Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015 round1/Wikimedia Sverige/Impact report form

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Purpose of the report[edit]

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

Global metrics overview - all programs[edit]

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

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

For more information and a sample, see Global Metrics.


Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved 423
2. # of new editors 587
3. # of individuals involved 3,170
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 2,917
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 5,490
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 12,124,313

Community Support[edit]

Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved 81
2. # of new editors 224
3. # of individuals involved 635
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 1,325 This is what we can verify. This is really hard to measure since editors who e.g. get press accreditation regularly mix these images up with their normal ones.
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 2,978 This is what we can verify. This is really hard to measure since editors who do edits from activities in this program regularly mix them up with their normal edits.
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 1,083,928 This is what we can verify. This is really hard to measure since editors who do edits from activities in this program regularly mix them up with their normal edits.

Content Liberation[edit]

Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved 130
2. # of new editors 67
3. # of individuals involved 841
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 1,199
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 1,955
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 7,471,916

Free Knowledge in Education[edit]

Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved 7
2. # of new editors 292
3. # of individuals involved 1,225
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 113
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 257
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 1,698,662

Reach and Readers[edit]

Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved 188 These participated in the Wikidata Menu Challenge.
2. # of new editors 2 These signed up in the Wikidata Menu Challenge.
3. # of individuals involved 441 Around half of these participated in the translation rally on and most of the remaining were activated through the Wikidata Menu Challenge.
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 280 All through the Wikidata Menu Challenge.
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 300 All through the Wikidata Menu Challenge.
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 1,869,807 The majority through the Wikidata Menu Challenge.

Free Knowledge Awareness[edit]

Metric Achieved outcome Explanation
1. # of active editors involved 17
2. # of new editors 2 This entire program had no goals in recruiting new editors so the low result was expected.
3. # of individuals involved 28
4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages 0 This entire program had no goals in adding media so this was an expected result.
5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects 0 This entire program had no goals in editing so this was an expected result.
6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects 0 This entire program had no goals in editing so this was an expected result.

Telling your program stories - all programs[edit]

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

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

Community Support[edit]

Target Last year (if applicable) Progress (at end of Q2) End of year (projected or actual) Comments
Give support to 40 "active editors" before the end of the year.[CS 1] N/A 25 38 Most frequent users have already borrowed equipment from the pool of technology, meaning not as many active users Q3 and Q4. Some large community projects will on the other hand bring in more active editors. Slightly short of target. An attempt to put local technology pools in areas with many volunteers next year might make it easier to reach more editors.
Give support to "active editors" 120 times before the end of the year.[CS 1] N/A 80 110 Equipment from the pool of technology on long duration loans counted per week or use, not only as one occasion.
Get 100 bot-flagged "productive edits" on, in total, at least five different language versions before the end of the year. N/A 0 808 Since the event was held in the last weekend of November the full effect of the Bot Academy will be become clear first under 2016. The 808 edits happened on 3 different language versions and on Wikidata.
Announce all resources made available on Wikimedia Commons or Wikidata by the chapter within one month after finished upload. N/A All cooperations announced either in This Month in GLAM and/or in blog or press releases.
Get 20 "surviving editors" from diversified[CS 2] target groups during the year. N/A 2 2 We have had 25 Rolling new active editors from these targeted activities.
Invite all "productive new editors" to the Teahouse within five working days from their first "productive edit". N/A - Progress was made and the bug stopping the question functioning on svwp Teahouse could be resolved.
Get recurring[CS 3] offline meetings aimed at "active" contributors in five cities will be supported during the year. 4 3 4 In Stockholm, Gothenburg, Uppsala and Västerås. Regular meetings have proven hard to organize in smaller cities.
Support four activities initiated by the community open to all Wikimedians including at least two persons before the end of the year. 6 3 7
Get two new groups of different subject matter experts to sign up on Wikiprojects pages before the end of the year. N/A 1 3 Experts from Riksutställningar, Riksarkivet and The Museums of World Culture contributed.
Get three related groups to sign up on Wikiprojects[CS 4] we are involved with before the end of the year. N/A 1 3 2 more institutions have already had customized user templates and another 4 institutions have asked to join the project, and further activities are planned for 2016.
  1. a b The original goal "Give support to 50 "active editors" before the end of the year." was broken down to two different goals to make sure recurring editors were encouraged.
  2. Diversification here defined as:
    contributors whose native language are different than the 10 largest Wikipedias
    contributors 60 years or older
  3. At least four times/year.
  4. GLAM, Mental health, Sustainable development, Women
  5. In the Community support program we have continued working with both our more direct support to the existing community but also projects to recruit new users to grow a larger and more diverse community.

    Support by Equipment and Activities[edit]

    The direct support to the active editors aimed to reach at least 40 people through our Pool of technology equipment, grants for e.g. hosting photo hunts and attending events, help with press accreditation and other activities.

    Our Pool of technology has been used by more than 21 different users to upload over 2,659 media files on commons and use in the projects, and many of these users are returning to borrow the equipment over and over again. The quality of the images is very high and 549 images became Quality Images. Furthermore, grants have been used by volunteers to go on photo hunts (including one with a boat), organize edit-a-thons, participate and present projects at conferences and similar activities. As some of the projects are supported in more than one way, i.e. volunteers use both grants and equipment from the pool of technology, there is an overlap and the number of images uploaded and used in articles is hard to measure. Also through the pool of technology, more than 65,000 images, all CC BY-SA, have been uploaded to Mapillary and added to their map. These images can illustrate a number of articles about geographical features, such as streets, buildings etc.

    We also supported an initiative by members of the community to organize a bootcamp in Uganda for 20 educators, with the goal of informing them how Wikipedia can be used within the educational system in Uganda. This work also solidified the efforts in 2014 with founding a Wikipedia Center in Mbazzi, and gave us a greater network in Uganda when we initiated work with applications for funding for 2016 to support the foundation of a future Wikimedia Uganda.

    Support by Training[edit]

    At the end of November we held a two day ’’’Bot Academy’’’ for 6 participants from 5 countries. The purpose of the workshop was to empower active editors with no prior experience of running bots to start doing so. So as to cater for a broad variety of experiences the workshop introduced various tools and mechanisms to allow each participant to find a level at which they were comfortable. Through our pilot project in 2014 we knew the importance of having the participants apply their skills as soon as possible after the event in order to internalise this knowledge. To ensure this we assigned homework in the form of live bot edits due a couple of weeks after the event, and rewarded with an OpenBadge after 25+ edits.

    Since there was a much larger interest in the Academy (42 applicants) than the people we could actually bring over we also ensured that all of the produced material was made available online together with notes and step-by-step instructions. The participants were selected based on proven activity on a Wikimedia project, they had to have some fundamental knowledge of programming and no prior experience with running bots. Additionally they had to write a personal motivation for why they wanted to learn how to work with bots and what they intended to use these new skills for. Of course factors such as visas and travel costs also factored in as they always do, making a case for events to be organized also in other parts of the world. We believe that this could be a suitable concept also for other Wikimedia organizations and an area where we jointly could develop resources. It has turned out that this is a project that keeps on giving as the super-users continue to use the skills later on. For example one of the users have done more than 6,000 edits during 2016 (not included in the 2015 numbers presented above).

    Supporting a Diversified User Base[edit]

    For increased diversity we continued the work we have done the last two years focused on Wikipedia gender gap, with an external grant from the Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society. Between January and June, we organised and supported edit-a-thons throughout Sweden which involved 130 participants. These activities were more successful in the larger cities such as Gothenburg and Stockholm, resulting in a change in programmatic focus starting in August. We continued to support a group of volunteers in Gothenburg to organize weekly edit-a-thons, themed on content gender gap, and learning from their experience we initiated a series of weekly edit-a-thons in central Stockholm to support a growing local community of new and experienced users. Starting in September, we organised 13 edit-a-thons in Stockholm which had 87 % female participation. We find that some of the new participants return a couple of times and the experience has enabled us to establish a well-functioning arrangement, which makes these events fast and easy to organize, and the regularly organized events have turned out to be a cost effective way to engage a lot of new users. The routine also makes it possible to direct people to the events whenever we do outreach activities around Stockholm and Gothenburg.

    We have managed well in reaching our target audience. However, new users are better categorized as ‘’rolling new active editors’’ than captured by the metric we originally set out (rolling surviving new active editors), as they usually participate in a few events on specific tasks. Fortunately, we see participants from events in previous years return, and this is a retention which helps build a community of female participants and leaders. We will continue with the regular events in 2016 since we can see how they attract the participants that we want to reach and that many “social editors” tell us they would never start editing by themselves at home, so we know this is how Wikipedia can get quality content. A survey conducted by students at Stockholm University showed that participants think edit-a-thons and more informative help is what can make them continue editing, and these were the preferred answers by female participants. As more of the experienced Wikipedia editors are starting to attend the events, we’re hopeful that their friendly welcome at the events, combined with improved support via the Teahouse, will make a valuable and welcoming atmosphere to new users. This is a long term investment on our side.

    The change in programmatic focus also meant that we initiated work with policy improvements for the chapter to better outline diversity as a priority. We organised a member workshop on this topic in September with members of staff and 7 chapter volunteers to facilitate discussions and prepare policy documents eventually accepted by the board in early 2016. We were also able to progress with improvements to the Teahouse on Swedish Wikipedia, where a bug was finally resolved by us, with help from WMF staff during Wikimania. Setting up this in-person meeting also gave important insights as to how Teahouse on English Wikipedia has developed and the kinds of technical support operating it. We feel confident that a portion of this can be replicated for Swedish Wikipedia by us, and that it can spark community engagement with new users in the Teahouse.

    Support by Local Focus[edit]

    Wikipedia Towns was an initiative that we focused on during the year as we have seen that projects with a strong local connection help create interest in volunteering and with connecting with different local partners. It also bring in more persons that have a potential to end up as part of the community in different capacities. As part of the project we have supported two offline events in Hedemora, where local volunteers gathered to photograph and organized an event around the first QRpedia signs deployed in the area. A couple of online events were organized as well, with prizes sponsored from Wikimedia Sverige (Sweden). Meetings around the project took place a number of times, however the target group of "active new editors" were not reached. Our experience is that getting volunteers continuously involved over time in the Wikipedia Towns is harder than expected, and that they are more likely to work on a specific task than to become active editors on Wikipedia (i.e. add a few images or improve an article at an event that they care a lot for, or themselves organize a specific local event). It is also much more likely that we will attract people in their professional capacity. Hence, our conclusion is that these type of projects are excellent to attract cooperation, media focus, offline volunteering etc. as predicted in our logical model, but not suitable to improve online contributions over time, which was something we incorrectly predicted.

    With the Royal Armoury (Livrustkammaren) being one of the Wikipedia Town participants in Stockholm, their commitment also counts towards our outreach to experts as a they host their own edit-a-thons to improve and add content on Wikipedia in multiple languages to make the impression of the QRpedia codes better for visitors to the museum. As they discontinued an app using (regular) QR codes they replaced them with 10 QRpedia codes.

    There was also an effort to support volunteers with organizing local ‘’social’’ events on a regular basis. We sent equipment, provided funding for food and beverages and helped with external communication. It turned out to be rather hard to get things repeatedly organized in smaller cities and regular events happened in 4 places during the year, for Stockholm and Gothenburg events were also organized as part of our work with diversity. Supporting this type of activities are however very low-cost and we will try to experiment with new ways to engage volunteers to organize the events also in the future.

    Support by Expert Knowledge[edit]

    During 2015, we established partnerships with nine research institutions who joined the project of Wikipedia for Science Outreach. Five of these have been given customized user templates to show affiliation with the institution and three of these are already editing and organising their own edit-a-thons at their departments and further activities are planned for 2016, the other two will initiate their work in early 2016. Engaging faculty members and topic experts is beneficial in several ways; it recognises the impact of Wikimedia projects as a platform for disseminating free knowledge and it injects topic expertise and quality content to Wikipedia. We have also seen how some of these institutions also join the education program, since there is an overlap in faculty members and educators.

    Starting in October 2015, we did a series of ten workshops with Riksutställningar, The Swedish Exhibition Agency, as part of their 50 year celebration. Along with local GLAMs we wrote articles on exhibitions as they had identified poor coverage on this topic on Swedish Wikipedia. Some participants edited articles as part of their ordinary work, but Riksutställningar also hired some subject matter experts to add and expand more than 25 articles. Riksutställningar also started working on opening up their archive of both posters and images to be able to use that to illustrate articles on specific exhibitions.

    Several GLAMs that we have been working with for some years now has increased their efforts and signed up as participants at the GLAM project page. Some GLAMs has not signed up as institutions, but their employees are signed up as editors. During 2015 20 editors added their names to the list.

    Content Liberation[edit]

    Target Last year (if applicable) Progress (at end of Q2) End of year (projected or actual) Comments
    Distribute material to 30 content owning organisations before the end of the year. N/A 30 53
    Get 50% of organisations that previously released free content to do it again before the end of the year.[CL 1] 11 12 50% was equal to 14 organizations.
    Get five organisations that previously have not released free content to do it before the end of the year. 1 3
    Get a 50% 'helpful rating' from GLAM staffers in a survey on documentation for batch uploading by the end of October. N/A Survey not performed.
    Get a 90% 'less support needed rating' from GLAM staffers in a survey on releasing freely licensed material by the end of October. N/A Survey not performed.
    Complete batch uploads from three GLAM institutions to Wikimedia Commons by the end of the year. 4 6 Two were done entirely by us while the other four were done by the GLAM with assistance and advice from us.
    1. Only counting organisations that actually have more material to release. By material in this context we do not count writing articles.
    2. In our Content liberation program we have successfully continued our work with GLAM support, batch uploads and awareness of the advantages for institutions in using free licenses and to open up datasets and collections.

      GLAM Expert Content[edit]

      Within the GLAM support the work we have done with the Council of Central Museums has resulted in a commitment from them to put the work they do with Wikimedia projects in their ordinary plans for the next and future years, meaning that we'll move on from pilot phase to having GLAMs working with Wikipedia as something in their normal day to day work. Some of the institutions has managed to fulfil this commitment, and are using Wikimedia projects as natural platforms to share their knowledge. Even though not all institutions managed to include participation in their plans they are still contributing with media and knowledge, and are also aware of the benefits and visibility contributing offers. Work here also includes collaboration with Women on Wikipedia in hosting edit-a-thons, QRpedia codes at the Royal Armoury with the Wikipedia Towns project and support with batch uploads and copyright questions. Our continued work with the Swedish GLAM sector led to more batch uploads from previous established partnerships. However, these uploads still take a lot of time and hence we could not offer batch upload help to all of the institutions we helped last year. Because of our involvement in organizing and participating at different GLAM conferences we formed relations with different political and bureaucratic decision makers.

      We had planned on doing a survey with GLAM staffers to determine if our documentation around batch uploading had made it easier for them to decide whether they can release some of their materials under a free license, and if so whether the documentation further helped them in doing or preparing for the actual batch upload. However, we decided that we would refocus our efforts due to time limitations and instead encouraged our GLAM partners to write about their experiences, and share their tips & tricks with other institutions.

      GLAM Collections Content[edit]

      As part of our Batch Upload project we have undertaken or assisted with several batch uploads from various institutions including: The National Library, Europeana, the Nordic Museum. These projects have been less hands on than previous years showing that previous efforts have enabled these institutions to handle most of these processes themselves. This project was further expanded to include content submissions for Wikidata. This is done both through adding new statements and through sourcing existing statements within the area of expertise of a GLAM institution. In total 9,543 images were uploaded (including from Work With Sounds and LSH, described below).

      Based on the experience from our work in 2014 with the Swedish Centre for Architecture and Design we could continue with a similar initiative with the Swedish National Maritime Museums'’. For this we received external funding from the institution. In this second collaboration we combined a batch upload of images with content submissions for Wikidata and article editing to illustrate how each can be used to enrich the other. In addition to deepening our ongoing collaborations with the GLAM sector this brings Wikidata to the attention of this sector, thus enabling the participation of new GLAM partners whose collections are not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. For Wikidata this is of great benefit since sources for statements was one of its great promises but are still (other than imported from Wikipedia) largely missing.

      The work with batch uploads has continued to enhance our expertise, something that we will have use of in future projects. We have also created tools to help guide the GLAM partners in their work, such as a checklist for what could and should be added to Wikimedia Commons. This work was done in cooperation with Digisam, a secretariat that is coordinating the national digitization efforts in Sweden. We work hard to surpass the expectations from our GLAM partners (something we have received a lot of praise for); we frequently inform about this opportunity at different events; and we have a low cost. Thanks to these factors we have experienced a great interest from the GLAM institutions to cover the costs for our work. But because of other commitments, and because we set a high minimum standard, we could not offer this help to all the institutions that we had hopped for.

      The Council of Working Life Museums have continued the Work With Sounds project, and more than 650 sounds, films and photos are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, 23 of these unique sounds are now used on Wikimedia projects, a total of 52 times. The entire database and all material is released under free licenses, and as more recordings are done, more material are released and uploaded. This was possible despite technical difficulties when the MediaWiki API changed during the summer and halted the uploads, the automatic upload has since been improved to work better. The planned metadata improvement during the fall fell through due to organisational changes at ArbetSam. Four workshops with Working Life Museums were held in the beginning of 2015, but as the editor retention is not as high as expected they are more important as general information about the Wikimedia projects, how to contribute with free material and as a base to get information about Wiki Loves Monuments out to partners. During the fall the Council of Working Life Museums had a person hired to improve and update the lists of working life museums on Wikipedia.

      For the third year in a row we did a major batch upload (approx. 6,500 images) together with the Royal Armoury, Skokloster Castle and the Hallwyl Museum (LSH). As part of their ongoing digitisation effort all relevant images are then also uploaded to Commons together with the associated metadata. As before, all of these images are of excellent quality.

      Some of the planned and proposed collaborations we have had during the year comes from previous outreach, meaning that other organizations find us interesting to work with. Both the Swedish Academy, who decides who receives the Nobel Prize in literature, and a company who have released material as a response to not being able to allow photographers to visit a closed industrial site are new partners. Some partnerships are not yet finalized, but we are still in touch and talking about different possibilities.

      Geographical Information Content[edit]

      As our part of Wikimaps, the pan-Nordic project on making historical maps more accessible, wound down we had the opportunity to bring to fruition one of the collaborations which had sprung from the Wikimaps network. With Mapillary, a freely licensed, crowdsourced alternative to Google Streetview, we worked on facilitating uploads of images from their service to Wikimedia Commons. The result is a "Share to Wikimedia" button directly in the Mapillary interface. Through our technology pool we have supported volunteers to add many thousands of images (see #Community Support for more details). During the year 158 files have been uploaded by 30 different users through this feature, that have been viewed 21,838 times. For us this is an interesting example of how we can work to strengthen the bonds between Wikimedia and the rest of the Open Content movement.

      Our work with maps also created a closer involvement with the OpenStreetMap community. We have been involved in a number of events around geographical data in Sweden and have specifically focused on the work done by the ‘’’Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT)’’’ with mapping in the developing world. We have received two external grants for this work. The first one is meta-funding (i.e. funding to write an application in the 1-3 million euro size) that will be used to form an international coalition and write an EU application around HOT. We started working on this together with Mapillary and Stockholm University and will finalize the application in late 2016. The second project is focusing on creating a report how aid organizations are working with HOT or what they would need to start. We believe that this work has the potential to improve the global base map needed for Wikimaps, to have better maps of the developing world available on Wikipedia etc. We are also convinced that this work will create and deeper our contacts with the free knowledge communities globally and give us further possibilities for external funding around map integration on Wikipedia, and with other internationally oriented projects.

      Open Data Content[edit]

      Releasing content is not limited to media and texts but also include data. Wikimedia Sverige decided to focus a lot of attention to Open Data as there were ongoing directives from the state that this is an area where the authorities have to do more. We believed that we had a unique possibility to affect the decision makers at the beginning of their work so that they did not pick licenses that prevented us to include it on Wikidata and to help them prioritize what material to start with.

      We received external funding to continue our project, a free database of public works of art in Sweden which is integrated and maintained via lists on Wikipedia. The core of this work consists of contacting municipalities in Sweden to get them to release information about their public art and inform them about the value of Open Data. During 2015 the number of datasets included was increased from 26 to 80 which represents 25% of all municipalities in Sweden. In total we have had discussions with approx. 50% of all Swedish municipalities. In addition to bringing awareness of Open Data and the possibility of collaboration with Wikipedia to the attention of the municipalities we have also observed an increased activity from the Swedish Wikipedia community around improving the lists, writing articles about the subjects and uploading images. The as of yet unresolved Freedom of Panorama case in the Supreme Court however means we have not been able to fully take advantage of the lists as a platform for getting new editors involved. For 2016 we have received funding to continue this work by arranging in-person meetings to discuss open data with at least 50 municipalities. For this we will use as an example and we will combine the visits with activities aimed at getting the general public involved the project and interested in the opportunities of open data.

      We received external funding for a number of projects that are aiming to reach both the public, researchers, companies and the authorities. Through the grants we were able to give workshops, produce specialized information material directed to different groups with data and give-a-ways, give presentations, exhibit at fairs etc. We produced a series of new brochures for Wikidata aimed at different data owners (GLAM, companies and academia) outlining the value and possibilities with Wikidata for their specific group. To make sure that the material was accurate and suitable for the audience we engaged different experts that gave us comments on the material. This material was used during a dozen of events aimed at different target groups and we could reach many content owning organizations. We have continued to spread this material at different events afterwards and it is also being translated into Dutch by a volunteer at Wikimedia Netherlands.

      Educating data owners of Wikidata is a long term effort and we hope that this will enable them to make smart choices. In a few cases our work also had a direct effect during the project time. For example, we participated and discussed the value of free knowledge in humanitarian aid at an event organized by the Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) (we were one of the exhibitors). This led to a meeting where we helped guide them regarding licenses on their database (that has data of their international aid projects). This in turn also led to a meeting with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as they are are working on a Open Data road map. Among other things we discussed the possibilities with Wikipedia Zero and put Wikidata on their radar. We also have an ongoing cooperation with the Swedish Water Authorities, a cooperation between a number of different agencies, that are planning to release data onto Wikidata in the future concerning different aspects of water. As part of this project (but further supported by another external grant) we participated at a food fair in Stockholm where we could highlight Wikidata, see a more detailed story under Reach and Readers.

      One of the external grants we got from the Swedish Innovation Agency (Vinnova) was to do the Wikidata Visualization Challenge. Although a little bit fewer participants than expected, the winner made an awesome visualization on births and deaths of people on Wikidata. This can be used to demonstrate the richness of the information within Wikidata in a much more easily understood way than just showing the website as such. This project gave us the possibility to deepen our cooperation with KTH Royal Institute of Technology and with Open Knowledge Sweden and we got a better understanding how to engage students and what they can achieve.

      We received external funding to work together with The Swedish Centre for Terminology (TNC) in the pilot project ‘’’Fackverket 3.0’’’, investigating how terminologies developed by government agencies in Sweden could be made available online as linked open data. By making these available in a machine readable format we believed that open data can become more accessible and in the long run it should make referencing facts and comparison of sources more reliable. Our secondary aim was to investigate which role Wikidata (and a future Wiktionary) would play in such a solution and whether Wikibase was a viable platform for this. The final report was published early 2016.

      We also received external funding to work on two short educational movies about Wikidata: one overview of what open data is all about, and one targeting GLAMs and their work with open data. The first movie was finalized in the beginning of 2016 while the second one had it’s deadline postponed to mid-2016.

      Free Knowledge in Education[edit]

      Target Last year (if applicable) Progress (at end of Q2) End of year (projected or actual) Comments
      Contact 50 researchers before the end of the year. N/A 8 22 We reached 350 academic staff with outreach activities and had personal conversations with 22 of them.
      Integrate Wikipedia studies in courses in at least 2 teacher training colleges before the end of the year. 0 0 Activities have been focused on establishing partnerships for 2016 resulting in one planned activity with teacher students at Stockholm University.
      Get at least five productive edits each from at least 10 different University level courses before the end of the year. N/A 4 6 One more course was initiated in late 2015, but since it did not finish before the end of the year, it is not included in these metrics.
      Expand network with 50 teachers before the end of the year. N/A 30 60 Connected educators in the network are those who have reached out online, in social media or at outreach activities for longer conversations.
      Get at least one productive edit each from 20 different primary school (year 7-9), secondary school and Swedish for immigrants classes before the end of the year.[FKE 1] N/A 7 11 We have had difficulties getting metrics from Wikimini, but user activity indicates that many more classes have joined the project than the verified 2 classes from Wikimini in this metric.
      Get 10 new Open Educational Resources before the end of the year. N/A 1 4 No funding, but low hanging fruits.
      Get 100 new users on Wikibooks and Wikiversity before the end of the year. N/A 56 101 In partnership with Stockholm University and supporting one “Wikipedia Expedition”.
      1. For primary schools, Wikimini will be promoted instead of Wikipedia.
      2. The Wikipedia Education Program has involved ‘’’16 different institutions’’’, of which 6 are university institutions and some have ran more than one course during 2015. In 10 of these cases the instructing teacher has chosen to set up course page with the Education Extension on Swedish Wikipedia. This is the first year we've seen this tool fully implemented, announced in this blog post, at the beginning of 2015, only three courses had registered a course page and with few of no students enrolled. The course extension has given student activities greater visibility which helps the teacher manage the course and helps growing the program. Course page data makes nice stories to tell new teachers about in outreach activities where educators are introduced to the concept of adding Wikipedia editing to their syllabus.

        We finished the year by establishing a strategic partnership between Wikimedia Sverige and the Swedish National Agency for Education. As part of the Wikipedia Education Program we will jointly develop teacher training material for secondary schools to increase awareness about Wikipedia and how to contribute in a classroom setting, which will be launched nationally during 2016 (see also section #Free Knowledge Awareness). This large scale implementation is unprecedented in the Education program in Sweden and the partnership in itself is a mark of quality and legitimacy that we expect will have far reaching impact over the next few years.

        A total of 492 educators had a first introduction, in seminars, workshops and conferences during 2015. As a result from this initial introduction, we expect educators from this group to join the Wikipedia Education Program in the coming years. We successfully keep expanding the core network of engaged educators who reach out with feedback, questions and ideas. Experienced teachers are really valuable to the program, as we have seen them sharing their stories to their networks, including students' voices. One of the classes has had successful help from one ambassador and one more ambassador has completed the online training on Swedish Wikiversity and is ready to support classes and help scaling the program. We further extended the Wikipedia Education Program by adding a resource for student training on Swedish Wikipedia. We also see teacher training courses as a main priority for scaling, however we have tweaked our goals to first establish partnerships where these activities can be realised in the next few years.

        Wikimini' has continued to grow in numbers and more than ‘’’400 new accounts’’’ were created in 2015. It has been difficult to track class specific activities, but two classes have been verified and supported. However, the activity of users and the number of new accounts created indicate that Wikimini continue to be a platform for participation in free knowledge by primary schools in Sweden. We also secured funding from Vinnova to develop an Open Educational Resource on how to contribute to Wikipedia and Wikimini, which we will produce during 2016 in partnership with GLAM-institutions and schools.

        The Education Program also supported a [[v:sv:Wikipedia Expedition Jämtland 2015 |Wikipedia Expedition]] where a high school class documented their hike of [[commons:Category:Wikipedia Expedition Jämtland 2015 |the mountain range of Jämtland]] on Wikivoyage, Wikibooks and Wikipedia.

        We experimented with issuing Open Badges to one of the classes in the Eduacation Program in early 2015, using a third-party platform, which turned out unstable for the us as the issuing organisation and the teacher managing individual badges for each student. A working prototype for a MediaWiki extension for handling OpenBadges was eventually developed by our team. This is now accessible for testing through Vagrant. Having talked to various members of our movement during Wikimania and other meet-ups we know that there is an interest in an integrated solution for OpenBadges. At this point it is too soon to assess the short term and long term outcomes from using open badges, as predicted in our Logic model.

        Educational Activities Outside of the Education Program[edit]

        In our partnership with Stockholm University, we've participated in the International Training Program for ICT4D, which resulted in 86 new users. The participants in this International Program are decision makers and change agents in the national education system from around 20 countries in the Global South. The sessions are focused on introducing Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Education Program and the practical training is focused on Wikiversity as a collaborative tool for ICT in education and resource to their programs. Retention in this project is with Stockholm University, and the partnership was successful throughout 2015 and join activities are planned for 2016.

        From our partnership with Akvo Foundation, English Wikiversity now has a new learning resource in "Rainwater Harvesting" focusing on water insecure households and comprising over 100,000 bytes. The resource continued to grow in the second half of 2015 with another 50 %. This is their first pilot release to Wikiversity, they have a vast amount of more material that they consider to add to Wikiversity. Working to release Open Educational Resources (OER) has not been a main priority, but we have focused on low hanging fruit that we can gather as part of existing efforts. Our ambitious goal was not reached but we are very happy with the quality and size of all four OERs.

        Another fruitful way to connect with educational institutions has been to engage with undergraduate and graduate courses and present them with research questions of interest to our projects. This has given us an arena to present our work and projects to hundreds of students and a number of researchers. We have partnered up with 3 institutions, which has given us valuable knowledge and data that we have been able to use in project designs, evaluation and external grant applications resulting in reduced costs for research and evaluation and an established network of research institutions. Examples of these assignments are designing a prototype for categorizing images on Wikimedia Commons and surveying the impact of edit-a-thons and of diversity on our projects. We have seen some of the students getting involved as volunteer editors as they have learnt about the Wikimedia projects.

        In our project aimed at recording free music we reached out to both institutions with archives with public domain material, and also musicians to get them to contribute with material. The project was not as successful in getting new material to Commons as we hoped for, but participation in a conference aimed at young musicians where they learned about the possibility to contribute with recordings might lead to future uploads.

        In our efforts to increase awareness about ‘’’Open Access Publishing’’’, we participated with presentations in several events reaching 350 involved individuals all associated with research and academic institutions. We highlighted good examples and best-practices. Out of these, we had extended talks about free knowledge and Wikimedia projects with 22 individuals.

        Reach and Readers[edit]

        Target Last year (if applicable) Progress (at end of Q2) End of year (projected or actual) Comments
        Get 50 new media subscribers to the newsletter before the end of the year. 0 0
        Get 10% more proactive stories about the Wikimedia projects in media before the end of the year. 64 24 85 As before the WLM contest and Wikipedia towns give us a lot of visibility. Also the Supreme Court case let to a lot of media attention, and is expected to increase further in 2016
        Deploying QR-pedia signs in 3 municipalities before the end of the year. N/A 2 3 In Stockholm, Hedemora and Umeå
        Report 100% of all discovered and verified bugs within five working days. 73 20 31 Last year a lot of bugs in Visual Editor were reported when we discovered them on our edit-a-thons etc. However, we experienced less problems during our events this year.
        Not have translations lower than 95% for more than a month.[RR 1] For January and February 90% This is translations of the UI for MediaWiki through
        1. MediaWiki (core) and Extensions used by Wikimedia
        2. Wikimedia Sverige's work concerning reach and readers focus on two aspects:

          1. Increasing the amount of people interested and knowledgeable about Wikimedia and our projects, as well as the wider ecosystem of the free knowledge world. We are doing this by:
            1. Our newsletter;
            2. Getting out proactive media stories;
            3. Utilizing the concept of Wikipedia Towns and Wiki Loves Monuments to create interest;
            4. Taking part in public events such as a food fair to show the value of free knowledge in all aspects of life.
          2. Increasing the usability for the consumers of Wikipedia by supporting the work done by the Foundation. We are doing this by:
            1. Report bugs so that the software can be improved;
            2. Make sure that the interface is translated and easy to use for as many people in Sweden as possible.
            3. Investigate what is needed for a working text-to-speech solution on MediaWiki and working on Wikipedia.

          Increase Interest from Readers[edit]

          The external communication is focusing on the use of newsletters, social media, blog posts and press releases where we inform about interesting parts of the chapter's work. We have a few projects that have been designed with their communication value in mind in order to increase our visibility.

          Because of technical problems with our mailing server and a move to a new service provider the work on the newsletter came to an halt. This has effectively prevented us to reach the 50 new subscribers we are aiming for. We also believe that this has had a negative effect on our membership retention. Worth pointing out is that the number of new subscribers exclude the members that receive the newsletter as part of their membership (i.e. we often manage to convince possible subscribers to become members instead - as the membership cost is low - and they are then not included in this number).

          The work done around proactive media stories have been successful. We have been featured in the media at 85 occasions in 2015, an increase of 33% since last year. As part of many of our larger projects we created communication plans and have actively sent out press releases and in other ways tried to tell our story which has lead to a number of articles in the media.

          A large part of the coverage are concerning our database of public works of art that has reached the Supreme Court. The case has created a lot of media attention, and the reporting has been very positive and supportive for our side, which we feel very happy and proud about as we have actively promoted our view of the case. We are confident that we will receive substantial media coverage, regardless of the outcome in 2016.

          The Freedom of Panorama debate in the European Parliament was also covered widely in Swedish media. The press releases and debate articles we sent out helped put the issue on the political agenda in Sweden. This work took place together with a number of dedicated and fantastic volunteers.

          We have also seen some media interest for external grants we have applied for together with partners, e.g. around our Diversity Project. The grant applications have given us a lot of new partners that have worked with us to create awareness. We do see a possibility to further develop our communications regarding the launch of new projects, successful applications etc. In order to do so, we will try to form good working relationships with journalists and create more comprehensive lists of media contacts.

          The work around creating new Wikipedia Towns with the use of QRpedia signs was done with the aim to increase brand visibility both for Wikipedia and for Wikimedia Sverige, as well as forming local partnerships and increasing local volunteer participation. The result from Umeå in 2014, with the project Umepedia, was very positive with a very intense news coverage of the small pilot project. The project was covered in a Polish book as one of the most interesting projects during the European Capital of Culture in Umeå. The work to add more signs in Umeå came to an halt as we worked to finalize an agreement with the municipality about where the signs could be placed and with Umeå University to order signs for the campuses in Umeå (which they decided to do). We are also planning a communication event together with Umeå Energi around the signs that they have added in the city and the free wifi they are providing for Wikipedia. Furthermore the university uploaded a number of new images of the city that they had bought the rights for. The University also decided, based on the increased visibility on Wikipedia, to commission a professional photographer to take photos of the city that could be used on Wikipedia. They started the uploads and the work with adding images to articles at the end of 2015.

          The local media was interested in the work done in Hedemora and the leading volunteer received a recognition, Förtjänstmedaljen, from the Swedish National Heritage Board for his work on Wikipedia. The majority of the work done by a dedicated volunteer with support from Wikimedia Sverige. During the year 49 QRpedia signs were placed in Hedemora, and more will be added as articles are improved and translated.

          10 QRpedia signs were also added in the Swedish museum Livrustkammaren, where the historical royal arms and clothing are on display. (As this project was done in synergy with our GLAM work - and we will continue this approach in Stockholm for the rest of the year - the Wikimetrics for the edit-a-thons are reported in the Content Liberation section). The media coverage gained from the work in the project and by cooperating with our partners have been good. Thanks to the cooperations we have been able to reduce the amount of work we have to do ourselves to get media coverage. There was also a continuation with the work in Umeå with a number of signs added in the city (that was purchased at the end of the previous Umepedia pilot project).

          We decided to include Wiki Loves Monuments into the Wikipedia Towns project as we can utilize the contest to initiate the first contacts with a number of actors in the cities. During Q2 the basic planning was done and contacts were taken with partners from the previous year(s). Our partners agreed to work with us to gain more media coverage around the contest, which was done successfully. We have organized this contest four times before and we know how to do it very effectively now. Especially as we last year invested resources into more documentation and instructions. The value of strong partnerships that are ongoing is also something we have learnt is very valuable as we can contact them and get an answer very fast nowadays. A total of 2,850 images were uploaded by 110 participants as part of the contest.

          We also received external funding for the project Restaurants and Wikidata 2015. This project helped us highlight Wikidata for a new audience at a food fare and attracted a lot of interest from the volunteer community. Through an online contest 1.83 megabyte were added to Wikidata through over 9,000 edits together with 1,140 recordings of pronunciations, all included in the interactive menues used during the fair. This was, to our knowledge, the first Wikidata contest and we learnt that activating the active editors can create a huge impact in a short time and that there are practical problems with listing all contributions on the contest page (as there are technical problems when the lists become to long, and because it take a lot of time for the participants).

          Menus for the participating restaurants were prepared and through this work we could reach out and explain the value of crowdsourcing and Open Data to a couple of hundred people. Many of whom clearly had never thought about this before but quickly grasped the value and turned out very supportive. It was easy to show the value of interactive menus available in hundreds of languages for tourists. A number of people stated their interest to start contributing with translations into their own language. We saw a need for more localized training material around Wikidata, and brochures to make the most of such an event. In similar projects in the future we will make sure to add funding for that. To keep costs down we contacted Samsung and asked if we could loan tablets for the event for free so that people could have a look at the menus, which Samsung agreed on. This type of sponsoring was surprisingly fast and easy to arrange, and it came with no strings attached.

          Increase Usability for Readers[edit]

          The work with increasing the usability for the consumers of Wikipedia has mainly been about taking the time to report problems whenever they are encountered by the staff or volunteers, by supporting the translation of MediaWiki and with a pilot study of Wikispeech, a planned text-to-speech solution for MediaWiki.

          Bug reports have been added continuously and more staff members are now comfortable with doing this work themselves, but our tech staff is still doing most of the grunt work. In total 31 bugs have been reported on Phabricator during 2015. Out of these 20% were triaged as High or Unbreak Now! whereas only two were marked Declined or Lowest priorities. Roughly half of the bugs have been fixed, two of which were fixed by Wikimedia Sverige staff. That the number of reported mistranslations, in interface messages, decreased from the previous year can largely be attributed to the staff now being comfortable with quickly correcting these directly at While we are happy with the results of the project next year should involve a renewed effort aimed at getting everyone comfortable with reporting encountered bugs.

          The external funding we had received for our work with translations of the software was mainly used during the first two months of the year, and for the rest of the year no active work from the staff has been done on Our aim to increase long term participation have not reached the level where volunteers are able to ‘’keep up’’ with the very fast development of MediaWiki and all added messages. A report outlining how to make it easier to add projects to was authored and a number of instruction pages were improved to make it easier to understand the platform and to start contributing. This was based on the experiences from the project where we were teaching beginners how to contribute and took note of where they got stuck. The idea being that this could help increase the influx of volunteers and keep up the translation percentage.

          Furthermore, we also continued the work started in 2014 with Open Badges as we hope that they could help keep the interest to contribute to alive over time. It is now a minimum viable product and can be tried using Vagrant. We have interest and energy to continue with developing solutions for the MediaWiki software, within projects that we are working on, and we hope that we together with WMF staff will develop methods on how to do this fast and efficient.

          At the end of the project we tried to encourage the existing community by organizing a Translation Rally. In total 44,844 messages were translated into 116 languages during the Rally. However, we saw some problems with the quality of some translations by a few users that translate to languages they were not native speakers in. In future Rallies we recommend to try to adjust the rules slightly in order to reduce this risk.

          External funding made it possible for us to work on making Wikidata, and it's dumps, more accessible to the larger Open Data community. This was done through developing a multilingual DCAT-AP description (the EU standard) for Wikidata and working with WMDE to getting this implemented in the dumping process of Wikidata. The code was developed in such a way that it can be readily reused once CommonsData is implemented or indeed for any WikiBase installation. This project has concluded with the publishing of the first live DCAT-AP description for Wikidata (link). In addition to being interesting for Wikimedia Sverige as a first try at a development project we also believe that the DCAT-AP profile and its coming inclusion on the Swedish Open Data Portal will increase the awareness and reuse of Wikidata. The solution was updated during the year to reflect changes in Wikidata.

          At the second half of the year we received funding to conduct a pilot study together with two partners, KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Södermalms talteknologiservice AB (STTS), to create a text-to-speech solution for MediaWiki that we are calling Wikispeech. The aim is that the Wikimedia projects better should serve people that for different reasons cannot read. In detail we investigated what the needs are (together with a number of Disability Organizations in Sweden), what technical solutions that already exists, and we need to develop ourselves. The outcome was a large report and an application for funding from the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS). From the early stages we had a close contact with the financiers (PTS) and had strong indications that they very willing to support the project. This turned out true and at the end of the year we negotiated the final parts of the agreement for a 18 month project that has a starting date of the 15th of March 2016. For this we received funding of around 350,000 USD. Furthermore, the KTH Royal Institute of Technology also received internal funding of around 120,000 USD for work related to the project.

          Wikispeech will be available as a MediaWiki extension. It will be a server based solution, which means that it can be used without having to install any software locally (something that is not possible on all devices used to access Internet). All components will be open source, and can also be included on other platforms. The Wikispeech extension will be built in a way that makes it possible to add more languages over time and it will become increasingly better through crowdsourcing. Anyone interested can help to make the text-to-speech working better by improving the lexicon with new words, point out mistakes and so forth. We have started adding information both on and on Phabricator.

          Free Knowledge Awareness[edit]

          Target Last year (if applicable) Progress (at end of Q2) End of year (projected or actual) Comments
          Five new relations with opinion leaders and decision makers before the end of the year. N/A 73 110 Mainly from the International Training Program for ICT4D
          Collaboration with two like minded organisations before the end of the year. 0 3 6 Open Knowledge Sverige, Creative Commons Sverige, Open Knowledge Finland, Wikimedia Finland, Wikimedia Norge, Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT)
          One impact matrix before the end of March. N/A Done Done
          Meet all 20 Swedish EU parliamentarians (MEPs) before the end of the year. 0 9 9
          Initiate contact with one public funder before the end of the year. N/A 4 4 Vinnova, National Post and Telecom Agency, Horizon2020 (MSB), Stockholm city
          Get one overarching agency[FKA 1] to actively encourage the use of Wikimedia's projects in a new way before the end of the year. N/A 1 1 National Agency for Education
          1. The Swedish National Agency for Education, The Swedish Research Council, The Swedish National Council of Adult Education or The Swedish Higher Education Authority
          2. The chapter has a good visibility in Sweden on different arenas and we have had great volunteer support. The volunteer activity has been coordinated with the office to a large degree. This has made it possible for Wikimedia Sverige to be more active on the international and national political scene than ever before and surpassed our goals tremendously in some areas.

            Awareness Internationally[edit]

            As Sweden is a member of the EU there is a lot of legislation that is affecting our projects that are formed in Brussels and internationally. The Nordic countries also have a history of close cooperation and are often mirroring each other's legislation hence a closer cooperation between the chapters have been an increased focus (which is helped by the increased maturity of our sister organizations in the Nordic). As Sweden is an active player in the foreign aid sector there are many opportunities to reach international decision makers visiting the country.

            A major focus has been the ‘’’EU legislation’’’ and we have been supporting the work done by the Wikimedia movement in Brussels. Together with other European chapters we are co-funding the cost for the office there with one staff member. He is supported by one volunteer (a former member of the Swedish Parliament) that are working full time with these issues since the beginning of the year. The work has consisted of:

            1. Creating an impact matrix has been developed that is outlining what issues to keep an eye and work on. This will help us to be more prepare and to plan our future work better and help to divide the task better. Also other chapters will hopefully find this material valuable.
            2. Have chapter representatives contact and meet with 9 of the Swedish MEPs to discuss political issues that we believe have a negative impact on our projects. The goal was initially to talk to all of the MEPs but we decided to focus on a subset of the MEPs as it was needed to have a well stated reason to meet with the politicians and for the effort to be worthwhile and lasting we wanted to have concrete suggestions for what they could do to help us at that moment.
            3. Furthermore a lot of of focus is on coordinating lobbying activities with organizations that share our view on certain topics, build a database of important contacts, take part in all relevant EU copyright dialogues, meetings and consultations, and support volunteers that want to take part in our EU advocacy activities. They have also organized a couple events in Brussels where future policy work has been discussed and how to coordinate it between chapters and the WMF. The details of the work done by Dimi is reported in Wikimedia Deutschland's Impact report. Our activities in Brussels has led to discussions with a handful of important decision makers and opinion leaders.
            4. A staff member received a travel grant and participated at the School of Rock(ing) EU Copyright in Warsaw where participants from around 20 countries were represented. This was a good opportunity to learn about what others like minded organizations are working on and to discuss what we can do together.

            A lot of new contacts with decision makers in the international aid scene have been taken. We have identified that there is a large overlap of interests with the Wikimedia movement, and these organizations have a lot of possibilities to influence politics in many different countries all over the world. We have been in contact about free knowledge and Open Data with international organizations such as OECD, UNESCO and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and talked about how we could work together in the future. We also participated at an event organized by the Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) where we talked to a number of influential decision makers from many different countries (and worked with the team behind, see #Content Liberation above). Sweden is a major aid donor and we have seen a lot of interest and good future possibilities to create new and exciting projects.

            We have continued our work with Stockholm University and the International Training Program for ICT4D where we have meet and talked with 100 representatives from around 20 countries from the Global South, leaders in the educational sector in their home country. Our participation has consisted of two parts: A dinner event at the Nobel Museum where we have presented our work and about free knowledge for the participants. This has been followed by a practical workshop with the participants for half a day (reported under the section #Free Knowledge in Education"). When we set our goal, we did not think that we would be able to participate to this extent.

            Through an external grant we could also participate at an event in Finland. There we talked and formed a deeper relation with Wikimedia Finland and Open Knowledge Finland. We discussed about Open Data issues, Freedom of Panorama and also planned future initiatives that will help us get a stronger voice together. Furthermore, we started the preparations for future projects together and an application for external funding. In total 23 persons participated at the event that we took part in organizing.

            At the end of the year we worked together with Wikimedia Norge with a grant application around an event focusing on IT legislation in the EU. In March 2016 we found out that we did not receive funding this time, but we will continue to look into other opportunities together in the future.

            Awareness Nationally[edit]

            In Sweden the work to get the chapter to become more influential has been worked on from a number of different angles. We have now a large network in the Open Data, the GLAM and the educational sectors and our possibility to meet decision makers is better than ever. A lot of the work that we are doing within the chapter have a political dimension and in our different projects we often reach politicians and decision makers at events etc.

            The political developments in Brussels are deeply intertwined with what happens in Sweden and we have been working to actively participate in the national debate regarding Freedom of Panorama (which is especially interesting for us because of our court case that are now in the Supreme Court regarding our database with works of art in the public space). This became a great opportunity to talk to the Swedish MEPs and other influential politicians about an issue that caught their interest.

            For us, social media has been a great way to give a first impression to decision makers which has lead to meetings later on when we have had specific projects in mind. Furthermore, thematic conferences have been a way to meet and greet with decision makers.

            Promoting Open Data and keeping it on the political agenda has been something that we focused on this year. We focused on informing four groups: academics, companies, GLAM and the Swedish authorities. Among other things two staff members participated at an event at the Swedish Parliament (the Riksdag). As part of our work with Open Data we initiated a collaboration with Open Knowledge Sweden, and included them in a few externally funded projects that were successful. This gave the organization some seed money to professionalize their work in Sweden. The Open Data projects also included Creative Commons Sverige as part of the aim is to make the information about CC0 available in Swedish. We also initiated projects focusing on map data in humanitarian emergencies, where we aim to work and support OpenStreetMap activities in Sweden and abroad (for details, see the section #Content Liberation.

            We have also worked directly with the team at the National Agency for Education that are working with ICT in Education (for the public schools) around the role of Creative Commons in the schools, which lead to a guiding document being produced. This initial work got one overarching agency to actively encourage the use of Wikimedia's projects, which later during the year lead to a formalized and deeper cooperation (see #Free Knowledge in Education). Furthermore two other official documents were produced highlighting the importance to include our projects: (1) a document signed by 18 administrative authorities was produced where Wikipedia’s importance to inform the public about environmental issues was highlighted; and (2) a set of recomendations how cultural heritage can be accessible online, where a number of Wikimedia projects and open source in general were highlighted for its importance.

            Two staff members participated at Almedalsveckan, the largest gathering of Swedish decision makers during the year, to meet and talk to relevant people and to give a presentation and participate in a panel about OER and its impact on education in the country. This is an event where most of Sweden’s political elite gathers in the same area for a few days to network, learn and discuss different issues.

            Our work with external funding has involved a number of grant applications towards public funds. In preparation we have created a list of calls that are updated continuously. We have had meetings with four funding bodies to learn more about them: Vinnova (the Swedish innovation agency), the National Post and Telecom Agency, at seminars about EU funding from Horizon2020 (there we meet representatives from the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), that later gave us meta-funding to work on an application for Horizon2020 in 2016). Discussions have also taken place with the local authorities in Stockholm about possible funding opportunities.

            Finally, there have been a development that is outside of our yearly goals but that has the potential to be very valuable in the future. For the first time Wikimedia Sverige became a consultative body for the government when we received a submission for comment regarding a new legislative text (a procedure that is common in Swedish politics). This is a sign that governmental bureaucrats have heard and recognized Wikimedia Sverige's work, and that they have argued that we are among the suitable 104 organizations to be consulted concerning the issue at stake. To be prepared for future requests we developed a set of supporting documents for the staff and volunteers to use.

            Other Work[edit]

            During the year the association has worked hard on establishing an even more efficient organization for the future.

            A significant amount of work from the office, the board and the members went into developing and formulating a new Vision and a new Strategy for Wikimedia Sverige. The work with the strategy started in May with a membership survey which was followed by two meetings where it was discussed in length. We believe that the new strategy will help make it easier to understand and explain our diverse work.

            Wikimedia Sverige also invested resources into external grant applications with greater success than ever before. In 2015 we had around 40 % of our budget covered by external project grants of different types (not including membership fees, donations and interest), falling slightly short of our goal of 50 % funding from other sources than FDC. During 2015 we also applied and received funding for around 70% of our budget for 2016 (a budget that is also ‘’expanding with 70 %’’ from 2015), and a significant part already covered for 2017 (through two major projects spanning 18 months each). The staff also worked on informing other chapters about the possibilities with external grants and together with WMFR and WMDE created a portal on Meta and presented the ideas behind our work at Wikimania. We also initiated an effort to support our sister organizations in the Nordic with joint grant applications as well as supporting the work done by other free knowledge groups in Sweden by informing them of opportunities, sharing our applications etc. All our applications are available on our wiki.

            During the year we kept working on a few low-scale international projects to learn more how we can work to support Wikimedia projects in developing countries, that currently are lacking existing Wikimedia organizations. As there are many Swedish based international actors in our network, that we see good opportunities for funding and that we have some in-house knowledge about this type of work we believe that we can work successfully in the future. To have continuous work in the field over a longer period will strengthen our opportunities and abilities.

            We also had more requests from museum to work and help them move their material to Wikimedia’s projects (where they covered the majority of our salaries and associated costs for the specific work, as an NGO we cannot make a profit for this work which make us very low cost). We also had success with more educational institutions covering our costs around traveling to events. This helped keep our budget lower, while allowing us to reach more parts of the country. As these type of offers became more common we invested time in preparing standardized agreements etc. and also continued to develop our administrative routines and developed our customer relationship management software CiviCRM.

            At the end of 2015 our CEO Jan Ainali resigned. The board was informed in advance and could quickly initiate a search for a new CEO. Anna Troberg was hired and she could start working together with Jan for a period of time, making the transition very smooth. We also started preparing for the hiring of the new technical staff we would need for 2016.

            Revenues received during this six-month period[edit]

            Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.

            Table 2 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

            • Please also include any in-kind contributions or resources that you have received in this revenues table. This might include donated office space, services, prizes, food, etc. If you are to provide a monetary equivalent (e.g. $500 for food from Organization X for service Y), please include it in this table. Otherwise, please highlight the contribution, as well as the name of the partner, in the notes section.
            Revenue source Currency Anticipated Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Anticipated ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Explanation of variances from plan
            FDC SEK 2,557,000 505,049.01 449,189.58 696,319.50 882,829.89 2,533,396.98 365,808.30 362,431.61
            Memberships SEK 70,000 18,000.00 21,400.00 34,002 3,900 77,302 10,014.31 11,058.94
            Donations SEK 63,745 22,577.71 5,148.00 13,562.76 8,994.75 50,283.22 9,119.46 7,193.59
            Interest, misc SEK 25,000 2,338.97 1,204.34 6,722.38 1,888.27 12,063.96 3,576.54 1,725.89 Interests have dropped to extremely low levels.
            Ungdomsstyrelsen SEK 240,000 141,613.39 84,555.81 0 0 226,169.20 34,334.76 32,356.11
            .SE SEK 89,400 18,138.77 121,076.91 784.32 0 140,000 12,789.70 20,028.61
            Other grants SEK 2,069,855 229,253.58 496,308.20 274,381.45 400,854.19 1,400,797.42 296,116.60 200,400.20

            * Provide estimates in US Dollars

            Spending during this six-month period[edit]

            Please use the exchange rate in your APG proposal.

            Table 3 Please report all spending in the currency of your grant unless US$ is requested.

            (The "budgeted" amount is the total planned for the year as submitted in your proposal form or your revised plan, and the "cumulative" column refers to the total spent to date this year. The "percentage spent to date" is the ratio of the cumulative amount spent over the budgeted amount.)
            Expense Currency Budgeted Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Cumulative Budgeted ($US)* Cumulative ($US)* Percentage spent to date Explanation of variances from plan
            Community support SEK 208,255 29,102.93 65,028.40 81,656.37 72,254.30 248,042 29,793.28 35,485.26 119.10%
            Content liberation SEK 173,712 24,822.85 92,247.55 44,163.43 0 161,233.83 24,851.50 23,066.36 92.82%
            Reach and readers SEK 123,000 7,024.03 90,146.38 -4,065.81 100,121.95 193,226.55 17,596.57 27,643.28 157.09% An externally funded project where funding for our partners flowed through us.
            Free knowledge in education SEK 99,000 3,717.09 7,827.23 14,470.16 14,411.47 40,425.95 14,163.09 5,783.40 40.83% Less travel costs than expected.
            Free knowledge awareness SEK 91,500 32,856.95 13,806.51 5,630.04 11,844.29 64,137.79 13,090.13 9,175.65 70.10%
            Operations SEK 548,550 107,620.84 157,332.26 111,347.04 195,937.40 572,237.54 78,476.39 81,865.17 104.32%
            Staff total SEK 3,673,738 725,683.11 731,314.37 678,121.50 830,202.18 2,965,321.16 525,570.53 424,223.34 80.72%
            Added to reserves SEK 197,245 0 0 0 0 211,580.37 28,218.17 30,269.01 N/A
            TOTAL SEK 5,115,000 930,827.80 1,157,702.70 931,322.73 1,224,771.59 4,456,205.19 731,759.66 637,511.47 87.12% N/A

            * Provide estimates in US Dollars


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

            As required in the grant agreement, please report any deviations from your grant proposal here. Note that, among other things, any changes must be consistent with our WMF mission, must be for charitable purposes as defined in the grant agreement, and must otherwise comply with the grant agreement.

            Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement? Please answer "Yes" or "No".

            • Yes.

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

            • Yes.


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

            Anna Troberg (WMSE) (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


            Resources to plan for measurement[edit]

            Resources for storytelling[edit]