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

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, 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]

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

Table 1

Entity information Legal name of entity Wikimedia Sverige
Entity's fiscal year (mm/dd–mm/dd) 01/01-12/31
12 month timeframe of funds awarded (mm/dd/yy-mm/dd/yy) 01/01/12-12/31/12
Contact information (primary) Primary contact name Jan Ainali
Primary contact position in entity CEO
Primary contact username Jan Ainali (WMSE)
Primary contact email jan.ainali at wikimedia.se
Contact information (secondary) Secondary contact name Mattias Blomgren
Secondary contact position in entity Chairman
Secondary contact username Historiker
Secondary contact email mattias.blomgren at wikimedia.se


Overview of the past year[edit]

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

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

Response:

  • HIGHLIGHTS:
    • Establishing ourselves in the GLAM sector - see major accomplishments.
    • Accreditation to Eurovision - see case studies.
    • Growth - see major accomplishments.
  • SWOT:
    • Strengths:
      • Great and enthusiastic staff with good connections to the community.
      • Dedicated board with several respected community members.
      • Technical competence, in staff, board and volunteers.
      • Wikipedia is a strong trademark which gives the organization credibility towards many stakeholders.
      • Wikimedia Sverige has gained a positive reputation amongst many organisations and there is a real interest in working with us.
    • Weaknesses:
      • Small number of members.
      • A lot of basic instructional material still need to be created/updated.
      • No real expertise in communications within the staff or board.
      • Many projects are planned on too short terms. Most projects would benefit from being planned on a two or three year basis.
    • Opportunities:
      • Lots of interest from GLAM institutions.
      • Many teachers are interested in how they can use Wikipedia.
    • Threats:
      • Relied on project grants to complete the full plan and not enough were granted to carry everything through.
  • WIKI-FOCUS:
    • Mostly Swedish Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons but thanks to the Swedish for Immigrants project we were involved in around 10 other language versions.
  • GROWTH:
    • New users through chapter activities: 20+ (these are confirmed, probably many more during edit-a-thons and workshops which were not tracked)
    • Editors involved in chapter activities: 260+ (same as above)
    • Media uploaded through the technology pool: 3091 files
    • Technology pool media viewed: 24,038,621 views (data for Q1 missing)
    • Persons engaged in workshops and seminars: 468
    • Persons reached in presentations: 1114
    • Number of events held (edit-a-thons, workshops, seminars, presentations): 112
    • New chapter members: 56 (total 194)
    • New likes on Facebook page: 253 (total 801)
    • GLAM cooperations: 7 (~20,000 uploaded files)
    • New persons employed: +2 FTE (total 5)

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:

  • 1$ = 6.88 SEK


Table 2 Please report all spending in local currency unless US$ is requested.

  • Please include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.
Revenue source Currency Anticipated Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Anticipated ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Explanation of variances from plan
FDC grant round 1, 2012 SEK 2,350,000 564,627 602,818 360,007 822,548 2,350,000 $341,570 $341,570
Grant from Wiki Skills SEK 235,000 101,145 46,261 18,693 47,578 214,037 $34,156 $31,110
Grant from Europeana Awareness SEK 230,000 97,887 128,792 60,368 46,809 333,856 $33,430 $48,526 Some work was moved from 2012 to 2013.
Membership fees SEK 15,000 12,200 1,900 1,400 1,600 17,100 $2,180 $2,485
Donations SEK 20,000 14,125 1,799 14,224 2,994 33,142 $2,907 $4,817
Interests, sales SEK 15,000 48 28 6,274 11,022 17,372 $2,180 $2,525
Other grants SEK 1,835,000 114,468 154,121 203,706 329,430 801,725 $266,715 $116,530 Fundraising did not go as well as expected.

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


Spending[edit]

Table 3 Please report all spending in local currency unless US$ is requested.

(The "budgeted" column should reflect the total anticipated for the year, the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year, and the "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative over against the budgeted.)
Expense Currency Budgeted Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Budgeted ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Percentage spent to date Explanation of variances from plan
Staff expenses (including on-costs, labour taxes, etc) SEK 3,130,000 609,126 713,848 465,230 691,297 2,479,498 $454,942 $360,392 79% Less funding than expected, meant that we did not hire in the same pace as planned, which kept the spending down.
Community support SEK 619,000 7,906 13,828 22,180 171,531 215,445 $89,971 $31,315 35% Difficulties to find external funding in this area made us keep the costs down.
Content liberation SEK 110,000 10,143 39,686 32,993 67,078 149,900 $15,988 $21,788 136% The Europeana Awareness project grew since some work from 2012 was moved into 2013.
Free knowledge in Education SEK 80,000 41,595 37,375 10,209 147,785 236,964 $11,478 $34,442 287% An area with a lot of opportunities. The Wikipedia for immigrants project which was externally funded had some large costs for partners. External funding from WWF SE arrived unexpectedly in Q4 which started a pilot project in Uganda.
Reader participation SEK 75,000 1,883 1,872 20 10,248 14,023 $10,901 $2,038 19% The feedback program was not started at all due to feedback from the community.
Free knowledge awareness SEK 90,000 0 3,677 2,885 13,750 20,312 $13,081 $2,952 23% Since some of the planned activities in this area were to be made with external funding that we did not receive the program were reduced.
Administration, non-staff (rent, servers, systems, etc) SEK 750,000 169,929 158,961 114,584 166,531 609,825 $109,012 $88,637 81%

* Provide estimates in US Dollars


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

The FDC needs to understand the impact of the initiatives your entity has implemented over the past year. Because the FDC distributes general funds, entities are not required to implement the exact initiatives proposed in the FDC proposal; the FDC expects each entity to spend money in the way it best sees fit to achieve its goals and those of the movement. However, please point out any significant changes from the original proposal, and the reasons for the changes. Note that any changes from the Grant proposal, among other things, must be consistent with the WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, must be reported to WMF, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement. The WMF mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Community support[edit]

Community support

Map of the photo hunt
.
Volunteers having dinner after a long day at the bookfair.
On-stage photo at Hoforsrocken.
Volunteer during Eurovision Song Contest.
One of the photos from the accredited volunteer.
What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • Getting more underrepresented groups into the projects
    • One goal was to develop and test different concepts for underrepresented groups to increase their participation.
    • One goal was to develop and test different concepts to attract subject matter experts.
  • Increasing editors' satisfaction
    • One goal was to give all contributors who wanted it support to meet other contributors.
    • One goal was to give all contributors who wanted it support with other resources.
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
  • We held a number of edit-a-thons/workshops for women. These have been well recieved and we have learnt during the way. For example that a single workshop is not enough to get good retention rate, rather a series is good and to combine that with online mentoring is useful. Around 710 hours staff time and 80 hours volunteer time went into this project. Our aim was that we should use the Editor survey to see change in editors, however the Wikimedia Foundation seem to have stopped doing this survey.
  • One concept tried for subject matter experts was a Wikipedian in Academy at an Agricultural university. Learning points from there is that when designing such a program, there need to be an incentive for staff to contribute to Wikipedia that is appreciated by other staff members.
  • We participated in a Photo fair, to engage dedicated photographers.
  • An initiative to encourage regular wiki meetups was started. Whilst maintaining monthly meetups in Gothenburg and fortnightly meetups in Stockholm returning meetups have been started in Kalmar, Jönköping and Uppsala.
  • In our initiatves to support contributors with resources (minigrants, community driven projects, access to reference litterature and the technology pool) we gave support to 36 contributors.
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Quality
    • Through the technology pool, high quality media has been added to Commons.
    • The reference litterature support project has added new references to articles.
    • A study of readability made by professionals gave spark to a discussion about how articles should be written to be easier to read, which can be seen as a quality imporovement in them.
  • Participation
    • With the Women on Wikipedia project we have engaged new editors.
  • Innovation
    • In the Community driven projects, one grant was for a development server for OpenStreetMap volunteers. We expect this to create new features for OSM, which of course is beneficial for free knowledge.
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Wiki meetups were arranged in 6 different cities. They ranged from simple meetups over a cup of coffee to specified for bot-users and a photo-hunt (pictures on commons)
  • Photo accreditations were given with the help of the chapter five times. Most of them were also using equipment from our technology pool. They included:
  • The technology pool was used 48 times by 15 users.
    • One volunteer had a booth at the Culture night in Hedemora with the help of equipment from our technology pool. He started a blog and made a great evaluation (in Swedish).
  • Aerial photography over three different cities by 10 volunteers. Some are still waiting there permission for publication, but the commons category are ready (and 175 images are uploaded).
  • The Reference litterature gave 3 users possibility to add sources to 70 articles.
  • We got the Centre for Easy Reading to reconstruct the lead paragraph of ten articles which sparked a nice debate on writing styles within the community who had had an discussion earlier on how it should be done.
  • We arranged edit-a-thons in collaboration with different partners and on several themes:
    • Sustainable development in cooperation with the Swedish Museum of Natural History.
    • Association of Mental Health (Föreningen Psykisk hälsa), a group with high expertise and high percentage of women.
    • Womens movement history workshop
    • Workshop with some of the students from Stockholm University as a preparation for the Fashion edit-a-thon
    • Europeana Fashion edit-a-thon at the Nordic museum in cooperation with Europeana, Stockholm University and MoMu - Fashion Museum Province of Antwerp.
  • Women on Wikipedia
    • Through a grant from Ungdomsstyrelsen (The Youth Board) we held a series of edit-a-thons and workshops. We also implemented a Teahouse, based on the one on English Wikipedia to have a nice environment for newcomers. The project continues into 2014. We were going to measure success through the editor survey, but since none were made in 2013 that will not be possible.
  • We launched a mini grants program (similar to the program in Wikimedia UK), supporting in total 7 users.
    • Example: The first mini grant, a photosafari with the focus on documenting the history of the mining and iron working areas of Sweden, was completed; images are in this Commons category (238 images).
  • We launched our funding for Community driven projects. It is meant that grants are a bit bigger than the mini grants. 2 projects were granted funds.
    • 11 volunteers attended the Gothenburg book fair, where all costs were covered from our community driven projects. Focus were mainly to take photos of authors and since the theme this year was Romania coordination were done with ro.wp. Commons category (401 images). Blog post in English.
  • We gave a course for volunteers, where we developed their skills in presenting Wikipedia and increased their knowledge of chapter activities.
  • We lent our conference room to volunteers; once for arranging a screening in the Nordic Creative Commons film festival (event page) and for one meeting where some community members came together to discuss the use of maps and for a series of Swedish lessons to Danish immigrants.
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?
  • Success in this area is attributed to two things, hard work and listening to the needs of the community.

Any additional details:


Free knowledge in education[edit]

Free knowledge in education

How do you look upon Wikipedia?
Wikimini piloting students at a fair in Gothenburg.
Wikipedia-day at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Immigrating students learning Swedish through Wikipedia.
Wiki-skills two-day workshop in Helsingborg.
Ending seminar at Royal Technical College.
Workshop at Stockholm University.
What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • Wikipedia is used as a teaching tool in education
  • Pupils, students and teachers contribute free knowledge
  • Teachers present the projects to be used as a resource for the pupils and students
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
  • 14 teachers have been using Wikipedia as a teaching tool in education and lots and lots more have been trained and are planning to use it actively.
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Quality
    • When students edit under the supervision of a teacher, the quality of the edits are high. It is also adding content relevant to the curriculum, which means that other students are going to have higher quality material to read on Wikipedia.
  • Reach
    • When teachers educate students in how Wikipedia works, they get better readers of it, gets a more nuanced understanding of it and may in turn become proponents of it. We are also reaching readers that might not have encountered Wikipedia earlier.
  • Participation
    • When courses are using Wikipedia as a pedagocical tool, we reach all the students in those courses. This gives editors that are more inline with the general population and the balance in gender is better. Many of them would never have edited Wikipedia otherwise, but now they know how to do it.
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Wikipedia for immigrants
    • In our Wikipedia for immigrants project, three teachers were involved.
    • Twenty volunteers from eleven language versions signed up to support the project.
    • Follow-up workshop with two SFI teachers in Malmö and one of their students.
    • Presentation and seminar for the Swedish for Immigrants teachers in Malmö. (30 attending)
    • Insights from the project were shared with the Global Wikipedia Community in this post on The Wikimedia Foundation blog.
    • An instructional resource was set up on Wikiversity for other teachers to learn from the project.
  • Wikimini was lunched in Swedish
    • Conversations with GR Education about WikiMini in Swedish took off, and they were funding parts of our work with it.
    • Translations were partly done by volunteering teachers.
  • Wikipedia ambassadors
    • Two students from Kalmar, the ones that later went to Uganda to teach students there, became ambassadors through the Wikipedia ambassador program.
    • One teacher stepped forward asking to volunteer on the project for up to 16 hours per week. He is updating instructions on how to contribute on Wikipedia, with new texts, visuals and tutorials about VisualEditor, and translating for the Wikimini project. He is already a Wikipedia ambassador.
  • Producing instructional material
  • Wikiskills
    • All deliverables were completed: http://wikiskills.net/the-project-deliverables/ (with links to four reports: European State of the Art, Pedagogical Framework fostering wiki uses, Training content development and publication, Guidelines for trainers).
    • Wikiskills had a meetings in Geneva and Santiago de Compostela.
    • Two Wiki skills courses in Stockholm and Skellefteå and a two day workshop on Wiki skills in Helsingborg.
  • Software work
    • One intern were working on connecting Swedish Wikiversity with Moodle in order to run courses for teachers and ambassadors more interactively. It turned out to be a bigger project than expected and instead we created an easier interactive questionnaire.
    • The Education extension was translated into Swedish and activated on Swedish Wikipedia in June.
  • Wikipedian in Academy at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
  • International coordinatioon
    • A plan has been given to all education managers worldwide as to start talking to each other.
    • Participated on the Education day on the Wikimedia Conference in Milan.
    • Dialogue with Tom in Brazil who's leading their Education Program about sharing mistakes and things to learn.
  • Meetings
    • Met with Royal College of Music to plan for Wikipedia in Eduacation and we have had ongoing discussions with Umeå University.
    • Initiated contact with Södertörn who wish to seek funding jointly with us for a project aligning their knowledge in journalism and data with Wikipedia.
    • Meeting with Education Broadcasting Radio.
    • Developed a concept for Lund University to be utilised this autumn, similar to the Swedish Agricultural University project with a Wikipedian in Academy.
    • Conversation with Lund University about a joint MOOC with Wikipedia incorporated.
    • Participated in various events to network with our partners, such as Ed-camps, Educators' Café, Bibmeet, Teachers' night and also more traditional meetings.
    • Flipped classroom meeting with teachers wanting to use Wikimedia Commons as their platform for flipped videos.
  • Miscellaneous activities
    • One group of students, led by our board member Ylva Pettersson, used Wiki Loves Monuments as a a learning tool, photographing their local cultural heritage. It turned out that one of these students won in the category buildings in the Swedish part of Wiki Loves Monuments.
    • Our Education Manager participated as jury member in Webbstjärnan 2013, which is a contest between classes in using internet as a tool.
    • Two volunteers had a workshop at the School of Hallen in Mölndal.
    • Workshop for two classes at Stagneliusgymnasiet in Kalmar. (50 attending) Two half day workshops were organized in Kalmar with circa 50 high school students. The students will travel to Uganda and write articles about the country and illustrate it with photos and videos. The cooperation with the teacher also led to a joint application for funding for two former students to travel to Uganda as volunteers to teach students there to edit Wikipedia. This was a joint application together with a Ugandian organization and the WWF.
    • Royal Institue of Technology, ending seminar where students showed off there assignments, making articles.
    • An additional 15 workshops with faculty members, teacher students, secondary school teachers and librarians across Sweden.
    • An additional 10 talks at various events, including some of the major Education events in Sweden, the International Book Fair and the SETT-show.
    • An additional 4 seminars with a range of educators across Sweden.
  • A new project to find Champions for freer licenses in Open Access was started.
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?
  • Working in Education is both easy and hard in Sweden. Many teachers are really interested and curious and they will make time and space for integrating Wikipedia. But for those who are not envangelists, it can still be a bit unclear on the advantages, and they can find it harder to justify the energy it takes to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool.
  • Wikimini was not in our original plan, but during the year it was made clear to us through high demand in teachers with younger students (ages 8-15) that Wikipedia was too hard for them. When GR utbildning funded us for porting the French version we got started.

Any additional details:


Content liberation[edit]

Content liberation

Demo web page for the database of Public Art.
André Costa to the right at the Amsterdam Hackathon.
At the World War I edit-a-thon in Stockholm.
Demo Vasamuseet, Samtidigt-Meanwhile Wikipedia touch table demo
Map of Europeana awareness activities during 2013.      GLAM      Wiki Loves Public Art In total 18 events in 10 countries and WLPA with side activities in five countries.
What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • Increase GLAM's general interest to freely license their material and make it available for use and reuse by both Wikimedia projects and others.
  • Enhance the quality of material made available under free licenses.
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
  • Several GLAMs have participated in workshops focused on editing Wikipedia and uploading images, resulting in both new and improved articles, as well as new images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
  • Some GLAMs contributed with high quality images and structured metadata to the projects.
  • A number of GLAM institutions organized independent Wikimedia activities as a result of previous cooperations.
  • The Swedish National Board of Heritage presented their report about having Wikipedians in residence with pro-tips to other institutions if they want to have such too.
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Quality
    • By getting GLAM organizations to use Commons and Wikipedia to distribute their material, the quality increases.
  • Reach
    • When GLAM organizations reuse material from Commons and Wikipedia not only does it reach a wider audience, it also builds trust that the material can be used.
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Open Database of Public Art in Sweden
    • In the Open Database for Public Art 25 municipalities and national actors have released their data. A website (http://offentligkonst.se) is up and running, showing what has been imported as lists on Wikipedia and has coordinates.
    • We participated at the Hack4DK hackathon. There a search extension was built, which also incorporate other datasets, giving a proof of concept for a global scale application.
    • Export function from the database of public art to Wiki lists are completed and due to that the municipalities data can be enhanced and corrected.
    • Participated on the Forum for Open Data conference, and gave a brief presentation of the Open Public Art Database during the open-mic.
  • Wikimania
  • Wiki Loves Monuments 2013
    • New structured list with ships listed as cultural heritage on Swedish Wikipedia
    • 4035 images uploaded by 109 participants
    • Price ceremony at the annual meeting of the Swedish National heritage board.
    • Wiki Loves Monuments were covered both in TV and radio.
    • The Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 exhibition were displayed at the Nordic Museum during the spring meeting of The Association of Swedish Museums (Riksförbundet Sveriges museer).
  • Digikult conference + hackathon in Gothenburg
  • GLAM-WIKI 2013 conference and hackathon in London
    • Participated in planning and organizing
    • Held two presentations
  • Wiki Loves Public Art
    • Initiator and main responsible for the international contest. In total 9,255 images were uploaded of 2,169 different works of art by 265 photographers from 5 countries.
    • Responsible for the organization of the local contest, in cooperation with ten art museums. Five local photo safaris were organized in Sweden as part of the contest.
  • Participated at the Wikimedia Hackathon Amsterdam 2013.
  • Batch uploads, content donations and other collaborations
    • Helping The Royal armoury (Livrustkammaren) in their work on enhancing their metadata in a preparation for uploads.
    • The Nordic museum (Nordiska museet) digitized and prepared metadata for 700-800 pictures that was uploaded for an edit-a-thon.
    • Two museums, the Nordic museum and the MoMu Fashion Museum in Antwerp, donated pictures to Wikimedia Commons that were used at a fashion edit-a-thon. WMSE assisted them both with the technical practicalities. 362 images from the Nordic museum and 8 images from MoMu.
    • We helped the Vasa Museum using the API to get information from Wikipedia and how to use QRpedia codes in a new exhibition. See video to the right.
    • Collaboration with the Centre for Business History on article creation competition.
  • Meetings
    • Meeting with the Mölndal City Museum. Thy want to integrate Wikipedia a lot more [1]
    • Meeting with the Swedish National Heritage Board on future collaboration.
    • Meetings with: The Nobel museum, Moderna museet, The Military Archives.
    • Meeting with The National Public Art Council Sweden (Statens konstråd) about releasing their art collection database and potentially pictures in the future.
    • Discussion about a Wikipedian in residence at a major organisation.
  • Presentations
    • Presentation on the Working Life Museum days about our on-going cooperation.
    • Two presentations at the Working life museum fair. 25 interested museum volunteers participated at the presentations.
    • Gave a presentation at The Association of Swedish Museums at their spring meeting about our collaboration with the Council of the Swedish Central Museums and our joint recommendations for future work.
  • Workshops
    • Workshop with staff of The Swedish National Maritime Museums (Statens maritima museer).
    • Workshop with The National musuem of technology (Tekniska museet) on image uploading.
  • Edit-a-thons
  • Three Commons videos produced. Two movies got transcripted and translated by us to English, one about Commons in general and one on how to upload movies.
If your entity did not achieve the desired objectives, why not? If it did, what enabled this? If the initiative was not in your plan, why did you pursue it?
  • We did. GLAM is one of the first areas we started working in and we have over a long time established good connections in most institutions. Having built this trust and long term relationships are bearing fruit.

Any additional details:


Reader participation[edit]

Reader participation

Participant of Wiki Loves Public Art.
Translation sorint at the office.
What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • Identify weaknesses in the quality of content and disseminate our findings.
  • Identify weaknesses in the user interface and work to get them solved.
  • Create a positive image of the projects.
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
  • Increased readability of articles, gadgets and extensions activated.
  • Several bugs identified and filed.
  • Awareness and positive outreach through contests
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Infrastructure
    • Through some bug reports, infrastructure was supported, eg. one major bug which stopped mobile editing on entire Swedish Wikipedia.
  • Quality
    • Through the contests, new users were attracted that contributed with image content and helped improve articles.
  • Reach
    • Through the contests, which included off-line events, new users were reached.
    • When media is increasingly using Wikipedia not only as a source, but as a "read more" feature, we reach new target groups.
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Wiki Loves Public Art contest (also see content liberation above)
    • A Participants' Survey was created and translated and delivered to the user talk pages of all the participants in Wiki Loves Public Art.
    • The winners for Wiki Loves Public Art in both Sweden and internationally were identified and prizes shipped.
    • Held a presentation about Wiki Loves Public Art at Wikimania.
    • wikilovespublicart.se was launched.
    • The Swedish jury, consisting of five people (both professional museum photographers and Wikimedia volunteers) decided on the Swedish winners for the Wiki Loves Public Art photo contest.
  • Wiki Loves Monuments had one volunteer working 40-60% with WLM from August.
  • UmepediA
    • In a pre-study for a QR-pedia town in Umeå (Umepedia) we identified several possible partner organisations.
    • An externally financed pre-study on UmepediA, a QR-pedia project in Umeå (when the city is the Cultural Capital of Europe in 2014), started.
    • Discussions with The Swedish National Heritage board (Riksantikvarieämbetet) on working with us in preparation for the European Capitol of Culture 2014 in a QR-pedia project in Umeå.
  • Bug reports
    • One major bug which stopped mobile editing on Swedish Wikipedia and one minor bug related to the VisualEditor was reported.
    • Bug reported on VisualEditor that developers quickly solved.
    • Three bugs reported, two on VisualEditor (1, 2) and one on playing video (3).
  • Translations, gadgets and extensions
    • The personality rights page on Commons were translated to Swedish.
    • The Education program extension got activated on Swedish Wikipedia.
    • Added the Sandbox gadget to Swedish Wikipedia.
    • We had a translation sprint where over 500 messages were translated to Swedish in translatewiki.net.
  • We created a three short videos on features on Wikipedia.
  • Worked with the Center for easy reading to get guidance on how to write ingresses that are easier to understand. 15 editors involved to pick articles for a test drive and some rules and re-worked articles as examples were noted on wikipedia.
  • We noticed that some news papers links directly to Wikipedia from editorial text and were published on a news site.
  • Open seminar at the library in Sölvesborg.
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?
  • Unfortunatly we did not manage to find students or researchers to conduct studies on the quality of the content. This is partly due to a change in the system, where a central posting place for such possibilities stopped being in use. It is also one of the areas where we had hard time finding further funding, and thus got cut.
  • There is a lot of room for improvement in the user interface, if more time were spent on it a lot more bugs could have been reported. This area was also hard to find further funding in.

Any additional details:

  • The National Museum of Technology put a portrait of former chairman (now CEO) Jan Ainali on the wall in their Walk of Nerds for his passion for Wikipedia. [2], [3]
  • The magazine Företagsminnen had an article about company history on Wikipedia and announced the article creation competition.


Free knowledge awareness[edit]

Free knowledge awareness

The brochure "Fri offentlig information".
Boxes of brochures.
When did you last use Swedish Wikipedia?
What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • Make policy makers and institutions aware of the advantages of free knowledge.
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
  • We have supplied information to all Members of Parliament and many agencies. There is now also more information easily accessible in Swedish.
  • Wikimedia Sverige and Wikipedia were named five times in the governmental budget proposition for 2014. There, state museums and archives describe their past activities and future plans and name benefits of free licensing, the presence of Wikipedia and cooperation with Wikimedia Sverige on e.g. digitization and outreach.
  • Our board member Ylva Pettersson wrote a blog post on The Swedish National Agency for Education's blog on how to use Wikipedia in the classroom.
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Participation
    • Through our work with different agencies, who are curious about Wikipedia, we have shown them how they can make contributions to free knowledge. While most of them have not started actual work yet, a few have already experimented in adding sources to official documentation in articles and a few have tried to upload media.
    • By getting politicians and agencies to participate themselves, we also expect it to be increasingly more natural for everybody else to do it too.
  • Reach
    • By getting agencies to use Wikipedia as an obvious way to reach out to citizens, it gets more accepted as a source and hence more read.
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Creating a brochure, Fri offentlig information (Free public information)
    • It that was delivered to all the 349 Members of Parliament, 138 agencies and 14 other organisations.
    • The text is translated to English and setuo for further translations.
  • Making a survey with the Members of Parliament about their use of Wikipedia.
  • Four videos with talks on different aspects of copyright from an event in February were published. [4]
  • Our intern arranged a meeting with a Member of Parliament for a short discussion on public domain and digital commons issues and unclearities in the Swedish law.
  • Europeana
    • Cooperated with Europeana Fashion with their work on a Handbook for GLAMs on how to organize edit-a-thons.
    • Assisted Europeana with the preparation of a case study about our joint edit-a-thons. The report will be ready in August.
    • Created a well received presentation about the work done within the Europeana Awareness project for the Europeana Awareness Assembly (where GLAM professionals involved in the Europeana Awareness project participated). The Prezi presentation can be found here.
  • Released a press release (in Swedish) open database for Public Art.
  • Translated and printed the brochure from WMDE on why to not use NC in Creative Commons licenses.
  • Researched parties motions regarding free knowledge, open source and free licensing. This gives us a solid point to start new talks from, now that we know who in which parties are already interested in the questions we care about.
  • Attended Digisam's Linked Open Data seminar.
  • Got an invitation to meet Skolverket, the Ministry of Education in Sweden to speak about Wikipedia in education and free knowledge in general.
If your entity did not achieve the desired objectives, why not? If it did, what enabled this? If the initiative was not in your plan, why did you pursue it?
  • We are on the way to the goal. Awareness has certainly increased, but we are not done yet. Some policy makers are hard to reach, and some times it can be hard to find out who to inform to make sure that the ones that are actually making the decisions get the information. But we have manged to find a few people on both sides of the political blocks that are interested in issues regarding free knowledge which means that we are in much better position now.

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?
  • Really establishing ourselves as a player in the GLAM sector. This is due to long term work from our side, and the pilots with the Central Museums Cooperation Council and the Working Life Museums. It has come to the point that we are the natural partner for a dialouge and that many GLAM insitutions are thinikng about how they can contribute to the cause of free knowledge, most of them do realize that we sre working with very similar missions. This ensures that high quality content have been made accessible for the Wikimedia projects this year and that it will continue in years to come.
  • Managing growth. The chapter grew in both budget and employees, and handled it very well. This in itself made all other things that we report on here possible. Having an Education Manager, one GLAM-technician and a CEO made all our work both more effective and efficient. EG. if we had not had en Education Manager, the entire program Free knowledge in education would have come out with a lot less value towards the movement goals.
2. What were your major setbacks in the past year (e.g., programs that were not successful)?
  • There were no major setbacks on program level. Some individual events suffered from e.g. lack of participants though.
3. What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?
  • The spirit in the chapter is really thriving. The staff is eager and the board tries to enable them as much as possible. After the quick expansion in 2012 things have been falling into places and the chapter has matured.
4. What unanticipated challenges did you encounter and how did this affect what you were able to accomplish?
  • It has been more difficult than expected to fundraise. Since our plan had projections for a lot more, several projects were cut down or not started at all.
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.
  • When seeking grants it has shown that to be most successful there should already be established partnerships and that it can be shown that these partners are active and also has something to gain through the grant.
  • Wikimedia Sverige had a few EU-grants and one important thing we learned is to consider currency fluctuations. This is especially important when the projects are longer, as in our case 2 years long.
  • One other thing that might not be obvious is that ending the projects in enough time so that all financial numbers are settled. That means that you cannot really work in the project until the very day you need to submit the reports, since salaries are not paid and accounted for yet. Make sure to have everything ready so that you just need to fill in the latest numbers before submitting. This means that work should be finished at least one month before reporting is due.
  • Having an office have been hugely beneficial for us this year. Potential partners have taken the time to visit our office when in town or nearby, which in an informal but very tangible way have strengthened our partnerships. We have also had the opportunity to give volunteers a place to have meetings in, over which a lot of appreciation has been made.

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?
  • In essence, we will continue all our programs. So far they are all promising, and in some areas we will expect impact to happen gradually which makes it important not to stop.
2. What might you change in organisational and program strategies in order to improve the effectiveness of your entity?
  • In our efforts to diversify the user base, we will make sure that time is getting more attention. That is, a one hour workshop has a very low chance in creating a long term wikipedian out of the participants. So we want to make sure there is more time to guide newcomers. In that we will try making series of workshops or really long ones. For example, when talking to a university we will stress that in order to get their Ph.D. students on track we need at least 2x8 hours for starters. By doing that we have time to guide the newcomers over the first hurdles so that they feel strong and self confident when parting from us.
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]

  • Eurovision Song Contest. One volunteer wanted to go to the Eurovision song contest to photgraph. However, he was denied entry at first. When Wikimedia Sverige wrote a letter of support, explaining he was a well known contributor to the Wikimedia projects, he was granted full press accreditation. He also borrowed camera and sound equipment from our technology pool, enabling him to capture high quality content. Over 800 images and videos are uploaded, used in over 30 language versions that got several millions of page views only in May 2013. Our experience is that this particular volunteer thought it was a very motivating task, and got energized for a long time period afterwards. The key to be able to do this were chapter people that were able to act quickly and high quality equipment that we were able to send across the country.

Case study: challenge[edit]

  • External fundraising. We raised the bar for ourselves, striving not to be dependent on the grant through the FDC. This turned out to be hard. Although we managed to keep the FDC to only 63% of our income, we had ambition for it to be closer to 50%. During the year we have learned that the sucess rate for grant seeking in Sweden is highly dependent on how well established partnerships are already when the applications are written. In several cases in the beginning of the year we either had no partners, or they had been contacted in the last minute, which were shining through in the applications.

Additional learning[edit]

1. What are some of the activities that are happening in your community that are not chapter-led? What are the most successful among these, and why?
  • One of the biggest things on svwp this year was bot creation of all animals. The chapter was not involved. The success, around 800 000 articles, were enabled by good discussions on-wiki, and support from several editors in debugging on the test-runs. A healthy community that can engage in constructive dialogue even in such a controversial subject seem to be key to the success (along with a dedicated and skilled bot runner of course!). Example of a bot created article.
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.
Sample pictures and movies from 2013.

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.
  • The major deviation from the grant proposal is that due to less expected external funding, some areas have had reduced budget and therefore less activity in them.
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.
  • All funds are expended.
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.
  • 5,245.12 SEK was earned.

Signature[edit]

Once complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes. --Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)