50+ sounds were added to Wikipedia pages.
  • International Mediawiki Hackathon organised: 149 participants

staff involved: 5 volunteers involved: 7


To create community spirit and ensure smooth communications within Wikimedia Nederland

  • annual Wikimedia Conference Nederland organised, 138 participants of whom 94% very satisfied with event, 57 participants attended a WMNL event for the first time
  • 29 community events organised such as New Years reception, Wikipedia Café's and Wiki-Saturdays, drawing 300+ attendees
    Wikimedia Nederland New Years reception
  • 8 newsletters sent out, increase in recipients from 189 to 363
  • Motivaction survey indicating community satisfied with communication by/with WMNL

staff involved 4 volunteers involved: 8


Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • improve quality
  • Increase participation

The activities in this programme are aimed at recruiting more editors (increase participation) and add more and better free content to the Wikimedia projects (improve quality)


What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?

To bring in new editors and new volunteers from communities/backgrounds relevant to WP and Wikimedia Nederland.

  • Europeana Fashion Editathon. with Centraal Museum, Utrecht and Instituut voor beeld en geluid. 13 May. 37 participants
  • Fashion edit-a-thon Antwerpen. with ModeMuseum Antwerpen. 23 September. 25 participants
  • Presentatie on Wikipedia for studenten Rotterdam College, 10 January. 15 participants
  • Wikipedia Training Museum Volkenkunde Leiden. 18 April. 15 participants
  • Edit-a-thon during Summerschool Classical Studies of the Amsterdam Universities. 21 August. 7 participants
    Editathon Summerschool Classical Studies: Transscribing/translating Latin inscriptions on monumental graves for Wikipedia and WikiSource
  • Introductory course editing Wikipedia during annual Wikimedia Conference Nederland, 15 participants


To provide editors and volunteers with facilities that will improve quality of their work, including funding for projects/ activities.

  • 1 small grant €1000,
  • reimbursement of travelcosts community members
  • training uploading sound. 20 April. 5 participants
  • instructional video about adding sounds was made.
  • Amsterdam Hackathon. 24-26 May. 149 participants


To create community spirit and ensure smooth communications within Wikimedia Nederland

  • New Years Reception, 19 January. Universiteitsmuseum Amsterdam. 100 participants.
  • Wikipedia Café’s. Den Haag, Amsterdam (2x), Groningen
    Wikipedia café
  • Wikimedia Nederland Conferentie. Utrecht, 2 November. 138 participants
  • 24 Wiki-Saturdays with in total 166 participants (increase of 38% compared to 2012)
  • 8 x Newsletter
  • Survey among WMNL members and Dutch Wikipedia editors
  • Wikimedia Nederland Conferentie. Utrecht, 2 November.

The annual Wikimedia Nederland Conference on November 2 was attended by 138 people, many of whom had never attended a Wikimedia-event before. The organisers has put together a varied programme, with presentations on topics ranging from the way historians use Wikipedia to the latest software developments. An introductory course on Wikipedia editing was especially popular.


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?


Mobilizing new Wikipedia editors proved difficult. With the 6 writing and training activities that we have organized, we managed to reach more than 100 people . However, a survey of participants showed that six months after the training <5% of the participants remained active. Our conclusion is that one-off training events are simply not effective in drawing in new editors. Editor retention requires a sustained and longer running programme of activities. (We go into this matter later in this report). Obviously, this is of concern. Our volunteers and our partners in the GLAM sector like organising editathons and training sessions. However, if they do not lead to the desired results it is difficult to justify investing resources in them.

Except for reimbursement of travel expenses, community and volunteers make only limited use of the possibilities of support offered by Wikimedia Netherlands. It was not possible to achieve the desired significant increase in the number of applications for small grants. In Q4 we increased effort to make the community aware of this resource and also simplified the application procedure (although it was not that complicated to begin with). We are already seeing results in 2014: we already received 4 small grants requests in Q1.

However, there is growing interest in - and appreciation for - community activities organized by WMNL such as the annual conference. Participation in the International Hackathon in Amsterdam was above expectations and was organised largely by community members, with support from the WMNL office. Community members enjoy opportunities to meet in an informal setting and 'talk shop.'

Research bureau Motivaction carried out surveys among WMNL members and Dutch Wikipedia editors to assess their view of WMNL, ideas concerning future activities, and their motivation to contribute to Wikimedia projects. At the same time a survey was done among a general public focusgroup to assess whether they know and use Wikipedia, their potential willingness to contribute and their insight into the way Wikipedia is maintained and funded. The results helped us set priorities and identify target groups.

There was a sharp increase in the number of participants in small-scale events such as Wiki Saturdays and Wikipedia Café’s. The number of newsletters, the number of recipients of the newsletter and the followers on Facebook doubled compared to 2012. During the year, we increased communication with the community, making sure to announce events on the pages and sites frequented by community members.

The Motivaction survey showed that members and volunteers are satisfied with the communication with Wikimedia Netherlands.


Any additional details:


Program 2[edit]

Program title WORK: content, collaboration and activity development

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • To establish operational cooperation with at least five organizations in the GLAM sector (cooperation agreements)
  • To arrange the donation of at least 2 image collections under free license (donation agreements, data upload)
  • To involve number of active volunteers in producing free knowledge/ GLAM work (Number of new volunteers recruited from participants)
  • To increase the number of images of national/local monuments available on Commons
  • To involve new volunteers in an easily accessible and popular activity
  • To develop insight in quality and coverage of NL WP as a basis for editor recruitment (research data)
  • To increase awareness of Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia and a volunteer project (number of people who know basic facts about Wikipedia)


What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)

To establish operational cooperation with at least five organizations in the GLAM sector (Metric: at least one activity organised with partner. Note: the original metric was cooperation agreements. We found that a formal agreement was considered over-bureaucratic by most partners)

  • WMNL cooperated with 12 partners: Centraal Museum Utrecht, European Centre for Nature Conservation, Institute for Vision and Sound, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Nationaal Archief, National Comittee 4 & 5 May (Remembrance of WW II) Fashion Museum Antwerpen, Museum Huis Doorn, Museum Ethnology Leiden, Specialist Academic Libraries, Utrechts network of public libraries BISC, Summerschool Classics of the Amsterdam Universities
    Editathon at Huis Doorn, the residence of Kaiser WIlhelm II in exile
    Huis Doorn: The study of Kaiser Wilhelm II during his exile (9180059121)

Staff involved 2 . Volunteers involved: 5


To arrange the donation of at least 2 image collections under free license (Metric: donation agreements, data upload)

  • A collection of 2300 sound files was donated by Institute for Sound and Vision were uploaded to Commons
  • Collection of 165 photographs of European nature was released in cooperation with the European Centre for Nature Conservation.
    Lynx - image donated as part of the cooperation with the European Centre for Nature Conservation

Staff involved 2 . Volunteers involved: 1


To involve number of active volunteers in producing free knowledge/ GLAM work (Metric: Number of new volunteers recruited from participants)

  • Four new volunteers became active in various WMNL activities focussing on GLAM cooperation.

Staff involved 3 . Volunteers involved: 5


Wiki Loves Monuments - To increase the number of images of national/local monuments available on Commons

  • 7,093 photos including 2340 photographs of monuments of which no material was available.
    Wiki Loves Monuments: the winning picture, Maria kerk in Wierum
    Wiki Loves Monuments: Enka-Bitterzoutmagazijn

Staff involved 2 . Volunteers involved: 8


To involve new Wiki Loves Monuments volunteers in an easily accessible and popular activity

  • Three new volunteers became active in Wiki Loves Monuments. They contributed to Wiki takes Groningen, Nijmegen , Kasteel de Haar, Den Haag and a special editathon in Den Haag

Staff involved 2 . Volunteers involved: 8


To develop insight in quality and coverage of NL WP as a basis for editor recruitment (Metric: research data)

  • This objective was deprioritised because the FDC allocation was substantially lower than the original proposal.

Staff involved - . Volunteers involved: -


To increase awareness of Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia and a volunteer project (Metric: number of people who know basic facts about Wikipedia)

  • The Motivaction survey established a baseline for public awareness of WIkipedia. [link] The survey will be repeated in 2015 to monitor progress.

Staff involved 2 . Volunteers involved: 4


Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • improve quality.
  • Increase participation

This programme aims to contribute new and better content through content donation by partners and focussed work by (new) editors. In that sense it also aims to mobilise new editors.


What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?

To establish operational cooperation with at least five organizations in the GLAM sector

  • 3 Wikipedians in Residence started work at Koninklijke Bibliotheek/Nationaal Archief (October 2013)en Special Academic Libraries (november 2013). Institute for Vision and Sound and Special Academic Collections decided to start with WiR programmes in 2014.
  • Activities developed with Institute voor Vision and Sound, Central Museum Utrecht, Fashion Museum Antwerpen, Museum Ethnology, Leiden were described under program 1
  • Editathon on World War I with Museum Huis Doorn 29 June
  • Editathon Amersfoort public library


To arrange the donation of at least 2 image collections under free license

  • WMNL supported the international conservation NGO ECNC in organising a photo competition among its network of partners institutes. As a result 165 images on the relation between humans and nature were uploaded to Commons. For WMNL this was also a pilot to see if and how initiatives by other organisations can lead to specific new content.
  • donation of sound files by Institute for Vision and Sound. 1838 sounds were uploaded to Commons; 50+ sounds were added to Wikipedia pages


To involve number of active volunteers in producing free knowledge/ GLAM work

  • Activities developed with Institute voor Vision and Sound, Central Museum Utrecht, Fashion Museum Antwerpen, Museum Ethnography, Leiden also aimed to mobilize more volunteers and were described under program 1
  • Photo excursion War Monuments, February 15. This was a pilot activity in cooperation with the National Committee 4 & 5 May (the offical committee for remembrance of WW II) to assess the possibility of organising a wider photo-drive. which will take place in April 2014
    Airborne War Cemetery - photograph taken during photo-excursion. WMNL is planning a bigger campaign in 2014 to obtain images of all WW II monuments in the Netherlands)
  • ‘Behind the scenes” excursion at Special Collections University library Amsterdam
  • ‘Behind the Scenes” excursion at Koninklijke Bibliotheek and National Archief (National Library and Archives) 8 june 2013.


To increase the number of images of national/local monuments available on Commons

  • To involve new Wiki Loves Monuments volunteers in an easily accessible and popular activity
  • Dutch edition of Wiki Loves Monuments was organised in September
  • Wiki takes were organised in Groningen, Den Haag, Nijmegen, Kasteel de Haar
  • Edit-a-thon on local monuments took place in Den Haag, 12 October


To develop insight in quality and coverage of NL WP as a basis for editor recruitment deprioritised: no activities


To increase awareness of Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia and a volunteer project

  • Leaflet on Wikimedia published and distributed;
  • Leaflet on Wikipedia updated and distributed;
  • New website developed for the general public
  • Media contacts about developments concerning Wikipedia/Wikimedia (see program 3 for detailed description)


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?

In many ways, 2013 was a pilot year. We experimented with different ways of cooperating with external partners to generate content and mobilise editors and volunteers. The work done on images of war monuments and nature images established a foundation for a bigger World War II project and for Wiki Loves Earth in 2014.

Wikipedia is increasingly being recognised as one of the main channels via which people gain access to information. This means that many organisations in the GLAM domain (and beyond) are eager to cooperate. The ‘brand’ Wikipedia is very strong; most people and organisations are sympathetic towards Wikipedia, and will therefore be inclined at least to talk to us when we approach them.

Our ambition to encourage the upload of large collections of material to Wikimedia Commons had to be postponed because of the delayed completion of the Europeana GLAM Wiki upload tool . This software eventually became available in December. Wikimedia Netherlands is one of the funders of this project.

Mobilising new volunteers for WMNL activities requires patience and a repeated effort.

Any additional details:


Program 3[edit]

Program title WMNL: participation and support

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • To increase the number of members of Wikimedia Nederland and retain current members (development of member numbers as of start of activities)
  • To strengthen public awareness of Wikimedia and its mission (number of people aware of WM mission)


What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)

To increase the number of members of Wikimedia Nederland and retain current members (Metrics: development of member numbers as of start of activities)

  • The number of members grew from 165 (12/31/12) to 215 (12/31/13).

Staff involved 2. Volunteers involved: 4


To strengthen public awareness of Wikimedia and its mission (Metrics: number of people aware of WM mission)

  • The Motivaction survey provided a baseline for public awareness of Wikimedia. The survey will be repeated in 2015 to assess progress.
  • 11 appearances by representatives of WMNL (board, volunteers, staff) in the media

Staff involved 2. Volunteers involved: 5


Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Increase reach
  • Stabilize infrastructure

The activities in this programme want to make more people aware of the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia projects (increase reach). In strenghthening the membership of Wikimedia Nederland it aims to provide more stability to the chapter, thus contributing to the overall stability of the Wikimedia movement.


What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?

To increase the number of members of Wikimedia Nederland and retain current members

  • provided benefits (perks) of membership to members, such as distributing the WLM calendar, reduced fee for participation in Wikimedia Conference Nederland
    Wikimedia Nederland Conferentie 2013
    ,
  • members invited to WMNL events, such as ‘behind the scenes', New Years reception
  • regular updates about WMNL via newsletter and WMNL wiki


To strengthen public awareness of Wikimedia and its mission

  • Development of a new website aimed at the general public
  • Development of a leaflet about Wikimedia Nederland and distributing it at events
  • Responding to requests by the media and initiating media-contacts. This resulted in 11 appeareances of WMNL representatives in the media. (3 articles in national newspapers and magazines, 6 radio interviews, 1 television interview and 1 weblog), Full list of media coverage.


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 increase is a result of our efforts to strengthen communication with the Wikimedia community, making the process of becoming a member more straightforward by including a coupon in our leaflets and developing a new website. Media interest in Wikipedia is high and since the establishment of the office there is a phone number journalists can call; this has increased media coverage.


Any additional details:


Program 4[edit]

Program title FUNDING

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • To obtain official certification as a fundraising charity - making it easier to obtain external funding and to ensure good governance (extent to which Wikimedia Nederland meets certification criteria)
  • To obtain € 80.000 funding from external sources for Wikimedia Nederland mission and activities (amount of external funding obtained during 2013)
  • To increase the amount of funding from private donations to Wikimedia Nederland and establish a base of loyal donors(Amount of funding obtained through private donations in 2013 as compared to 2012)


What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)

To obtain official certification as a fundraising charity - making it easier to obtain external funding and to ensure good governance (Metric: extent to which Wikimedia Nederland meets certification criteria)

  • WMNL complies with certification criteria for 95%. Certification is not possible as long as the Wikimedia Foundation raises funds in the Netherlands and the dormant Wikimedia Nederland foundation continues exists. (Certification authority fears confusion among donors)

Number of staff: 1. Number of volunteers: 2


To obtain € 80.000 funding from external sources for Wikimedia Nederland mission and activities (Metric: amount of external funding obtained during 2013)
In 2013, WMNL spent € 61.87 on stroopwafels
  • WMNL received € 49.282 in revenue apart from the FDC allocation. This includes in-kind contributions, donations, membership fees and project grants. In addition € 20.000 was received for activities to be carried out in 2014.

Number of staff: 1 Number of volunteers: 1


To increase the amount of funding from private donations to Wikimedia Nederland and establish a base of loyal donors (Metric:Amount of funding obtained through private donations in 2013 as compared to 2012)

  • The total amount of private donations was € 10.498, a 59% increase compared to 2012. The number of donations was 288, a 68% increase.

Number of staff: 1. Number of volunteers: 3


Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • stabilize infrastructure

The activities under this program aim to strenghten the financial position of Wikimedia Nederland, thus increasing its stability as a part of the Wikimedia movement.


What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • request for funding to Fonds 1818 for Wiki Loves Monuments activities in Den Haag awarded.
  • in kind contributions to Wikimedia Conference Nederland and Wiki Loves Monuments
  • contributions to Amsterdam Hackathon by Google, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland, Wikimedia Österreich
  • request for funding to private grantmaking foundation for Wiki Loves Earth (2014) awarded
  • newsletter to donors


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?
  • In 2013 Wikimedia Netherlands realized € 69,282 funding from sources in addition to the FDC. Of this, € 20,000 is for activities in 2014. Fundraising could only seriously start after the office team was in place (May 2013)

The grants received for projects are relatively low as the costs associated with staff are low: Wikimedia Nederland is a volunteer movement and wants to remain so. External funding will only be used to hire additional staff if this has a clear added value to the mission.


Any additional details:


Program 5[edit]

Program title GLOBAL: International collaboration

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • To play an active and constructive role in the global movement (attendance of Wikimedia Nederland representatives in international activities)
  • To contribute to the further international development of Wiki Loves Monuments (number of images uploaded internationally)


What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)

To play an active and constructive role in the global movement (Metric: attendance of Wikimedia Nederland representatives in international activities)

  • WMNL representatives attended 13 international activities: Wikimedia Conference Milano , Wikimania , GLAM Wiki London
    WMNL volunteer Sandra Fauconnier and GLAM coordinator Sebastiaan ter Burg presenting at GLAM-WIKI 2013
    , Free Knowledge Advocacy Group London , EU Policy working group Brussels , Diversity Conference Berlin, Four National meetings in Germany, Two national meetings in Flanders , National Meetings in Norway

Staff involved: 4. Volunteers involved: 10


To contribute to the further international development of Wiki Loves Monuments (Metric: number of images uploaded internationally)

  • WMNL acted as a fiscal sponsor to the Wiki Loves Monuments International team. 365.000 images were uploaded during Wiki Loves Monuments international.

Staff involved: 2. Volunteers involved: 3


Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • stabilize infrastructure
  • Improve quality

By participating in the international movement (or facilitating the participation of community members) the programme contributes to the overall running of the movement and hence to stabilizing infrastructure. The activities in support of Wiki Loves Monuments aimed to improve quality by adding content .


What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?

To play an active and constructive role in the global movement

  • GLAM Wiki London - 3 participants
  • EU Policy working group Brussels - 2 participants
  • Wikimedia Conference Milano - 3 participants
  • Wikimania Hong Kong - 4 participants
    Wikimania 2013 Chapters Village
  • Free Knowledge Advocacy Group London, 1 participant
  • Diversity Conference Berlin - 1 participant
  • Four National meetings in Germany, 3x1 participant, 1x2 participants
  • Two national meetings in Flanders - 1 participant
  • National Meetings in Norway - 1 participant

Reports of the attendance in international meetings can be found on the WMNL wiki.


To contribute to the further international development of Wiki Loves Monuments

  • assist Wiki Loves Monuments International team in developing project proposal and budget
  • negotiate fiscal sponsorship contracts with WMF and Wiki Loves Monuments International team
  • set up processes for distributing and monitoring of funds
  • process payments


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?
  • WMNL and its community are traditionally focussed towards international developments. Although there was good participation by WMNL representatives in international events, the number of requests for travelscholarships from members of the community who were not on the Board was low. This may be a result of the fact that the availability of scholarships was not yet widely known.


Any additional details:


Program 6[edit]

Program title ORGANISATION: board, management and support

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • To continue and complete the process of professionalization started in 2011 (report of auditor and certification body on internal processes)
  • To ensure that the Board fully and effectively meets its obligations concerning good governance


What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)

To continue and complete the process of professionalization started in 2011 (Metric: report of auditor and certification body on internal processes)

  • auditors statement of approval received March 2012
  • request for certification authority withdrawn (see programme 4 for more details)

To ensure that the Board fully and effectively meets its obligations concerning good governance

  • The Board met 9 times in 2013, including 2 weekend retreats
    Board of Wikimedis Nederland August 2013
  • General Assembly met 2 times and approved annual report + annual accounts 2013 and annual plan 2014


Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • stabilize infrastructure

The activities under this programme aim to establish a stable and well-run chapter/chapter office. They contribute to ensuring that Wikimedia Nederland will contribute effectively to the overall Wikimedia movement.


What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • To continue and complete the process of professionalization started in 2011
  • hired project coordinator GLAM and staff member finances and office management
  • drafted annual report and annual accounts and submit to auditor
  • submitted report and accounts (plus auditors statement) to General Assembly
  • finalised system of internal processes and controls
  • submitted quarterly reports to WMF


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?

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?
  • Over 2013, 3 Wikipedians in Residence started work and 2 more were hired and started in January 2014. In most cases, WMNL provided the hostorganisations with advice on the job profile and the selection process. WiRs are training staff of host institutions in contributing to the Wikimedia projects and are facilitating the freeing of content. Now that the WiRs are in place, WMNL is acting as a coordinating body between the WiRs themselves, and between their host institutions.
  • The Amsterdam Hackathon was a the biggest event in the WMNL calendar, and very successful with 149 participants gathering for three days of tech-work. It also developed a framework for volunteer-office cooperation.
  • During the course of the year, we succeeded in strengthening relations with the Wikimedia community. Attendance at events is up, including a growing number of first time participants at our annual conference and the Wiki-Saturdays, and we managed to generate wider involvement in brainstorming meetings and on-wiki discussions concerning the drafting of the annual workplan and FDC application. The overall aim of all this is to make the resources of WMNL available to as large a group of community members as possible.
  • We think that establishing a chapter office, setting up internal processes and structures, meeting reporting obligations to the WMNL-membership and the FDC, while at the same time implementing a workplan and supporting the community was also an accomplishment.


2. What were your major setbacks in the past year (e.g., programs that were not successful)?
  • Editor retention after editathons and trainingsessions was very low. Organising editathons with (GLAM)partners is fairly easy, and appealing for the partner organisations, the chapter and the volunteers involved. However, a survey among particpants showed that very few (<5%) remain active as editors after the event.
  • External fundraising was more difficult than we expected and we did not fully reach our ambitions. It is relatively easy to generate in-kind contributions (costs of catering and venue), but more complicated to generate major project funding. Because Wikimedia is a volunteer movement, it is difficult to offer concrete, hard results to potential funders. Also, potential funders sometimes expect more opportunities for promotion than is possible on the Wikimedia projects.
  • Small grants programme. We had €10.000 available for small grants and € 20,000 for scholarships but were not able to spend it all. Only one request for a small grant was received. Again, this goes back to the volunteer community not being aware of the resources available to them via WMNL. In Q3 - Q4 we began investing more time and energy in communicating these resources to the community and we are beginning to see changes.


3. What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?

The main factor enabling success is the the growing interest in and respect for Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects in the outside world. This opens many doors and will ensure that organisations/individuals will at least talk to us when we contact them.

The establishment of an office with a small permanent staff has increased the potential and the reach of WMNL. It provides volunteers with the chance to focus on content rather than on logistics. it has also made the chapter more accessible to the outside world.


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

The revenue from the FDC and raised from sources outside the Wikimedia movement was smaller than budgetted. By combining activities, making optimal use of in-kind contributions by external partners and overall reducing costs we were still able to carry out most of our workplan. The main changes were cutting a financial contribution to the second phase of the Europeana GLAM-Wiki tool and not commissioning research into quality and coverage of Wikipedia.

As mentioned before, recruiting new volunteers is difficult. We have found that volunteers are more keen to take on technical and behind the scenes work, than project coordination and communications. This meant that in some cases, office staff and Board Members had to take on the role of project coordinator. Although the volunteers involved were fine with this solution, it is not ideal.

The fact that a large section of the Wikipedia community was not aware of the fact that WMNL has resources for their support came as a surprise. The end result was that we could not provide as much support as we would have liked to, even in terms of scholarships and small grants.


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.

Good contacts and a constructive relationship with the community of editors is essential. Supporting that community is one of the main reasons of existence for a Wikimedia chapter. Without good contacts with the community many activities (editathons, writing or photography contests) become virtually impossible. We learned this the hard way, when the first edits made by participants in a training session were nominated for deletion during the event. Chapter activities have to be discussed and communicated with the community before they happen and a chapter should really go the extra mile in order to get the community on board. This means communicating on the terms of the community, i.e. where and when it best suits the community.

Professionalising a chapter (setting up an office, hiring staff and developing procedures and processes) can only be successfully done if several board members have experience in management and governance, and have sufficient time available to take an active role in the process. Hiring staff is the start of a professionalisation process, not the completion. Furthermore, Board and community have to be willing to accept the consequences of the decision to professionalise: things will change and certain tasks will have to be left to the professionals.

The whole world is interested in cooperating with ‘Wikipedia’. Chosing which activities to prioritise and invest resources in is difficult. A multi-year strategy for the chapter helps make choices and ensures a focus for developing annual workplans. It is worthwhile to invest time and energy in involving the community in drafting the strategy and the annual plans. It creates acceptance and commitment for the activities of the chapter, and leads to creative and innovative ideas.

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?

Focus on improving and strengthening the interaction with the Wikipedia community. Greater awareness of WMNL and the services it can provide among the community of editors and better interaction with this community are crucial. In Q4 2013 and Q1 2014 we beganto see the effects of our efforts to improve interaction with the community: requests for small grants from the community coming in, more Wikipedians coming to Wiki Saturdays, the New Years reception and becoming active in WMNL activities. We will continue to invest strongly in communicating with the editing community and involving them in activity development and decision making, including the development of the annual plan.


Consolidate existing relationships with major GLAM institutions. WMNL already has good contacts with leading GLAM institutions in the Netherlands . We will continue to invest in these partnerships, but the limited capacity of volunteers and staff makes it necessary to be selective/critical in responding to new requests for cooperation.

21-backstage event ("Behind the Scenes") National Library and Archives of the Netherlands on 8th June 2013


Maintaining an office with a small team of professional staff to provide support to the volunteers and a point of contact for the outside world. The principle guiding office operations will remain that staff will only do those things which volunteers are not able or willing to do.


2. What might you change in organisational and program strategies in order to improve the effectiveness of your entity?


When it comes to mobilising new editors we will change our approach: the experiences of 2013 show that one-off events like editathons are not successful at creating new editors (they are better at generating new content as we experienced a year ago with the Teylers Challenge). Possibly, follow-up activities could improve results: stay in touch with the participants, invite them to informal editing sessions at the WMNL office when experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to help them, link them to mentors/buddies, support editing groups working together on a particular theme (possibly hosted by one of our GLAM partners with knowledge/information on the topic.


Introduce two (new) thematic areas outside the traditional GLAM range. WMNL is traditionally strong in cooperation with GLAM institiutions and realizing image uploads to Commons. These are also the areas were most WMNL volunteers are active. It is desirable to develop activities also in other fields that will also provide opportunities for the 'liberation' of knowledge. We think that focussing activities and resources on a limited number of thematic areas such as World War II and Nature/Biodiversity could create more impact and more results than developing a plethora of one-off activities with different partner institutions.


Explore feasibility of becoming active in the field of education. Other national Wikimedia associations have achieved good results through cooperation with the educational sector. We will explore the possibilities to start a successful education programme in the Netherlands and carry out a pilot activity. We want to take a systematic approach to this, by first commissioning a feasibility study and doing a pilot project.



3. Please create at least one learning pattern from your entity's experiences this year and link to it here.

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[edit]

The Amsterdam Hackathon

The Wikimedia Nederland office had only just been established and was not even fully staffed when the decision was made that WMNL would organise the international Hackathon 2013. This is an annual, three-day event for engineers and developers which usually draws 100+ participants.

Wikimedia Hackathon 2013, Amsterdam -

Although the office was new, there were experienced, motivated and tech-wise volunteers in the WMNL community. It was their idea to organise the 2013 Hackathon in Amsterdam, and they became the coordinating team. This group took all the important decisions concerning programme, scholarships and venue.The WMNL office supported them on logistics such as registration, travel, catering, arrangements with the hostel.

From the start, the organisers cooperated with WMDE who had organised the Hackathon in the previous years. Thy shared their experiences, and all the materials they had developed. WMF was also closely involved in decisions concerning the programme as well as scholarships for participants.

The members of the coordinating team were seasoned participants in Hackathons and well aware of important developments in tech-areas. The fact that they did not have to worry about logistical issues meant that they could focus almost exclusively on designing a really good event.

The Amsterdam Hackathon was attended by 147 people. In the post-event evaluation participations were very positive about all aspects of the event: programme, venue, social events....

Case study: challenge[edit]

Getting more women to edit

The number of editors on the Dutch Wikipedia is gradually going down. That is a reason for Wikimedia Nederland to try to encourage more people to become Wikipedia editors. Also, we know that the community of editors is not representative of the wider population: a we commissioned a survey that showed that <10% of the editors are women.

Europeana Fashion Editathon, Centraal Museum Utrecht

In order to mobilise more female editors we organised an editathon on the topic of fashion. We did this in cooperation with the Centraal Museum in Utrecht and Europeana. We announced the editathon via our network, and so did the Centraal Museum and Europeana. This worked well: so many people wanted to attend that we had to put some on a waiting list.

The editathon itself was great. The Centraal Museum provided a great venue, a number of experienced wikipedians volunteered to act as trainers during the editathon and: most of the participants were indeed women. But: already during the editathon itself, pages that had just been created by the fledgling editors were being nominated for deletion by the community. We had not notified the community well in advance that there would be an editathon and they were unpleasantly surprised by the not-so-perfect pages that began to appear.

A few months after the editathon we approached the participants and asked them whether they had continued editing. The response was disappointing: fewer that 5% of the participants had made any edits after the editathon.

Lessons learned: - inform the community of editathons and training sessions - develop templates that clearly identify articles created during such events as ‘work in progress - provide follow up for participants in editathons in training sessions: a mentor, a help line, a follow up event....

Additional information[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?
  • Writing-events on Wikipedia are organised by the community. In some case, WMNL provides support in communication and pr. These writing events are usually highly successful. Writing weeks on Poland and Sweden generated many new articles.
  • A group of experienced and active Wikipedians took the initiative to start a project focussing on 550 years of parliamentary history. They receive some support from the chapter (small grant, publicity, use of office as meeting venue etc) but the activity as such is not a WMNL-activity.

These activities are successful because they focus on doing what Wikipedians like doing best: writing for the encyclopaedia.

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.


Compliance[edit]

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.
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.
  • There are no unexpended Grant funds to be reported.
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 total, € 3,198 interest was received by WMNL during 2013.

Signature[edit]

Once complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes. SRientjes (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)