Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Nederland/Impact report form
Purpose of the report
FDC funds are allocated to improve the alignment between the Wikimedia movement's strategy and spending; support greater impact and progress towards achieving shared goals; and enable all parts of the movement to learn how to achieve shared goals better and faster.
Funding should lead to increased access to and quality of content on Wikimedia project sites – the two ultimate goals of the 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
|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 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact information (secondary)||Secondary contact name||Frans Grijzenhout|
|Secondary contact position in entity||Board Member|
|Secondary contact username||Grijz|
|Secondary contact email@example.com|
Overview of the past year
The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of this report. Please use no more than 2–3 paragraphs to address the questions outlined below. You will have an opportunity to address these questions in detail elsewhere in this report. 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)
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.
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.
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.
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%|
|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
- 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.
The FDC requires information about how your entity received and spent money over the past year. The FDC distributes general funds, so your entity is not required to use funds exactly as outlined in the proposal. While line-item expenses will not be examined, the FDC and movement wants to understand why the entity spent money in the way it did. If variance in budgeted vs. actual is greater than 20%, please provide explanation in more detail. This helps the FDC understand the rationale behind any significant changes. Note that any changes from the Grant proposal, among other things, must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."
If you'd prefer to share a budget created in Google or another tool and import it to wiki, you can do so in the tables below instead of using wiki tables. You can link to an external document, but we ask that you do include a table in this form. We are testing this approach in this form.
Provide exchange rate used:
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 ($US)* Explanation of variances from plan Membership fees Euro 4,000 819 2,336 586 498 4,239 5,200 5,511 Donations Euro 6,000 1,874 537 1,035 7.052 10,498 7,800 13,647 FDC Euro 269,231 157,051 0 112,180 0 269,231 350,000 350,000 Local project financing Euro 30,000 2,192 24,391 1,729 3,418 31,370 39,000 41,249 Initially, we budgetted € 80,000 local revenue; after Q2 this was reduced to € 30,000 Interest Euro 0 0 0 0 3,198 3,198 0 4,157 Total revenue Euro 309,231 161,936 27,264 115,530 14,166 318,896 402,000 414,564
* Provide estimates in US Dollars
Table 3 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ 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  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
 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.
|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
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 title: COMMUNITY: supporting and mobilising volunteers and editors
Program title WORK: content, collaboration and activity development
Program title WMNL: participation and support
Program title FUNDING
Program title GLOBAL: International collaboration
Program title ORGANISATION: board, management and support
Lessons from the past
A key objective of the funding is to enable the movement as a whole to understand how to achieve shared goals better and faster. An important way of doing this is to identify lessons learned and insights from entities who receive funds, and to share these lessons across the movement. Please answer the following questions in 1–2 paragraphs each.
- 1. What were your 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 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 (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 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 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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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....
- 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.
- Overview of projectpages on the WMNL-wiki
- WMNL website
- WMNL monthly reports on Meta.
- Annual Report and Accounts 2013 in Dutch, translation will be available soon. Includes auditor's statement.
Is your organization compliant with the terms defined in the grant agreement?
- 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".
- 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".
- 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.