Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016 round1/Wikimedia Sverige/Impact report form
Purpose of the report
This form is for organizations receiving Annual Plan Grants to report on their results to date. For progress reports, the time period for this report will the first 6 months of each grant (e.g. 1 January - 30 June of the current year). For impact reports, the time period for this report will be the full 12 months of this grant, including the period already reported on in the progress report (e.g. 1 January - 31 December 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.
- 1 Purpose of the report
- 2 Global metrics overview – all programs
- 3 Telling your program stories – all programs
- 3.1 Introduction
- 3.2 Access
- 3.3 Use
- 3.4 Community
- 3.5 Enabling
- 3.6 Revenues received during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)
- 3.7 Spending during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)
- 3.8 Compliance
- 3.9 Signature
- 4 Resources
Global metrics overview – all programs
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
- Next to each required metric, list the outcome achieved for all of your programs included in your proposal.
- Where necessary, explain the context behind your outcome.
- 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.
|1. # of active editors involved||
Women = 90
|445 was the goal for the year. Our over performance in "Access" helped make up for the gap under "Use" and "Community".|
|2. # of new editors||
Women = 281
|597 was the goal for the year.|
|3. # of individuals involved||
Women = 2,081
|5,397 was the goal for the year. The photo exhibition that was prepared as part of ’’’Connected Open Heritage’’’ will take place in 2017 instead.|
|4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages||9,381 images are being used out of the 22,844 uploaded||4,254 was the goal for the year.|
|5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects||23,216||580,350 was the goal for the year. See explanation under "Access" below.|
|6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects||41,329,353||578,867,800 was the goal for the year. See explanation under "Access" below.|
|1. # of active editors involved||
Women = 68
|61 was the goal for the year. We have reached a much larger group of international volunteers from the movement than we initially expected and hence reached much higher numbers.|
|2. # of new editors||
Women = 230
|323 was the goal for the year.|
|3. # of individuals involved||
Women = 1,712
|2,957 was the goal for the year. We are unable to avoid that some double counting will occur as a result of the same individuals attending multiple events (we do avoid double counting within events).|
|4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages||2,612 images are being used out of the 13,439 uploaded||2,170 was the goal for the year.|
|5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects||18,708||577,575 was the goal for the year. This massive number come from the idea that we will add cultural heritage information to Wikidata, but this work hasn't started yet and might take place in 2017 instead. We are extremely happy with the number achieved despite that.|
|6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects||40,586,487||578,141,000 was the goal for the year. This massive number come from the idea that we will add cultural heritage information to Wikidata, but this work hasn't started yet and might take place in 2017 instead. We are extremely happy with the number achieved despite that.|
Note: This includes the Wikispeech project which will not have deliverables in line with Global Metrics this year.
|1. # of active editors involved||
Women = 4
|34 was the goal for the year.|
|2. # of new editors||
Women = 0
|28 was the goal for the year.|
|3. # of individuals involved||
Women = 9
|912 was the goal for the year. We changed the original plan to more external communication instead of events.|
|4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages||0||86 was the goal for the year. We changed the original plan to more external communication instead of events.|
|5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects||0||1,030 was the goal for the year. We changed the original plan to more external communication instead of events.|
|6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects||0||132,400 was the goal for the year. We changed the original plan to more external communication instead of events.|
|1. # of active editors involved||
Women = 18
|350 was the goal for the year.|
|2. # of new editors||
Women = 51
|246 was the goal for the year.|
|3. # of individuals involved||
Women = 360
|1,528 was the goal for the year.|
|4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages||6,769 images are being used out of the 9,405 uploaded||1,998 was the goal for the year.|
|5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects||4,508||1,745 was the goal for the year.|
|6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects||742,866||594,400 was the goal for the year.|
|1. # of active editors involved||0||This is not the aim with this work.|
|2. # of new editors||0||This is not the aim with this work.|
|3. # of individuals involved||0||Currently only staff, but a few volunteers are interested to work on finding funding and more members later this year.|
|4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages||0||This is not the aim with this work. We have not included images uploaded from events.|
|5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects||0||This is not the aim with this work.|
|6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects||0||This is not the aim with this work.|
Telling your program stories – all programs
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.
Wikimedia Sverige had many interesting changes happening in 2016. In December 2015, Anna Troberg became the new CEO. The transition period went smoothly due to Anna’s background in similar fields, experience with working with volunteers and communication and a strong commitment from the board, the previous CEO and staff to help with the onboarding.
In 2016, we saw a significant increase of our budget and expansion of our programs. During the year we successfully hired four new staff members. In March, Sebastian Berlin started working as a developer for the project Wikispeech (see the program “Use” below for more info). Mattias Östmar also started working in March with batch uploads of media files, and Alicia Fagerving started working in December with batch uploads of data to Wikidata, both as part of the Connected Open Heritage project (outlined in the program “Access” below). Eric Luth joined the team as a Project Administrator in August to support with administrative, communication and reporting tasks. We have also had some organizational restructuring as we have grown, and John Andersson was promoted to Chief Operating Officer (COO) and André Costa was promoted to Senior Developer.
As we have grown there was a need to update the office infrastructure to enhance onboarding of new team members and major projects. A lot of effort went into describing the work we do on our wiki to institutionalize our memory. We also started experimenting with using Phabricator to keep track of the work done in our projects, and to increase transparency and the possibility for volunteers to engage. We hope to internationalize some of this material in e.g. learning patterns or blog posts for 2017.
To be able to handle our new increased organization our IT infrastructure went through an overhaul and consolidation, to make it easier to maintain and develop further. Some of our software systems are being replaced. The biggest software change is that we are moving away from our current CRM system, CiviCRM, into a to be decided well known and widely used system instead, with a new accounting firm handling our economical work. Another important change is that we are moving away from Drupal in favour of WordPress as a platform for our web site.
All of these changes are needed in order to increase efficiency and decrease vulnerability. When the changes are made, we will have an infrastructure and software systems that work better. We will also have moved away from systems very few people know how to administer in favour of systems is easy to find people with the competence to administer, which will make both our everyday job and hiring of new staff significantly easier. However, the exit costs of the move away from CiviCRM was much higher than expected, but a majority of the work could be finalized during the year.
There has also been a few changes in our board with a new treasurer in place, Sven-Erik Jonsson, who is replacing Holger Motzkau. Sven-Erik has a background as a manager at Ericsson and the telecom industry. Elza Dunkels was elected as a new board member. Dunkels is a well-renowned scholar focusing on online culture and how children and teenagers use the Internet.
This year we decided to make a dedicated effort in two specific areas to further develop our projects impact:
- Increased visibility through enhanced focus on external communication.
- Increased understanding of impact through more developed evaluation methods of our work.
We have begun work on emphasizing visibility by rethinking and updating our external communications, in terms of strategy, tools, platforms and social media channels. This includes work on setting up a new web site, sprucing up our social media presence and intensifying our efforts towards the media.
We believe it is important to develop our understanding of the impact of the work we do and to share those insights with the wider community. We have felt that we have not been able to focus on this as much as we would have liked to in previous years, although we now believe we have reached a size where this is starting to be possible. To that end, we will focus on establishing a more developed approach to both planning and investigating our work in a scientific manner, this is something that the new COO will be working on. We are currently discussing options of joint efforts with Stockholm University. To gather more data we both started development of a new survey for our events. We also started to report the outcome of each event and activity done in our different project not just qualitatively but also quantitatively systematically and in much more detail than before.
Another major change is that Wikimedia Foundation decided that Wikimedia Sverige would become one of the two first organizations to be offered multiyear funding. This is an opportunity we are very happy with as we can plan long term and less work is needed for applications every year. A two year grant application was submitted in 2016, and accepted by Wikimedia Foundation at the end of the year.
About this report
This report is organised based on the different programs we have worked on. For each of the programs we explain the method we decided to base our work on.
We first present the outcome in quantitative numbers, according to our goals, with brief comments to explain them.
We also present the outcome qualitatively by highlighting what we believe to be the most interesting activities and the lessons learnt. We present it through short stories based on the projects that contributed to the program.
With these stories we intend to show our successes and our failures – for others to be inspired and learn from.
|Target||Last year (if applicable)||Progress (at end of Q2)||End of year (projected or actual)||Comments|
|Access||A.1.1 Enrich the Wikimedia projects with 20 resources, through the creation and distribution of materials and by providing support and performing batch uploads.||N/A||18 out of 20
||Above target: 32 out of 20
||We have reached much better results than expected this year. A lot of GLAMs have been releasing material for the first time, but in very small quantities. There was also a few bigger collections that were released during the year as well. Furthermore, there was a number of additions of Monuments data onto Wikidata; and an OERs through the project This is my area.|
|A.1.2 Increase the quality of the Wikimedia projects by having 100 identified subject experts contribute to the Wikimedia projects with at least 1 productive edit each, through the dissemination of information, maintaining relationships or arranging thematic edit-a-thons.||N/A||110 out of 100
||Above target: 209 out of 100
||We doubled our goal as we could take advantage of a number of partnerships where e.g. universities had events where we could participate and because there still is a great interest amongst Swedish GLAM institutions. The experts are fairly evenly divided between GLAM and university staff, with a slight majority for the educational sector.|
|A.1.3 Involve 10 courses in the Wikipedia Education Program, through educating motivated teachers and providing expertise on the Wikipedia tools for education.||N/A||8 out of 10
||Above target: 16 out of 10
||Many of our old partnerships have continued. Our active participation at conferences, on social media and on creation of training material triggered a number of educators to contact us about involving their courses in the Wikipedia Education Program and some started this year and some are planning to join next year, making us feel confident that the program will continue to be high performing also in the future.|
|A.2.1 To change the norm of free licenses ensure that 10 organisations clearly license their material under free licenses, through workshops and support with information aimed at staff within the organisations.||N/A||4 out of 10
||Below target: 6 out of 10
||We have four GLAMs that have changed license on their material as part of the Connected Open Heritage project. We expected to convince a few more non-Swedish GLAMs by the end of the year as they stated their interest, but we never received the material. The same happened with Statistics Sweden, that decided to put together a report instead of moving forward as we hoped that they would. We expect to reap the harvest of this work in 2017.|
|A.2.2 Extend the network of the chapter with 100 centrally placed people (who can affect the license of materials) and 20 politicians (who can promote the strategic goals of the chapter), through events, new collaborations and direct contact with content owners and like-minded organisations.||N/A||162 out of 100 VIPs
1 out of 20 politicians
|Above target: 296 out of 100
Below target: 14 out of 20
|Our definition of someone belonging to our network is when they have met a representative of the chapter and staff has some way of contacting them, they have received information about what we do as an organization and how they can reach us. For 2017 we will also include VIPs that have been reached through social media, instead of only including face-to-face meetings (as we do this year). We believe that ongoing interactions through social media is a good strategy to use in Sweden.
Centrally placed people: Partnering the Wikipedia in Education project with the ICT4D project delivers a lot of opportunities. We reorganized the Connected Open Heritage project so that we this year took part in a large number of events where we met with decision makers, which we originally thought would take place in 2017.
Politicians: We had a number of meetings as part of the Public Art – Open Data project, but we refocused our target group towards IT strategists rather than politicians as it turned out that they had better knowledge and understanding for the topic and a better opportunity to create an impact in the near future.
Improving access to more resources through the use of free licenses and including them on the Wikimedia projects are the aims of the Access program.
In order to have Wikimedia projects considered a valid platform for knowledge sharing by an organization, our experience is that both the individual staff members and the organization as a whole need to go through a number of steps, and that the context they work in has to be suitable.
Our first three goals within the Access program aim to increase the amount of organizations that work with free knowledge through a bottom-up approach. The last two goals aim to achieve it through a top-down approach to create the legal and political context needed for organizations to move forward with their work around freely licensed resources of different types.
As stated in our application we see their contributions happening mainly in two ways:
- People contribute to the Wikimedia projects within their institutional frameworks, it could e.g. be GLAM staff, researchers or students.
- Resources created elsewhere are released under a free license and can later be included in Wikimedia projects.
During the first half of the year, we successfully finalized six smaller externally funded projects. Two focused on creating short videos, one on a preparatory report on including terminology in Wikidata, one on batch uploading data, and two on teaching GLAM staff to contribute to Wikipedia.
The Bottom-Up Approach (goal A.1.1-A.1.3)
Getting organizations started
Different organizations have reached different levels of maturity when it comes to how they look at free knowledge and how they can contribute. Their maturity affects what we can achieve together in a particular timespan, and a large part of our work is focused on guiding them to a more thought-through strategy. We focused on partners with expertise and/or collections we had identified as relevant for Wikimedia in general or sometimes for a particular project.
Our focus on working with different organizations to improve the material on Wikimedia projects continued in 2016. Building on our work from previous years we focused our efforts towards data that could be included on Wikidata, media files that could be included on Wikimedia Commons and expert contributions to Wikipedia articles.
The first step to increase Access is to help relevant organization understand what this issue is about and why they should care about it. For this we have continued our work with creating a number of resources that will help us convince different organizations (with a focus on GLAMs, national authorities and research groups). We have based this work on the experiences we’ve gained over the years from a number of projects, involving actors in Sweden and abroad.
Developing new and improved material was something we were hoping would also benefit the global Wikimedia movement as we continued to make the material accessible through different channels. With this in mind we increased our focus on making the material easy to translate and adapt, and we had direct contacts with different chapters to both identify what was missing and to share what we had created. We regularly wrote in the GLAM and Education newsletters, added information to Meta and blogged about our work.
We had two external project grants which allowed us to create a couple of videos to help explain open data. The first one, Open Data – explained in a nutshell, is a general video about what open data is. The video was produced in cooperation with the Simpleshow Foundation in English. The video was quickly subtitled in 7 languages. The second video was targeted towards GLAM institutions, in the form of recorded interviews with some of the most forward thinking members of GLAM staff in Sweden. The idea was that by having them explain what they do, and why they do it, other organizations would be inspired and move forwards faster. We believe that video will have a real value when creating different OERs available online to attract new groups. Video production was new to our team and there is still a lot we have to learn in this field. We also recognise a need to better coordinate the production of such material with other chapters, not the least with the Nordic ones which work in a very similar context. For this (and other types of cooperations) we created a new email list where we can share ideas and resources suitable for the Nordic area.
In the beginning of the year we also finalized our project Terminology 3.0, where we investigated how terminologies developed by government agencies in Sweden could be made available online as linked open data. The final report can be found here (in Swedish). The intention was that this would create a basic understanding of what can be done together with other organizations within this field on Wikidata.
The work carried out in the Access program in 2016 was to a large extent done as a preparation for a major addition of data and images in 2017, and coming years. We have previously seen the value of a heavy focus on contacts with external actors. This year we had more possibilities to meet with decision makers both in Sweden and other countries than ever before, and we expect this to continue in the future. We believe it can be attributed to the many new and innovative projects we are working on, our big network of partners, our knowledge about events taking place and experience in creating session proposals.
The externally funded project Connected Open Heritage (COH) started in 2016, with a budget equivalent to nearly 25 % of our total budget. The project will continue into September 2017. This is an ambitious project and we have had to do a lot of preparatory work, including hiring and training two new developers to work on this.
We started work with developing material that can be used to create interest from GLAM institutions and from national authorities about releasing data and media files. The material created to date can be found on the project portal on Meta and a number of brochures are in production. We created a brochure about WIkimedia Sverige in Swedish and English and a document on why CC0 should be the prefered license for data rather than CC BY.
We have focused a lot of our efforts on documenting how to process a batch upload so that other chapters will be able to replicate our work. After testing it out a couple of times we will share the updated version on Wikimedia Commons and use it to teach more volunteers and staff members how they can contribute efficiently. The work on documentation will continue in 2017.
As part of COH we have also invested a substantial amount of resources into participating at different events, where relevant actors are participating. This has allowed us to present our work and to invite interested parties to join the project. We have worked both in Sweden and internationally, and in cooperation with local affiliates. We participated in 19 different events and gave presentation at 12 of them, with a total of 1,190 people active in relevant fields reached. We also organized three events in order to use the material generated from the project (included in the above count).
Through the outreach we hope to engage both experts and Wikimedia volunteers and to inform them about the work done in this field by the Wikimedia movement. These events included the UNESCO Mobile Learning Week where we could talk to high level officials and representatives of different organizations about our work, a number of hackathons, the EuroMed 2016 conference where an article about the project was accepted after peer-review, and won a price for the best short paper during the conference (blog post in Swedish). Participating in these events gave us many valuable contacts which have had direct value for the continuation of the project. For example, we meet delegations from Kenya and Uganda at the Bridging Ages in Kalmar, Sweden, and will visit the countries in 2017 as part of a project organized by a GLAM in Kalmar.
Another way in which we are working to enhance awareness about the work done by the Wikimedia movement is the preparation of a photo exhibition highlighting cultural heritage in danger and the importance of digitally preserving it. On this we are working together with Wikimedia Italia and UNESCO. The exhibition will be organized in three countries in 2017 and we expect the exhibition to be shown: In three cities in Italy, with edit-a-thons organized in connection with this; At UNESCO’s headquarter in Paris, followed by other venues in Paris; At a museum in Sweden. Potentially the exhibition will also be shown at UNESCO’s offices in New York and Geneva.
Furthermore, we are planning meetings both on- and offline with different GLAM institutions and decision makers in a number of countries all over the world. The goal is to convince them to release information about their immovable cultural heritage, including both data cultural heritage and media files depicting the sites. To this end Country Reports were created for about 40 countries where cultural heritage is at risk, making it easier for us to plan how to convince data owners and GLAM institutions in these countries to share their material under a free license with us. These resources should hopefully prove valuable to other projects and organizations which plan to work in these countries.
In 2016, parts of the project team traveled to Georgia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to discuss partnerships with different GLAM institutions in the two countries. There are few local volunteers in the countries active with these type of activities, and our hope was to get some valuable material onto our projects. We also wanted to inspire some national GLAMs to think about free licensing early on in their digitization process. We also hoped that outreach in different countries would be a great opportunity to engage with new communities globally. This work will continue in 2017.
In Georgia and Bosnia we met with decision makers and their teams for a presentation about Wikimedia and our project. Our hope was to create enough interest to get a technical pilot project initiated as soon as possible. It is still difficult to evaluate the actual outcome of our discussions with top officials at different GLAMs, and if these will translate into actual partnerships. If partnerships fail to realise, the inclusion of a practical workshops in our international work would be something to consider for next time. This would however require us to organise more on-site visits to fewer countries, rather than focusing on online coordination and activities.
We visited Georgia in September and conducted a number of meetings in the country, organized in partnership with Blue Shield Georgia. We initially met with the Deputy Minister of Culture and Monument Protection of Georgia and informed him about the project and what we could do together. He requested a report on what we experienced, which they wished to use when developing the new digitization Action Plan for the coming two years.
During our visit we met with the management and General Directors of the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia, the George Chubinashvili National Research Center for Georgian Art History and Heritage Preservation, the Georgian National Museum and the National Archives of Georgia. We also met with three representatives from the Wikimedia Community User Group Georgia to discuss our activities there. We are careful about not initiating activities without involving local volunteers. We assisted them with data processing and contacts. We hope that this will help smaller Wikimedia organizations broaden their activities with cultural heritage. We also met with the Swedish Ambassador in Georgia and her team where we discussed, amongst other things, the possibilities for financial support to the local Wikimedia community.
In November we visited Bosnia and Herzegovina and together with the local organization Cultural Heritage without Borders Bosnia and Herzegovina (CHwB B&H) we met with the management and General Directors of the Bozniak Institute, the Zenica City Museum, the Historical Archives Sarajevo'’ and the Historic Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We also prepared a plan for how to extract data about the built cultural heritage in the country and formalized our cooperation with CHwB B&H so that they can take a leading role in organizing Wiki Loves Monuments in the country in 2017.
We have developed a number of resources such as an OTRS release form for data (with active involvement from WMDE), cultural heritage templates using Wikidata (so that we can illustrate how the data will be used, thereby communicating the value of making it open), etc. which we hope will benefit other chapters that would like to work on similar projects.
In 2016 John Cummings worked at UNESCO as a Wikipedian in Residence. Half of the work time was financed and conducted in close cooperation with Wikimedia Sverige as part of the Connected Open Heritage project. UNESCO has made significant effort and progress to be more active in working with the Wikimedia movement and making UNESCO material available on the Wikimedia projects. All work done has been structured to allow other UN agencies to easily copy the work done at UNESCO. This includes: Creating a mechanism and instructions to include freely licensed texts from UNESCO on Wikipedia both through direct contribution of UNESCO staff members and through suggestions. Working with staff to develop open source software to allow UNESCO media can be transferred to Wikimedia Commons (both technical and legal aspects). Promoting the Wiki Loves competitions through UNESCO's significant social media presence. Developing resources to allow UNESCO and other organisations to work with Wikidata contributors to upload data.
Through Advocacy 2016 we worked on informing Statistics Sweden (SCB) about what license they should use for their massive amount of data. SCB not only produces enormous amounts of data each year, but also works internationally to help build statistical capacity in developing countries. Our hope is that if they adjust their license we can find more ways of cooperating in the future.
In WFD data to Wikidata 2016 we are working closely with one of Sweden's five water authorities and collaborating with the European Environment Agency and representatives from other water authorities in the EU. The project extends into 2017 and the goal for 2016 was to outline how we can work together in the future in a joint project, focusing on bringing open data about water quality into Wikidata. Our involvement focused on creating awareness about licenses and the importance of using a standard non-restrictive open license such as CC0. As the data is standardized and reported by all European countries there would potentially be a lot of interesting opportunities if we can find a good way forward together. Our involvement in this work is covered by funding from one of the Swedish water authorities. A small pilot upload of data was done late 2016. In 2017 data about lakes in Sweden will be uploaded as part of this project.
Our programmatic work in academic settings progressed with Wikipedia in Education. We focused on two strategic target groups: (1) reaching out and training educators on how to contribute to Wikipedia, and at the same time benefit from it as a vehicle for learning aligned with the established Wikipedia Education Program; and (2) reaching out and training research and faculty staff in academia in how to contribute efficiently with their expertise, adding quality content to Wikipedia.
To reach educators at scale, two significant partnerships generated quality resources in 2016. At the beginning of the year, we launched a web based open course for educators (blog post in Swedish), hosted and initiated by the Internet Foundation in Sweden. Over 214 educators took the course.
The Swedish National Agency of Education assigned us to co-author an online training module for educators with representatives from Malmö University. This was done as part of a national education program developed and endorsed by the National Agency for Education, launched in June. We recognise two significant benefits from this partnership: the first one is the potential of scale when it comes to educators who will learn about the Wikipedia Education Program from a quality resource like this one. The other one is the significance of having the endorsement of a major educational institution like the Education Agency and what it communicates to educators throughout Sweden, in terms of Wikipedia as a legitimate and valid vehicle for knowledge sharing and learning in academic settings. It’s a recognition we have worked towards for a long time and a major milestone for the Wikipedia Education Program and our long term strategic work.
One of the new approaches that was developed in the Wikipedia Education Program in 2016 was to partner up with GLAM institutions to co-develop programs for schools, so that students can access GLAM expertise and share it on Wikipedia for course credit. One strong example of this approach is our Wikipedia Education Program with the Nordic Museum (blog post in Swedish). A team at the museum (an archivist, a librarian, a digital producer and an educator) worked on curating resources matched with content gaps on Wikipedia to produce thematic packages for students to choose from. The concept proved popular and ten teachers joined from five different schools, with the work continuing into March 2017. This is as an exciting cross-over between our work with the education sector and GLAMs, where we can support both GLAM staff and educators to be successful with student editors.
Also in the externally funded project This is my area our work in the educational and GLAM sectors merged. In the project we aimed to develop an innovative method for schools to learn about local cultural heritage and information literacy with students aged 8-19. The results are shared in an Open Educational Resource (OER) for educators and GLAMs to easily use and adapt to their local conditions. We had 8 classes from five different schools in the Stockholm area joining. The GLAMs involved are the Stockholm digital archive for schools Stockholmskällan, which already has an established education program which the Wikipedia concept will become a part of, and the Swedish National Heritage Board. The project is a good example on how external grants can be used to quickly get new organizations onboard. Apart from Wikipedia, we use Wikimini as one of the platforms. It gained some attention in 2016 and has now reached a milestone with 2,000 user accounts.
We continued our partnership with one of the National teachers' union in Sweden. They invited us to introduce members in many parts of Sweden to Wikipedia/Wikimini in education and to give basic Wikipedia training. The partnership is set to continue in 2017.
We have learnt that we can grow our network by attending major education conferences and this year we were invited to give a presentation at Mötesplats Open Access to university staff in Stockholm and at the International Science Festival in Gothenburg where the audience was approximately 400 people working with science communication. This had a direct effect as we were contacted by a number of universities with requests to partner with us. On the national level, we were also invited to present the Wikipedia Education Program on national TV, as part of a TV-show focusing on Media and Information Literacy in education.
In March, we hosted the Wikipedia Education Collab in-person meeting in Stockholm, co-organized with the Wikipedia Education Team at the Wikimedia Foundation and members of the Collab. The event was successful and could support the work of the Collab which is focused on supporting Wikipedia Education programs around the world with resources, expertise and mentorship. To have a member from the chapter in the Collab allows us to share and contribute to the international community while hosting the meeting improved our experience in organizing international events for Wikimedians.
We have also established a partnership with the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU). From initial meetings and guidance they decided to hire a Wikipedian in Residence (WiR) to help them develop ways to contribute their expertise efficiently on medical topics on Wikipedia. We organised two events at SBU in 2016 engaging 17 members of staff and improving 14 Wikipedia articles. This work will continue in 2017.
Through the project The Value of Free Geographical Data we started investigating what different organizations within the humanitarian aid sector are using open data for, and what their needs are. We believe that there are many overlaps between what they need and what we offer and that there are huge possibilities to develop new types of cooperations. However, due to other commitments we had to significantly reduce our activities in the project for the year and returned some of the funding to the grant giving body. Instead we participated at a number of events, as part of the COH project, where we met with professionals from the humanitarian field – and discovered that the mindset was very much in line with that of our movement, in a similar fashion to that of the GLAM and the educational sectors.
Through the externally funded project Diversity on Wikipedia we took a number of norm critical images that were released under a free license and uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons by a few volunteers. This effort did produce an important resource for our projects and also a number of suggestions for how volunteers can continue to create norm critical images. However, it is worth noting that we do not believe that this effort will lead to more images being uploaded in the future, as this was not a donation but a resource we bought. The high quality images were added to articles and have had more than 2 million views.
Getting organizations warmed up
When we have reached a shared understanding with the organizations we usually run a smaller pilot project together. We have focused on having the organization share their existing collections and/or actively contributing with staff time to improve free content within their specific field of expertise.
We worked on a number of smaller pilot projects with four GLAM institutions through Connected Open Heritage: The Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities and the Museum of Ethnography in Sweden changed license on two of their collections and we worked with their staff to upload the images. As this cooperation was considered successful both of the museums are planning to adopt a policy of openness and to release a lot more images from their collections. We had one event with their staff and are also planning to organize external events together in 2017. We had ongoing discussions with a few other Swedish GLAMs, that we have worked with before, in order to identify media files depicting cultural heritage in their collections that we can upload to Wikimedia Commons in 2017.
We worked in close cooperation with Wikimedia Italia on the batch uploads of images from Syria taken by Gruppo Archeologico Romano and Associazione DecArch, two Italian GLAMs. Through this cooperation we uploaded 1,073 images of cultural heritage in Syria. We also worker with UNESCO to see how their archival collections could be added to Wikimedia Commons – both through batch uploads but also through an integration of their new open source media archive that is currently being developed. We were hoping to be of assistance to other Wikimedia organizations and help them with batch uploads of image collections depicting immovable cultural heritage, but no one requested our help in 2016. It is unclear to us why that is, but perhaps the limitation to immovable cultural heritage was too limited for collections to be easily identified.
In 2016 we assisted volunteers from 5 countries (Iran, Kosovo, Albania, Georgia and Nigeria), some of which took part in WLM for the first time in 2016, with getting their heritage data into the Monument database. We also identified Australia, China, Kenya, Uganda, USA and Moldavia as likely countries to include datasets from. Furthermore we started the preparatory work on migrating data from the Monument database to Wikidata. In December we hired a new developer to specialize on this work.
We have seen a great interest from Swedish GLAMs to continue working with us. For our older partners their interest have now shifted towards technical assistance rather than with staff editing (as staff has had a hard time finding the time). Even though few of the staff members continue editing on work time (and even fewer as volunteers) it seem like the approach with workshops on how to edit has a great value in getting internal support and interest for the later technical partnerships. This is an interesting conclusion as the logical step is to move forward with training of other institutions – but with the hope to create partnerships rather than editors.
During the year we continued our work with the Council of Central Museums, Work With Sounds and Arbetsam, which were combined in one project project called GLAM 2016. Nowadays a few of the GLAMs have progressed and are largely organizing internal and external edit-a-thons by themselves, with us only supporting them sporadically. This is what we have strived for during the last years and we are very happy with this development. We had a workshop with staff at the Nationalmuseum, the national gallery of Sweden, which was a first in a series of edit-a-thons that the museum will organize themselves in the future.
An interesting development was the new interest that our work with Wikidata generated from GLAM staff. Releasing metadata related to their collections is often seen as a smaller initial step as copyright on data is often less of an issue and their financial models do not include such data (unlike media files in some cases). With Nationalmuseum we have connected their register of artists to Wikidata and through this been able to source almost 20,000 statements (see final report for more details, in Swedish). A list of women artists who are represented in the collection was generated to highlight biographies that are currently missing (the list was used during the ArtsAndFeminism workshop). As a follow-up to this the Nationalmuseum provided us with 3,000 high resolution images of some of the most important paintings in Sweden. Also for this work the GLAM institution covered our direct costs.
We have also continued with our work of training GLAM staff to contribute efficiently on Wikipedia. The buy-in is bigger than ever before from the Swedish GLAM sector and a few of the museums have decided to cover our costs for teaching their staff. During the first half of the year we have organized events together with the Swedish Air Force Museum to improve articles within their expertise on airplanes and related topics. We also co-organized an event with Riksutställningar, the Swedish Exhibition Agency which is a government agency whose task is to promote development and cooperation within the field of exhibitions. The event took place during the Spring meeting for the Association of Swedish Museums and focused on how GLAMs could work with Wikipedia. At that event and the following four workshops 14 GLAMs took a first step and uploaded material to Wikimedia Commons and more than 40 curators and subject matter experts contributed to Wikipedia or Wikidata with knowledge and content
We also batch uploaded media files and data from GLAM institutions, which took the decision to cover our direct costs related to assisting them. We continued our successful work with two batch uploads of images from the Royal Armoury And Skokloster Castle With The Hallwyl Museum Foundation, LSH. A total of nearly 8,000 files in very high resolution were uploaded. We also spent some resources migrating our codebase to the Pywikibot framework, both to get a more stable basis and to ensure that our efforts are more easily reusable by the Wikimedia community and other chapters.
This year, the Wikipedia Education Program in Sweden has performed above target. This is due to a number of educators returning with new classes, the Linneaus University for example has successfully completed their fifth annual Wikipedia project in Ecology and Health studies. Continued support to this and other courses with focus on retention of the active pedagogues has proven successful.
The educational sector continues to show a strong interest in Wikipedia, as a pedagogical tool to develop information literacy and communications skills. Students give positive feedback on the assignments, however we do not see editing continue after the assignment is completed (at least short term) – but the output is often of good quality with short bursts of activity within a well defined topic on Wikipedia. For a small language like Swedish, we believe that student editors have an impact on Wikipedia content, despite not addressing regular updates of existing articles.
The major development for the Wikipedia Education Program is that several PhD courses have joined in 2016, bringing over 70 PhD candidates to the program while at the same time adding quality content and topic expertise to Wikipedia. Since there is an overlap between students and experts, and since many of the PhDs also teach, this makes them a very valuable group whom we can efficiently support by training their instructors and institutions. The main part of the PhD courses come from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), which is a testament to the importance of our long lasting partnership with research and faculty staff whom now see the Wikipedia Education program as a strategy for engaging and educating its own staff.
To improve content with the help of experts we have continued to support 10-12 different research institutions and universities in Sweden. Experts are encouraged to improve Wikipedia articles based on the most important published research in their field. We participate with lectures, training and support such as instructional material and tutorials, and we create user templates so that participating institutions can contribute efficiently and long term.
The Top-Down Approach (goal A.2.1-A.2.2)
Through the top-down approach our hope was to affect the legislative and political context that different content owners are acting within. A larger focus on free knowledge and access to information from politicians is core to our work. We have developed our thoughts on this in our strategy for influencing public opinion (in Swedish).
Getting decision makers started
As part of our Advocacy work Wikimedia Sverige supported the work done by Dimi Dimitrov in Brussels on policy issues relevant for the Wikimedia movement. Dimi is frequently working to introduce our issues to politicians and decision makers in the EU institutions. To cover the cost of this work we used non-FDC funds.
Nationally, one staff members participated at Almedalsveckan, the largest gathering of Swedish decision makers during the year, to meet and talk to relevant people. This is an event where most of Sweden’s political elite gathers in the same small area for a few days to network and to learn about and discuss different issues. Here we could talk to top officials and politicians in a relaxed atmosphere. However, this year we only participated during the latter half of the week (the first part of the week is the more important one) and we had little experience on how it would work, but learnt a lot and are better prepared for next year. We do believe that there are possibilities to improve the outcome of this event much in the years to come.
We have also been preparing material for our project Public Art – Open Data. During the project we initiated a discussion with politician on the municipal level about open data, and how the data created and gathered by their municipality could find further use and value on Wikimedia projects. In many cases it turned out to be the first time they discussed about open data. Through the discussions we had in 2016, and will continue to have in 2017, we hope to get the politicians to see the need and value of adopting plans for open data. We had meetings with 50 people in 27 municipalities in 2016 (to a large extent in the region of Stockholm).
Getting decision makers up and running
The joint efforts of European chapters and the community have helped inform the European Commission of issues relevant for our projects. As part of our Advocacy work we also developed an in-depth answer to the European Commission’s Publishers & Panorama Consultation on Freedom of Panorama. Our answers were shared with the wider movement so that other Wikimedia organizations could reuse parts of it.
As part of our Wikipedia in Education program we have continued working with Stockholm University and the International Training Program for ICT4D where we met and talked to 80 representatives from about 15 countries from the Global South, leaders in the educational sector in their home countries. Like previous years our participation has consisted of two parts: A dinner event at the Nobel Museum where we have presented our work and given an introduction to free knowledge to the participants; and a a practical half-day workshop. Thanks to the work done by the university in advance of our involvement, we can focus on how the participants can start the practical work of using Wikimedia projects as tools to reach their goals.
Our video about open data at GLAM institutions.
Our video about open data.
|Target||Last year (if applicable)||Progress (at end of Q2)||End of year (projected or actual)||Comments|
|Use||U.1.1 Keep or increase the confidence in Wikipedia in the March 2017 measurement by Mediebarometern through targeted dissemination of information and relationship-building with opinion leaders with a high level of confidence.||N/A||Unknown||Unknown||In the Mediebarometern report 2016, Wikipedia was not included which took us with surprise. We will contact the organization and try to convince them to include it in the 2017 report. We still don’t know if they will involve Wikipedia in next year’s report, and we will instead focus on the amount of media mentionings that we have had as a proxy. We have invested resources into better tools to track our media presence.|
|U.1.2 Increase the number of page-views on the Wikimedia projects from Sweden with 10% compared with the same month the previous year during the months we have collaborations with media in current contexts.||N/A||Unknown||Unknown||We have not had any major collaborations with media but have continuously sent out press releases and increase social media presence. However, we cannot say if this has had an impact.|
|U.2.1 Decrease the number of bugs in the software through reporting 100% of all verified bugs within one week of being encountered.||100% (30 bugs and 2 translation messages)||100% (8 bugs and 1 translation messages)
||On target: 100% (14 new bugs and 3 translation messages)
||We have reported all the bugs that we have encountered in the MediaWiki software during events and after confirming that the bug wasn’t reported already. In this number we have not included bugs that we have reported in external Wikimedia related tools, such as Pywikibot or PAWS.|
|U.2.2 To make content available for more people, create a functional text-to-speech prototype before the end of the year.||N/A||Prototype under construction
||On target: Prototype ready
||We had a rough prototype functioning, but there is still be plenty of development work left for 2017.|
Getting people to use the Wikimedia projects, and using them with ease are what we try to achieve with the Use program.
Knowledge about our projects (goal U.1.1 and U.1.2)
Through our projects we have had a great amount of positive media attention in the national and international media. Our project Wikispeech got over 60 mentions in international media when we launched the project after a press release was sent out by KTH.
We expected a lot of media attention when the court verdict on the Offentligkonst.se case would come (there has already been a lot of positive coverage, and nearly no negative). However, the court ruling never came in 2016. We also expected media coverage in the local media when we conducted our outreach on open data in the municipalities as part of Public Art – Open Data. This hope did however not pan out – probably because the public interest in public art and crowdsourcing data was not big enough to get people to attend our events.
Most of the work with press releases etc. in the Connected Open Heritage project was postponed to 2017.
Also this year we had a project focusing on the Eurovision Song Contest in Sweden. A volunteer was present with a press accreditation and produced a lot of high quality photos. However, we had hoped to get media time through a cooperation with Sveriges Television, but this collaboration failed to realise.
The coverage of our projects in specialized media for the educational sector has been positive, which is something we believe is very important to increase a positive view of our projects long term. We believe that educators on different levels are strong influencers, and that if they give a more nuanced view in the classroom (i.e. instead of saying “don’t use it” they say “this is how you use it”) the students are more likely to have a positive attitude to our projects. We participated in (debate) articles on different subjects to increase the understanding of our projects. E.g. the Swedish Educational Broadcasting Company created a movie (in Swedish) and a radio program (blog post in Swedish) about source criticism, which gave the Wikipedia Education Program a lot of positive visibility as Wikipedia was used as an example what to discuss.
For us, social media has been a great way to give a first impression on decision makers and the general public. This has helped to organize meetings later on when we have had specific projects in mind. The number of followers on Facebook and Twitter have both increased significantly during the year as a result of us becoming more active there.
Usability of our projects (goal U.2.1 and U.2.2)
As part of our Bug reporting project the staff has ensured that bug reports have been filed continuously when we have discovered them (often at events with new volunteers). Thanks to some internal training more staff members are now comfortable with doing this work themselves. In total 15 bugs have been reported on Phabricator additionally three translation issues were resolved.
The work on to create a working text-to-speech solution is moving forward as planned. Wikispeech is our first big development project and as such we invested significant time into initial preparations. We don’t want this to be a one-off and are working to get methods in place, whilst also ensuring that our staff has time to really understand the issues more in-depth. This way we hope to be able to work on high impact development projects even more efficiently in the future.
We have actively been using Phabricator for all the work we do. This is because we want to be as transparent as possible and make it easy to get input and feedback from both volunteers and WMF staff. As the core project team is fairly large (about 10 people are involved to some extent, out of which 5 are actively working on the code, from 3 organizations) there is also a need to coordinate internally. We have also documented our progress on Mediawiki.org and Meta. We had a number of meetings with WMF staff and worked to create an interest from the community through blog posts and messages in different channels which led to a number of endorsements of the project and interests from volunteers and other organizations.
To get more people and organizations involved in this project and in future development we have presented the project at a number of specialized events, and we are thrilled that a conference paper we wrote on the project was accepted to the 9th ISCA Workshop on Speech Synthesis. This is the speech synthesis conference and it only takes place every third year. We also participated at both Wikimedia Conference 2016 and Wikimania 2016 to be able to communicate to the wider Wikimedia community. The software development moved forward in a good way during the year. We have a new staff member who has had a steep learning curve and who is now picking up speed. We mainly focused on the API (the “wrapper”), building the lexicon structure and on the player. We also created a mockup design of the possibility to contribute with corrections of the lexicon (i.e. crowdsourcing the creation of the text-to-speech solution). Furthermore, we have also created a plan for how to test and evaluate the tools in 2017.
Our first and second report to the funders were accepted and we are already far ahead in our discussions with them about the development of the extension should look like in projects following this current one. They have stated an interest in financing up to a further 30 months of development of Wikispeech related work.
Our partners at KTH have worked on the underlying infrastructure with 200,000 euro of own financing to improve how Wikispeech will sound.
This is an example of how Wikispeech is likely to sound.
|Target||Last year (if applicable)||Progress (at end of Q2)||End of year (projected or actual)||Comments|
|Community||C.1.1 To make work easier, support will be given 365 times to at least 50 Wikimedians (or others who advocate for free knowledge) with expertise, financial or other resources.||N/A||200 out of 365
82 out of 50
|Below target: 265 out of 365
Above target: 101 out of 50
|We well surpassed our yearly goal when it comes to the number of advocates for free knowledge supported, but we fell short of our very optimistic goal of helping one free knowledge advocate per day.|
|C.1.2 To strengthen the community the chapter will support 50 recurring meetups where 50 Wikimedians participate and that 50% of the respondents to a survey express that these have been community building.||N/A||68 out of 50 meetups
||Above target: 134 out of 50 meetups
Above target: At least 71 Wikimedians participated
Below target: We started develop a survey but had difficulties with Qualtrics.
|We have continued supporting meetups in Stockholm and Gothenburg. Both cities have successfully organized the local communities and we had the first Wikicamp in Sweden this summer. The community in Uppsala is growing and are hosting regular monthly edit-a-thons.
We have however had limited success with expanding the social activities to other cities, despite our efforts. Our experiments with local technology pools to trigger more meetings have not yet had an effect. Neither have we found new volunteers interested in organizing these type of events, but we’ll continue the support and outreach to local communities.
The reported number of participants is incomplete and only take Gothenburg into participation.
|C.2.1 One productive edit from 365 unique users from Wikimedia's underrepresented groups, through activities arranged by the chapter.||N/A||219 out of 365
||Above target: 403 out of 365
||Our work with targeted efforts toward both women and people from other language communities in Sweden has worked well, but we have not worked toward the elderly population this year. The work done by the Wikipedia Education Program and GLAM activities has worked out well in getting new groups to do their first edits. As a preparation for #1lib1ref we focused on the library community to get new groups, with a female majority, to edit.|
|C.2.2 250 rolling surviving new active editors that continuously contributes, through the promotion of improved per-conditions on Wikimedia projects.||N/A||6 out of 250
||Unclear||The metric is not available due to Wikimetrics malfunctioning. We do not expect to reach this goal, to a large extent because Fikarummet became operational too late in 2016 to have an impact on the number of editors getting help there. From the Wikipedia Education Program there are four courses with a design covering a time period in line with this metric. The courses had 60 registered new student accounts, however, due to assignment design and editing in groups the number rolling surviving editors remains unclear.|
Support active users (goal C.1.1 and C.1.2)
Support to our wider community has included many different aspects, which is possible thanks to staff members with a wide variety of skills and the infrastructure which we have built up during the last years.
Our cooperations with different organizations has also contributed significantly to our success. They often contribute with resources for us to achieve a higher impact with our projects, e.g. through communication, use of venues, sponsoring of prizes for contests etc.
As part of Connected Open Heritage project we have supported Wiki Loves Monuments both through work on the underlying infrastructure and by providing technical help with data preparations for new countries wanting to participate. Through this help volunteers in Iran, Kosovo and Albania have gotten access to the full range of tools available for Wiki Loves Monuments and other countries such as Belarus and Russia have gotten the help needed to be able to use those tools again after they stopped working. A number of countries has received help with minor issues.
Our Community Support project has continued to execute loans to volunteers from our technology pool on 56 occasions. We also supported volunteers in organizing 16 events, gave expert advice to 16 different people, and could help volunteers get press accreditation to 7 different events.
Furthermore, our office space has been used by Open Knowledge Sverige, Mozilla Foundation and the Unstraight museum at a number of different occasions providing a total of 127 spaces for free knowledge related work. This type of support, for smaller organizations that are active in the field of free knowledge, is something we believe to be important both to create a stronger network between organizations and to support them to grow.
We reached our goal of supporting 50 different Wikimedians and other Free Knowledge Advocates and managed to help 101 individuals. As the requests for help and support slowed down during the fall we did not reach our very optimistic goal of helping one free knowledge advocate per day in average in one way or another.
To improve the community building we have continued with our support for regular events in both Stockholm, Gothenburg and Uppsala. In both places there have been both a series of general social events (e.g. wikipubs and wikifikas) and also a series of events specifically designed to diversify our user base. As there have been different sets of social events in each city the numbers have quickly added up. A spin-off to this work was the first Wikicamp in Sweden last summer, organized by the volunteers in Gothenburg. The camp turned out to be very successful with high appreciation from participants (blog post in Swedish), a lot of quality material being produced and new volunteers becoming active.
Inclusive climate and low barriers (goal C.2.1 and C.2.2)
In the Diversity on Wikipedia project we continued to work hard on involving a more diverse group of volunteers and organized a number of targeted edit-a-thons towards women and other underrepresented groups during the year, and we will continue to invest in this. This was the third year we had an externally funded project aimed at diversity. We have learnt a lot, and it has given us the chance to experiment with different ways of increasing diversity on the Wikimedia projects.
To engage existing community members in diversifying efforts, we organized a mentorship training day with eleven motivated mentors from different parts of Sweden. The training involved how to employ inclusive actions to support new editors and deal with various editing scenarios online and offline.
We have organized events together with different partner organizations to teach more women how to contribute to Wikipedia, including the Arts and Feminism edit-a-thon (in Swedish), had a series of edit-a-thons in Stockholm and Gothenburg to strengthen this part of our community. We have also prepared a photo collection with photos from well known Swedish photographer Tomas Gunnarsson, who specializes in norm critical images. In July during Stockholm Pride, we hosted a photo exhibition at the Royal Castle in Stockholm to highlight the work done and a Pride edit-a-thon where the project was launched and presented by Tomas Gunnarsson. The project meant outreach to new groups and gained appreciation for non-sexualizing photos showing a wider diversity of people in Wikipedia articles, and that participating on Wikimedia projects is one action to take to improve on inclusivity and media representation. To improve on the quality of such images on Wikipedia, we believe make people feel more included and at home on Wikipedia, thereby making them more willing to join the community.
As previously we saw that some areas of our work was had positive side effects which directly support our overall diversity efforts. We see that in our work with GLAM staff the majority are women and from our work in the educational sector the situation is similar. To have a better idea of what our gender diversity looks like overall we are now tracking gender this across our activities, for 2016 this is available in the global metrics section above.We record gender as accurately as possible, which is more difficult for online activities which is why we have included a gender unknown category. We want to keep doing this over time to improve the understanding of how our programmatic work is connected with a more diverse user base.
As our new tech staff members started working later than we had planned we had to delay the technical work with Fikarummet, the Swedish language version of the Teahouse. When we did a more in-depth investigation of what needed to be solved, we realized that it would take significantly longer time than originally planned for. Two staff members worked on the technical development and it was completed and activated in the fourth quarter. This delay prevented us from reaching our goal for this year, but the upside is that the work should make it easier to add the Teahouse to other language versions of Wikipedia in the future and be more easily maintained by Wikipedia administrators. We hope that we will be able to assist other language versions with the technical part of the activations in 2017, if they so desire.
A new addition to the Wikipedia in Education project has been a Somali speaking class of 15 students who collaboratively worked on creating three new articles on Somali Wikipedia (see “Collab Highlight of the Month” April). The project has gained attention from the language teaching community in Sweden and we’re exploring possible partnerships to engage more similar minority language classes.
The Wiki Loves * concept has over the years proven to have a positive effect both on attracting a broad variety of new volunteers and as a useful tool to find and develop partnerships with different organizations. This year we organized Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Sweden for the fifth time. 2,330 images were uploaded by 76 participants, and around half of them were new users on the Wikimedia projects. We also worked on the necessary preparations to join Wiki Loves Earth in 2017.
|Target||Last year (if applicable)||Progress (at end of Q2)||End of year (projected or actual)||Comments|
|Enabling||E.1 The members of the board shall strive to develop their skills in relevant fields and the office staff shall be given the opportunity to develop their skills.||Board members 0/7
|2 out of 17
||Below target: 2 out of 17
||Our new board member took part in trainings at Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. One staff member has attended a course.|
|E.2 The association will actively work on communication with key stakeholders, such as the community, the Wikimedia Foundation, the public and opinion leaders.||N/A||Active outreach
||On target: Active outreach
||We continue to contribute to both newsletters, blogs, email list, and on relevant portals on Meta and Outreach.|
|E.3 The chapter will work towards broad and sustainable funding where no donor exceeds 50 %, a doubling of membership, enhance volunteer involvement with 20 % and acquire a 90-account.||
FDC accounted for 57 percent of our funding
|FDC was the biggest financier with around 41 % or our budget
27 out of 519
57 out of 37
Having a 90-account
On target: FDC was the biggest financier with around 41 % or our budget
Below target: 445 members (a 14 % decrease)
Above target: 66 out of 37
Below target: We did not apply for a 90-account as our financial system was being changed.
|Thanks to a focused effort across our projects we had 66 persons involved in volunteer work in our projects (excluding board members and other trustees), a 78 % increase from previous year.|
Our new board member Elza Dunkels took part in training events at Wikimedia Conference in Berlin, which gave a great introduction to the movement. We also took part in organizing one of the workshops there for board members from other chapters. No other board members participated in any trainings.
Only one member of staff has attended a training – taking a course focusing on HR rules for not-for profit organizations. The limited amount of money and time available per person makes it hard to find relevant courses of high quality in Sweden. This is an issue, since there is a need to deepen staff expertise in a number of fields. A plan for how to improve this for 2017 was developed. However, about half of the staff members have identified courses focusing on specific tools that could be used as part of their work, but only in a few cases are they related to core parts of operations.
Our external communication is focusing on the use of newsletters (This Month in GLAM and Education Newsletter), social media, blog posts and press releases where we inform about and highlight interesting parts of the chapter's work.
We have increased the number of followers on Facebook to 1,725 and to 2,022 on Twitter. With the help of a volunteer (who is working with social media outreach for a major brand) we developed a Facebook campaign around Christmas to gain more donations and visibility. A report of the process and outcome is underway and will be published in 2017.
We have also invested in better tools for handling our press releases, MyNewsDesk, and since the start of the year we have sent out 25 press releases.
We have also taken part, with staff and/or board members, at the DevSummit, the Wikimedia Conference, where we gave two presentations and held two workshops; at the Wikimedia Hackathon, focusing on technical development and our work with open data; and at Wikimania where we gave a presentation and discussed our work with the global Wikimedia community. Staff members has also continuously worked on sharing lessons learnt on Meta based on the work initiated at these events and through direct contacts with staff at other chapters. Amongst other things we have helped develop the Partnerships & Resource Development portal, the EU portal and the GLAM portal. We participated in the Big Fat Brussels Meeting and in a Partnership event in Berlin organized by WMDE to share our experience and learn from others, and to discuss how these resources could be developed further.
This year we have again had requests from museums to help them share their material with Wikimedia projects. For this work they covered the majority of our salaries and associated costs (as a Swedish NGO we cannot make a profit from this work, which makes it very cheap for them). We have also had success with more educational institutions covering our costs for travelling to events. This helped us keep our costs down, while allowing us to reach more of the country.
We have already reached broad and sustainable funding up until the second half 2017, where no donor exceeds 50 %. This is the first year we have reached this financial goal. Currently FDC is the biggest financier with around 41 % of our budget, with two other major grants each covering more than 20 % each.
During the first half of the year the board took the decision that we should not apply for more external funding during the year, with the intent to slow down our growth and stabilize our organization. Limited work with applications took place during the second half of the year. This situation has made it possible for us to work on larger applications for late 2017 and 2018. The applications are focusing on continuing both Connected Open Heritage and Wikispeech, with a couple of different ideas for major applications within the Wikipedia in Education program and on our work with diversity. We hope that a continuation of the projects will help us to stabilize our efforts in these fields and build on the work already done. The funders of Wikispeech have clearly stated that they are interested in continuing supporting the development also for the second half of 2017 and 2018/19 which is great news which allows for long-term planning. We have also been invited to develop an EU project focusing on digitizing of different sounds (a continuation of Work With Sounds).
Additionally we have identified some opportunities for suitable grants related to the humanitarian aid sector which we are investigating further. We are also looking into organizing more of the major Wikimedia conferences in Sweden the coming years and are planning to apply for the Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2017, and another international Wikimedia event for 2018, and Wikimania 2019 (as the grand finale).
Our volunteer community has been supportive and active also this year. In addition to our volunteer run board of trustees we have had a record number of 66 persons helping us with our projects in different ways. We have seen volunteers join our organization in roles outside of the typical helper at edit-a-thons or with initiating partnerships with other organizations.
This year volunteers have stepped in and done fantastic work in a number of different types of practically oriented tasks, from being models for our photo exhibition, to activities related to communication and with coordinated work online to organize e.g. media files. We are very happy about this development but still feel that we have a lot of work to do in order to continuously activate volunteers in our work. Especially as we believe that non-traditional volunteer work in our movement should increase – i.e. not only help at events, but with communication, finding new members for the chapter, as trainers that can help online volunteers become better photographers or improve others skills etc. We do however recognize a strong need to have more dedicated staff time invested in preparing the volunteers and continuously identifying different tasks.
In December 2016 we had 445 members in the association, down from 519 members in 2015. This is most likely due to our malfunctioning email system which prevent us from reliably reaching our members with information and reminders to renew their membership.
The 90-account, a certification that Wikimedia Sverige is a serious organization with sound economic policies and procedures, has been further investigated. As soon as we have our system for financial management in place (we are in the process of changing it) we will send in an application. We believe that having a 90-account will help us attract more members as this is something a lot of Swedes take into consideration when they look into which organizations to give money to.
Revenues received during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)
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 Memberships SEK 100,000 22,000 10,000 27,000 2,000 61,000 11,822 7,211 Our email system has been non-functioning and we have not been able to reach members with remainders. Donations SEK 80,000 68,000 10,000 12,000 11,000 101,000 9,458 11,940 We received an unexpected inheritance. Interest, misc SEK 15,000 3,000 4,000 0 373,000 380,000 1,773 44,924 Part of the increase is unexpected prize money that we received for a social media award, part due to an old accounting error that was discovered when we made a complete overhaul of our economy routines and changed our accounting system. FDC SEK 2,616,000 575,000 551,000 750,000 740,000 2,616,000 309,264 309,264 Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society (SAYCS) SEK 219,000 0 0 0 0 0 25,890 0 We transferred the funds to 2017, as we under spent during 2016. Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency SEK 137,500 0 0 0 0 0 16,255 0 We transferred the funds to 2017, as we under spent during 2016. Swedish Post and Telecom Authority SEK 1,000,000 46,000 550,000 515,000 515,000 1,626,000 118,220 192,226 We received significantly more external funding for this project than expected for 2016 (2,009,710 SEK). The project started 15 March. The Culture Foundation of the Swedish Postcode Lottery SEK 3,374,900 408,000 388,000 477,000 477,000 1,750,000 398,981 206,885 We received a lower than expected sum from the funders for Connected Open Heritage (around 1,000,000 SEK less). We also moved some of the trips and other costs until 2017. The Royal Armoury SEK 16,000 0 12,000 14,000 14,000 40,000 1,892 4,729 They requested help with two batch uploads, instead of one originally planned. Bobitek AB SEK 10,000 0 0 0 0 14,000 1,182 1,700 We received all the funding in late 2015. Other project grants SEK 0 100,000 95,000 40,000 45,000 280,000 0 33,102 Various small projects we did not expect when we wrote the FDC application.
* Provide estimates in US Dollars
Spending during this period (6 month for progress report, 12 months for impact report)
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 Access SEK 1,211,000 147,000 144,000 115,000 330,000 736,000 143,164 87,010 61% We received a lower than expected sum from the funders for Connected Open Heritage (around 1,000,000 SEK less). We also moved some of the trips and other costs until 2017. Use SEK 358,000 46,000 352,000 112,000 356,000 866,000 42,323 102,379 242% We received significantly more external funding for this program than expected (thanks to the Wikispeech project). Community SEK 311,100 27,000 144,000 18,000 81,000 270,000 31,919 20,200 87% Operations (excludes staff and programs) SEK 750,350 175,000 172,000 137,000 304,000 788,000 88,706 93,157 105% The expenses was increased due to the costs associated with changing our accounting system. Staff total expenses SEK 4,737,950 791,000 963,000 1,102,000 983,000 3,839,000 560,120 453,847 81% The hiring process took longer than expected for Wikispeech and Connected Open Heritage which led to underspending in 2016. Parts of the planned expenses was moved to 2017. Amount to be added to operating reserves SEK 200,000 36,000 -155,000 351,000 123,000 355,000 23,644 41,968 178% As we underspent in our programatic work we increased our reserves this year, as we have more staff and higher monthly costs in 2017. TOTAL SEK 7,568,400 1,186,000 1,775,000 1,835,000 2,177,000 6,854,000 894,736 810,280 91% Our costs increased the second half of the year as we had more staff members hired.
* Provide estimates in US Dollars
Is your organization compliant with the terms outlined in the grant agreement?
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".
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".
- Once complete, please sign below with the usual four tildes.
Resources to plan for measurement
- Global metrics are an important starting point for grantees when it comes to measuring programmatic impact (Learning Patterns and Tutorial) but don’t stop there.
- Logic Models provide a framework for mapping your pathway to impact through the cause and effect chain from inputs to outputs to outcomes. Develop a logic model to map out your theory of change and determine the metrics and measures for your programs.
- Importantly, both qualitative and quantitative measures are important so consider both as you determine measures for your evaluation and be sure to ask the right questions to be sure to capture your program stories.
Resources for storytelling
- WMF storytelling series and toolkit (DRAFT)
- Online workshop on Storytelling. By Frameworks institute
- The origin of storytelling
- Story frames, with a focus on news-worthiness.
- Reading guide: Storytelling and Social change. By Working Narratives
- The uses of the story.
- Case studies.
- Blog: 3 Tips on telling stories that move people to action. By Paul VanDeCarr (Working Narratives), on Philanthropy.com
- Building bridges using narrative techniques. By Sparknow.net
- Differences between a report and a story
- Question guides and exercises.
- Guide: Tools for Knowledge and Learning. By Overseas Development Institute (UK).
- Developing a strategy
- Collaboration mechanisms
- Knowledge sharing and learning
- Capturing and storing knowledge.
- Identification can be via systematic user names with a connection to the institution, special user templates showing the connection to an institution, registration in a Wikiproject etc.
- According to the priority: software bugs, erroneously translated critical messages, untranslated critical messages.
- Underrepresented groups are here defined as:
- contributors whose native language are different than the 10 largest Wikipedias (5+ editsp/month(3m avg) according to https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm)
- contributors 60 years or older
- Measurement: all new users that through a project/event of ours become rolling surviving + all other new ones that during their first 60 days interacts with one of our tools (e.g. Fikarummet) and then becomes rolling surviving.