Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016 round1/Wikimedia UK/Proposal form

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikimedia UK received a funds allocation in the amount of GBP 277,300 (~$427,000) in 2015-2016 Round 1. This funds allocation was recommended by the Funds Dissemination Committee on 23 November 2016 and approved by the WMF Board of Trustees on 21 December 2016.


If you need to review the edit instructions you will find them in the editintro.

  • Use this form if you are eligible to submit a proposal in the current round, to request funding in the current round.
  • This form must be published on Meta by the proposal submission date for each round to be considered, and no changes may be made after the submission date without staff approval.
  • This form complements your organization's annual plan, detailed budget, and strategic plan. It won't be considered complete without a detailed budget and strategic plan.
  • Organizations may apply for a funding period that does not exactly match their fiscal years. Follow the instructions carefully to understand what time period each question refers to.
  • Refer to the framework, guidance from the Board, and the FDC's recommendations before using this form, so you have an understanding of the Annual Plan Grants process.
  • Please Email FDCSupport@Wikimedia.org with questions about using the form.

A few terms used in the form:

FDC proposal form terms Wikimedia terms Learning & Evaluation terms

Overview[edit]

1. In order to support community review, please provide a brief description of your organization's work in the upcoming funding period.

Building relationships with major organisations will be vital to the upcoming activity plan both in terms of impact, value for money, and building our reputation. These relationships not only open doors for us in terms of access to content, goodwill and expertise, but will also increasingly prove vital in our fundraising work. This area will receive much more focus due to realignment of staff responsibilities (especially Project Coordinators).

We are also planning to be proactive in driving volunteer effort, both in shaping the project ideas they approach us with, and in bringing them to projects the chapter is already running or developing. We will work to build volunteer skill and confidence so that they are able to participate and lead on chapter activities - for example by supporting skills needed to deliver events.

Our work with volunteers will be shaped by stronger project management. This means we can both respond to the interests of volunteers, and be proactive in matching the activities to the chapter’s plans. The projects can be very varied in their character and can include technology ideas.

We work to reduce or eliminate open knowledge barriers by advocacy work on EU/UK level, and on an individual organisation level. The later latter links to the partnership approach, as advocacy is one of the activities we may deliver while collaborating with an external organisation.

To summarise our recent journey, 2015 was about consolidation and getting the foundations in place, 2016 is about working outwards and making a visible impact for our community. To learn more about the restructure in 2015, please see the ‘Staff’ section.



2. Name, fiscal year, and funding period.
  • Legal name of organization: Wikimedia UK
  • Organization's fiscal year: 02/01-01/31
  • 12-month funding period requested: 02/01/16-01/31/17
  • Currency requested: GBP
  • Name of primary contact: Daria Cybulska, Head of Programmes and Evaluation at WMUK


3. Amount requested.

Table 1

Currency requested US$
Total expenses for the upcoming year 595,000.00 916,235.00
APG funding requested for the upcoming year 310,000.00 477,366.00
Amount of funding received from WMF for the current year 314,000.00 483,525.00


4. How does your organization know what community members / contributors to online projects need or want? Does your organization conduct needs assessments or consult the contributors and volunteers most involved with its work?

Volunteers are at the heart of WMUK and we are committed to developing and maintaining strong, productive relationships with the community. We are aware that this has been more challenging in the past year – mainly due to the restructure, which involved a period of transition, uncertainty and staff changes - however we are now focused on increasing the quality and consistency of our communications and ensuring a meaningful dialogue with the community as we move forward.

As part of our commitment to better involve volunteers, we held a Volunteer Strategy Gathering in July 2015. This followed on from a similar event in November 2014, and has ensured that we are creating a regular dialogue with volunteers and responding to their ideas and concerns. In the more recent event we presented the community with WMUK's new project-based approach (see Programme G2a), and how we can best organise volunteer working groups and committees. This content in itself was open to consultation for several weeks before the event, and feedback was sought on how the structure could best engage volunteers. Most volunteers are keen to talk about things that directly affect them, and that they’re excited about, so we structured the strategy event in July in to reflect this; focusing on the issues that are most important to volunteers and that will enable them to collaborate with us in future. These strategy events have so far been very useful in shaping our approach, and we intend to run similar events in 2016; building a network of engaged, supportive and empowered volunteers at the heart of our planning processes.

Here is the summary of the feedback we received from the first strategy gathering, focusing on needs and skills -https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Volunteer_Strategy_Gathering/November_2014/Data#Support_and_needs

Here is the consultation we presented in advance of the second strategy gathering - https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Volunteer_strategy_consultation_2015

We are now working through the feedback we received on plans to:

  • Embed members into our day-to-day decision making via a new evaluation panel
  • Set up expert advisory board to advise the WMUK main board on high-level strategy
  • Change our Articles of Association to allow volunteers to be appointed full members of board committees
  • Provide more effective support for volunteers via the new project coordinator staff roles
  • Move toward project-based working practices to improve efficiency and to enable better self-evaluation of our work

We run annual surveys of our community to gain a thorough understanding of their needs and interests, and crucially to identify where we can support them better. The most recent survey took place in the new year and sought to identify volunteers' training needs and barriers to participation The most recent. Issues raised included limited time, and so we are exploring options for micro-volunteering; and specific training needs have been highlighted to help contributors (for example with photography skills). We will be repeating the survey soon in order to ensure that we are receiving regular, up-to-date feedback on support needs and skills gaps. We are also working with the training organisation Midas, and drawing on their existing knowledge of our community to explore what skills development would address the needs of volunteers, and will be developing a series of training modules, created with volunteer involvement.

On more specific projects, we run feedback and needs assessments on a case-by-case basis, and work with volunteers to ensure that they have the skills and technical knowledge required, in areas such as photography and the use of Wikidata. We have also reviewed the way in which we agree to support projects with grants, and review volunteer skills as part of this process with the grant application designed to encourage volunteers to think about this at the very start of the process: https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/forms/d/1W72OG4SCUcpgzr4ggb7bdAwcq1PwzDejoKtmCnk5iN4/viewform

We also involve our community in needs assessments when working with institutions, with feedback from volunteers helping to shape the work of Wikimedians in Residence. At the beginning of every project, our partner institutions identify content areas which they feel can be improved, and as volunteers and the community interact with the project there can be requests to work on particular areas. One example of this is at the York Museums Trust, where our WIR was able to support a volunteer working on articles related to the paintings of William Etty. In this way the institution and community were both served by overlapping interests brought to light by good lines of communication between the resident and the community; and also ensured the project has had a significant impact on the delivery of our strategic goals.

5. Please provide a link to your organization's strategic plan and separate annual plans for the current and/or proposed funding period, if you have them. A strategic plan is required.


Financials: current funding period[edit]

The purpose of this section is to give the FDC an idea of how your organization is receiving funds and spending funds toward your current plan. Your current funding period is the funding period now in progress (e.g. 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 for most organizations). For organizations new to the APG process, your current funding period is the 12 months before your upcoming funding period (e.g. 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 for most organizations).


Table 2

Financials for the current funding period
Revenues or expenses Planned (budgeted) Actual, until one month before the proposal due date Projected
Currency requested US dollars Currency requested US dollars Currency requested US dollars
Revenues (from all sources) 569,000.00 876,197.00 282,625.00[1] 435,211.00[1] 569,000.00[2] 876,197.00[2]
Expenses 599,235.00 922,756.00 305,413.00[1] 470,302.00[1] 599,000.00[2] 922,394.00[2]

Table 2 notes:

  1. a b c d Figures as of 31 July (our Q2 end), as we only produce financial reports quarterly.
  2. a b c d Estimated, as full projection will be carried out at Q3.


Restructure costs

Our restructure and search for a new CEO has been a time-consuming and relatively expensive task for us over the past year, though given its importance we have been clear throughout that getting the right result was far more critical than attempting to be being quick or cheap. When our first round of searching and interviews failed to find a candidate that the board could wholeheartedly recommend we opted to re-start the process rather than taking on someone we felt would be less than ideal. Having to carry out multiple searches is not unusual – the WMF and WMDE both did the same when they were looking for their new EDs – but a one-off hit on search and interim CEO costs is preferable to having to live with concerns potentially for years to come. We were fortunate to be able to part on good terms with our previous CEO, Jon Davies, which allowed costs to be kept at a far lower level than is often associated with a change of CEO.

Programs: upcoming year's annual plan[edit]

This section is about your organization's programs. A program is a defined set of activities that share the same objectives and a similar theory of change. Please share the general goal of each program, and then list the specific objectives that the program will meet. Please do not include information about your organization's operating activities in this section. You may provide information about activities like administration, staff and board training, fundraising, governance, and internal IT in another section or in a supplementary document, but please do not include these activities here as programs.

1. For each program, please include your targets for each of the global metrics in this table. All global metrics are required (except the optional metric for total number of images/media uploaded), but you may list a target of zero if there are metrics you do not expect results for. You are welcome to provide your other metrics in the detailed program section below.


Table 3

Program (1) # of newly registered users (2) # of active editors involved (3) # of individuals involved (4a) # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages (4b) # of new images/media uploaded (optional) (5) # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects (6) Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects
G1 Develop open knowledge 0 0 0 2,000 20,000 10,000 6,000,000
G2a Develop, involve and engage WMUK volunteers 300 190 460 0 0 0 0
G3 Reduce barriers to accessing open knowledge 0 5 10 0 0 0 0
G4 Encourage and support technological innovation 0 5 10 0 0 0 0
G5 Develop, support, and engage with other Wikimedia and open knowledge communities 0 0 20 0 0 0 0

Table 3 notes:


2. Please list your goals and objectives for each program. Please be sure your objectives meet all three criteria for each program
  • Be sure the objectives listed are each SMART: specific, measurable, attainable and relevant, and include time-bound targets.
  • Include both qualitative targets and quantitative targets, and remember to highlight your baseline metrics.
  • Provide any additional information that is important to our understanding of this program. For example, you may include needs assessments, logic models, timelines, tables, or charts. Share how this program will contribute more broadly to movement learning, or explain how your program aligns with important Wikimedia priorities such as increasing participation and improving content on the Wikimedia projects.

Overall programme background

2015 was a transitional year for WMUK. We finally completed the overhaul of our governance and made a number of changes to our Articles of Association which will help us function more effectively in the future. We reshaped the staff team to create a smaller team, better able to work on a flexible project basis, and have recruited a new CEO with a strong fundraising background to lead them. We also elected and co-opted onto our Board a number of individuals from outside the movement with senior level experience working in or with our major national heritage institutions, which are key partners in our forward strategy of releasing and creating open content.

A major highlight of the past year has been our work with some of the largest and most respected organisations in the UK such as the Bodleian Libraries, the National Libraries of Scotland and Wales, and Cancer Research UK. We have moved towards a more project-based approach when working in collaboration with external partners. Building relationships with major organisations has shown that this can bring success in terms of impact, value for money, and perceived reputation in the movement and in the public mindset. These relationships not only open doors for us in terms of access to content, goodwill and expertise, but they will prove increasingly vital in gaining the confidence of grant-making organisations who will be an important source of funding for us.

As a result of the transition, much more focus will be given to partnerships and supporting and empowering volunteer projects from 2016 onwards, with our programme strands themselves becoming more interlinked. We have retained the same high level strategic goals, and in many cases their corresponding outcome targets, allowing for consistent tracking of our progress. These represent ambitious but achievable targets given that the staff team has been reduced by 35%; however we are confident that the new structure will be more streamlined, more effective and more focused, and are looking forward to the impact of our new CEO joining us in October 2015.

G1 Develop open knowledge

Background

This programme aims to produce, release and improve open knowledge content. One of the key ways that this will be achieved is through building partnerships with content holding organisations, which is why that is the key component of this programme. By building our reputation in key sectors (such as GLAM), we will encourage high-value organisations to collaborate with us on increasing open content.

Logic Model G1 WMUK 2016-17.pdf

Alignment with Wikimedia priorities

Through this programme we are Improving the quality of Wikimedia content. We contribute to that through a variety of projects in this programme, for example media donations from external organisations, editing activities and supporting volunteer grants which have a content focus. Content global metrics 4, 5 and 6 are addressed here.

The main goal of this programme is divided into:

  • G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase.
  • G1.2 The quality of open knowledge continues to improve.
  • G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge.

The outcome targets for the programme are:

Outcome Measure
2014-15 achieved
2016-17 target
G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase Number of uploads 16,535 + 151,748 mass upload 20,000 + poss. mass uploads
TEXT - Sum of contribution edit size (1) 16,459,774 6,000,000 (as we will run fewer Wikipedia in Classrooms)
WMF Global Metric 6 As above As above
G1.2 The quality of open knowledge continues to improve Percentage of WMUK-related files (e.g. images) in mainspace use on a Wikimedia project (excluding Commons) 3.6% 10%
WMF Global Metric 4 - absolute # of images used (to be calculated from the captured image numbers) Wasn't tracked 2,000
Number of files (e.g. images) that have featured status on a Wikimedia project (including Commons) 63 80
Number of new articles started on a Wikimedia site (eg any of the encyclopedias, incl Wicipedia) 835 1000 (this is a stretch target as we may not be running as many Wikipedia in Classrooms as in 14-15 due to focus on partnerships).
WMF Global Metric 5 - articles created and improved Wasn't tracked 10,000 (depends on provision of a tool that will allow efficient tracking of ‘articles improved’)
G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge. Not a KPI. Performance will be reflected in a narrative, rather than giving a numeric indicator of reputation rankings. Several successful stories, although quite fragmented Capturing stories of engagement and change that will lead to opening up content, feeding the targets above

Details of the programme

Partnership work across sectors is the leading element of this programme, and building positive, effective and long term relationships with major organisations will be vital to the implementation of G1 programme plan. As described elsewhere in this proposal, the realignment of staff responsibilities will ensure a more consistent focus on this area, with Project Coordinators playing a key role in developing and supporting relationships with these external partners and leading to significantly increased content production. We are also anticipating that our new CEO will have an impact in this area given her experience within and relationships across the cultural sector.
New trustees have also been brought on to the board of WMUK to enable us to expand our reach externally. Recent elections and co-options have, in support of our strategy, strengthened our position within the cultural sector and beyond, and our board now includes some of the most well-known, well-connected and experienced individuals in this sector. We have already moved to make use of this experience and are setting up a partnerships advisory board to provide us with direct input to and feedback from virtually all of the national and international-level cultural organisations in the UK.
Partnership package
Along with the realignment of staff roles, we are also adapting the way our work in partnership is delivered, and have created a new ‘partnership package’ with the aim of delivering a whole range of activities with one organisation, rather than many one-off activities; deepening our relationship with key institutions in order to ensure legacy and sustainability. These are likely to be predominantly within the GLAM sector, however the new approach offers flexibility so that we can create relationships and partnerships with the most potential in terms of releasing content. For instance when partnering with universities we can consider whether Wikipedia classroom assignment would be appropriate, depending on capacity and maturity of the partnership.This flexibility is reflected in our plans and budgets, with one merged line for programme work.
We have constructed the template below, which outlines what we could expect from a partnership (we also have costings that can be used as guides in very detailed budgeting). Actual engagements would be built based on this.
Activity General explanation
Partnership building (eg introductions, meetings, networking events)

Agreements, "catch-up" meetings

Meetings required to set up a project and supervise it when it’s running
Wikimedian in Residence (interview/training); salary, other project costs

Promoting the residency - materials produced by the resident

WIR projects are complex in themselves and bring various costs. These may include meeting costs and WIR salary, but also the resident’s travel and event costs, and potentially supporting the costs of materials produced by the resident.
Presence at an external conference (travel, accommodation, fees) Needed to promote and raise awareness of open knowledge and Wikimedia UK. We would aim not just to be present at the events but to actively promote WMUK as well.
Editathons/training sessions/content sharing and improvement/diversity events Various outreach and training event costs.
Volunteer skills training to support a project For projects to be delivered successfully, often the volunteer skills need to be build up (e.g. mass upload or Campus Ambassador training).
Digitisation/Open Content Releases/Policy changes WMUK can perform an advisory role in such projects. Advocacy work on policy changes links to Programme G3.
Partnership events A partner institution may be encouraged to host or co-organise WMUK events, such as member or donor events, networking events or conferences for WIRs and other organisations we work with, specialised workshops for volunteers, fundraising event.
Project grants Following the idea of pulling many activities into one partnership, volunteers could be encouraged to deliver their projects in association with a partner that WMUK is working with.

This links to the project approach described in Programme G2.

Wikipedia classroom assignment

Monitoring and evaluation - project mgmt

Sustainability of partnership - project mgmt

Wikipedia classroom assignment could be run as a part of a partnership.

Monitoring and evaluation, and aiming for a sustainable partnership, may not have an associated cost but are important elements of a project.

With this in mind we will continue supporting our WIR partnerships, GLAM and university relationships, Welsh institutions partnerships, and other existing leads, seeking to build on our achievements in 2015-16.
WIR projects will continue to be one of the key areas of our work, influencing the production of content for Wikimedia projects, addressing awareness of open knowledge, and supporting and promoting both policy and cultural change. Following the recommendations of our internal review into the impact and benefits of Wikimedians in Residence, we will seek to develop longer-term residencies, deepening our relationships with significant institutions to enable us to create the most impact and allocating capacity from our small team of Project Coordinators to offer more support to WIRs and the organisations they are working with. We believe strongly that WIR partnerships offer a high level of sustainability for our work, as the systems developed and training provided leads to ongoing relationships and creates a valuable legacy, long after the WIR has left.
Our work in Wales, as much as it is geographically distinct, follows the same model of forging partnerships with particular institutions, regardless of their sector, and building content through those partnerships. With many organisations becoming more and more connected and aware of each other’s work - particularly in the relatively small community of Wales - a high profile success can encourage others to become involved, creating a positive ‘word of mouth’ effect that we anticipate leading to further growth in our Welsh programme. Over the next year we aim to improve articles, create new ones on cywiki and run a writing competition similar to the one delivered earlier this year. We are also planning to add sound clips, with Welsh pronunciation of place names.
We will aim to run at least 5 major partnerships throughout the year (some of which will include WIRs), and 10 minor partnerships to reach the outcomes described above.
In summary, we are building on what we saw to be a successful area of work in the past (see our previous reports in G1.3 area) and are putting more staff resources into it.


G2 As a volunteer-led organisation, ensuring effective use of the resources available to us: G2a Develop, involve and engage WMUK volunteers

Background

This goal relates specifically to WMUK volunteers and focuses on how we engage them in the chapter’s activities, and provide opportunities to get involved. We will be proactive in driving the volunteer effort, both in shaping project ideas brought to us and involving volunteers in projects the chapter is already running or developing. We will work to build volunteer skill and confidence so that they are able to participate and lead on chapter activities - for example by supporting skills needed to deliver events. Gender diversity of our community continues to be important for us and is considered when planning events, projects, and providing support to volunteers. We believe that by supporting the diversity of our volunteer community, we can affect Wikimedia content and contributors - but we need to start with our community.

As this programme has not been delivering high impact in relation to the resources given to it in the previous year (e.g. 2013-14), we are scaling down the amount of resource support. At the same time we are being more focused in what we expect to be delivered from volunteer activities, as described in the detail below.

Logic Model G2a WMUK 2016-17.pdf

Alignment with Wikimedia priorities

Through this programme we are ‘Increasing participation’ of individuals in activities that support any of the other programmes (e.g. G1, Wikimedia content quality and quantity). This is reflected in the fact that the ‘participation’ global metrics (1, 2 and 3) are focused in these programmes. We also think that the activity units give a richer picture of the participation, as it shows how much work volunteers have put in into chapter’s activities, not just how many were involved.

The main goal of this programme is divided into:

  • G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers.
  • G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.
  • G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.
Outcome Measure
2014-15 achieved
2016-17 target
G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers Number of active editors involved Wasn't tracked 200
Number of newly registered users 228 300
Number of individuals involved (replacing ‘number of volunteers’ metric) Wasn't tracked 500
Number of leading volunteers 255 + c. 150 at Wikimania ‘14 260
Number of activity units 1789 + c. 750 at Wikimania ‘14 1800
Number of leading activity units 487 +c. 500 at Wikimania 500
G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse. Proportion of activity units attributable to women 38% 38%
Proportion of leading activity units attributable to women 28% 33%
G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable. Annual survey capability score (self-identified) Overall score of 4/5 4 out of 5 score; and a story of how we developed volunteers

Note on definitions - activity units. We could be running just one event with hundreds of participants. Equally, we could be running hundreds of events with only a few participants each. Reporting on either would not give a real picture of how much work our volunteers put into being involved with WMUK’s activities. Instead, we capture activity units. A unit is one person delivering one activity, such as attending a Wikimedia event, participating in a competition, etc. It’s similar to ‘number of individuals involved’, although we are able to double count people there.

Details of the programme

Project based approach
Delivering the project based approach in our work with volunteers came out of volunteer strategy sessions. In practice this means stronger project management of activity ideas put forward by members of our community. Each project will be built to have its own resource requirements (inputs such as volunteers, staff support, funding etc), own set of goals, and expectation of evaluation. In the process of developing an idea into a project, we will be able to shape it in a way that matches the chapter’s overall goals and targets. This means we can both respond to the interests of volunteers, and be proactive in matching the activities to the chapter’s plans.
Because of this model, we are both able to respond to interests of volunteers, but also drive the activities in the direction identified by the chapter. When an idea is put forward, we will be able to advise on how it may be developed into a project in its own right, how it might enhance an existing project or whether it could be partnered with another project idea. Key way of delivering this work will be via the Project Grants (https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Project_grants), which we redeveloped based on the volunteer feedback. Alternatively, we will be linking volunteer ideas to other projects - chiefly partnerships (Programme G1) - that we will be running in 2016-17, increasing their impact.
Because Project Coordinators will be supporting volunteers in developing ideas, even if volunteers need support in project management, this can be provided from the chapter via the skills of the staff team. Volunteers - grantees - will also be offered skills development through training (see next section).
Again, like with the partnership work, not only was our staff structure redeveloped to support this work better, we also modified the volunteer structures. We expanded the volunteer Grants Committee, who advises on which grants we should accept, to include volunteers with project management and grant making experience. This means we embedded volunteers into our day-to-day decision making via this committee.
Redeveloping project grants draws on past experiences of successful volunteer grants that we delivered. The most impactful grants we supported were photography projects / writing contests, where a content gap was identified beforehand (needs assessment), volunteer lead had the time to deliver (scoping resources), and had experience of running an activity (project management). Project approach is constructed in a way that it should be taking these into account.


Understanding and developing capacity to support projects
We will continue to assess the needs of volunteers in terms of support that the chapter offers them. For the third year we will run a volunteer skills survey, which will give us expanded insight into whether we are developing the capacity of the community, and what further actions are needed. This dialogue will also link to the activities around the AGM, which should include a Volunteer Strategy based event - this offered us significant insight in 2015-16 and is worth continuing.
Based on the insights gained, and what we need as a chapter, we will develop activities that build capacity of our volunteers. Skills development around project delivery will be key, as it links both to the project based approach, and thinking of partnerships as packages of work. To be able to deliver this way of working, we need to expand volunteer understanding and confidence of this. We are planning for Train the Trainer programme to support this development, harnessing it for our needs in 2016-17, rather than running a very general training.
Additionally, in the last couple of years we have set up a technology pool to support media creation, such as taking photos or recording sound and audio. We will continue to use it particularly where it supports volunteer projects - e.g. grant applications for photography activities, or creating awareness raising videos (such as GLAM-Wiki revolution in 2014). We are planning to consult volunteers on what additions to the pool they would like to see as well.


G2b Use effective and high quality governance and resource management processes

Alignment with Wikimedia priorities

This is our internal systems programme concerning governance, fundraising, and administration, aiming to Stabilise our infrastructure. It is very valuable for us so we will continue to self evaluate in this area, but we note that an internal programme does not fit into this section of the proposal. In general, we note that we will work on funds diversification, improving our metrics system, documenting learning, and sustaining high level of good governance.


G3 Reduce barriers to accessing open knowledge

Background

This programme addresses various barriers that prevent readers and re-users from easily accessing open knowledge. We work to reduce or eliminate these barriers by advocacy work on EU/UK level, and on an individual organisation level. The later latter links to the partnership approach (Programme G1), as advocacy is one of the activities we may deliver while collaborating with an external organisation.

We also want to pilot reaching more people - by addressing language minorities groups. We are aiming to produce content in languages underrepresented on Wikipedia, and through doing that, allowing more people who speak these languages to access free knowledge.

Logic Model G3 WMUK 2016-17.pdf

Alignment with Wikimedia priorities

The Wikimedia strategic priority focused on here is Increase reach. By advocating for organisations to be more ‘open’, in the long run we assist them in opening up their content, allowing wider access to it for general public. When policy changes towards openness, more content may be made freely available to more people. We are increasing reach of given content to people.

The main goal of this programme is divided into:

  • G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.
  • G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge.
  • G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge.

The outcome targets for the programme are:

Outcome Measure
2014-15 achieved
2016-17 target
G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation. # of initiatives Two initiatives were organised Aim to capture 3 instances where our advocacy work (e.g. in G3.3) resulted in reducing barriers to knowledge - e.g. legislation change, more open procedures
G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge. Pilot measuring change in attitudes We were not able to collect into info on this in 2014-15 Exit interviews with organisations to capture qualitative evidence of change
G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge. Involvement in EU and UK advocacy activities; Involvement in advocating legislative change within UK organisations 1 evidence considered. 2 institutional changes 3 cases of evidence being considered

3 cases of documented change

Note on G3.2 - we realise that measuring change at a level of an organisation is just one area in which this goal applies. However, because of the partnership approach (Programme G1), we feel it’s one of the most important one, and so the one we chose to be our KPI.

Details of the programme

Advocacy with partner institutions - partnership approach
As seen in the partnership package (Programme G1), policy changes is one of the elements we will consider when working with an institution. When scoping the relationship, we will look at whether we could work with them on open knowledge barriers within their organisation. When assessing a potential partnership, we will consider whether it’s likely they will be open to policy changes. This will help us focus on high potential impact projects.
This work can start with collaborating with staff internally to change the organisation’s policies and procedures, making them more open. We have seen Wikimedian in Residence projects delivering significant results in this area - for example introducing procedures that makes newly created images openly licensed. Thanks to the projects often lasting a reasonably long time, the residents can work on advocating policy changes within the host institutions that bring them closer to open knowledge. They can encourage understanding and development of Wikimedia projects internally. WIRs get access to internal meetings, which allows them to push the message more consistency and persistently, leading to more success. They also have more capacity to tailor messaging to the organisation’s audience, making more compelling arguments. Further, because we recruit WIRs partly looking at advocacy skills, we can be confident there is expertise within the projects to deliver this work. This can involve producing toolkits and materials that can be used in advocacy for open knowledge, and how to engage with it.
We are keen on developing this area thanks to the success of this work in 2015-16 and before. In most cases WIRs bring on internal change at their host institutions, which also means that the organisations continues to engage with open knowledge after projects end (leading to sustainability). The impacts of this work can lead to impacts in other programme goals, e.g. Programme G1.


Language diversity
As described above, we will try a pilot where language minorities are addressed. This could be exploring global south communities based in the UK, or looking into Scottish Gaelic work.


Open Space Advocacy
This project includes building relationships with policy makers at UK and European level, promoting legislative change, acting as a voice for open knowledge and preservation of a free and open internet, campaigning (or participating in campaigns) to move open knowledge and access to information higher up the political agenda.
Following from FDC feedback about this area needing to be more focused, we will work to be clearer on our aims in this part of the programme. We are confident that our KPIs are very adequate in reflecting our impact (despite advocacy being normally hard to evidence), so we only need to specify better the types of actions that we will be taking.
We will aim to run a workshop with the Wikipedian in Brussels for our community to create a concrete action plan of things we should be involved in on the UK advocacy level.
At the same time, we are aware that many of the key policy decisions are made on the EU level, so this is where we will put more effort into. Particularly, we will work within the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU to bring more UK volunteers to participate. Further, we will support the work on the copyright reform, aiming to establish links with UK ministers.
Through strong links with FKAGEU, and track record of UK advocacy, we will be building on past successes to drive these activities forward.
Advocacy support work
To supplement these activities, we produce materials which can grow the awareness of open knowledge. We will also run communications and PR work to spread out the messaging of benefits of open knowledge.


G4 Encourage and support technological innovation

Background

We recognise and accept the feedback that in the past we proposed technological work beyond the capacities and experience we had to support it. As much as the overall goals of the programme remain the same, our 2016-17 approach described below is matched much more tightly to the resources we have for this area, and our understanding of where we can usefully contribute.

Logic Model G4 WMUK 2016-17.pdf

Alignment with Wikimedia priorities The Wikimedia strategic priority focused on here is Encourage innovation. We are aiming to support volunteer community in bringing and developing new project ideas around technology use in open knowledge environment.

The main goal of this programme is divided into:

  • G4.1 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of open knowledge.
  • G4.2 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to allow WMUK - and related organisations - to support our own programmes and to enable us to effectively record impact measures

The outcome targets for the programme are:

Outcome Measure
2014-15 achieved
2016-17 target
G4.1 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of open knowledge. Count projects engaged with QRpedia remained available; working on VLE (continuing projects, no new projects) 2 projects scoped out
G4.2 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to allow WMUK - and related organisations - to support our own programmes and to enable us to effectively record impact measures. Not a KPI Continuing difficulties with civiCRM. This is an internal systems area which we will continue to monitor

Details of the programme

Volunteer projects
Building on our experience of volunteer grants and the volunteer Technology committees, we will work on supporting technology project ideas that could be developed into activities. In the past we supported the development of the GLAM-Wiki toolset and mass upload tool.
Going forward we want to support volunteer ideas focusing on technology. At the moment we maintain QRpedia which can be used by the wider Wikimedia movement. We are also working on launchpad.wikimedia.org.uk as a platform to drive participation in the charity’s technology projects - one option is that it may be used to as a platform for a tool writing competition.
We are planning on working with external organisations to develop patches to mediawiki to allow the software to handle 3D object files. In this sense we are bringing technology work to the project approach (programme G2a).


Technology pool for volunteers
As much as linked to technology by definition, we see the tech equipment such as cameras much more as enablers for ongoing volunteer activity (see Programme G2). This fits into increasing participation much more than encouraging innovation.


G5 Develop, support, and engage with other Wikimedia and open knowledge communities

Background

This goal relates to our support for communities other than our own community of WMUK volunteers (for which, see 2.1 above). Some of these other communities are outside the UK - such as other Wikimedia chapters and organisations - while others are UK-based but separate from WMUK (whose missions are aligned with our own). We are aiming to work with other Wikimedia communities and organisations in an open way to facilitate shared learning across the entire movement. Sharing what we learn - or solutions we work out - makes the whole movement stronger, so we see it at as a valuable goal to put time into.

Logic Model G5 WMUK 2016-17.pdf

Alignment with Wikimedia priorities

The Wikimedia strategic priority focused on here is Increase participation to supplement our UK-related Programme G2. By sharing our knowledge with other organisations, and encouraging them to collaborate with us, we create more activities.

The main goal of this programme is divided into:

  • G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities.
  • G5.2 An increased diversity of Wikimedia communities.
  • G5.3 Wikimedia communities are skilled and capable.
  • G5.4 Open knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.

The outcome targets for the programme are:

Outcome Measure
2014-15 achieved
2016-17 target
G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities Activities held for or jointly with other chapters and Wikimedia groups 8 + 9 at Wikimania 8, including initiatives that we offer for other chapters to reuse. This is still a stretch goal as much fewer funding would be available in this area
Number of UK based Wikimedia events other than WMUK events 53 60
G5.2 An increased diversity of Wikimedia contributors Activities specifically directed to help this goal 4 Will be included in 5.1 if the activities were relevant
G5.3 Wikimedia communities are skilled and capable. Activities specifically directed to help train or to share knowledge with other chapters and Wikimedia groups 1 + 2 at Wikimania ‘14 Will be included in 5.1 if the activities were relevant
G5.4 Open Knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving. Number of shared activities hosted with groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK 10 (via the Open Coalition project) 3 if Open Coalition not funded, 12 if it is.

Details of the programme

International Wikimedia movement support
We will contribute to the Wikimedia knowledge sharing events where we can exchange what we learn with others, and instigate knowledge sharing activities where we can. Where we will run projects that create useful solutions for others (e.g. in the Programme G4 tech solutions), we will work to make sure these are shared with others in the movement. Continuing the approach that a lot of our activities will be delivered in projects, we will consider international aspects of projects we are running. There is potential to collaborate on the UNESCO WIR project which we helped to set up, and we will look for other opportunities.
We are in a good position to offer ongoing advice to smaller communities such as Wikimedia Community Ireland, and will remain available for this support. We will also continue to engage with the Wikipedia Education Collaborative to contribute our perspective on education activities in the UK.
This area is not on the forefront of our priorities. As much as sharing learning in Wikimedia movement is important, and we will continue doing that, we will not put big amounts of resource in the area. The international collaboration will be considered as a part of other projects that we will be running. Because of the Project Coordinators having solid links with the international community, we are confident that we have the experience and skills needed to deliver in this area. The track record of sharing our materials and engaging in learning events also speaks for itself.
Open Space Advocacy - Open Coalition
Open Coalition project is currently funded till January 2016. We are aiming to fund the project for another year, but for comparison present two versions of development depending on whether we will provide the funding.
Unfunded
If future funding for the project cannot be secured, the following scenario and model seems the most likely: That the Open Coalition become a volunteer-driven project, aligned with larger movements and communities in the open space, but with all governance and activity driven by the community which was built within the project.
Co-ordination of the resources would be handed to the community, and the resources that currently exist (and will be developed until Jan ‘16) will be left as openly available to anyone who wants them, either via the Wikimedia UK wiki or the Open Coalition website; however it is possible that these resources will remain relatively static. This model would take the lead from projects like the Geek Feminism wiki, which remains a resource for a community, with volunteers able to make updates and edits to the wiki as they arise but with no central co-ordination. In general, these types of projects work well when they have defined focus, such as copyright reform, or feminist issues in tech - it is possible that the breadth of the Coalition’s remit might make it harder for individuals to contribute without specific direction. One possible solution to this would be to spend the last few months of funded time on the project developing a guide for the community on how to add to the resource hub, and a completing the toolkit guide which will make the current resources more useable. This time would also need to be spent wrapping the project up - completing the documentation in the resource hub, and preparing any reporting that is required. ::The governance of the group communications, such as management of the mailing list and Twitter account could be shared among interested parties in the community. Within the community, there are a few individuals who would have an interest in sharing some of the responsibilities of the governance of the project.
Continued Funding
2015-16 activity year has been well-spent in strengthening relationships between the Coalition and our founding partners, as well as with other coalition groups working in the open space (most notably the Open Policy Network, which is embedded in Creative Commons and focused on developing open governance policy, and the Open Education Working Group, incubated by The Open Knowledge Foundation).
If funding for another year’s activity is available, the Coalition will actively seek out new partners, in other areas of the open network, as well as in the non-profit and creative industries, and focus on short, targeted campaigns to build our audience and strengthen the understanding of open practices among our partners and community. Two examples of this are the work the Coalition has done in the last 3 months with OpenMedia’s Save the Link campaign, and working with Visiting Arts, an art non-profit based at the Institute for Contemporary Arts, to advise them on open licensing for their online platform and communities. There is increasing awareness of the need for open practices in the non-profit sector, and, at the same time, the open-sector could learn a great deal from established non-profits. The Coalition took part in the Open Campaigns Camp in Berlin in July 2015, with over 20 campaigning organisations, such as WITNESS, Greenpeace and 38 Degrees, and there is a great deal of scope for collaboration with this group of organisations around open space advocacy.
Continued funding would also make it possible to continue creating and managing the resources that the Coalition has developed, including the Community Management handbook (http://workopen.org/toolkit) (which is a collaboration between the Coalition and several other organisations and individuals) and the resource hub etherpad (http://workopen.org/manifesto) which contains links and summaries of a variety of open governance guides from around the web and will be integrated into the Coalition wiki pages.
While quantifying growth and impact in a Coalition is a notoriously tricky endeavour, the ongoing growth of our mailing list and regular growth and activity of our social media channels (most notably Twitter) is a good indicator of the continuing interest in, and relevance of, the work of the Coalition.
Having been able to deliver projects in the collaboration with other open organisations (something that is not always easy as the organisations are often short on time), we are confident that we have the expertise to continue supporting this project. Moreover, because the coalition has been functioning for 2 years now, there is internal expertise within the project to keep sustaining it too.


Governance - G2b

One of our strategic goals concerns internal governance of the charity, and we include it here for reference.

Outcome Measure
2014-15 achieved
2016-17 target
G2b.1 We have effective and high quality governance and resource management processes, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector. Not a KPI Performance can be captured as a narrative, continued work on governance processes are at this time not a key priority. Capturing narrative.
G2b.2 We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector. Transparency compliance as determined by Govcom against published transparency commitments 4 out of 5 Capturing narrative.
G2b.3 We have high quality systems to measure our impact as an organisation. Not a KPI Performance can be reported as a narrative. Capturing narrative.
G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream. Return On Investment (with and without staff time) i.e. spend per £1 raised To be set by the CEO with fundraising duties. To be set by the CEO with fundraising duties.

Our board

In November 2014 our second and final follow-up governance audit review was published. The independent reviewer noted that “WMUK has developed very quickly, and the charity has clearly put a lot of effort into ensuring that its governance now meets best practice expectations. It has a cohesive, skilled and experienced board in place. They have a clear understanding of the charity’s vision and mission”.

We have been lucky to have had over the past couple of years a strong and forward looking board, including trustees with significant experience in non-profit governance, legal and risk-management. Recent elections and co-options have, in support of our strategy, strengthened our position within the cultural sector, and our board now includes some of the most well-known, well-connected and experienced individuals in this area. We have already moved to make use of this experience and are setting up a partnerships advisory board to provide us with direct input to and feedback from virtually all of the national and international-level cultural organisations in the UK.

With the support of our members at September's AGM, we have changed our Articles of Association to allow non-board volunteers to be appointed full members of board committees. This is a change that has long been desired by the board, and we have moved quickly to make some external appointments.



Staff and contractors: upcoming year's annual plan[edit]

1. Please describe your organization's staffing plan or strategy here, or provide a link to your organization's staffing plan or organogram.

Wikimedia UK Organisational Structure.png

In order to ensure that the charity is best resourced to deliver impactful projects we have made a number of staff role changes in 2015, and the total staff headcount has been reduced from 14 to 9 (8.6FTE).

The programme team has been reshaped to match our delivery needs. In the new Project Coordinators roles, we are linking various topical project areas (such as GLAM) and volunteer engagement, so that more connected support is given to this work. We are aiming to direct more energy into working in partnerships with external organisations, linking several activities into these bigger projects, and so the staffing changes matches that. As is visible from the job descriptions ([1]), Project Coordinators have been recruited basing on skills needed for the project management and volunteer support, which means we are getting skills needed for delivery. We also put these roles more in line with the Wales Manager (Project Coordinator - Wales Manager), to reflect that these roles are very similar in function and can all collaborate within the programme team.

Because we are planning to build on large scale partnerships with external organisations, we need to ensure strong reporting and administration. This is why we took the opportunity of the restructure to change the office support role to the Administration and Programme Assistant. The role involves providing core administrative and financial support for Wikimedia UK activities, with focus on its programmes and reporting.

In general then, we reevaluated the staff structure and strengthened it, moving capacities to the most important areas.

In their comments of November last year the FDC said:

“While the FDC understands that reducing Wikimedia UK’s funding might be a strain on the organization, the FDC hopes it will lead to a productive re-evaluation of priorities and direction. The ED transition should be seen as an opportunity to rethink and restructure. The governance reshuffle and adaptation has been managed well, recommendations brought about by the governance review have been implemented, and board diversity has been achieved, which will provide a strong foundation for the coming transition. At the same time, the FDC notes that it seems difficult to identify a sustainable and clear staff structure beneath the executive level.”

Well before then, it was clear to the board that many of the assumptions and plans on which the current organisational structure was originally built were no longer fit for purpose, and we were already engaged in a review of our staff structure. The outcome, announced earlier this year, was a more streamlined organisation, better focused on our strategic goals, better able to engage with and involve volunteers of all kinds, and more appropriate to the level of resource we have.

We are confident that with our new slimmed-down structure we can be more responsive to new ideas and do better at bringing volunteering into the heart of our projects.

Last year the committee further noted:

“The FDC urges Wikimedia UK to carefully consider its plans to hire additional fundraising staff, and to articulate a clear strategy for how that position will benefit the organization and the movement. The FDC acknowledges that there may be many untapped resources in Wikimedia UK’s context, but resources will need to be clearly identified in order to be targeted effectively.”

The board accepted that the charity's previous capacity and model for fundraising was not adequate and that greater diversity of income streams was essential. We concluded that we needed not more dedicated fundraising staff but rather a new permanent Chief Executive with significant expertise in this area: someone capable of providing a strong personal lead within the restructured staff team.

In August 2015 we announced that we have been fortunate enough to secure as our new CEO Lucy Crompton-Reid, previously Director of the national live literature charity Apples and Snakes. Lucy brings extensive experience in volunteer engagement, organisational development, working with strategic partners, media, education, and securing external fundraising from trusts and foundations.

This process is now fully complete, and Lucy will start with us on 7th October.

Over the course of her career Lucy has worked in both the charitable and public sectors, including most recently Head of Outreach at the House of Lords where she was strategic and operational lead for education and outreach activities. Before that, she worked at Arts Council England, initially developing strategic partnerships before setting up a new area office with local government and schools partnerships. As Refugee Week National Co-ordinator for the British Refugee Council, Lucy chaired the UK steering group of NGOs and charities, led on media activities, and facilitated hundreds of volunteer cultural events each year. Lucy is passionate about education and learning and is deeply committed to ensuring open access to knowledge and information.

Lucy says:

“This is a significant time for Wikimedia UK and for the open knowledge sector more broadly, with the potential to create unparalleled access to educational content, coupled with threats to limit public access to information and knowledge. With nearly 18 years' experience in the arts, charitable and public sectors, I'm passionate about participation, and excited about the opportunity to facilitate greater public engagement with online content and information through Wikipedia and its sister projects, and other Wikimedia UK initiatives”.
2. List of staff by department or function.
You can use this table (or substitute your own list) to show us the number of FTEs (fulltime equivalents) for each department or function, where one person working at 100% time would be counted as 1.0. We need this information about the total number of staff (FTEs) you will have hired by the end of the current funding period, and staff you will have hired by the end of the proposed funding period.

Table 4

FTEs
Department or function End of current funding period End of upcoming funding period Explanation of changes
Community and Programmes 6 6 -
Finance and Administration 1.6 1.6 -
Executive, incl fundraising 1 1 -
Total (should equal the sum of the rows): 8.6 8.6 -

Table 4 notes or explanation of significant changes:

3. How much does your organization project to spend on staff during the current funding period, or in the twelve month period before your proposed grant will start (e.g. 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016), in currency requested and US dollars?
  • Total staff costs for our accounting period (1 Feb 2015 - 31 Jan 2016) are projected to be £379,000.00 ($583,618.00).
4. How much does your organization expect to spend on staff during the proposed funding period (e.g. 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016), in currency requested and US dollars?
  • The budget for the period 1 February 2016 - 31 January 2017 is £352,000.00 ($542,041.00). This comprises:
    • 62.5% Project staff - £220,000.00 ($338,776.00)
    • 37.5% Operations and Fundraising staff - £132,000.00 ($203,265.00)


Financials: upcoming year's annual plan[edit]

Detailed budget: upcoming year's annual plan[edit]

Please link to your organization's detailed budget showing planned revenues and expenses for the upcoming funding period (e.g. 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016). This may be a document included on this Wiki (Meta) or a publicly available spreadsheet.

Revenues: upcoming year's annual plan[edit]

1. Does your organization plan to draw on its operating reserves during the upcoming funding period to support its expenses? If so, please provide the amount you intend to draw from your reserves here. This should not be included as revenue in the table below.
Having sustained a deficit of £176,759.00 ($272,189.00) in the year to 31 January 2015, Wikimedia UK's strategy is to rebuild its reserves. Accordingly, we project that we will suffer a further deficit of £30,000.00 ($46,197.00) in the year to 31 January 2016, and plan for a surplus for the year to 31 January 2017 to rebuild our reserves. In both the year to 31 January 2015 and the current period, we suffered substantial costs relating to our restructuring, which is now complete (see 'Staff and Contractors' section for further details).
2. Please use this table to list your organization's anticipated revenues (income, or the amount your organization is bringing in) by revenue source (where the revenue is coming from) in the upcoming funding period (e.g. 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016). Use the status column to show if this funding is already guaranteed, if you are in the process of requesting funding, or if you are planning to request funding at a later time. Please feel free to include in-kind donations and resources in this table, as applicable, but use the status column to show that they are in-kind resources.


Table 5

Anticipated revenues for the upcoming funding period
Revenue source Currency requested US dollars Status (e.g. guaranteed, application)


Grant from FDC 310,000.00 477,366.00 Requested


Donations 228,000.00 351,095.00 Not collected but reasonably certain


Gift Aid 14,000.00 21,558.00 Not yet requested, and dependent on donations


Major Gifts 70,000.00 107,792.00 Projected


Gifts in Kind Cannot be estimated.


Total revenues (should equal the sum of the rows): 622,000.00 957,812.00 -


Table 5 notes: If your organization has significant funding other than FDC funds, please note how those funds will be used.

  • Funds other than FDC funds will be used for the benefit of the public, to promote and support the widest possible public access to, use of and contribution to Open Content of an encyclopaedic or educational nature or of similar utility to the general public, in particular the Open Content supported and provided by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., based in San Francisco, California, USA.


Additional comments:

  • FDC funding constitutes about 50% of our overall revenue for 2016-17, which reflects our continuing work to diversify funds available to us to deliver the programme.
  • In 2015-16 we received (and are still anticipating to receive) significant amounts of gifts in kind, for example covering the costs of hosting Wikipedia Science Conference, or to cover the costs of Wikimedians in Residence projects. These arise as we deliver and negotiate our partnerships, so cannot be estimated. We will continually work to receive them in the coming year.

Operating reserves: upcoming year's annual plan[edit]

Please note that there is a policy that places restrictions on how much FDC funding your organization can use to build its operating reserves. If you would like to use FDC funding to for your organization's reserves, you must note that here. You will not be able to decide to allocate FDC funding from this grant to your reserves at a later date.

1. How much does your organization plan to have in operating reserves by the end of the current funding period?
£139,000.00 ($214,045.00). This is £61,000.00 ($93,933.00) less than the minimum dictated by our reserves policy.
2. How much does your organization plan to have in operating reserves by the end of the upcoming funding period?
Approximately £166,000.00 ($255,622.00).
3. If your organization plans to use FDC funding to increase your reserves in the upcoming funding period, how much FDC funding will your organization use to build reserves?
We do not plan to use FDC funding to increase our reserves, as FDC funding constitutes only 50% of our budgeted income. Our overheads will be fully covered by donations, gift aid and major gift bids, which are on a full-absorption cost basis.


Expenses: upcoming year's annual plan[edit]

1. Expenses by program (excludes staff and operations).
Program expenses are the costs associated specifically with your organization's programs. These costs do not include operating expenses or staff salaries, which will be described in separate tables. For example, program expenses may be the costs of an event, the costs of outreach materials specific to a program, budgets for microgrants and reimbursements, or technical costs associated with specific programs. The programs listed in this table should correspond to the programs you have listed in the programs section of this proposal form.


Table 6

Program Currency requested US dollars
G1 - Develop open knowledge 50,000.00 76,995.00
G2a - Develop, involve and engage WMUK volunteers 28,000.00 43,117.00
G3 - Reduce barriers to accessing open knowledge 13,000.00 20,019.00
G4 - Encourage and support technological innovation 1,000.00 1,540.00
G5 - Develop, support and engage with other Wikimedia and open knowledge communities 12,000.00 18,479.00
Total program expenses (should equal the sum of the rows) 104,000.00 160,149.00

Table 6 notes: If your organization has significant funding other than FDC funds for specific programs, please make a note of that here.

  • Our plan includes £70,000.00 in major gifts which are likely to be for specific projects.


2. Total expenses. Please use this table to summarize your organization's total expenses overall.
These are divided into three expenses categories: (1) staff expenses from Table 4 (including staff expenses for both staff working on programs and operations), (2) expenses for programs from Table 7 (does not include staff expenses or operations expenses), and (3) expenses for operations (does not include staff expenses or program expenses). Be sure to check the totals in this table to make sure they are consistent with the totals in the other tables you have submitted with this form. For example, your total program expenses excluding staff will be equal to the total in Table 7, while your total staff expenses will be equal to the total in Table 4 and your total expenses will be equal to the total in Table 1.


Table 7

Expense type Currency requested US dollars
Program expenses (total from Table 7, excludes staff) 104,000.00 160,149.00
Operations (excludes staff and programs) 139,000.00 214,045.00
Upcoming staff total expenses (from Table 4) 352,000.00 542,041.00
Amount to be added to operating reserves (if applicable) 27,000.00 41,577.00
Total expenses (should equal the sum of the rows) 622,000.00 957,812.00

Table 7 notes:


Verification[edit]

Please enter "yes" or "no" for the verification below.

The term “political or legislative activities” includes any activities relating to political campaigns or candidates (including the contribution of funds and the publication of position statements relating to political campaigns or candidates); voter registration activities; meetings with or submissions and petitions to government executives, ministers, officers or agencies on political or policy issues; and any other activities seeking government intervention or policy implementation (like “lobbying”), whether directed toward the government or the community or public at large. Grants for such activities (when permitted under U.S. law and IRS regulations) should be sought from the [[Special:MyLanguage/<tvar|link>Grants:PEG</>]].
I verify that this proposal requests no funds from the Wikimedia Foundation for political or legislative activities yes


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


Please do not make any changes to this proposal form after the proposal submission deadline for this round. If a change that is essential to an understanding of your organization's proposal is needed, please request the change on the discussion page of this form so it may be reviewed by FDC staff. Once submitted, complete and valid proposal forms submitted on time by eligible organizations will be considered unless an organization withdraws its application in writing or fails to remain eligible for the duration of the FDC process.