Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/Wikimedia Sverige/Impact report form

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Purpose of the report[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Basic entity information[edit]

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

Table 1

Entity information Legal name of entity Wikimedia 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) 01/01/14-12/31/14
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_)
Contact information (secondary) Secondary contact name Mattias Blomgren
Secondary contact position in entity Chairman
Secondary contact username Historiker
Secondary contact email mattias.blomgren(_AT_)

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)
    • One of the successes of the year is Umepedia (further descibed in the case study below) in which a combined effort in one city gave several synergy effects accross several projects.
    • We learned some lessons in another interesting project, Meet Wikipedia (also described below), about how to engage the general public over a sustained period of time and how our approachability can enable further and deeper discussions. The project gave us quite a lot of visibility, with an 'open office' in a public space for four weeks and gave us an opportunity to meet people in a casual way.
  • 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
      • We have both staff and board members that come from the Wikimedia community and in addition to that have professional skillsets that can be leveraged for the chapter work.
      • The organisation is stable which means that focus are not on internal issues but can be dedicated to programmatical activities.
      • The fact that the chapter now also has been around with activities for a while is also making us more known to a varied audience.
    • Weaknesses: Organizational weaknesses that inhibited the plan
      • We do lack professional communications skills within staff and the board. This means that we are not as effective that we could be when communicating what we are doing and what we are achieving.
      • We are still a quite small organisation and quite often when there are a lot of things happening at the same time, we need to prioritize and lose some opportunities. Even on a regular day, there seem to be more work that would benefit the movement to get done than we have resources for.
    • Opportunities: External opportunities that enabled the plan
      • The general trend in Sweden seem to be that more and more people are finding Wikipedia really useful source for knowledge.
      • This is also enhanced by a trend of Open Data at the authorities which means that many of them are exposed to the question of licensing in a very tangible way for the first time and that when they see the similarities to the Wikimedia projects it helps us in our conversations.
    • Threats: Risks or threats that inhibited the plan
      • The law suit of Wikimedia Sverige required some attention that could have been spent on projects. However, it has put some focus on the question of freedom of panorama and raised the awareness of the general public about the issue.
      • Getting funding applications denied is a threat that also are very real. Even though we almost got 30% of what we applied for from different funds over the year, not getting what we have budgeted meant that we could not hire as much staff as planned last year and moved forward in a slower pace than we hoped for.
  • WIKI-FOCUS: What Wikimedia projects was your entity focused on (e.g., Wiki Commons, French Wiktionary) this year?
    • We worked with a lot of projects and had no real intention for focus, but rather be flexible for the volunteers and organisations possibility of contributing. This meant that we did a lot of work on Swedish Wikipedia, Wikiversity and Wikibooks, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, Luganda Wikipedia, English Wikipedia and a few others Wikipedia language versions.
  • 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)?
    • Media files uploaded helped by chapter resources: 10,379
    • Media from technology pool viewed: 56,345,762
    • Persons engaged in workshops and seminars: 585
    • Persons reached in presentations: 1,228
    • Number of events held (edit-a-thons, workshops, seminars, presentations): 94
    • New chapter members: 391 (585)
    • New likes on Facebook page: 218 (1019)


Financial summary[edit]

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

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


Provide exchange rate used:

  • 6.77 SEK = 1 USD

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 SEK 50,000 10,800 13,100 35,750 6,900 65,550 7,386 9,830
Donations SEK 105,600 10,025.96 4,384 25,302 18,753 58,464.96 15,598 8,636
FDC Grant SEK 2,500,000 569,729.13 606,980.67 629,077.05 701,213.15 2,507,000 369,276 370,310
Interest and misc SEK 20,000 37.92 1,994.79 319.53 587,27 2,939.51 2,954 434
Other grants SEK 2,085,000 245,825.98 141,271.56 195,684.38 159,539.20 719,702.32 307,976 106,308
The Swedish National Board for Youth Affairs SEK 140,900 147,823.44 162,699.56 32,556.91 35,334.25 378,414.16 20,812 55,896

* 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
Staff SEK 3,644,800 699,901.55 684,666 554,936.85 678,408.5 2,617,912.9 538,375 386,693 72%
Community support SEK 232,800 78,453.74 80,840.37 25,103.78 46,739.17 231,137.06 34,387 34,141 99%
Content liberation SEK 118,200 14,368.94 3,833.45 95,137.02 11,844.98 125,184.39 17,459 18,491 106%
Reach and readers SEK 166,000 12,073.47 20,251.32 26,701.31 98,427.83 157,453.93 24,520 23,258 95%
Free knowledge in education SEK 136,700 70,542.85 5,044.62 27,445.36 -5,870.29 97,162.54 20,192 14,352 72%
Free knowledge awareness SEK 18,000 285 9,311.19 0 1,840.7 11,436.89 2,656 1,689 64%
Operating costs SEK 585,000 103,972.58 110,879.78 107,899.50 147,504.19 470,255.05 86,411 69,462 80%
TOTAL SEK 4,901,500 979,598.13 914,826.73 837,223.82 978,894.08 3,710,542.76 724,003 548,086 76% The explanation to the lower spending in general is mostly due to not getting as much external grants as planned for. This meant that pace could not be picked up as much as wanted.

* 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

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • The chapter shall support the community with both expertise and other resources.
    • The goal is to help at least 5 community members with expertise and work time.
    • The goal is to help at least 15 different community members getting access to resources they need to solve specific problems.
  • The chapter shall strive to get a more diversified[1] userbase and including climate with low thresholds for new contributors.
    • The goal is to get at least 13 new contributors that are active[2] in at least three months after completed[3] activity by the chapter.
  • The chapter shall strive to make communication in the community easier.
    • The goal is that there are regular[4] meetups on five places in Sweden.
    • The goal is that the chapter actively support at least four by the community initiated activities that are open for the entire community and involve more than two persons.
  • The chapter shall support and encourage subject matter experts of different kinds to actively contribute to the projects.
    • The goal is to test and document different concepts to attract subject matter experts.
    • The goal is to get 10 articles reviewed by subject matter experts.
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
Goal Progress Comment
Help at least 5 community members with expertise and worktime
Help at least 20 different community members with resources
Get 13 new active contributors for diversity
Regular meetups in 5 places
Support 4 community initiated activities
Test and document concepts for subject matter experts
Get 10 articles reviewed by subject matter experts
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Increase participation
    • By supporting the community, and especially by making physical meetings possible we believe that they will become more active and stay for longer time.
  • Improve quality
    • By reaching out to subject matter experts our aim is to increase article quality.
  • Encourage innovation
    • By supporting the community to come up with new ideas and to help them where they get stuck our aim is to increase innovation.
    • By continuing exploring possibilities that subject matter experts can participate we plan to try some new ideas.
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Support to the community
    • Expert help
      • 16 community members have been helped with expertise and worktime in 36 different issues, e.g. advanced use of Wikidata and maps and map tools.
    • Minigrants
      • 8 minigrants were approved in 2014, 5 were finished and 3 is still ongoing or are awaiting reporting. A few examples below
        • In this years Eurovision Song Contest, the same volunteer as last year, Albin Olsson, got photo accreditation. We sponsored his trip to Denmark and provided equipment from the technology pool. He managed to get all 37 participants on both picture and videopresentation and over 1,000 files uploaded. Blog post.
        • Here is a nice blog post (in Swedish) from one minigrant.
        • Photo safari in Västerås, 189 images uploaded.
        • One grant for scanning out of copyright anatomy books were approved.
        • The chapter supported a series of edit-a-thons in Gothenburg, focusing on female lead characters. The edit-a-thons have been organized once a week since Spring and have a group of frequently returning editors (mainly women).
    • Community driven projects:
      • 2 community driven projects were approved in 2014 and both were finished:
        • Two persons from Open Knowledge Foundation Sweden got a grant to be able to participate at the OKFN festival in Berlin. Images are available here.
        • Gothenburg book fair. A big project with 15 volunteers involved over 4 days. A long report is available in english here, images here and also as a podcast (in Swedish)
    • Photo accreditations
      • During the year we helped volunteers getting 4 photo accreditations.
    • Aerial photographs - two helicopter tours were made in September with in total five volunteers flying, one in Skåne and one over and outside Stockholm. Most are awaiting approval for publication but over 200 images has already been uploaded here. Two blogposts in Swedish was written ([1] [2]) by the volunteers.
    • Technology pool
      • The techology pool was used 80 times by 24 different users. 3,060 media files were uploaded in 2014. Media files created by the Technology pool were viewed 56,345,762 times.
  • Diversity
    • Women on Wikipedia
      • 11 edit-a-thons for women in 9 cities was held in Q1. 56 participants. 9 media mentions from both press, tv and radio.
      • We had a themed edit-a-thon on the international Women's day at the Nobel Museum: Female Nobel Laureates, where we also interviewed one laureate for her article.
      • Two edit-a-thons were held in Umeå with two weeks apart. Only 4 participants but we got interviewed by the local tv station in a very nice interview.
      • All staff members got a course in how language and gender can (often involuntarily) be used as power techniques, in order to be aware of such issues.
      • We got new funds (342,478 SEK) from The Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society to continue the project another year.
      • We participated at Nordiskt forum (The Nordic Forum), the largest feminist conference in the Nordic countries. 14 accounts were created. We also got 24 answers on a survey, which we will start analysing soon. Coverage in a regional newspaper and even a Danish one (in Danish). At least 18 articles improved and another 6 in sand boxes.
      • We made an updated version (with VisualEditor) of the Illustrating Wikpedia brochure in Swedish.
      • In total, around 120 new accounts were created thanks to the project.
    • Mbazzi Wikipedia center and Uganda pilot
      • The center is up and running, some images available in this blog post. During the year, Luganda Wikipedia doubled in size and there was a noticeable increase in activity. 48 accounts created of which 38 made edits and 12 made more than 5 edits in a month totalling on 383 edits.
      • After internal evaluation of the Uganda pilot by WWF Sweden, they decided to give more funding (>50 000 SEK) for an extra train the trainers bootcamp. They are also starting up a new Wikipedia Center which they will run themselves (funded by SIDA). Blog post about the pilot. Unfortunatly it had to be postponed to 2015 due to fear of the Ebola outbreak.
  • Easier communication
    • There are regular meetups in Stockholm, Göteborg and Uppsala, and more than 4 meetups in Umeå. We are hoping that Lund and Falun might become regular.
    • Travel grants
      • 2 travel grants were approved and reported in 2014.
    • We provided office space for meetings between Wikipedians.
    • Community initiated edit-a-thons
      • We supported two edit-a-thons, one on female artists and one on women's icehockey.
    • Photo contest Då och Nu (Then and now). The idea of the contest, organized by Europeana, the National Heritage Board and Wikimedia Sweden is to find an old photo in the Europeana database and make a new photo as similar as possible and upload it to Commons. All new photos, with links to the old ones, can be found here.
      • It had two open workshops in Q3, in Stockholm and Gothenburg which had in total 13 participants.
      • In total 11 competing users, of which one was a new user.
      • 59 uploaded images (and 33 corresponding images from Europeana).
      • 44 media mentions about the competition of which Wikimedia Sverige was featured in 7.
  • Subject matter experts
    • We have been trying several different ways in collaborating with subject matter experts and collected these in two case studies (in Swedish). In total 4 articles were reviewed, a video was made and the brochure Evaluating Wikipedia has been translated to Swedish.
    • Photography guides - For our photography guides we identified a learning pattern which can be translated into a guide. We also sent out a request to the participants of our aerial photography trips asking them to share best practices and learnt experiences. Finally we contacted a volunteer and professional photographer asking if he could put together a short guide for event photography.
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?
  • Keeping new active contributors for diversity active during 3 consecutive months has turned out to be our biggest challenge. See separate section for that below.
  • During our pilot project with expert reviews of Wikipedia articles we believe that we have identified some weaknesses that make it harder to identify experts and pair them with suitable articles to review. The first one is a lack of agreed standard on how to handle their feedback in order to make sure that they feel that their work is useful, appreciated and needed. We believe that some experts are willing to review the articles but that they e.g. doesn't want to learn to edit but want to send the material to someone else to post it. But for this a new mail template for OTRS need to be created, the will of the volunteer community to work in the proposed changes etc. must be confirmed and so forth. When we have an infrastructure in place it would be possible to create a list with articles that we believe to be central to be reviewed and actively contact experts about this and ask for their help. The second is that there seem to be a lack of understanding why they, as busy experts, should contribute to Wikipedia and how they can get credit for their work. We are working with SLU in a project to raise awareness about the benefits of contributing.

Any additional details:

Changes in 2014 in Category:Media created by technology pool of Wikimedia Sverige [3]
Metrics Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year-to-date Objective
Category analysis
Number of files online 193 1296 1148 423 3060 '
Number of highlighted files 77 132 205 122 536 '
Number of users 11 16 11 11 33 '
The table to the left as a graph, made with this tool.
Total in Category:Media created by technology pool of Wikimedia Sverige
Date Number of Files Difference
2014-01-01 4259
2014-02-01 4296 +0.80%
2014-03-01 4362 +1.61%
2014-04-01 4476 +2.61%
2014-05-01 4713 +5.29%
2014-06-01 5700 +20.94%
2014-07-01 5771 +1.25%
2014-08-01 6210 +7.61%
2014-09-01 6398 +3.03%
2014-10-01 6932 +8.35%
2014-11-01 7153 +3.19%
2014-12-01 7342 +2.64%
2015-01-01 7356 +0.19%
  • Featured images: 79
  • Quality images: 1553
  • Global usage: 18806

Content liberation

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • The chapter shall create and dissiminate information and knowledge about free licenses.
    • The goal is to publish at least one op-ed about why free licenses are important.
    • The goal is to create an easy way to report misuse of free material.
    • The goal is that at least one press services use free licenses correctly, making it easy to chose a free license and the user shall know what it means.
  • The chapter shall influence agencies, public institutions and organisations so that they start using free licences.
    • The goal is that at least 10 new organisations use free license for material they distribute.
    • The goal is that at least 50% of the organisations that has released material under free licences will continue to do it during the year.[5]
    • The goal is that the chapter shall spread information about all organisations that release material under a free license.[6]
  • The chapter shall give hands-on support to organisations that want to release their material under a free license.
    • The goal is to create documentation and procedures on how you transfer large amount of files to Wikimedia Commons.
    • The goal is that all organisations that want to release their material under a free license shall get the support they need to make it available and that they will be able to continue by themselves.
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
Goal Progress Comment
Publish at least one op-ed
Create an easy way to report misuse of free material
At least 10 new organisations use free license
At least 50% of the organisations that has released material continues[7]
Spread information about all organisations that release material under a free license
Create documentation and procedures
Feedback not yet integrated
All organisations that want to release their material under a free license shall get support
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Increase participation
    • By making free licenses more known to the public our aim is to make more people available under such, in practice making them participants on free knowledge.
  • Improve quality
    • By making more freely licensed content available from different institutions the quality in the projects can increase.
  • Increase reach
    • By communicating why free licenses are good our aim is to increase the usage in situations where it today is underused.
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Dissiminate information and knowledge about free licenses
    • CC-toolkit
      • Participated at a CC-toolkit booksprint in Krakow to make information about the Creative Commons Licences easier accessible.
    • Credit-my-CC - a new tool was built to make it easier for Commons photographers asking for correct attribution when their images are being used elsewhere.
  • Start using free licences
    • Example of the organisations that released freely licensed material for the first time
    • Example of the organisations that that continued to release freely licensed material
      • The National Library uploaded books, maps and images.
      • The Maritime Museum uploaded images.
      • In a cleanup job from last years upload from LSH further 500 images were uploaded. Blog post (in Swedish).
      • The Swedish National Heritage Board used the GW toolset as a pilot to upload around 1000 images. The upload included all their images of Umeå and is available in Category:Images of Samis and of West Bothnia.
    • Outreach
      • Collaboration with Council of the Swedish Central Museums
        • Continued meetings and planning with The Council of the Swedish Central Museums. Four of them became organizational members in Wikimedia Sverige. A workshop was held with operative managers and a series of workshops are planned for autumn. An exampel page for institutions to use on Wikipedia was setup.
        • During September Axel Pettersson gave a presentation to the directors of the central museums as a follow up to a presentation two years ago when the collaboration started. All of the attending directors admitted that they had not edited Wikipedia them selves, some of them even feeling guilty about it. But when they saw some examples of what their staff had done they were impressed and happy with both the contributions and finding out that they could see the number of pageviews on articles and use of images in different projects. Later on a workshop for beginners were hosted at Nordiska museet as new staff at the Central museums had asked for training and help to get started on editing. To the workshop a flyer was made that promotes wikiproject GLAM and gives shortcuts to tools and other good resources.
        • The collaboration will continue in 2015.
      • Presentations and participation at seminars and conferences
        • Co-arranged the conference Digikult. This was a two day conference with the focus on everything related to a digital cultural heritage.
        • Presented Wikipedia as a public archive at #Arkividag, Nordisk arkivformedlingskonferanse in Oslo.
        • Presented how GLAMs can work with Wikimedia at Cultural heritage portal Västmanland seminar day. Video.
        • Participated at the GBIF Digitization symposium.
        • Participated at a DISKA seminar.
        • Participated at Örebro County Heimat associations.
        • Participation and presentation at Museernas vårmöte (The Museums Spring Meeting). This was an excellent networking opportunity. More than 30 good connections made. Interviewed by two local newspapers, made the front cover on one of them.
  • Give hands-on support
    • Support
      • In total, we gave support to 15 organisations. Among them were Skövde City Museum, The National Archives and others, some mentioned below.
      • Batch upload meeting - The Royal Armoury, Skokloster Castle and the Hallwyl Museum invited staff at several museums in Sweden to participate in a meeting where they, together with Wikimedia Sverige, shared what they have learned during their batch upload of more than 20,000 images to Wikimedia Commons. The meeting went into details on what to think of before the upload, how to prepare your metadata and what to expect after the upload. It was also a chance for us to introduce our check-list (work in progress) for institutions wanting to make their material available on Wikimedia projects. With more than 30 participants from at least 15 institutions the meeting was definitely a success and we hope that this will result in many new batch uploads.
      • The National Library - A script for creating a GWToolset compliant xml file for the map files made available by the National Library of Sweden was developed. The script combines the contents of the file repository with a lookup against en:LIBRIS and is intended as a prototype for future uploads. Unfortunately the actual upload is awaiting a bug fix in GWToolset.
      • KulturNav - In preparation for the project which will add data from KulturNav to Wikidata, KulturNav added a JSON-LD format to the API output. This allowed us to do a first pilot with data curated by the Swedish Centre for Architecture and Design with the primary aim of adding and/or sourcing statements about architects on Wikidata. Future collaborations between KulturNav and Wikidata are planned as well as GLAM workflows for contributing to Wikidata.
      • Mapillary - Discussions were started with Mapillary about integrating an "upload to Commons" function for their crowdsourced and geotagged street level photos.
      • Support (with a few best practices) was given to Sound and Vision in the Netherlands regarding a contest that they were organizing on Dutch Wikipedia (with 200 videos added to articles). They contacted us because of the successful outcome of the Umepedia Challenge previously this year.
      • We gave support to Guitars — the Museum who implemented QRpedia signs in the museum, leading to artists that have been playing the guitars they exhibit.
    • Batch upload documentation - In preparation for the batch upload meeting a first draft of the documentation was finished and the participants were invited to give feedback on the contents.
    • We got funded by .Se to give a workshops about the Wikimedia API:s. 6+12 persons attended, most of them with developer background.
    • Using the data made available on Europeana by the National Museum of Fine Arts we made metadata on 6,500 paintings available to the Sum of all Paintings project. By being in contact with the museum during this process we showed them the value of releasing their data leading to them planning new open data and Wikidata initiatives in 2015.
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 work with the op-ed never started as we did not have resources for the work.
  • Our focus on retaining and expanding organizations releasing material under a free license was successful, but we did not manage to meet our highly set goals. This was due to a combination that low hanging fruits have been picked. Also, in some cases we did not have ability to help organizations to the degree they needed in order to actually release the material. Sometime it isn't enough to just give them support for them to finish a batch upload. Some organizations experienced problems, because of the complexity of batch upload and the amount of time and effort needed, It is more complex for them as their tags is in Swedish and need to be translated into English and then match to the category structure. Finally, there might have been some organizations that have shared their material independently and not informed us about it.

Any additional details:

  • We had a knowledge sharing meeting with Barbara Fischer from Wikimedia Deutschland.
  • We got funded (100,000 SEK) by Kulturbryggan to make free recordings of Swedish music in the public domain. The project will finish in 2015.
  • We replied to the lawsuit about the website of public art, with the help of lawyers provided by Wikimedia Foundation.
  • The Swedish National Heritage Board are updating their web strategy. In their review of external stakeholders Wikimedia Sverige was identified as one of them and external consultants made an interview with us on how we experience our relationship. This was a signal of our importance in the sector and also an excellent chance to give them credit for the good work they have done for the Wikimedia projects and also steer them to enable more collaboration in the future.
    • The National Heritage Board also held an in-house edit-a-thon on the objects in their collections. This was organised without direct involvement from Wikimedia Sverige but illustrates how the GLAM has retained their interest in Wikimedia as a result of our previous collaborations (including having a Wikipedian in Residence).
  • Wikimania - In the GLAM track Axel Pettersson were part of a presentation on local outreach along with representatives from Wikimedia Deutchland and Wikimedia Norway. In a Video to Commons workshop Prolineserver continued building on a converting and uploading tool that will make it easier to convert videos to free formats and upload them to Commons. John Andersson joined the Wikimedia task force, a task force set up to give recommendations on how to develop cooperation and technical tools shared by the organizations.

Reach and readers

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • The chapter shall strive for a positive attitude towards, and increased use of, the Wikimedia projects and free knowledge by doing PR and educate the public and potential users in Sweden.
    • The goal is to create a newsletter for media and the public about the Wikimedia projects and free knowledge which has at least 50 subscribers.
    • The goal is to increase the number of proactive stories about Wikimedia projects in media.
  • The chapter shall strive to that the projects give a great reader experience.
    • The goal is to report technical problems within a week.
    • The goal is that the number of untranslated strings for the software[8] in Swedish will not be lower than 95% for more than a month.
    • The goal is that new extensions from the Wikimedia Foundation[9] will be translated quickly so that the language is not a hinder to activation.
    • The goal is to implement at least one functionality that enhances the reader experience.
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
Goal Progress Comment
Create a newsletter
New newsletter infrastructure is up and running. All the templates and the work flow is established.
The newsletter should have at least 50 subscribers
3/50. Subscribers of our old newsletter (338) will not count towards the target, nor the new members that are automatically subscribed (391).
Increase the number of proactive stories
Report technical problems
The number of untranslated strings
Translation levels a bit low, due to adding of all API messages.
New extensions translation
Implement at least one functionality that enhances the reader experience
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Increase participation
    • By making reading the projects the best experience possible our aim is that the threshold to hit the edit-button will be lowered.
    • By spreading the stories about the movement our aim is that more people will be convinced to participate themselves.
  • Increase reach
    • By making reading the projects the best experience possible our aim is that there will be no excuse to use other sources.
    • By spreading the stories about the movement our aim is that more people will see the value in using at as a source of information.
  • Encourage innovation
    • By reporting bugs and doing new functionality and enhacing the readablilty our aim is that things not yet thought of will bring the projects forward.
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Communication and PR
    • We have created a communication strategy.
    • In total we had 63 positive press mentions in 2014 that we initiated.
    • Newsletter
      • We started with a new newsletter, with news from all over the Wikimedia world. Aimed at people who do not already know everything about Wikimedia. We produced 14 in 2014. They are all available publicly on our website:
    • Meet Wikipedia (sv: Träffa Wikipedia)
      • We were invitited (and funded) by the Swedish Centre for Architecture and Design to have an open office in their building, enabling people to "meet wikipedia". The idea was that ordinary people easily could ask questions about Wikipedia and how it works. The project spanned from 11 March to 16 April.
      • In March we had 107 conversations with visitors, of which 7 created accounts on the spot and 7 became members of the chapter.
      • Many GLAM-employees took the chance to come and talk to us about how they could use Wikipedia, and some even spent entire days writing articles about historical persons.
      • During this we also got in contact with architect courses at Stockholm University and Royal College of technology and got them to update some Wikipedia articles about buildings and architects.
      • In April we had:
        • an edit-a-thon (4 participants) with theme Umeå (the Umepedia project).
        • a translation sprint with introduction to the platform.
        • open teacher night (4 teachers) got an introduction to how to use Wikipedia in Education.
      • Lots of images available on Commons.
    • Umepedia
      • We are working on a QRPedia town in Umeå, which is the cultural capitol in Europe 2014. The project is mainly funded through a grant from Kulturbryggan. This has generated a lot of media. In total we have had 21 press mentions on this project alone, including radio. The project was presented on the front page of the region's largest newspaper.
      • Six edit-a-thons has been organized.
      • As a part of this we have prepared an article writing contest Umepedia Challenge, which was taking place 1 May to 31 May. It was a huge success for the Umepedia project with over 600 articles in 46 languages written. Blog post.
      • On special request from us The National Library uploaded some high resolution 18th century maps and images of Umeå.
      • An external web page has been launched (in Swedish and English).
      • A volunteer was given access to Umeå city archive to scan historical material for our articles. Staff from the chapter was then given the opportunity to present about Wikipedia and our other projects for the archive's staff. The archive is now planing to include uploads and sourcing of statements as part of their workflow.
      • During Museernas vårmöte (see above) the first two QR-pedia signs in Umeå were placed outside of Västerbotten Museum and Guitars — the Museum, and 18 QR codes in the exhibitions at Guitars.
      • The other 25 QRpedia signs have been delivered and the signposts were designed and the production of them started. This marks the beginning of the final step of the project where we will erect the signs together with our local partners.
      • A delegation from Eskilstuna municipality requested a presentation about Umepedia (as one of the most interesting ones during the year as European Capital of Culture) and we could present and answer questions for an hour.
      • A politician in a neighbouring municipality (Skellefteå) requested that the municipality staff investigate the feasibility to support a similar project in Skellefteå, something they are now working on.
    • Wiki Loves Monuments
      • The Swedish National Heritage Board were offically partnering this year too. We have produced a new instructional video on how to participate.
      • Wiki Loves Monuments in Sweden had 122 participants - with around half of them being newly registered user. Of the uploaders that have been active before around ⅓ of them first became active during a previous WLM competition. This shows that WLM is a good way of getting people involved and also to retain users.
      • As part of the preparations we continued the development of a statistics tool which we use to see which objects are photographed, where in Sweden they are taken as well as information about the participants. The tool also gave us a great set of data to use for the localized press releases that we sent out. You can find the tool here:
      • There was a massive increase of media coverage with over 30 articles about the contest.
  • Reader experience
    • Report technical problems
      • In Q1 we reported 24 bugs, of which 8 already has been fixed. We also made 3 feature requests, eg. not things that were broken, but added functionality that would be of help.
      • 18 bugs and 4 feature requests were reported in Bugzilla in Q2 along with 15 reports on errounus source texts in
      • 14 bugs and 38 problematic source messages (i.e. English messages used as the base for translation) were reported and/or corrected in Q3.
      • 9 bugs and 17 problematic source messages (i.e. English messages used as the base for translation) were reported and/or corrected in Q4.
    • Translation
      • We have monitored what is coming up and made sure translation rates are high. Monthly matrix of completion.
      • We continued to report bugs for translatewiki, made some important last minute traslations. We received funding (337,000 SEK) from Internetfonden (.SE) for a major extension of the project, which will include work with
      • Integration of Entryscape in has started. Entryscape is the pilot project with which we aim to document how to get involved in as a software developer. As part of this MetaSolutions created localization utilities for Dojo.
      • As part of our work on we identfied which projects were most relevant the scope of our project and that we would focus on during our sprints and translations.
      • As part of the project and to ensure consistent and high quality in the messages used by MediaWiki, its extensions, and the other prioritized projects, a few thousand messages have been proofread and improved.
      • As before we ensured that any new messages used in the Wikimedia projects were translated within a week of being added to Work with designing badges suited to the community continued and is now largely done.
      • Translation sprints for non-Wikimedians were organised at four locations: together with the University of Umeå, with KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, at the Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit (FSCONS) in Gothenburg and at Wikimedia Sverige's office together with Mozilla translators. In addition to resulting in new translations this served as an interesting study into the challenges encountered by new translators wishing to get involved and to deepen cooperation with the universities and with the Mozilla community (whom will use our office for events during 2015).
      • A first prioritization of the help documents on was done. We shared this list with the wider community for feedback and help with improving the documentation. Also a set of instruction videos were created.
      • 12 new Swedish translators have signed up on's portal. This is an increase with 36 percent.
      • Two of the events had media present. At one event the Swedish National Broadcasting Service made a short radio feature about the project. Also, one freelance journalist attended and was gathering information for a future story.
  • Add functionality
    • Wikimaps
      • The project started with a kick-off in Helsinki. documentation including videos from all presentations from that day is available.
      • Some maps of Umeå got uploaded by the National Library and we have identified further maps at the National Land Survey. After negotiations with them they decided to make some of their maps available under a free license, a first for this governmental agency. We also got a clear statement with regards to them not claiming additional copyrights on digitised works in the public domain, something which they had previously been vague about. In total around 30 maps were made available from three different institutions, all covering Umeå over different periods of time.
      • Participated at the Wikimedia Hackathon Zürich. Here the foundation for a new map template for Wikimedia Commons was made (later finished). This will allow map images on Commons to retaining more structured data from the sourcing GLAMs and as a result become more findable by external parties.
      • Discussions were held with the developers behind to show them how to use the MediaWiki API to include Commons material in their searches.
      • All maps made available through the project can be found in Category:Content made available through Wikimaps Nordic.
  • Europeana - By request we developed a tool allowing Europeana to harvest metadata on images on Wikimedia Commons and integrate these in their catalogue. As a first batch of tests all of the Wiki Loves Monuments images from Sweden were made available on Europeana and connected to their objects on the depicted images. The tool is available at and the images can be found at .
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 work with implementing a new feature was not reached as we did not have resources for the work. The work that was done for improving maps in the Wikimaps project was preparations for it but it is far from being ready to implement.
  • We created all the infrastructure for the newsletter and the amount of subscribers increased heavily as our membership grew. However, as we realized that a lot of subscribers didn't receive the newsletter because of technical problems we did not actively pursue more external subscribers.
  • The large number of proactive stories in the media was to a large part due to an active implementation of communication plans in a number of projects. Especially successful was the Wiki Loves Monuments projects where we, together with focused efforts from our partners, managed to achieve a lot of media coverage on the local and regional level.

Any additional details:

Links in
  • A piece called "Vi är Wikipedianer" ("We are Wikipedians") was published in Aftonbladet Söndag (a nationwide paper), covering a total of 6 pages with 5 images. The main part was from a Wiki meetup at Kulturhuset earlier this year.
  • That Swedish Wikipedia became the second largest Wikipedia thanks to Lsjbot made the headlines: Washington Post, The Local, SVT, Svd, Metro, AB
  • And Lsjbot got his share of attention through an article in the Wall Street Journal that gave rise to several other stories: Internetworld, Aftonbladet, Huffington Post, Canaltech, Technowiki, Digital Argaam, France24, Clubic, Les Echos, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Mail.
  • We also got reports from the Swedish National Heritage board that their site now has around 120 million links to Wikimedia Commons. The large number is explained by each of their images having several “related links from Commons”, i.e. an object on kringla that has 3 images, and where there are 4 identified images of that object on Commons produces 12 unique links. This is a direct result of the work made on the previous Wikipedian developer in residence which took place in 2012.

Free knowledge in education

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • The chapter shall strive to make research financed with public funding to be published under a free license.
    • The goal is to establish contacts with three financers of research.
  • The chapter shall educate teachers to integrate Wikipedia into education, prominently by encouraging students to actively contribute.
    • The goal is to collaborate with at least two Teacher training colleges about integrating Wikipedia.
    • The goal is that at least 10 different courses in University level have contributed to the creation or spreading of free knowledge.
    • The goal is to display and promote at least two nice examples on how Wikipedia can be used in education.
    • The goal is to create a package for secondary education with a clear connection to the curriculum that immediately can be used by schools. The package shall include exercises, contacts to volunteers and other teaching material, all collected in a web portal that explains the contents.
    • The goal is that 20 different classes have received diplomas for good contributions after reporting to a feedback process.[10]
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
Goal Progress Comment
Establish contacts with three financers of research
Collaborate with at least two Teacher training colleges
At least 10 different courses in University level have contributed
Display and promote at least two nice examples
Create a package for secondary education
20 different classes have received diplomas
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Increase participation
    • By getting Wikipedia accepted in the school environment our aim is that we will lay the ground for a new generation of contributors. If everyone really understands how it is built and why it actually works the excuse of not knowing gets erased.
  • Improve quality
    • By making research published under free license it will be easier to integrate them in the Wikimedia projects.
    • By having university courses contribute with content after proper training the quality will increase.
  • Increase reach
    • By getting Wikipedia accepted in the school environment our aim is that we will lay the ground for a new generation of readers and promoters of our projects.
  • Encourage innovation
    • By having university courses contribute in other ways than just writing articles our aim is to find some novel ideas on improvement.
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Research from public funding
    • Participated at Mötesplats Open Access (Meeting place Open Access), the largest conference in Sweden on Open Access to make contacts.
    • Participated at UNESCO and Swedish Research Council conference.
  • Integrate Wikipedia into education
    • Outreach and training
      • Workshops
        • Two two-day workshops with faculty and other staff at Lund's University, the second successful with 15+11 participants.
        • Two workshops with different groups of faculty at Stockholm University.
        • A workshop with the Royal Institute of Technology.
        • Three half day workshops with the Department of Computer and Systems Science at Stockholm University, with 90 participants, all educators from the global south, in the ICT and Pedagogical Development International Training Program. This partnership also included attending two social events at the Nobel Museum to further connect with the participants and the organizers.
        • Organised a t Teachers meet up with 4 teachers as part of the "Meet Wikipedia" project.
          • Workshop and presentation at Tom Tits Experiments (a science museum) for 20 teachers.
      • Interviews
        • The Swedish National Agency for Education made an interview with our Education manager Sara Mörtsell about Wikipedia in education] (in Swedish).
        • Stockholm City has an official blog for educators called Pedagog Stockholm. They also featured an interview (in Swedish) with Sara.
      • Presentations and conferences
        • One member of WMSE staff and one member of WMSE board participated on the expert panel for the 2015 NMC Technology Outlook for Scandinavian Schools, released by the Swedish National Agency for Education and The New Media Consortium and others.
        • Presented at the BETT-show in London, to around 150 educators from Sweden.
        • We were invited to the national conference Framtidens lärande (The future of learning) to present the Education Program to a large audience and also to showcase the Wikimedeia projects in workshops throughout the two days, attracting a large number of interested educators.
        • Participated at an Unesco meeting about learning.
        • Participated in events in the Stockholm area such as Edcamp, the conference AFK Huddinge, and two Open Badges meetups, to extend the network and local community of organisations interested in issuing badges.
        • We were invited to present our project Wikipedia for immigrants at two national education conferences SFI i fokus (Focus on Swedish For Immigrants) and Flerspråkighet i fokus (Focus on Multilingualism).
        • Presented at the conference Tierp Educational Technology Transformation for 20 teachers. Slides and programme spot (both in Swedish). This was also an opportunity to connect with a group of 4 teachers in the SFI Program about our Wikipedia for Immigrants Program.
    • Information material
      • We set up a teachers' handbook, complete with exercises, on Wikiversity on how to integrate Wikipedia in the SFI Program, adults learning Swedish. This resource was enhanced by a brochure explaining the concept and the handbook.
      • We translated and localized Wikipedia:Training/For educators to Swedish Wikipedia. For the editing module we also created tutorial videos for using Visual Editor which meant a welcome update of our learning material and further lowering the threshold for new editors.
      • We published the brochure (and source) we have used for Wikimini.
      • We created two groups on Facebook for discussions (and to reach the audience), one for using Wikipedia in education (140 members by end of December) and one for Open Educational Resources (145 members), both in Swedish.
      • We created a video tutorial explaining Open Educational Resources on Wikibooks.
      • To support teachers assigning the younger students to edit Wikimini, we created a learning resource including tutorial videos explaining the quality and evaluation of Wikimini content and how teachers can assign more advanced exercises. This is to boost both content and the emerging Wikimini community, as well as teachers understanding of the functions of online collaborative encyclopedias, since Wikimini mimics Wikipedia. Wikimini has become quite wide spread (over 1000 registered users) and have around 50-100 active users (one edit or more) each week
    • In order to recognise the efforts and achievements of teachers and students, Wikimedia Sverige is in the process of designing an Open Badge system for local activities of the Education Program in Sweden (we decided to go with badges rather than diplomas) These badges will be used both in online and offline training with teachers to map out the learning and the various tasks. Teachers can display the recognition of their skills in places that matter to them. Issuing badges for students is likewise a way of motivating participation and high quality contributions and a tool for showing students how to accomplish this. At this early stage, the system is set up by one main badge which is composed by three sets of skills (for students) and three key tasks (for teachers). Student badges are green and teacher badges are blue and as visual representations they enhance the process of assigning students to edit Wikipedia, which is discussed in this blog post (Swedish) and a final report was published on the WMF blog. These badges will be tested in coming activities for feedback from the earners on how the system can be improved.


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 need an extended network of connections to support our efforts to present the Education Program to teacher training courses at universities. This network has enabled many teachers and students to successfully use Wikimini and also an integral part of reaching out in the other work.

Any additional details:

Free knowledge awareness

What were the stated objectives of this program? Please use SMART criteria to explain these goals.
  • The chapter shall strive to get free knowledge and free licenses on the political agenda.
    • The goal is to establish new and maintain existing relations with opinion leaders and decision makers.
    • The goal is to increase the collaboration with like minded organisations.
    • The goal is to develop a strategy for advocacy.
  • The chapter shall influence the overarching agencies to encourage the use of Wikimedia projects in their areas.
    • The goal is that key people in overarching agencies are brought together in a meeting arranged by the chapter.
What is your progress against these objectives? (Include metrics and number of volunteers/staff involved.)
Goal Progress Comment
Establish new and maintain existing relations
Increase the collaboration with like minded organisations
Develop a strategy for advocacy
Arranging a meeting
Which Wikimedia movement strategic priority (or priorities) did this program address and how?
  • Increase participation
    • By making free knowledge and licenses something that is discussed and thought of, our aim is that more people will use them and contribute. What you are not aware of you cannot help with.
  • Improve quality
    • By making free knowledge and licenses something that opinion leaders, decision makers and agencies care about our aim is that more institutions will make their material available to the Wikimedia projects.
  • Increase reach
    • By getting opion leaders promoting free knowledge the value of it will be more clear and usage will increase.
What key activities were conducted and/or milestones achieved with this program?
  • Co-arranged the conference Digikult. This was a two day conference with the focus on everything related to a digital cultural heritage with many important organisations attending. Links to slides and videos (most in Swedish but some in English)
  • Started collaborating with the newly formed Open Knowledge Foundation group in Sweden.
  • We answered the European Commission copyright consultation as well as helped giving answers to Advocacy advisory group.
  • We participated in the Big Fat Brussels meeting. Notes and comments. A few other chapters were interested in localizing/translating our Free Public Information Brochure.
  • Gave a introductary presentation about Wikipedia as a volunteer project for other volunteer organisations (25 in audience and 147 video views). Video and slides (both in Swedish).
  • To be able to create an informed strategy - and to be able to react in a timely fashion - the chapter continuously keep an eye out for important legislative changes that might affect our work. For this we have had great help of the EU lobbying group (WEASEL). When needed the information gathered are forwarded to the board for decisions and more newsworthy legislative developments are also included in our newsletter to raise awareness amongst our volunteers and the media.
  • Participated at a Europeana Task Force meeting held at Wikimania. The task force is aimed to find out how Wikimedia and Europeana should collaborate in the future.
  • We signed the position paper on EU copyright. This is an important step for our chapter as we through this work became further engaged in the work on the EU level and also improved our ability to answer similar requests for positions in the future.
  • A volunteer moved to Brussels to do lobbying for us on site.
  • We had a meeting with General directors about Open Educational Resources.
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?
  • It turned out that both politicians and high level officials are more reachable than we originally thought.

Any additional details:

  • The General Director for The Swedish National Agency for Education, Anna Ekström, was chairman at our annual meeting and is now a member of the chapter.
  • We had the Director-General of the National Archives (Riksarkivarien) taking part at our seasonal social event.

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?
  • One of the continued major accomplishment is the way we have been creating a network within the GLAM sector. Through the collaboration with the Council of the Swedish Central Museums that has been ongoing for a few years has led the way to the collaboration with working life museums through Arbetsam, their coordinating association. Over all, after we have proven to be a reliable and sincere partner, there is now not so much a question about if we should collaborate, but rather how we can do it to be mutual beneficial and where to find the resources for it. The impact it has on the movement goals are several. One is that the quality of the content increases, both through better and more media files but also improved information on Wikipedia directly. One example on that is the internal edit-a-thons that the National Heritage Board has where their employees are working on improving and sourcing infoboxes about listed monuments. Another is the increased diversity, since a majority of the employees within the GLAM sector in Sweden are women, so when they get active it organically increases diversity.
  • Another major accomplishment is the case study of Umepedia, presented below. With all the translations it spurred it made knowledge available in many different languages and through the cooperations some unique content were released from several different GLAM-institutions increasing the quality even further.
2. What were your major setbacks in the past year (e.g., programs that were not successful)?
  • Even though we had a quite successful year in the project for increasing diversity in the community in terms of media attention and successfully organized events, we struggle with the retention rates. Our continued efforts in this area makes us think that becoming a Wikipedia editor is not something that happen in a short period, but that the "incubation time" that is needed for learning through lurking is something that makes it hard to detect to when someone we previous have had activities with start to edit.
3. What factors (organizational, environmental) enabled your success?
  • There were many things helping us doing successful work. Among the biggest were a stable organization. The board is moving their focus to strategy and the office is doing day-to-day operations and could be really focused on the activities.
  • A positive environmental factor is that Wikipedia is being looked upon more and more as a trusted resource for getting and disseminate knowledge. Less debate about the usefullness means that we quicker can get to business in how to collaborate rather than spening time on why we should do that.
4. What unanticipated challenges did you encounter and how did this affect what you were able to accomplish?
  • The law suit towards Wikimedia Sverige for the website was a challenge since it distracted us a bit. It took many discussions and lots of thought on how to proceed and discussions with lawyers about details. This led to that the board could direct less energy on strategy work than was planned and that our development in that area is somewhat behind our original intent.
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.
  • One interesting lesson we learned from the project Meet Wikipedia was in how we were approachable in a new way for us. In the project we had our office in a public space, next to a café and with signs saying it was okay to ask us questions. This obviously led to a few the same old questions you always get but it also led to some deeper discussions. The most interesting part of that was that GLAM staff showed up and had a few questions and then hung around working with Wikipedia, being able to ask us questions whenever they needed. It was like a very low pressure edit-a-thon where they peacefully could work without all the excitment that usually are around events and this led to really thoughtful discussions and that those we talked to were more open to new ideas. Our reflections over this is that increasing the perceived approachability is important, that small questions can be very important for improving relationships.
  • Even though we started to realize it already in 2013, this year it was really reinforced in how important it is to start talking early to insititutions that you are planning to have as a partner in applications for funding. It takes some time for many organisations to get to the point where they are ready to commit. And getting them onboard is also quite essential to getting both a successfull application and a collaboration during the project once it is funded.

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?
  • Most of our strategies are the same as last year, with only minor tweaks. However we are planning for strategy review process during 2015 that will be decided upon in the annual meeting of 2016.
2. What might you change in organisational and program strategies in order to improve the effectiveness of your entity?
  • We will continue making changes in our efforts for getting greater diversity in editors in the projects. Based on the research that has been done, we will refocus on the community and give them the tools and methods to improve the retention rates of newcomers. We believe that just raising the awareness within the community can be a way to have a lot of impact with quite small means. We are a bit inspired by the seminars that WMNL has had.
3. Please create at least one learning pattern from your entity's experiences this year and link to it here.
  1. First edit

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]

  • Umepedia was our first attempt in focusing on making a QRpedia/Wikipedia-town, in Umeå, a smal town in northern Sweden. The project was quite small and funded by a governmental culture fund Kulturbryggan (The culture bridge). By focusing on one geographical area, with a solid base of local activities, many other projects could benefit in synergy effects in the Umeå region. We had general edit-a-thons, themed edit-a-thons, edit-a-thons for women, photo contest, wiki meetups, attended GLAM conferences and online activities and competitions aimed at topcis of the local area. This led to an increased awareness in a relativley small city and we had a huge number of media mentions, averaging at almost one every fortnight throughout the year. This in turn led to a positive spiral, where we gained new contacts wanting to work with us, both in academia, GLAM, the municipality and local businesses. Over all we feel that being able to direct a lot of resources into a smaller area (the same amount of resources in a big city lite Stockholm still drown in all other things that happen there) was a great way to work.

Case study: challenge[edit]

  • In our project for getting more women on Wikipedia we have had a hard time getting good retention rates. We have successfully organized a lot of events in different parts of Sweden and managed to attract quite a lot of people coming to most of them. As we already mentioned in the setbacks above, we believe that the process of becoming a Wikipedian editing regularly is for many people quite a slow process. In an event, someone may get an idea of what to do but they might not get around to start editing or even get skills enough to feel comfortable. This year we tried to do repeated events to make up for that. And even though that in itself seem to be appreciated by attendees and that they are improving their skills further, it does not seem to be enough to fully become a Wikipedian. At the same time, we hear stories from people who participated on events with us in 2012 or 2013, now starting to edit years later, sometimes under a new account since they have forgotten what they created at the first workshop. The survey made in December gave us some really good insights. Respondents were asked to assess various factors for not contributing and a significant larger proportion of female respondents in the "not-editing group" stated that they "are not competent enough to contribute". This says something about the society and the perceived environment of Wikipedia and gives us ideas on what to do in 2015.

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 very promising community led activity was a series of edit-a-thons that were started in Gothenburg. It was themed as female main characters and was held at the Litterature house in Gothenburg once a week. The very regular schedule made it productive over time and they had 38 edit-a-thons with 192 attending in total (of which 92 were women). During the fall we approved a minigrant for refreshments for the participants, and it was sprung out of contacts through our Women on Wikipedia project but it was led by the community rather than the chapter. This project has been successful because they have had enough interested volunteers to be sustainable over a long time period.
  • In Hedemora one editor started a project to put up QRpedia signs on notable landmarks. He worked systematically in identifying articles, contacting the municipality and moving things forward. We have been supportive and shared our knowledge from the Umepedia project but all work has been done by the community. This has been successful because a very knowledgable volunteer in a smaller municipality have been able to use his network and credibility to make people listen to the ideas.
  • In general I would like to mention that we give a lot of support to the community through minigrants, travel grants, helping out with accreditations. These are not led by the chapter per se, but we are involved, through resources but also in giving advice. Many of them are driven under a Wikimedia Sverige "flag" in order to give their efforts more weight and open doors that otherwise would have been closed.
2. Provide any links to any media coverage, blog posts, more detailed reports, more detailed financial information that you haven't already, as well as at least one photograph or video that captures the impact your entity had this past year.


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

1. As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.
  • The only major deviation from the proposal is that due to less external funding than budgeted for we could not do all planned activitites to the extent that we hoped for.
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 grants were used.
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.
  • 1,592.55 SEK ($235) were earned during this report period on grant funds.


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

Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. Diversification here defined as:
    contributors whose native language are different than the largest Wikipedias.
    contributors 60 years or older
  2. Active: >5 edits/month
  3. The first completed activity, if the contributors partakes in further activities the counter is not reset.
  4. At least four/year.
  5. Providing they have more material to release.
  6. e.g. on the website, press releases or the blog
  7. 17 organisations has previously released material.
  8. MediaWiki (most used) and Extensions used by Wikimedia
  9. for common deployement
  10. Applies to primary school (class 7-9), secondary school and Swedish for immigrants.